This is the fourth and final part in a series of articles on complaints handling, what it involves and why schools need to implement effective complaints handling processes. The articles are based on a paper entitled ‘Managing Complaints - Walking the Tightrope between Ignorance and Knowledge’ presented by CompliSpace Managing Director James Field at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association (ANZELA) Conference in Adelaide on 2 October 2014. The paper is available in full here.

Record keeping

Records should be kept of every complaint including records of the description of the complaint, supporting documents if any, immediate action taken, records relating to the investigation including witness statements if any etc.

Complaints register

All complaints should be recorded on a complaints register, classified and analysed to identify systemic, recurring and single incident problems and trends in order to identify key risk areas and help eliminate the underlying causes of complaints through corrective actions.

Management reporting

A school’s board of governors and senior management team should receive regular reports with respect to the status of existing complaints, any underlying statistical trends, as well as information with respect to corrective actions that have been put in place.

Continual improvement

ISO 10002-2014 (the ‘Complaints Handling Standard’, ‘the Standard’ or ‘ISO 10002’) requires regular review and continual improvement of a school’s complaints handling process.

Legal Framework for Complaints Handling in Australia Schools

The legal framework for complaints handling in Australian schools is characterised by an inconsistent patch-work of laws and regulations, departmental directives and non-government school registration standards. See the executive summary of the legal obligations of Australian schools to manage complaints set out in Schedule 1 of the paper, together with a gap analysis of these obligations against the Australian Complaints Handling Standard.

Notable findings from this gap analysis include:

Referencing the Standard

• The Standard has been referenced in development of the obligations of government schools in NT, Qld, WA and SA.
• The systems developed for government schools in the ACT, NSW, Vic and Tas do not reference the Standard.
• The Standard is not referenced for any Australian non-government schools registration standards.

The requirement for schools to have complaints policies and procedures

• Whilst all jurisdictions, at least by implication, expect schools to handle complaints, not all jurisdictions actually require schools to document and effectively implement a complaints handling policy and procedure.
• Government schools in the ACT, NSW and Tas as well as non-government schools in SA and Qld have no specific obligation to implement a complaints handling policy and procedures.
• Whilst there is a clear requirement for non-government schools in NSW, ACT, NT, Vic to have a complaints handling policy, no real explanation or guidance is provided as to what this actually means in practice.
• This leaves government schools in NT, Qld, SA, Vic and WA and non-government schools in WA as the only jurisdictions where clear guidance on expectations with respect to complaints handling is provided.

Definition of the term “complaint”

• Given the importance of clearly defining the meaning of the term “complaint” it is notable that only government schools in NT, Qld, SA, Vic and WA clearly fulfill this requirement.
• The term “complaint” is not defined for any non-government schools.

Scope of complaints policy

• In most jurisdictions that require complaints handling policies the scope of these policies clearly extends beyond parental complaints to other key stakeholders (including members of local communities).
• In some jurisdictions however (e.g. SA) the requirement to manage complaints is limited to parental complaints.
• The NSW government schools policy requires special mention here as it is the only jurisdiction in Australia that makes the mistake of trying to develop a policy and procedure that attempts to deal simultaneously (in one policy) with internal staff grievances as well complaints received from external parties such as parents.

Application of ancillary laws

• It is notable that notwithstanding the obligations that exist for schools under the relevant state and territory regimes, schools may well also need to comply with other legislation that creates a positive obligation on them to implement complaints handling policies and procedures.
• Key ancillary legislation that creates positive complaints handling requirements include laws relating to privacy, early childhood education and after-school care, international students, vocational education training and human rights.

Summary and Conclusion

There can be little argument that the proactive management of complaints in schools has considerable benefits. Common sense dictates this. There are not too many schools that, given the chance, would not want to control the agenda when dealing with problems and issues raised by members of their communities.

There can also be little doubt, especially in this “social media” age, that the risk of failing to manage complaints effectively has the potential to create adverse consequences for a school that in all likelihood will lead to reputational damage.

So why is it that schools are not managing complaints effectively?

One of the reasons often cited by schools is that they would be overrun with complaints from pushy Type-A parents and they can’t afford to allocate resources to this process. Unfortunately this amounts to letting pushy Type-A parents control the agenda whilst the legitimate feedback of other parents that really does reflect on a school's standard of services is not captured effectively.

The irony is that a properly designed complaints system will enable a school to identify and effectively manage frivolous and vexatious complainants. This was illustrated by the following story.  At a school with Junior, Middle and Senior school campuses, the various heads of school only became aware by chance conversation that they were all receiving volumes of complaints from the same parent (with three children at the school, all in different years). On further (co-ordinated) investigation the source of the parent’s issues were traced back to a recent separation and managed with appropriate sensitivity.

This series of articles contends that the real reason that many schools don’t manage complaints effectively is that they don’t understand the benefits that they would gain from effective complaints management and they don’t understand how to implement an effective complaints handling process.

The lack of regulatory direction and guidance is partially to blame for the current state of affairs. Requiring a school to “implement a complaints handling policy” with no further guidance, or education, is not likely to achieve the desired result. Even where regulators have published detailed guidelines, they provide schools with little or no practical assistance. Ultimately it is up to each school, individually, to work out what to do.

Now here’s a radical idea. Every school in Australia has more or less the same issue. A complaints handling program designed to be implemented in one school would, in all likelihood, (99%) fit another school. Rather than have regulators produce lots of bulky guidance documents that are difficult to read and impossible to implement, why not produce a “complaint handling pack (kit, module etc)” that is designed to be implemented at a local school level?

What would you need?

• a documented complaints handling program (policies and procedures);
  
• video training for staff;
• summary complaints handling guidelines;
• “complaints officers” to ensure consistent delivery of key educational outcomes; and
• a software system designed to capture complaints and track actions and outcomes.

Properly designed such a system would not only facilitate the proper management of complaints at a local school level but also it would allow regulators to benchmark performance between schools and identify key risks before they become substantial issues.