EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE - ERO
By the 4 March 2015 ourselves, Ruru, and the Ministry of Education had all received the Terri Johnstone Investigation Report.
Between 9 and 12 March 2015, a month after Ministry of Education Investigator Terri Johnstone’s visit, the Education Review Office (ERO) commenced its scheduled review of Ruru School.
Prior to the visit and before Ms Johnstone had completed her report, ERO’s Review Services Manager had received two emails from the Ministry. The first indicated that the Ministry had no concerns in respect of Ruru. The second referred to Ms Johnstone investigating on behalf of the Ministry. The second email was overlooked and not passed on to the review team.
The ERO review team was not provided with a copy of the Johnstone Report, either by the School Board or MOE, during its review or when drafting its review report for the school. However, Victoria as parent / Board of Trustee had written to ERO reviewer Russell Wallace on 11 March 2015 during ERO’s review, advising him of the serious complaints and that the Ministry had recently conducted an investigation at Ruru.
In this case, ERO was alerted on two occasions to an investigation by the Ministry – once by the Ministry itself and once by Mrs Turnbull.
my husband and I withdrew our son from Ruru Specialist School as we felt he was at serious risk.
The MOE have recently conducted an investigation into:
- The BOT handling of complaint and correspondence from parents
- Ruru Schools use of a withdrawal space, specific to son, and it’s lawfulness
- Policies and Procedures for the use of the space in the school
V Turnbull writes email to Russell Wallace ERO during 2015 Ruru Specialist School ERO Review – 11 March 2015
When we are reviewing a school we take into account any current issue and we have done so in this case.
We wish you well as you seek a resolution to the current issue.
On 26 March 2015, ERO’s draft review report (known as the Unconfirmed Report) was emailed to Ruru for comment.
the process is intended for any errors or omissions to be addressed before the review report is confirmed
On 31 March 2015, the Board Chair advised ERO that no changes were requested. The same day, the Ministry informed ERO’s Deputy Review Officer for Southern region about Ms Jonstone’s report and recommendations.
ERO did not learn about the outcome of Ms Johnstone’s investigation until 31 March 2015, with a copy of her report received just over a week later.
Even though the (Ministry) report was released on 4 March 2015, ERO did not receive a copy until 8 April 2015.
Around this time, Principal Erin Cairns sent Murray Roberts, Southern Region Manager Special Education, a letter with the Unconfirmed ERO Report attached. Included, was the Board of Trustees comments to the MoE about the Report written by Terri Johnstone. The Board had used the 2015 Unconfirmed ERO Report to reject findings in the Ministry of Education Investigation Report.
BoT 67 - ERO visit 2015 discussion while viewing the safe area “carpeted and soft floor and walls, natural lighting, well ventilated, not to big so students won’t run and hurt themselves, handles both sides and no locks, ticks all boxes.” ERO was given a copy of all our procedures.
BoT 69 - ERO have viewed the safe area as part of their reviews since it was built.
We do wish Terri had sent us the report in draft as promised so that corrections could have been made before circulation.
While the Board is entitled to complete a ‘Response to Unconfirmed Education Review Report’ by 20 April 2015, it is unlikely that any correction will be sought – as they’re delighted with the report and, in particular, the confidence shown by the 4-5 year review expectation.
we thought it may assist in reassuring your client notwithstanding their perception of their experience
we thought it may assist in reassuring your client notwithstanding their perception of their experience
It is noted on Police records that Murray Roberts emailed a copy of the Ministry of Education Investigation Report written by Terri Johnstone to Police on 20 April 2015.
At a meeting with Ministry of Education representatives on 28 April 2015, we informed Murray Roberts we had been sent the Unconfirmed ERO Report. Ministry officials were shocked and concerned we had been sent a copy of the Unconfirmed ERO Report, as the report was meant to be confidential until confirmed. We asked the representatives why they thought it differed so much from the MoE investigation Report. They reaffirmed the Unconfirmed ERO Report was not finalised, and it seemed to be the part of our meeting that concerned the MoE representatives the most.
