| SPOTLIGHT |
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) has asked West Sussex councillors to revisit a decision after they considered the wrong version of a critical report.
The Ombudsman’s report, which concerned council school attendance teams and their duty to provide alternative education, suggested that West Sussex County Council’s decision to take action against a pupil for poor school attendance was “causing injustice”.
The pupil, who was suffering from “high levels of anxiety,” refused to go to school and had an attendance below 60%. The parents sought help from the school but due to the student’s refusal to see a doctor, the school decided to bring a prosecution against the child’s parents for non-attendance.
Believing that the girl was incapable of going to school, a youth worker suggested a “blended learning package” but a council officer initially denied this request due to a lack of medical diagnosis.
The student was subsequently diagnosed with “high levels of anxiety and social and school phobia.” Upon the diagnosis the council withdrew the parent’s prosecution and made efforts to put a blended learning programme in place.
In the Ombudsman’s report, the complainant and mother of the student, Mrs X, protested the council’s failure “to ensure [that] her daughter received suitable education when she was out of school.”
Considering Mrs X’s complaints, the Ombudsman made the following recommendations to the council:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs X for not fully considering alternative approaches to ensuring an education for their daughter from April to July 2017.
• Pay them £400 to recognise the loss of educational opportunity during this period, to be used for the benefit of Y’s education.
• Remind relevant staff that the duty to provide alternative education may arise for reasons other than exclusion and illness.
The councillors discussed a draft report – sent in order to allow them the chance to offer any further evidence that the Ombudsman may not have considered – and decided not to comply with its recommendations.
Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, in response to their mistaken reading of the report and subsequent decision to ignore the recommendations said:
“When we draft a report we give both the people who complain to us and the local authority the opportunity to comment on it and provide us with any further supporting evidence they feel is important. The final report we issue will have considered this extra evidence, and can be different to the draft report.
“We are now asking councillors in West Sussex to discuss the correct, final version of the report and make the necessary arrangements to comply with the recommendations it included.”
