One-to-One LSE supported student denied access to catch-up classes

One-to-One LSE supported student denied access to catch-up classes

Published August 13, 2025

The Complaint

On 15 July 2025, the mother of a young boy who receives one-to-one Learning Support Educator (LSE) assistance during the scholastic year lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The complainant explained that in March she had applied for her son to attend summer catch-up classes in Rabat, Gozo, following a call for applications. Her application was acknowledged, and she was even sent a link to attend an online meeting for parents scheduled for 7 July 2025. To facilitate the transition, she transferred her son from his local SkolaSajf to the Rabat summer school.

However, during the online meeting, she learned for the first time that students with one-to-one LSE support – but not those with shared LSE support – were automatically excluded from the catch-up programme. The complainant, herself a warranted teacher, offered to forego her son’s LSE support for the purposes of the classes, believing he could follow the programme independently. The education authorities nonetheless insisted that he was ineligible.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education, Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, reviewed all available evidence, including the call for applications, correspondence between the complainant and the authorities, and the formal reply from the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation (MEYR).

The investigation found:

• The education authorities applied a blanket prohibition excluding all one-to-one LSE supported students from attending the catch-up classes, without carrying out any individualised assessment of the complainant’s son’s suitability.
• Having received the boy’s details in March, there was ample time to assess his case individually, yet no such evaluation appears to have been undertaken or communicated.
• The evidence  confirmed reliance on long-standing eligibility criteria, but there was no evidence to show that the complainant’s son’s specific circumstances were considered.
• The reasoning given – that the catch-up programme’s pace and intensity may not suit such students – was generic and unsupported by any personalised review of the child’s needs.

The Commissioner concluded that this predetermined approach was wrong in principle under Article 22(1)(d) of the Ombudsman Act, as it contradicted inclusive education commitments, and amounted to maladministration under Article 22(2), given the lack of valid and cogent reasons provided to the complainant.

Conclusion

The Commissioner found the complaint to be fully justified and sustained it.

The case highlights the importance of assessing each student’s circumstances on their own merits, rather than relying on blanket exclusions that undermine inclusive education principles.

While no specific recommendations were made – as the maladministration was evident – the findings serve as a clear reminder to education authorities that discretionary powers must be exercised with fairness, transparency, and due regard to individual needs.

The final opinion is being published in accordance with Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act.