Complaint:

A complaint was received from a mother on behalf of her 10-year-old daughter, regarding the handling by her daughter’s school of an incident in class. It was alleged that the child was struck on the hand by her teacher and subsequently ‘harassed’ in an inappropriate way by both the teacher concerned and the Assistant Principal. This culminated in her offering an apology for alleging the teacher had hit her. Furthermore, it was contended that despite the child expressing a wish to talk to her mother and go home, no contact was made with the mother by staff. The parent expressed disappointment that in its handling of this complaint, as well as a previous incident, the school had been difficult to contact and procedures had not been made clear.

Investigation:

In accordance with the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, the OCO determined that a preliminary examination would be commenced to assess the admissibility of the complaint, to better understand the issue from the perspective of all parties involved and to decide on the level of intervention, if any, required from the Office.

Three main issues were identified as examinable by the OCO. These were:

– the nature of the interview which took place with the complainant child by the teacher

concerned and the Assistant Principal;

– the concern that parental consent was not obtained before this interview took place;

– the adverse affect that the school’s administrative actions may have had on the child.

The OCO had no authority to determine whether the alleged incident involving the child and the member of staff actually occurred or not. The Office was aware that the Board of Management was satisfied, on the evidence available, that there was no inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the teachers concerned. However it was made clear to the Office that this was not accepted by the complainant. The role of the OCO, therefore, was to examine the administrative actions of the school and subsequently the Board of Management in dealing with the alleged incident.

Firstly, the Office did not find evidence of maladministration in the Board’s handling of the formal complaint with respect to their own complaints procedure. However, administrative questions remained regarding the original interview/investigation process that took place on the afternoon of the alleged incident. After careful consideration of the information received during the course of the preliminary examination, the Office was sufficiently satisfied to determine that:

– The child was involved in an interview/investigation with the Assistant Principal and the member of staff about whom the allegation was made, which focused on the substantive issue of whether the alleged incident occurred or not.

– Parental consent was not obtained for this investigation meeting with the child.

– The child got upset during this interview.

The information provided by the school did not specifically identify any administrative procedures for interviewing a child in such circumstances. In general, the OCO is aware of a lack of guidelines pertaining to how schools should determine the circumstances and manner in which children should be interviewed. This is a matter that the Office has raised directly with the Department of Education & Science.

After examination, the OCO was of the view that a school seeking to conduct an investigation into circumstances such as these should ensure, in the interests of impartiality and fairness of procedure, that any staff member who is the subject of an allegation should not be present when the complainant is being interviewed. From the information provided by the school, the OCO understood that the issue of contacting parents at the request of pupils is dealt with on grounds of reasonableness, and judged at the discretion of the staff concerned. It is the view of this Office that if the school was insistent in conducting the investigation interview in this way then parental consent should have, in the first instance, been sought and obtained. It appears to the Office that this failure to seek consent was an undesirable administrative action.

The Office noted from the information received that the child protection policy of the school is reviewed on a regular basis. The OCO encouraged the school to consider the above points when reviewing both its child protection policy and general policies related to conducting interviews and contacting parents.

The OCO understood that the child was upset during this particular interview process, but could not, however, determine whether the adverse effect which occurred was due to the inherent nature of a child being subjected to an interview/investigation process, the nature of what occurred during that interview, or if it was linked to the original alleged incident.

Outcome:

After a full examination, it was considered that further investigation of these matters was not required by the Office at this time. The OCO commented, however, on the administrative actions taken and encouraged further action by the school to address the issues raised. The OCO wrote to the school, informing the Principal and Board of Management of the conclusion of the preliminary examination and outlining the findings and views of the Office as detailed above. This correspondence afforded the opportunity for the school to respond to the OCO with any comment that they wished to make regarding any of the findings.

The school responded accordingly and indicated that the suggestions made by the Office are to be taken on board. The Office understood that the matter was to be discussed and progressed at the next Board meeting.

Posted in: Investigations Education