Criticism of Tungsta School in Haninge Municipality for its processing of a case involving the suspension of a pupil and requests for access to official documents

Summary of the decision: In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism at a school that sent a pupil home on two occasions without reaching a formal decision concerning suspension. By dealing with the matter in this way, the school neither formally examined whether the criteria for suspension were met nor was any consideration given to the formal requirements, such as that the decision was reached by a competent official and documented. A further consequence was that, in practice, it was not possible to appeal against the decision. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also critical of the fact that, on the two occasions that a formal suspension decision was notified, there was a delay in providing information that the decision could be appealed.

The school is also criticised for deficient and slow processing of the parent/guardian’s request for access to their son’s pupil file and the investigations conducted in connection with the suspension decisions in question. In this regard, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that, among other things, the school did not fully comply with the parent/guardian’s request and should therefore have informed the parent/guardian of the possibility of requesting a review of the decision by the authority, and that a written decision by the authority was necessary in order to lodge an appeal.