It caused a grave impropriety with regard to the right to education, what is more, it is non-compliant with the principle of the child’s best interest procedure either that the management of the school in Szellő utca, Budapest, did not ensure the special treatment defined in the respective expert opinion, which would have supported the child’s education adjusted to his condition, for a complainant’s special needs child, as was established by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, Dr Ákos Kozma. Among others, he proposed to the head of the North Budapest Education District that the parent’s complaint regarding the measure taken by the school management be assessed according to the relevant laws in the future and that they fully cooperate with the Ombudsman’s inquiries, furthermore, that they ensure the creation of the conditions necessary for the education of the complainant’s child, and those necessary for the fulfilment of the recommendations specified in the expert opinion of the expert committee.

A mother turned to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights because in her opinion, her child is excluded from the classroom, his development classes are not held, and the augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) environment is not ensured for him, either. 

In his report on Case No. AJB-550/2020, Dr Ákos Kozma emphasised that regarding the education of special needs students, it is stipulated as a guarantee by the Public Education Act that these students are entitled to receive pedagogical, special needs and conductive education services adjusted to their condition as part of special treatment, from the moment that their eligibility has been established. It is a fundamental guarantee that the services that are part of the above-mentioned special treatment should always be provided as specified in the expert opinion of the expert committee. According to the explored facts, the expert committee proposed education according to the normal educational schedule for the student. The director of the education district did not dispute the parent’s statement, according to which the school does not teach the child according to the adapted requirements of the majority frame curriculum. With regard to all this, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights concluded that this situation may in itself be sufficient to cause an impropriety with regard to the student’s right to education. Beyond this, it could not be clearly established on the basis of the contradictions between the response of the education district and the statement made by the parent in what form and in how many hours the student was provided with the further development services that had been recommended for him.

It was established by the Ombudsman that the school had failed to provide the kind of special treatment for the complainant’s special needs child that had been recommended by the expert opinion and that would have supported the child’s education services adjusted to his condition. The lasting occurrence of all these malpractices for several academic years, in relation to the violation of the right to legal certainty, hampered the child’s access to education adjusted to his condition, which caused a grave impropriety with regard to the right to education, furthermore, it is not compliant with the principle of the child’s best interest procedure, either.

Dr Ákos Kozma proposed to the head of the North Budapest Education District that the parent’s request containing the complaint regarding the measure taken by the school management be assessed according to the relevant laws in the future and that they fully cooperate with the Ombudsman’s inquiries, with special regard to responding to the inquiries in due time and properly. Furthermore, he also proposed that the education district ensure the creation of the conditions necessary for the education of the complainant’s child for the school in Szellő utca, Budapest, as necessary for the fulfilment of the recommendations specified in the expert opinion of the expert committee. Also, he advised the headmaster of the school that they teach the child according to the adapted requirements of the majority frame curriculum, that they hold all the development classes specified in the expert opinion, for the areas of development and in the number of hours defined therein, and that they refrain from acting against the children of those parents who express public criticism.

 

For the report, please click on the following link: AJB-550/2020.