One parent requested that the Office conduct an inquiry concerning the exclusion of her child from school. She explained that the child was involved in a theft from a shop then in the pupil dormitory in the course of the academic year. She explained that - despite her explicit request - the school applied no disciplinary action against the pupil, and did not initiate a disciplinary proceeding. Before the end of the academic year, however, the principal requested that the parent take the child away from the school. In the last three weeks of the school year, the pupil was not allowed to attend the school.

In his letter, the head of the institution explained that, being a church-affiliated school, the institution provides a significantly better provision for the pupils, but also demands more of them. He also informed the Office that he had found another school for the child, but the parents did not accept the opportunity offered. Concerning the lack of disciplinary proceeding, he explained that the 30-day deadline for starting the disciplinary proceeding was exceeded because of the consultations with the parent. Although unwilling, he informed us that in the meanwhile, he had come to an agreement with the parents and thus, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, the pupil could continue his studies in his institution. As the principal rectified the infringement on his own authority, we closed our inquiry without drawing up an initiative. (K-OJOG-367/2002.)

A mother requested that the Office carry out an inquiry concerning a case involving her child attending secondary school. The complainant explained that, due to the child's problematic behaviour, she was under constant pressure on the part of the school to take the child to another institution. As the parent did not yield to pressure, the school carried out a disciplinary proceeding, which resulted in expulsion from the school as disciplinary sanction. The parent found several aspects of the disciplinary proceeding contrary to the law.

Because the complainant had not appealed against the disciplinary resolution and thus had not used all possibilities of legal remedy available to her, the Office could not investigate the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceeding for lack of competence. In the context of exclusion, however, as was acknowledged by the school's principal, the Office initiated with the head of the institution that he act in accordance with the law in similar cases in the future. In our initiative we reminded the principal that pupils who have committed a disciplinary transgression must be subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, and in the case of other offences, disciplinary actions are to be taken. The principal accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-159/2002.)

The Office was requested to investigate a similar case by another complainant as well. In her statement, the head of the institution concerned informed the Office that she had asked the parent to search for a new school for the child due to the troubled atmosphere in the class. One of the documents made available to us was a letter from the principal to the form master of the pupil concerned, in which the principal asked information concerning how the pupil received information that "he is forced to leave the school for reasons of bad behaviour".

In our letter of response, we informed the principal that, although such advice has no legal force whatsoever, it still has a serious influence on the parents. We also pointed out that by applying this solution, the school channelled the case, which should have been processed in accordance with strict regulations, to a legally not regulated venue. We established that the course of action followed by the school caused an infringement of educational rights. Considering that, in the meantime, the pupil continued his studies in another educational institution and did not wish to restore his pupil status at the school in question, we initiated with the head of the institution that in the future she refrain from exerting pressure on the parents of pupils with problematic behaviour to remove their child to another school. Instead, the parents should be informed of the behaviour of their child and pupils who fail to perform their duty should be disciplined in a manner provided for in the law. We have not yet received a response to our initiative. (K-OJOG-631/2002.)

A parent turned to the Office with the complaint that her autistic child was excluded from a kindergarten maintained by a religious organisation. She explained that the ground for exclusion was the claim of the head of the kindergarten that the child was only admitted to the institution for "probation", and, due to the child's bad behaviour, the kindergarten did not wish to teach the child on a permanent basis. The head of the kindergarten explained that the child of the complainant had had to be repeatedly moved to a different group due to the child's bad behaviour. At the end of the kindergarten year, however, the group which could meet the needs of the child was discontinued, and therefore the kindergarten could not admit the child for the following year.

The possible reasons of discontinuing kindergarten education are listed under Article 74 of the Public Education Act. These do not include the reasons referred to by the head of the kindergarten. Although Section d) of Paragraph (1) of Article 81 of the Act makes it possible for the parties concerned to conclude a written agreement specifying different provisions when the institution is maintained by a body other than the local authority or a public authority, in this case no such agreement was concluded between the parent and the maintaining authority of the institution. As the parties did not put their agreement on admittance for probation in writing, the institution should have followed the provisions of the Public Education Act. As this was not the case, we established that the educational rights of the complainant had been impaired. However, because the parent had already taken the child to another institution, we initiated with the head of the kindergarten that in the future, kindergarten education is only discontinued in accordance with the legal provisions. The head of the institution accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-250/2002.)