Investigations in Maintained Special Schools

A practical guide for governors, headteachers and local authority officers

Maintained special schools have something independent settings don’t: an external structure. A governing body, a local authority, model policies, and an HR service that has seen this before.

That’s a genuine advantage. It also creates its own difficulties, because more parties means more confusion about who’s responsible for what, and because the local authority is frequently both the source of support and a body with an interest in the outcome.

Many governors tell us the hardest part wasn’t the matter itself. It was working out who was actually making the decision, and whether the advice they’d received was advice or instruction.

In this guide we’ll set out who does what, how complaints and allegations work in this setting, and where the pressure points sit. The process itself is covered in our guide to school investigations.

Who Is Responsible for Investigations in a Maintained Special School?

Three parties, and the boundaries matter.

The headteacher deals with most complaints and staff conduct matters, and holds day to day responsibility for safeguarding arrangements.

The governing body hears complaints that escalate beyond the headteacher, deals with matters concerning the headteacher, and holds the school to account. Committees are usually established for complaints, disciplinary and appeal functions, with different governors on each.

The local authority is the employer in community and voluntary controlled schools, provides HR and safeguarding support, hosts the designated officer, and holds duties towards children it has placed. In foundation and voluntary aided schools the governing body is the employer, which changes the HR position while leaving the safeguarding structure the same.

The confusion usually arises because the local authority appears in three roles at once: employer, adviser, and the body with statutory safeguarding responsibilities. Establish which hat is being worn in any given conversation, and record advice as advice rather than as instruction.

How Do Complaints Work in a Maintained Special School?

Maintained schools must have a complaints procedure under section 29 of the Education Act 2002 and must publicise it.

The usual structure is informal resolution, then a formal stage with the headteacher, then a governors’ complaints panel. Where the complaint concerns the headteacher, the formal stage sits with the chair of governors.

Two things catch maintained special schools out more often than mainstream ones.

Panel independence. Panel members mustn’t have been directly involved. In a small special school where several governors are closely engaged with the school, and some are parents of pupils, finding three uninvolved governors is harder than it looks. Consider a governor from another school or an external panel member, and settle this before you need it rather than in the fortnight before a hearing. We cover it in school complaints panels and the independent panel member.

Routing. A great many complaints in special schools are really about SEND provision, transport, an EHCP or a placement decision. Those have their own statutory routes and don’t belong in the complaints procedure. Say clearly which route applies and why, rather than declining to look at something without explanation.

What Happens When There Is an Allegation Against a Member of Staff?

The local authority designated officer is involved, and that’s the first call rather than a later one.

Where an allegation is made that a person working with children has harmed a child, may have committed a criminal offence against a child, or may pose a risk to children, the LADO is consulted. That applies before any internal process starts and regardless of how well the school knows the individual.

Where the allegation concerns the headteacher, the referral is made by the chair of governors rather than through the usual route. Establish now who would make that call, because finding out on the day costs hours you won’t have.

Don’t investigate first. Speaking to the person concerned, or asking staff what they know, before taking LADO advice can compromise a criminal investigation and put a child at risk. We cover the reasoning in when safeguarding concerns involve a senior leader.

Where Does the Local Authority Have an Interest in the Outcome?

This is the point worth thinking about carefully, and it isn’t a criticism of local authorities.

Your authority may be your employer, your HR adviser, your safeguarding partner and the commissioner of the placements that fund parts of your provision. In most matters those roles align perfectly well.

Occasionally they don’t. Where a complaint concerns a placement the authority made, or provision the authority funds, or a decision taken jointly, the authority isn’t a neutral party in the way it is elsewhere.

Where that’s the case, say so openly and consider whether an independent investigator or an external panel member is needed. A governing body that recognises the position and addresses it is in a much stronger place than one that proceeds and has it pointed out later by a parent.

What Protections Apply to Staff Investigations?

Follow the model policy, and follow it properly.

Most maintained schools adopt local authority model disciplinary, grievance and capability procedures. Departing from them because they seem cumbersome is a common and expensive mistake, and the model is usually the thing that protects you.

Teachers in maintained schools have specific procedural protections, so check what applies to the individual rather than assuming one process covers everyone.

The ACAS Code sets the baseline: a reasonable investigation, allegations in writing, evidence shared, a hearing, the right to be accompanied, and a right of appeal. Keep the investigating officer separate from the decision maker and from anyone hearing an appeal. We cover the detail in HR investigations in schools.

How Do You Handle Evidence From Pupils in a Special School?

With more care than any other part of the process, and frequently with specialist input.

Where a child may have been harmed, the school doesn’t interview. Take LADO or social care direction first.

Where it’s appropriate for the school to speak to a pupil, communication needs shape everything. A child who is non-verbal, who uses a communication aid, who has significant learning needs, or who finds direct questioning distressing can’t be interviewed using a standard approach.

Plan it with your safeguarding lead and, where relevant, with speech and language or therapy colleagues who know the child. Record what the pupil communicated in their own terms rather than tidying it into adult phrasing, and note how the communication took place.

Be honest in any report about the limitations of the evidence. A finding that acknowledges what could and couldn’t be established from a child’s account is far more credible than one that doesn’t.

From Our Experience

From our experience, the pattern we see most often in maintained special schools is a governing body that assumed the local authority was dealing with something the authority assumed the school was dealing with.

Weeks pass, nothing happens, and a parent escalates on the basis that nobody responded. Neither party did anything wrong and the gap between them was never named.

Many leaders tell us the useful step was writing down, at the start, who’s doing what and by when, and sending it to everyone involved including the authority. It takes ten minutes and it prevents most of this.

We often see difficulties with panel composition too. A small special school with a committed governing body frequently finds that most governors have been involved in the matter in some way, and the panel gets assembled from whoever’s left rather than from who’s genuinely uninvolved.

A Common Misconception

“The local authority will deal with it.”

It’s an understandable assumption, particularly for a governing body that’s been well supported by its authority for years.

But the authority advises, and in many cases employs, without taking the school’s decisions. The governing body remains accountable for how complaints are handled, for holding the headteacher to account, and for the school’s own processes.

Waiting for the authority to lead is how a matter drifts for a term. Ask for their advice, use their expertise, record what they said, and then decide.

The children in a maintained special school are frequently among the most vulnerable in the local system, and they need the adults closest to them to act rather than to wait for somebody further away.

Questions for Governors

• Do we know which role the local authority is playing in this matter?
• Could we assemble a panel of three genuinely uninvolved members today?
• Who makes a LADO referral if the allegation concerns our headteacher?
• Does this complaint actually belong in the complaints procedure, or in a statutory SEND route?
• Have we written down who is doing what, and shared it with everyone involved?

Our Perspective

The external structure around a maintained special school is a real strength and it works best when everybody is clear about their own part in it.

Name the roles at the start. Record advice as advice. Sort your panel arrangements before you need them. Route matters to the right process and explain why. Recognise honestly when the authority has an interest in the outcome, and bring in independence where it does.

Do that and a difficult matter gets resolved properly rather than passing between parties for a term. That’s what the pupils in your school need, and it’s what allows everybody to get back to the work that actually matters to them.