We concluded, it would not look good for either MoE or ERO that their reports differed so much. We considered they now might have to change the ERO report to align more consistently with the MoE report, which would take credibility away from ERO as an independent body.
I understand that your board had the independent report prior to ERO’s review of the school. This report was not made available during the ERO review or at the time of ERO’s unconfirmed report being sent to you for comments.
In the circumstances, I need to reconsider the findings in ERO’s unconfirmed report, specifically in relation to the provision of a safe physical and emotional environment to students in terms National Administration Guidelines 5(a,) and the next return time to the school.
Serious questions I have are: Did the school deliberately withhold the Investigation Report
In answer to your questions:
You should ask the Board whether the school deliberately withheld the independent report from ERO
In reply to your questions about the Board’s response to the MOE report:
It is unlikely that ERO would have said it ‘ticks all boxes’. This is the Board’s interpretation of what they thought ERO said. ERO was given a copy of procedures.
The unconfirmed report is still ERO’s draft report and subsequent changes in circumstances may lead to changes to the report before being confirmed and a review taking place earlier than indicated.
On 15 July 2015 I went into Invercargill City Council and was given access to the Ruru School file. The council file plans show the room was consented and built in 1999 as a “small storeroom”. It was not a purpose built time/out room as stated by the school to the MoE, and reported by the investigator.
ERO has made it clear that it is not investigating this matter as this has been done by the Ministry of Education. Furthermore, as it is a property issue it should be raised with the Ministry.
On 3 August 2015, ERO advised that the report from the review carried out in March would be set aside, and a further review carried out in 2016.
ABUSE IN STATE CARE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY STATE INSTITUIONAL RESPONSE HEARING ON 19 AUGUST 2022
ERO Chief Review Officer Nicolas Pole and Representative Jane Lee gave sworn evidence at the Hearing
We were advised by Police in December 2015 our IPCA complaint was upheld in relation to the failure of the Police to investigate the use of the seclusion room at Ruru Specialist School. lt was noted that the IPCA had consulted with the Ministry of Education and an investigation needs to take place. An investigation into this aspect of the complaint was recommended.
On the 23 January 2016, The Southland Times ran a front page story ‘Safe room’ at school investigated
A police spokesperson on Thursday confirmed they were investigating a complaint about the use of a “seclusion room” at the school but were unable to comment further.
The board believed the matter was closed, but would co-operate fully with any further investigations, Clutterbuck said.
On 22 March 2016 Detective Sergeant Greg Baird contacts Ruru Specialist School Principal Erin Cairns and advised her of the Police investigation.
In December 2015, after an IPCA Investigation into the Police handling of our complaint, we received confirmation that an investigation into the use of the seclusion room is pending.
Police are currently investigating the School
It is extremely concerning to us that the 2016 ERO Review of Ruru Specialist School makes no reference to the ongoing Police Investigation into the use of the seclusion room at the school, which includes allegations of mistreatment of students by staff and management.
Under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) please formally advise us:
Did ERO question Ruru Specialist School Board of Trustees why they withheld the Investigation Report commissioned by the Ministry of Education in 2015 during the 2015 review of the School? If so, what was the Board of Trustees response to this question? If not, why was this question never asked?
This question was addressed by Graham Randell in his email to you of 7 July 2015. At the time of the 2015 ERO review, since set aside, ERO was not aware of the report commissioned by the Ministry of Education. In his letter, Graham invited you to ask this question of the Board. The Board’s response to the 2016 ERO team was that the school had just received the Ministry report and wanted time to consider its contents.
ERO undertook its scheduled review of Ruru, with a site visit from 9 to 12 March 2015.
In the course of the site visit, Ruru advised the review team of the complaint and showed them Room A. ERO states that the review team was led to believe that there was an ongoing investigation
It is clear ERO failed to recognise or report the harmful environment, risking child safety and wellbeing.
