Bethlehem College has been reprimanded by the government's watchdog after the exclusion/expulsion of multiple students. Photo / Mead Norton
Bethlehem College has been reprimanded by the government's watchdog after the exclusion/expulsion of multiple students. Photo / Mead Norton
Tauranga's Bethlehem College has been criticised by the Ombudsman over the exclusion of multiple students after two complaints were lodged.
The decision released today by the government's watchdog comes after months of controversy for the school, including unrelated complaints to the Ministry of Education about the school'sbeliefs on marriage and sexuality. The school says it has taken "full responsibility" for the issues the Ombudsman found and apologised to the students and their families.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier found that in two instances relating to students being excluded or expelled, the "omission" of the Bethlehem College School Board "to adequately record its decision-making was unreasonable".
The first complaint related to a board decision to exclude a student on the basis of "gross misconduct". The same student had earlier been temporarily suspended for "continual disobedience".
Under Ministry of Education rules, all principals have the power to temporarily suspend students. When a decision is made, the principal must provide a report to the school's board outlining the circumstances of the suspension.
The board then has to meet within seven days to consider the suspension. The board may then make a decision on expulsion/exclusion and should act independently of the principal.
"Exclusion" is defined as the formal removal of a student under 16, while "expulsion" is the formal removal of a student over 16.
The test that must be met for gross misconduct is defined by the ministry as behaviour that is "striking and reprehensible to a high degree".
The process leading up to the student's exclusion included three reports over March and July 2020. In March, the student was issued a warning and the need for a behaviour support plan was noted but never followed up by the college.
The student's record detailed around a dozen disciplinary incidents, including three related to behaviour towards other students. The student had also been reprimanded for using cannabis and a vape.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier. Photo / File
The July 2020 incident triggered the student's suspension on the basis of "continual disobedience". However, when the board met, it went on to exclude the student on the basis of "gross misconduct" - a different test.
The Ombudsman "identified significant gaps in the information about the student's alleged misbehaviour in the documentation provided by the board", the decision says.
"The decision to exclude the student on a different ground than which they had been suspended was not explained."
There was no record of how the board considered each of the circumstances relevant to the suspension, leading the Ombudsman to reach the conclusion the board did not adequately act on its obligation to review the principal's decision.
Further, Boshier found the school was disproportionate in its response to the student's behaviour.
"For example, information from the student's teachers indicated their behaviour in class had improved since being disciplined earlier in the year for cannabis use."
There was no evidence the student had continued to use cannabis or a vape.
The student's record showed only three specific incidents that could be construed as relevant leading up to the suspension, involving conduct towards fellow students, none of which the school had regarded as serious when they occurred.
The Ombudsman recommended that the school must now formally apologise to the student, attach his findings to the student's expulsion record, and offer to re-enrol the young person.
Further exclusion of students deemed unreasonable
In a second complaint, concerns were raised about the exclusion or expulsion of a further group of students over incidents centring on truancy and alcohol, among other matters, the decision said.
All were originally suspended by the school's principal, with the matter referred to the board for the final decision.
It is not stated what the exact circumstances were, nor the number of affected students.
Similar to the first complaint, the Ombudsman found there were no records to confirm the board had undertaken an independent review of the principal's suspension decision.
"Given the clear expectation that school boards clearly and comprehensively document their decision-making in this area, the Ombudsman regarded this as a significant failure," the decision said.
"The omission of the board to keep adequate records was seen as a fundamental flaw of its decision-making process. There was also nothing to confirm that the board was presented with all the information required to make a decision on the exclusion/expulsion of the students."
In response to the Ombudsman's findings, school board chairman Paul Shakes said the investigation and the school's internal review identified "some necessary improvements in our disciplinary process".
"We have taken full responsibility for the issues the Ombudsman identified and we have already accepted and implemented his recommendations. This included apologising to the students and their families."
The school also made other changes to ensure its policies, procedures and professional development were "more robust moving forward".
"We take our obligations to all students very seriously and all disciplinary action requires consideration of the student/s involved, including the impact on their educational outcomes and wellbeing, as well as the safety and wellbeing of our other students," Shakes said.
