A 14 year-old boy suspended for an unspecified period—contrary to law—student later allowed back to school twice more—the Board ‘reinstated’ the suspension twice more when the student’s behaviour deteriorated—under the Education Act the Board must specify the period of suspension—as this was not done, the suspension expired after 7 days and therefore, could not be ‘reinstated’ at a later time—the Board agreed to review its suspension and expulsion procedures to bring them in line with the requirements under the Act
The suspension or expulsion of a student from school is a serious matter. The Education Act 1989 requires certain criteria to be met before a student can be suspended or expelled: the student’s actions must constitute gross misconduct or continual disobedience, and be a harmful example to other students at the school; or because of the student’s behaviour, it is likely that the student, or other students at the school, will be seriously harmed if the student is not suspended; and the principal must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that a student gets good guidance and counselling. The Act also requires counselling to a degree that is ‘reasonable and practicable’ in all the circumstances.
The Act sets out the steps which must be taken by the principal and the board of trustees and distinguishes between students under 16 years of age and those who are 16 or older.
Where a student under 16 years of age is suspended for an unspecified period, the Act provides that the suspension is deemed to have been lifted at the close of the 7th day after the day of suspension if the board has not by then either lifted it or extended it. The board may lift the suspension either unconditionally or subject to any conditions it decides to impose, and may extend the suspension for such period as it may determine, provided the suspension has not already been lifted or expired.
In this case a 14 year old was suspended for an unspecified period as a result of a series of incidents involving kicking and fighting and other behaviour of a violent nature. The principal reported, as required by the Act, to the board, the Ministry of Education and the parents and the board met and considered the matter within the 7 day time frame. The board decided to extend the suspension until such time as it received a report from a professional counsellor that the student’s attitude showed a significant improvement and that there was a reasonable chance he might return to school with improved behaviour. The principal, in advising the parents of the board’s decision, said that school work would be sent home and alternative arrangements for schooling were being addressed. He also offered assistance in finding appropriate counselling.
Some weeks later, the counsellor reported to the board with a recommendation that the student be reinstated. After discussions between the principal, the student, his mother and an independent adviser, it was agreed that the student could return to school, subject to his agreeing to meet certain conditions. A contract was drawn up and the student returned to sit an examination and sign the contract. However, the student’s conduct during the examination was such that he was sent home again.
Just before the start of the next school year, the student asked if he could return to school so he could sit his school certificate examinations. The matter was discussed with the student and his family and it was made clear that this would be his last chance. Any disruptive or other unsuitable behaviour would result in expulsion.
Some weeks into the school year the student’s behaviour deteriorated. This resulted in the decision to ‘reinstate’ the student’s suspension from school. It was at this point that the student’s father complained to the Ombudsmen.
The investigation led to the conclusion that the decision of the board to extend the original suspension pending receipt of the counsellor’s report did not appear to comply with the requirements of the Education Act. This was because the board did not specify the period of the suspension. Accordingly, in terms of the Act, the suspension expired after seven days. On this basis, the later decisions to allow the student to return to school and then to ‘reinstate’ the suspension were unsound.
Notwithstanding the finding that the decision of the board appeared to be contrary to law, it was concluded that having regard to the particular facts in this case and to the board’s undertaking to review the school’s suspension and expulsion procedures to bring them in line with the requirements of the Education Act, no recommendation was appropriate.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.