School Investigations: A Complete Guide for Leaders and Governors

A complete guide for headteachers, principals, proprietors, governors and trustees

Most school leaders investigate rarely and under pressure when they do. A complaint arrives, or an allegation is made, and somebody has to work out within an hour what kind of matter this is and who should be looking at it.

It’s understandable that mistakes get made in that hour. Many proprietors tell us the thing they’d change wasn’t the outcome but the first afternoon, when a well meant conversation closed off options they later needed.

What we’d offer is some reassurance. The framework is learnable, most of it is common sense once it’s set out, and the schools that handle these matters well are not the ones with the most experience. They’re the ones that slow down at the start and get four or five things right.

This guide covers the whole of it, from the first day to the panel stage. Each section links to a fuller article if you want more detail on that part. It isn’t legal advice, and your HR and legal advisers should be involved from early on in anything serious.

What Kind of Matter Is This?

The first question, and getting it wrong shapes everything afterwards.

A parent complaint goes through your published complaints procedure.

An allegation against a member of staff that meets the harm threshold goes to the local authority designated officer first, before any internal process. See the LADO process explained.

A concern about staff behaviour that sits below that threshold is a low level concern, recorded and reviewed for patterns.

A conduct matter goes through your disciplinary procedure. A performance or health matter goes through capability. A complaint raised by an employee goes through grievance.

A concern raised in the public interest about wrongdoing may be a protected disclosure, with legal protections attached.

Some things belong in more than one process at once, and some things that arrive as a complaint are really a safeguarding matter. Take advice early rather than deciding quickly, and say clearly to the person who raised it which route applies and why.

What Should Happen in the First 24 Hours?

Five things, and the order matters.

Make any child safe. Whatever else is unclear, this isn’t.

Check whether this is a LADO or police matter. Where an allegation meets the harm threshold, or a criminal offence may have occurred, the school doesn’t investigate in parallel.

Say as little as possible. A view expressed in a corridor closes off the people who could credibly have investigated. This is the single most common own goal we see.

Preserve everything. Records, messages, logs, CCTV. Nothing gets deleted, tidied or corrected.

Start a written log. Decisions, timings, who advised what. You’ll need it, and reconstructing it afterwards is far harder and less convincing.

Who Can Investigate?

Somebody who won’t decide the outcome, won’t hear any appeal, hasn’t expressed a view, and doesn’t report to anybody involved.

In a large school that’s straightforward. In a small independent special school or an alternative provision with four senior staff it frequently isn’t, and that’s a legitimate reason to look outside rather than a failing.

The test we’d suggest is simple. Could this person look at this matter and be believed by everybody who needs to believe them? Where the answer is no, an internal investigation is wasted effort however well it’s done.

More: when to commission an independent investigation.

Why Does Separating the Roles Matter?

Because it’s the procedural failure that most often undoes an otherwise sound case.

The investigator establishes facts. The decision maker decides. Somebody else entirely hears any appeal. Where one person does two of those, the process is unfair regardless of how careful they were.

The same principle applies to suspension. The person who decides to suspend shouldn’t be the person investigating.

Write the roles down at the start, including who’s doing what if somebody is unavailable. Ten minutes here saves a great deal later.

What Should Terms of Reference Include?

The numbered questions to be answered. Who may be spoken to and what may be accessed. The standard of proof, which for an internal investigation is the balance of probabilities. What’s explicitly out of scope. The timescale. Who receives the report. Whether findings of fact only, or recommendations too. And how the report will be shared with the people investigated.

That last point should be settled at the outset, because deciding afterwards looks like a decision made to suit the outcome.

Scope is a balance. Too narrow and you’ll be accused of avoiding the real issue. Too wide and the investigation runs for months and answers nothing.

How Do You Gather Evidence and Interview?

Documents first, because they’re contemporaneous and nobody’s memory is. Build a dated chronology as you go; it usually does more work than anything else and frequently reveals the actual problem.

Then interview. Give notice, say what the meeting is about, share the evidence you’ll put to people, and offer the right to be accompanied where it applies. Ask open questions first and never lead. Record what was said rather than what you concluded, and offer the notes back for comment.

Be careful with pupils. Where a child may have been harmed, take LADO or social care direction rather than speaking to them. Where it is appropriate, plan it around their communication needs with your safeguarding lead.

More: how to conduct investigation interviews in schools.

How Do You Reach and Record Findings?

Question by question, in the order of the terms of reference. Set out the evidence, state the finding, then show the reasoning that connects the two.

The reasoning is what’s usually missing. A report that lists evidence and announces a conclusion leaves a panel or a tribunal unable to test it, which is exactly what they’ll want to do.