Education Minister Hekia Parata says she is against the use of "timeout" rooms in schools, calling them "absolutely intolerable". Her comments come after reports of an 11-year-old autistic boy being locked in a small, dark room at another Wellington primary, Miramar Central School. "I'm absolutely horrified," Parata said on Thursday night.
Shortly after the October 2016 interview with John Campbell, in November 2016, Iona Holsted was appointed Secretary for Education at the Ministry of Education
ERO transferred part of the OIA request to the Ministry of Education for response.
How many schools operate a seclusion room? – Please provide ratio How many Special Needs/Specialist Schools operate a seclusion room?
ERO was not aware that the Police were carrying out an investigation of the school in relation to a complaint from parents of a child who was at the school
We are seeking your confirmation
1. The date the Police opened its investigation into the parental complaint a Ruru Special School
It was subsequently assigned to me for reinvestigation on 6 May 2016
Detective Sergeant Brian Cameron did not advise the ERO Solicitor that the investigation was originally assigned to Detective Sergeant Greg Baird, but due to conflict of interest, it was then reassigned.
You mention in your letter that ‘it is extremely concerning that the 2016 ERO report makes no mention of the Police investigation. The Police have informed ERO that no investigation was underway at the time of the April 2016 review and, while it has since been reactivated, the investigation is into historic issues.
ERO did not view/inspect the “seclusion room” in 2002, 2006 and 2009
Please accept this as a formal request to stand down Ruru Specialist School Principal Erin Cairns, and Ruru Specialist School Board of Trustees, for lying to the Ministry of Education and parents
We specifically refer to Comment [BOT 69] ERO have viewed the safe area as part of their reviews since it was built.
We make particular reference to the response under Official Information Act request: ERO responded - ERO did not view/inspect the ‘seclusion room’ in 2002, 2006, and 2009
Ms Cairns declines to be interviewed by you
Julie Anderson Director of Education Otago/Southland responded to our letter to stand down the Principal and Board on 2 November 2016, the day after Principal Cairns declines to be interviewed by investigating Police.
This time, the Otago/Southland Director of Education Julie Anderson quotes the 2016 ERO Review Report to affirm the MoE position. Once again, as with the 2015 Unconfirmed ERO Review, the 2016 ERO Report was flawed due to non-disclosure by Ruru Specialist School Board of Trustees.
The Ministry worked with the Board of Trustee to address the recommendations contained in the report.
The Ministry has confidence in the Board
It is our understanding that the Board has the confidence of its parent community
We were pleased to see that the Ministry of Education has today released updated guidelines to schools on behaviour management. What’s heartening for us is that Ruru’s policies and procedures to ensure the safety of our students and staff were entirely in accordance with the old and new guidelines
Timeout rooms should not be used. They are not necessary and can result in teachers and schools being accused of using inhumane and cruel punishments.
Any schools secluding students should stop this practice immediately. Any instance of seclusion must be reported to the Board of Trustees and to the local Ministry of Education office.
The Principal continues to mislead and influence parents and community.
we received confirmation from Detective Sergeant Brian Cameron that Principal, as with other staff has declined to be interviewed by Police. How can the Ministry of Education have confidence in the Board when management and staff at the school are refusing to talk to police regarding mass allegation of unlawful detainment and assault of students?
The stance that the teachers and principal have taken is ethically questionable, and once again highlights that vulnerable children and young people remain at risk.
The Ministry is not in a position to stand down the Principal of the school. Such an action is covered by employment law and the Board of Trustees is responsible for the employment of the school principal and is the only party that can put in place that action. The Ministry does not have a role in approving correspondence or newsletters between schools and their parent community.
I am of the view that the school is following due process and has assisted the Police with its inquiry.
I am instructed by Erin Cairns that she has contacted all relevant staff and BOT members as per your request below. In relation to present staff, the people spoken to were current staff employed prior to December 2014. With respect to Board members, Erin has spoken to current Board members who were on the Board prior to December 2014. None of the people spoken to wish to be interviewed by the Police.
Peter Boshier released his Chief Ombudsman Opinion on the 7 November 2017.
