Recommendations not implemented: Lack of engagement between Education Authorities and UPE leaves statemented child without LSE support

Recommendations not implemented: Lack of engagement between Education Authorities and UPE leaves statemented child without LSE support

Published October 22, 2025

The Complaint

A mother of a seven-year-old student with a statement of needs lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman after her son, who was assigned a one-to-one Learning Support Educator (LSE) at Sliema Primary School, had to remain at home for a not insubstantial period of time. This occurred after the assigned LSE went on long-term sick leave, and the Education Authorities were unable to find a replacement due to directives issued by the Union of Professional Educators (UPE).

While the complainant expressed her appreciation for the school and staff, she maintained that her son was deprived of his right to education and continuity of learning because of administrative inaction in resolving the ongoing dispute between the Education Authorities and the UPE.

The Investigation

The Commissioner for Education noted that this was not an isolated complaint. Similar cases had reached the Ombudsman’s Office, and there was also an ongoing own-initiative investigation concerning LSE waiting lists and the statementing process. The investigation focused on whether the Education Authorities were doing everything possible to resolve the industrial dispute that prevented the temporary replacement of absent LSEs.

It was established that the UPE had issued several directives beginning January 2024, restricting the reassignment of LSEs to cover colleagues on sick leave. The Education Authorities argued that the directives were unreasonable and disproportionate, and claimed that they had made efforts to address the issue. However, correspondence between the parties revealed entrenched positions, limited dialogue, and little progress toward resolution.

The Commissioner observed that while the UPE’s actions were beyond his investigative remit, the Education Authorities had an overriding duty to protect the interests of students. The investigation also found that, despite ongoing communication, there had been no direct face-to-face meeting between the Ministry for Education and the UPE since May 2024, reflecting a lack of genuine engagement to resolve the matter.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that the Education Authorities’ failure to take all reasonable measures to ensure that affected students received the necessary support constituted an omission that was “wrong in principle” under Article 22(1)(d) of the Ombudsman Act and a censurable omission under Article 22(2).

The Commissioner for Education recommended that the Education Authorities invite the UPE to engage in direct discussions without preconditions to address the ongoing industrial directives affecting students with special educational needs. The Office of the Ombudsman also offered to facilitate such meetings.

Outcome

Since the Final Opinion was sent to the Ministry for Education on 17 September 2025, no reply or feedback was received on the implementation of the recommendations. Consequently, on 2 October 2025, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Education referred the case to the Prime Minister, in accordance with Articles 17C(1) and 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act.

As no action appears to have been taken, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner subsequently forwarded the report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 17 October 2025 under Article 22(4) for consideration by the House.