When to Commission an Independent Investigation in a School

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

Schools investigate things constantly and most of it is done internally, correctly and without difficulty.

The question isn’t how serious a matter is. Plenty of serious matters are investigated perfectly well in house. The question is whether anybody inside the organisation can look at this particular matter and be believed by everybody who needs to believe them.

When the answer is no, an internal investigation is wasted effort however well it’s done, because the finding won’t be accepted. Many proprietors tell us they discovered that after spending three weeks on a careful piece of work that the complainant rejected in a sentence.

In this guide we’ll set out when independence is genuinely needed, what it actually means, how to write terms of reference, what it costs and how to choose somebody. The wider process sits in our guide to school investigations.

When Should a School Commission an Independent Investigation?

Seven situations come up repeatedly.

The concern involves the headteacher, principal or chief executive. No member of staff who reports to that person can investigate them. In a small independent school or a single provider this frequently means there’s nobody internal left at all.

The concern involves a proprietor, governor or trustee. The same problem, one level up. We cover this in investigations in independent special schools.

The person who’d normally investigate has already expressed a view. Even informally. A deputy who told staff they thought the complaint was nonsense can’t then investigate it.

Confidence has already been lost. Where a complainant has said, in terms, that they don’t believe the school will look at this fairly, an internal finding won’t resolve anything.

The matter is about culture rather than an individual. Allegations that staff are afraid to raise concerns, or that incidents aren’t being logged, are allegations about how the organisation is run. The people who run it can’t assess that.

A regulator is involved or likely to be. Ofsted, the DfE, the ESFA, a local authority or a commissioner. Demonstrable independence is one of the strongest things you can show.

Capacity. Sometimes the honest answer is that nobody has three weeks to do this properly, and a rushed internal investigation is worse than an external one.

What Does Independence Actually Mean in a School Investigation?

More than not being on the payroll, and this is where schools get caught.

A genuinely independent investigator has no line management relationship with anybody involved, no ongoing commercial relationship that could be affected by the outcome, no prior involvement in the matter, and no personal connection to the parties.

That last point catches small settings. A consultant who has worked with the school for years, a former colleague of the headteacher, or a governor from a neighbouring school in the same trust may all be technically external, and none of them will look independent to a complainant who searches for the name.

Ask yourself how the appointment would read in a subject access request or at a tribunal. If it needs explaining, choose somebody else.

The same test applies to the independent member of a complaints panel, which we cover in school complaints panels and the independent panel member.

What Should Terms of Reference for a School Investigation Include?

The terms of reference determine whether the investigation is useful. Spend an hour on them.

Include the specific questions to be answered, numbered. Who the investigator may speak to and what they may access. 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 the investigator makes recommendations or findings of fact only. And how the report will be shared with the people investigated.

That last point matters more than people expect. Decide at the outset, because deciding afterwards looks like a decision made to suit the outcome.

Be careful with scope. Too narrow and you’ll be accused of avoiding the real issue. Too wide and the investigation runs for months and answers nothing.

What Can an Independent Investigation Not Do?

It establishes facts and, where asked, makes recommendations in a written report. It doesn’t take the decision.

The governing body, trust board or proprietor still decides what to do with the findings and remains accountable for that decision. Commissioning an investigator doesn’t transfer responsibility, and any provider suggesting otherwise is misleading you.

It also isn’t a substitute for statutory processes. Where an allegation meets the harm threshold, the local authority designated officer must be involved regardless of who’s investigating. Where a matter is criminal, the police lead and the school doesn’t investigate in parallel.

And it won’t repair a relationship on its own. An investigation can establish what happened. Rebuilding trust with a family or a staff team is separate work, and it starts after the report lands rather than being delivered by it.

How Much Does an Independent School Investigation Cost?

Usually a day rate or a fixed fee against a defined scope. A straightforward complaint investigation might take two to four days. A complex conduct matter with multiple witnesses can run considerably longer.

The comparison isn’t against doing nothing. It’s against an internal investigation that’s challenged, redone, escalated to a panel, escalated again to the DfE or ESFA, and consumes far more senior leadership time than the fee would have cost. Add the risk of an employment tribunal where a process wasn’t fair.

Agree the fee basis and an estimated range in writing before the work starts, along with what happens if the scope grows. Scope creep is the main reason these cost more than expected, and it’s usually avoidable with clear terms of reference.

How Do You Choose an Independent Investigator?

Ask these six questions before you appoint.

Have they investigated in an education setting, and in your type of setting? Do they understand the statutory framework that applies to you? Have they given evidence at a panel or a tribunal? Will they write findings that are usable, or a narrative summary? What’s their conflict of interest position, particularly if the same organisation also audits or reviews your school? And will they tell you if the answer is uncomfortable?

The last one matters most. An investigator who produces the finding the school hoped for is worse than useless, because the report won’t survive scrutiny and you’ll have paid for a document you can’t rely on.

We’d be equally direct about our own position. Jarvis Education carries out independent investigations and also provides reviews and audits, so where we’ve worked with a school recently we’ll tell you if that affects our independence rather than leaving you to discover it.

From Our Experience

The most common reason schools end up commissioning independently is not the seriousness of the matter. It’s that somebody internal spoke too early.

A senior leader offers a view in a staff meeting, or reassures a parent that there’s nothing in it, and the pool of people who can credibly investigate closes immediately. That’s a very human thing to do under pressure and it’s worth being conscious of in the first hours.

Many proprietors tell us they’d tried internally first, spent three weeks on it, and had the finding rejected without being read. Where confidence has already gone, going independent at the start is cheaper than going independent second.

The other pattern is terms of reference written in ten minutes. The investigation then answers questions nobody needed answering and misses the one that mattered, and the school pays for a second one.

A Common Misconception

“Bringing somebody in makes it look like we have something to hide.”

It’s an understandable worry, particularly for a proprietor who has built a school and feels the implication personally.

In practice it reads the other way to almost everybody who matters. A complainant sees a school taking their concern seriously. Staff see a process that won’t be shaped by internal relationships. A regulator sees a board that understood the limits of its own objectivity, which is one of the more reassuring things a governing body can demonstrate.

What actually looks like something to hide is an internal investigation into a matter concerning the person who runs the school. That’s the version people question, and it’s the version that gets escalated.

And where the matter concerns a child, the point of independence isn’t reputational at all. It’s that the finding needs to be right, and be seen to be right, because somebody may need to act on it.

Questions for Leaders and Governors

• Could anybody internal look at this and be believed by everyone who needs to believe them?
• Has anyone in a position to investigate already expressed a view?
• How would our choice of investigator read at a tribunal or in a subject access request?
• Have we written numbered questions and defined what is out of scope?
• Have we decided who receives the report, before the work starts?

Our Perspective

Independence isn’t a judgement on your integrity. It’s a recognition that some questions can’t be answered credibly from inside, however honest the people inside are.

Ask the believability question early, before somebody speaks out of turn and closes off your internal options. Write proper terms of reference. Choose somebody who’ll tell you something you don’t want to hear. And remember that the decision stays with you afterwards.

Schools that handle this well end up with a finding they can act on and a process that families, staff and regulators accept. That’s what allows a school to draw a line under something and get back to the children, which is what everyone involved actually needs.