Name the standard of proof and apply it. Where you can’t reach a finding, say so. Where evidence conflicts, explain which account you preferred and why.

Keep opinion out unless you were asked for it, and keep the report to the questions you were asked.

More: how to write a school investigation report.

When Should You Suspend Somebody?

Not automatically, and not because it feels safer.

Statutory guidance is clear that suspension shouldn’t be an automatic response to an allegation. Consider the alternatives first, record which you considered and why each was or wasn’t sufficient, and review the decision at intervals.

Confirm in writing the same day that it’s precautionary and not a sanction, name a point of contact who isn’t involved in the investigation, and keep the investigation moving.

More: suspending a member of staff during an investigation.

What Happens at the Panel Stage?

For complaints, the panel is the final stage and the one schools are least prepared for.

Independent schools must have a panel of at least three people not directly involved, with at least one independent of the management and running of the school. Parents must be allowed to attend and be accompanied, and findings must be recorded and made available.

Most panel failures come down to independence. Identify your independent member now, at a routine meeting, rather than in the fortnight before a hearing.

More: school complaints panels and the independent panel member.

How Do Investigations Differ by Setting?

The principles are constant. The structures around them aren’t.

Independent special schools. The proprietor carries the duties, which is a real problem when the concern involves them. There’s frequently nobody internal left, and independence is needed earlier than in other settings. See investigations in independent special schools.

Maintained special schools. A governing body and a local authority provide real support, and the authority appears as employer, adviser and safeguarding partner at once. Establish which role is being played. See investigations in maintained special schools.

PRUs and alternative provision. Small teams, referring schools and placing authorities with their own interests, and pupils whose communication needs shape any conversation. See investigations in PRUs and alternative provision.

What Happens Afterwards?

The part most often neglected.

Act on the findings and record that you did. A recommendation nobody implements produces exactly the situation the process existed to prevent.

Tell the people involved what changed. For a complainant that’s frequently what ends the matter, more than the finding itself.

Support the people affected, including the person investigated where nothing was upheld. Being the subject of an investigation is difficult even when it concludes in your favour, and a return to work needs planning.

Then look at the pattern. One investigation is an event. Three in a year is information, usually about culture or communication rather than about individuals, and it’s worth an honest look with an external eye.

From Our Experience

The matters that cause schools the most difficulty are rarely the most serious ones. They’re the ones where somebody spoke too early.

A senior leader offers a view in a staff meeting, or reassures a parent there’s nothing in it, and the pool of people who could credibly investigate closes within an hour. That’s a very human response to pressure and it’s the thing we’d most want leaders to be conscious of.

Many leaders tell us the second regret was the log. Decisions were sound, advice was taken, and none of it was written down. A year later, at a hearing, the school was reconstructing its reasoning from memory.

The third pattern is scope. Investigations that never defined what they were looking at expand as new points arrive, run for months, and finish with a document nobody can act on.

Schools that handle these well are not more experienced. They slow down for an hour, take advice, write down the roles and the questions, and keep a log. That’s most of it.

A Common Misconception

“A good outcome means clearing the school.”

It’s an understandable instinct, particularly for a proprietor who has built something and feels a complaint personally. But it’s the framing that causes most of the damage we see.

A good outcome is a finding that’s accurate and that everybody involved accepts as fairly reached. Sometimes that clears the school. Sometimes it upholds a complaint, and a school that acknowledges something went wrong, explains what’s changing and does it will emerge with more trust than one that defended a position successfully.

There’s a more important point underneath. Investigations exist because something happened to somebody, usually a child. A process designed to protect the institution rather than to establish what happened isn’t just risky, it fails the person it was meant to be about.

Schools that recover well from difficult matters are the ones that wanted to know the answer.

Questions for Leaders and Governors

• Have we established what kind of matter this is, and taken advice on it?
• Has anybody already expressed a view that limits who can investigate?
• Are the investigating, deciding and appeal roles genuinely separate, in writing?
• Do we have numbered terms of reference and a defined scope?
• Are we keeping a written, timed log of decisions and advice?

Our Perspective

Investigations are among the hardest things school leaders do and among the least trained for. Nobody becomes a headteacher because they wanted to run disciplinary processes.

The good news is that the things that go wrong are consistent and avoidable. Work out what kind of matter it is. Say little in the first day. Separate the roles. Write proper terms of reference. Interview carefully. Show your reasoning. Act on the findings and tell people what changed.

Do that and you end up with a finding you can act on and a process that families, staff and regulators accept. That’s what allows a school to draw a line under something difficult and return its attention to the children, which is where everybody involved would rather it was.