Cashmere High School board unapologetic despite Ombudsman criticism

Wednesday, 7 August 2024

Cashmere High School’s board of trustees refused to take on the Chief Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Cashmere High School’s board has stood by its decision to not apologise to the parents of a disabled out-of-zone child whose enrolment was rejected, despite the Chief Ombudsman publishing his disappointment.

The child’s siblings were accepted into Cashmere before the family had to move out-of-zone. When the younger student applied for enrolment, the board had decided to refuse anyone out-of-zone due to its immense student population.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier found declining the student was reasonable, but the way the board communicated with the family was not.

“The board didn’t explain the basis for its decision nor did it outline the factors it considered beforehand. This made the parents feel like they hadn’t been listened to. They were unsure whether the board had considered the factors they put forward in their letter before reaching a decision.”

The parents told the board their disabled child would be socially and emotionally disadvantaged without their siblings and intermediate school friends support.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier says “it is very disappointing when boards fail to see my recommendations as an opportunity to learn from their mistakes”.

In a three-paragraph letter, the board wrote it could not enrol the child unless the family lived in-zone due to the high demand the school was experiencing, but it appreciated their circumstances and any inconvenience caused.

The family followed up with the board but did not receive a response, so complained to the Chief Ombudsman.

Boshier found the board failed to adequately communicate with the family, noting its correspondence was “very brief” and didn’t explain the the board’s thought process.

He recommended the board write a comprehensive apology to the parents and take appropriate steps to make sure its members were aware they needed to properly explain the basis for decisions.

The board declined to do so - a decision chairperson James O’Connell stands by.

“The board is happy with the letter and believes it corresponded professionally the answer to not accept the student for the reason they were out-of-zone.”

He said the board received many reasons for out-of-zone applications, but during the relevant year it accepted only in-zone children and needed to be fair.

“The community wants us to be consistent in our decision making and that is what we believe we have done.

“The Chief Ombudsman is entitled to his opinion, however, we are a self governing school and the board is happy with the decision it has made and the way it communicated.”

The board told Boshier it had “given consideration to your opinion and recommendations”. “We have, however, ultimately come to a different view,” it said.

In the ombudsman’s report, dated 2023, the board cited this, the roll pressures it faced, and a Ministry of Education directive to refuse out-of-zone enrolments. It said the family should apply to the ministry if their child would be genuinely disadvantaged.

The board did not supply this information to the family and said it did not reply to the family’s follow up because it “felt that we had already responded to this particular inquiry”.

Boshier also found issues with the board’s record keeping, noting it was “vital that proper records of a decision making process are kept” for transparency and accountability.

“I have now decided to publish case notes on these complaints which I do when I believe there is a public interest in doing so.

“Fortunately, most boards either know what to do or are willing to put things right. It is very disappointing when boards fail to see my recommendations as an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and improve their processes and decision making.

“When my recommendations are not complied with, ultimately I can escalate my concerns to the prime minister and Parliament. I can ask them to examine the situation and decide what further action to take.

“I shouldn’t need to do this. I expect that when I make recommendations, they are complied with. The vast majority of boards do this, so it is very disappointing when some do not.”

The ombudsman also expressed disappointment in the board of St Peter’s College in Auckland, after it refused to apologise to a student and their family for “unreasonably” excluding them after the student bought marijuana at school.