BackFollowing an incident where the year 11 student had threatened to assault a teacher in the staff room, the Board had expelled him for “gross misconduct” that was “a harmful or dangerous example to other students” under section 14(1)(a) of the Education Act.
Several strategies had been put in place to support the student in his nearly three years at the school. The incident was triggered by the student’s attempt to resubmit a speech for NCEA credits.
Professor Paterson found that the school acted unreasonably in several respects.
Staff at the school had failed to take opportunities for earlier intervention and to adopt alternative handling strategies before the incident in the staff room. The Board had failed to keep adequate records of the decision making process. The decision makers had not given adequate consideration to a number of relevant factors, being the manner in which the sequence of triggering events was handled, the alternatives to expulsion, and a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the School and the student’s parents in which the school had undertaken to consult the family before significant disciplinary decisions. Additionally, the decision makers had failed to give adequate consideration to the effects of Apsergers on the student’s behaviour.
The Ombudsman recognised that “school boards must strike a difficult balance, within available resources between the rights of a student with a disability to an education, and their obligations to staff and other students”. But at the “heart of” the case was “a young man with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who was unable to complete his education in a mainstream school”.
He stated: “My overall assessment is that the Disciplinary Subcommittee of the Board found itself in an invidious situation but that, in moving immediately to impose the harshest penalty – in the face of unanswered questions and a complex background, and under time pressure – the Subcommittee acted unreasonably.”
The Ombudsman recommended that the Board write to the student and his parents with a formal apology, attach a copy of his opinion to the student’s expulsion record, and continue to review its practices – in the areas of support for students with disabilities, disciplinary processes and documentation – in light of the lessons from the case.
The school accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations. A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Source: Office of the Ombudsman, New Zealand