I have found no evidence of unlawful actions (under the legislation at the time) by any party, or that ERO acted unreasonably
On 16 January 2019, we met with Ministry management. During this meeting we discussed the 2016 ERO review of Ruru with Ministry the heads.
ERO certainly did know there was an investigation going on.
At the time, this information was new to us and different to what we had been previously advised by ERO, so we made further enquiries.
Pursuant to the Official Information Act please advise when Erin Cairns/Ruru School were first notified/formally or informally advised by DS Greg Baird that a Police Investigation was going to be conducted/was pending.
Detective Sergeant Baird first contacted Erin Cairns on the 22nd March 2016 and advised her of the inquiry.
ERO was not notified of the police investigation by Ruru Special School Board of Trustees or the Ministry of Education
On the 8 March 2019 we made a formal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman, against Ruru Specialist School Board of Trustees and Ministry of Education for failing to inform or notify ERO that Police had commenced at the school, during 2016 ERO review.
As with the 2015 ERO review, Ruru once again failed the high-trust model, and withheld important information directly relating to child safety, welfare and wellbeing. Once again, the Ministry of Education did not effectively communicate with ERO in advance of, or during the ERO review process.
Lasting change will only come if people are held accountable for wrongdoing. ln this case Ruru nearly got away with dishonesty during the 2015 ERO review, and when given a second chance in 2016, they took the same dishonest path. This time they successfully managed to deceive and delude everyone, within a system that allows for this. This system enables and protects people in power and protects reputations and careers over the safety, wellbeing and care of children. The outcome we are seeking is accountability for dishonesty and cover-ups by Ruru and agencies. We would like the 2016 ERO Review Report of Ruru Specialist School withdrawn.
Having considered your concerns, I do not consider further investigation is warranted.
I have noted your comments about the outcomes you are seeking. It seems to me that your decision to pursue these matters may, to some extent at least, be motivated by the wish you expressed when we met in 2017 for certain staff to be held to account to the point that they lose their jobs. As I explained at the time, an investigation by me will not achieve that outcome.
In August 2019 we wrote a reply to Julie Burford Acting Deputy Chief Executive Corporate Services ERO.
His response states when he was assigned the reinvestigation. However, his reply fails to inform ERO that Police first assigned Detective Sergeant Greg Baird to investigate in early 2016.
We refer to ERO Findings and Conclusion in the 2016 ERO Report: The school’s vision and values are highly evident. We refer to Ruru Specialist School Values: - integrity through honesty, reliability, responsibility, accountability, and fairness. On the basis ERO Findings and Conclusion in the 2016 ERO Review Report of Ruru Specialist School are inaccurate, we request the ERO Report be withdrawn. His response states when he was assigned the reinvestigation. However, his reply fails to inform ERO that Police first assigned Detective Sergeant Greg Baird to investigate in early 2016.
I refer you to my letter of 10 October 2016, copy attached, and my comments in that letter apply to your request. I am therefore unable to agree to your request.
Did you not read our letter and Police OIA attachment Mr France?
Parents all over NZ rely on ERO review reports, when considering schooling options for their child, as we did. You have also set a dangerous precedent by continuing to accept dishonesty and non-disclosure from Ruru. In our view you have totally disregarded children, young people and families.
I am unable to agree to your request to withdraw the 2016 ERO report for Ruru Specialist School. I have copied this letter and attached a copy of your letters of 18 September 2019 and 21 August 2019 to the principal of Ruru Specialist School so that she is aware of the background to your request.
Instead of seeking a response or explanation from Ruru Principal Erin Cairns and the Ruru School Board of Trustees as to why they were again, not honest or up-front, Mr France rejects our complaint without reason. Furthermore, he has shared our complaint letters and supporting information with Ruru Principal Erin Cairns. We find this totally unacceptable and a breach of our privacy. Mr France rejected our complaint and did not agree to our request, therefore there was no necessity to provide Erin Cairns the background to our request.
