Universities

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), who is a solicitor, complained that the University of Glasgow (the University) failed to support or communicate with her client (Ms A) adequately during teacher training placements in secondary schools, did not challenge secondary schools when placements were terminated or find alternative placements quickly enough and, in relation to one specific school placement (Placement 4), her tutor (Academic 1) did not inform Ms A that an informal visit would result in a formal report.  In addition, Ms C claimed that the University should have suggested practical remedies to placement problems that had been identified between the part of the University in which Ms A was studying (the Faculty) and secondary schools.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the alleged failure of the Faculty to support Ms A during her placements (not upheld);
• (b) the alleged failure of the Faculty to challenge schools' behaviour and decisions to terminate Ms A's placements (not upheld);
• (c) the Faculty's actions and communication with Ms A during and after placements were terminated (not upheld);
• (d) the alleged failure of the Faculty to find alternative placements in a timeous manner (not upheld);
• (e) Academic 1's alleged inappropriate recording of a visit to Placement 4 (not upheld); and
• (f) the alleged failure of the University to suggest practical remedies to the problems they appeared to accept there were between the Faculty and the schools upon which the Faculty relied for student experience (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) reflect on this complaint and consider how best to deal with termination of placements. Although it may be a rare occurrence, it is clear that termination of placements is a distressing time for schools, students and Faculty staff; and
• (ii) reflect on this complaint and consider how best to deal with the need to arrange an alternative placement at short notice.

The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way the University of Glasgow (the University) dealt with his appeal, regarding their decision to award him an honours degree in a class lower than he felt he should have received.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the University failed to fully consider his appeal against the degree they awarded him (not upheld); and
• (b) it took the University too long to consider Mr C's appeal (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the delay in reaching a decision regarding his appeal; and
• (ii) advise her on the steps they have taken to ensure that delays in conducting and concluding appeals do not recur.

The University has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised concerns that her personal circumstances were not considered by the University of St Andrews (the University) when they determined her degree classification and that her subsequent appeal was not dealt with in line with the University's appeals procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the University failed to:

• (a) take Miss C's personal circumstances into account when reaching a decision on her degree classification (not upheld); and
• (b) follow their appeals procedure when considering Miss C's appeal (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) remind staff involved in minute-taking at examination board meetings to record the rationale for decisions taken at those meetings;
• (ii) apologise to Miss C for: not fully considering her appeal; the delay in processing her appeal; and failing to provide her with an adequate explanation of the basis on which they took their decision not to uphold her complaint; and
• (iii) reconsider Miss C's appeal, under Section A2.6 of the Code, specifically considering the wider point Miss C made about her honours work more generally having been affected by her mother's illness.

The University are currently considering the recommendations.

Overview

A former student (Ms C) at Langside College (the College) complained about the way she had been removed from a course in social care following issues surrounding her placement.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the College did not respond appropriately to concerns about incidents witnessed while Ms C was on placement and safety issues relating to that placement (not upheld);
• (b) the College were incorrect in refusing to accept an alternative placement that had been arranged by Ms C (not upheld); and
• (c) the College acted disproportionately in removing Ms C from her course on the grounds of contravening College rules about placements (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the College:

• (i) draw up written guidance about work placements for students and staff which clarifies their respective responsibilities, ensures adequate preparation for challenging placements and sets out procedures for addressing issues that arise;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the way in which she was removed from her course; and
• (iii) review their guidance and practice on the removal of students from courses to ensure that it covers situations like Ms C's.

The College have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

A student (Ms C) at Cardonald College (the College) complained about the way the College handled her application to progress from one course to another.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inappropriate questions relating to social skills were asked at Ms C's interview for admission to the Higher National Certificate in Learning and Development (the HNC) course (not upheld);
• (b) the assessment of inter-personal skills for the purpose of admission to the HNC course was not based on clear criteria (not upheld);
• (c) inadequate provision was made for undertaking a unit of the HNC course for someone not in employment (not upheld); and
• (d) a formal complaint was not properly handled: the substantive issue reflected in (a) above was not addressed and there was a potential conflict of interest in relation to the route of appeal offered (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the conduct of his academic appeal.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the University of Glasgow (the University) did not properly process Mr C's academic appeal (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University ensure that proper records are kept of important decisions or exceptional arrangements made in relation to students.

The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that Stow College (the College) failed to record his daughter (Ms A)'s attendance at classes correctly and that as a result she was not paid a bursary.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Ms A's attendance at the College was not correctly recorded (no finding); and
• (b) a bursary award was not paid to Ms A (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the College consider using this case as a starting point to review their procedures for confirming and recording student attendance and enrolment, and on how they communicate with students where there is doubt about their attendance or enrolment status.

The College have accepted the recommendation and, also in line with College practice, have initiated a review.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him by Queen Margaret University College (the University College).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not given specific details, before the Disciplinary Hearing (the Hearing), about the allegations made against him (upheld);
• (b) the evidence used against Mr C during the Hearing was not made available to him before the Hearing (not upheld);
• (c) the University College did not follow proper process in reaching its decision on the allegations against Mr C (upheld);
• (d) false evidence was given at the Hearing (no finding);
• (e) the University College inappropriately required Mr C to provide an Enhanced Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland (upheld);
• (f) Mr C did not have adequate time or resources to prepare for his examinations (not upheld); and
• (g) the University College took unnecessary amounts of time with the proceedings and correspondence relating to the hearings (partially upheld).

Other findings

Allegations against Mr C were upheld and he was expelled from the University College on the basis of flawed proceedings.

Redress and recommendations

The Director of Investigations recommends that the University College:

• (i) take steps to ensure that students accused of misconduct are formally notified of all allegations against them in accordance with their regulations and in sufficient detail to allow them to respond;
• (ii) review the standard of proof required by regulation 6.4 to decide whether it is appropriate for the purpose intended;
• (iii) remind relevant staff of the importance of following processes as laid down in their regulations;
• (iv) take steps to ensure that relevant members of staff are aware of, or have access to advice on, the circumstances in which it is appropriate to request the various types of Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland;
• (v) take steps to keep students adequately informed of the progress of any appeal; and
• (vi) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was of the view that unclear course information from Aberdeen College (the College) regarding eligibility for Individual Learning Account (ILA) funding resulted in her being £58 worse off than other students.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was a lack of clear information from the College about eligibility for ILA funding of a computer course, PC Passport Plus (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

While noting that the College has no role in approving or vetting material produced by partner organisations, the Ombudsman recommends that the College work with partners with a view to ensuring that information about College courses produced by partners is clear and correct at the time of publication.

The College has accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complaint concerned how Dundee College (the College) handled an application for a Higher National Certificate (HNC) course.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the complainant (Ms C) was not satisfied with the reasons given by the College about why her daughter (Ms A)'s application for an HNC course was unsuccessful (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Although the complaint has not been upheld the Ombudsman recommends that the College consider providing a plain English explanation of the difference between National Qualification (NQ) study and its outcomes when compared with HNC or HND (Higher National Diploma) study, i.e. that an NQ is not a named/group award which results in a named qualification certificate.

The College have accepted the recommendation.