Recommendations not implemented: Parents at San Miguel Resource Centre denied representation at meeting with education authorities

Recommendations not implemented: Parents at San Miguel Resource Centre denied representation at meeting with education authorities

Published December 18, 2025

The complaint

A group of six parents whose children attend the San Miguel Resource Centre lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman after encountering difficulties with the education authorities.

When these parents requested a meeting with the Director General for Educational Services, originally scheduled for 25 November 2025, they asked to be accompanied by two representatives of their choice, A.B. and C.B. These two individuals – husband and wife – had previously supported parents in similar matters and possessed extensive experience related to the education of children with special needs, having previously had a child attending a resource centre. The Director General refused the participation of couple A.B. and C.B., and when the parents insisted, the meeting was cancelled.

This complaint (together with a secondary complaint about the unavailability of a basic school time-table) was formally communicated to the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry responsible for Education in terms of Article 18(1) of the Ombudsman Act on 31 October 2025. No comments from the Office of the Permanent Secretary were received by the requested deadline.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education found that education, especially concerning minors of compulsory school age, requires cooperation and open communication between parents and the education authorities. The Education Act (Cap. 605) establishes the right of parents to be fully informed about their child’s education and to express their views effectively. This includes the right to appoint persons of their choice to represent them in discussions with the authorities.

Restricting parents from being represented, particularly by individuals with relevant experience, was both unreasonable and administratively oppressive. The Commissioner also noted that representation is an important adjunct to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Parents cannot be compelled to rely solely on bodies such as the CRPD or the MFOPD for representation.

On the secondary issue of the time-table, the Commissioner examined the Head of School’s justifications for withholding the timetable. While acknowledging the complexities of running a specialised school where flexibility is sometimes required, the Commissioner found no acceptable reason why a basic timetable could not be provided for full-time students.

The Commissioner stressed that denying a timetable undermines the parents’ ability to understand and support their child’s educational programme. Administrative inconvenience cannot be used as a blanket justification for withholding essential information.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that both elements of the complaint were justified.

The refusal to allow the parents’ chosen representatives to attend the meeting with the Director General was deemed unreasonable, unjust, in breach of the law, and wrong in principle under Article 22(1) of the Ombudsman Act. The refusal to provide a basic timetable was likewise unreasonable.

The Commissioner recommended that:

1. The representatives A.B. and C.B. be allowed to attend and advocate for the parents at the rescheduled meeting on 2 December 2025.
2. The parents be provided, without further delay, with a basic timetable setting out their children’s activities at the resource centre.

Outcome

On 13 November 2025, the Ministry for Education, through the Internal Audit and Compliance Office, informed the Commissioner that it did not intend to accept the recommendation related to parental representation. The Ministry presented several arguments concerning school operations and raised concerns about the individuals whom the parents had chosen as representatives.

On 25 November 2025, the Commissioner and the Ombudsman formally notified the Prime Minister of the Ministry’s refusal, invoking Articles 17C(1) and 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act. The Commissioner expressed hope for a resolution without the need for further escalation.

Since no action was taken, on 5 December 2025, the Commissioner and the Ombudsman forwarded the report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for tabling, in line with the Ombudsman Act.