Hon Nikki Kaye National Party Spokesperson for Education reached out to us after we brought the issue to her attention, by copying her into our complaint letter to Nicolas Pole. Hon Nikki Kaye writes to Chris Hipkins, Minister of Education.
I have decided to bring forward the next ERO review of Ruru Specialist School.
Your decision to bring forward the next ERO review of Ruru Specialist School is of no comfort or relief to us, as ERO is accepting of the schools’ omissions, and dismissive of their deceit. Ruru Specialist School know this is the case because Mr France shared information with Erin Cairns. History will simply keep repeating.
It is my judgement that the matters you have raised have been given sufficient consideration.
At the ABUSE IN STATE CARE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY STATE INSTITUIONAL RESPONSE HEARING ON 19 AUGUST 2022, ERO Chief Review Officer Nicolas Pole and Representative Jane Lee gave sworn evidence at the Hearing.
MS SHARKEY: Right, so there weren’t discussions about information that was held to be incorrect and a request for you to amend it or withdraw it?
MS SHARKEY: But was it the family that were not happy about how – with the ERO report or the exclusion or omission in relation to seclusion?
It was disappointing to listen to Ms Lee give sworn evidence that was false.
There was no mention, in the 2016 ERO Report, that there had been an investigation around seclusion. Just like there was, no mention of the Ruru School Allegations of Physical and Emotional Abuse investigation that was being conducted by Police, at the time Jane Lee and her ERO team reviewed the school in 2016.
This was ERO’s “acknowledgment” in the August 2016 ERO Report:
In 2014 [the Ministry] commissioned a report in relation to how well the school was providing a safe emotional and physical environment for students.
It was disappointing to hear ERO CEO Nicolas Pole discuss our longstanding complaints against ERO and Ruru Specialist School this way, as he had in-depth knowledge of them, through our formal complaints with evidence.
Mr Pole made reference to the Chief Ombudsman Opinion in the discussion. We had raised concerns with Chief Ombudsman Judge Boshier, about his investigation in 2017.
ERO advised that its reviews are about best practice, guidelines, policy and procedures and practises and advised that there were no established best practice guidelines for the use of seclusion at the time of the 2015 review. However, there was the 1998 Guidelines, Sand after viewing Room A, should have reported their findings, especially as Victoria’s letter went on to say:
I believe information is often withheld, and presented to the BOT in a misleading way by Principal and Board Chairperson. The BOT never have robust discussions around decision making, and in fact, as a group rarely make decisions.
The Office of the Ombudsman investigation did not consider the extent of the practice, instead the investigation was narrowed to our son and the snapshot of time that he attended the school, limiting the use of potential witnesses or relevant information.
You explained in your letter 25 May 2017 your reason for not investigating the seclusion of other students at Ruru, was no other parent or guardian had complained in respect of any other individual children attending Ruru. However, following further investigation, and forming the provisional opinion set out (5. A. i. ii.) it would be reasonable to consider this may be why no other complaints have been received.
We listened to Principal Erin Cairns confirm that she did not show us Room A. so would be reasonable to expect that Room A was not shown to other parents.
5. While I have found no evidence of unlawful actions (under the legislation at the time) by any party, or that ERO acted unreasonably, I have formed the opinion that: a. Ruru acted unreasonably in using its ‘safe area’ to manage N’s behaviour. In particular: i. it failed to consult with Mr and Mrs M about the proposed use of the room or inform them about its actual use; ii. it failed to clearly and accurately record transportation to, and use of, the room;
In my opinion, a significant factor in the Board’s handling of the complaints was the minimisation of the seriousness of the two allegations that the parent raised at the end of the meeting. The comments in the Board minutes appear scant and dismissive. Allegations which relate to potential abuse warrant robust discussion.
The scant discussion led me to wonder if all Board members had in fact seen the safe room.
In relation to the second incident which concerns an allegation of squirting of water, I would also expect to see evidence of robust discussion in BoT minutes.
Rather, the Board fell short of their obligations.
Any issue relating to student safety and well-being are very serious. For this reason, I believe the Board have potentially failed the school community.
