El Ararteko recibió una queja de un grupo de padres y madres sobre una práctica de un centro educativo de distribuir al alumnado escolarizado en el modelo D en la etapa de Educación Infantil en función del grado de conocimiento del euskera o de su utilización en el entorno familiar, agrupando en un aula al alumnado cuyos progenitores (o al menos uno de ellos) conocen y utilizan el euskera como lengua materna y, en otra aula distinta, al alumnado cuyos progenitores utilizan el castellano o un idioma extranjero en el ámbito familiar. 

Los promotores de la queja consideraban que esta medida resulta discriminatoria y vulnera el derecho a la igualdad de trato.

El Ararteko solicitó la colaboración del Departamento de Educación del Gobierno Vasco que, en su respuesta, sostiene que la diferencia de trato obedece a la utilización de criterios estrictamente pedagógicos, basados en las características y necesidades del alumnado. 

Sin embargo, las razones aducidas por el Departamento para su justificación resultan, a juicio del Ararteko, insuficientes. 

El argumento de que el alumnado es distribuido en grupos heterogéneos cuando finaliza la etapa de Educación Infantil y comienza a cursar Educación Primaria, sin más razonamiento que la de que esa agrupación es consecuencia de la aplicación del sistema Amara Berri, lleva a preguntarse a esta institución por qué no es posible realizar ese agrupamiento desde la etapa de Educación Infantil, adoptando las medidas precisas para que la enseñanza sea inclusiva y equitativa, y se alcancen los fines a los que responde el sistema educativo vasco. 

Por ello, el Ararteko recomienda al Departamento de Educación del Gobierno Vasco que adopte medidas para que no se produzcan situaciones de discriminación o de desigualdad de trato derivadas de la separación del alumnado en aulas de educación infantil de modelo D por razón del grado de conocimiento del euskera o de su utilización en el entorno familiar, evitando la formación de grupos diferenciados entre el alumnado vascoparlante, por un lado, y el alumnado castellanoparlante o extranjero, por el otro. 

RESOLUCIÓN

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 24 de julio de 2024

1. Petition 17/1364 betr. Bürgerbeteiligung Der Petent begehrt Rechtsänderungen mit dem Ziel, dass die Landräte künftig direkt durch die Kreisbevölkerung gewählt werden und dass Bürgerbegehren und Einwohneranträge auf Landkreisebene möglich werden.

Die Prüfung der Petition ergab Folgendes:

In Baden-Württemberg wird der Landrat durch den Kreistag gewählt (§ 39 der Landkreisordnung – LKrO). Einwohneranträge sowie Bürgerbegehren und Bürgerentscheide wie auf Gemeindeebene (§§ 20b und 21 der Gemeindeordnung) sind in der Landkreisordnung nicht vorgesehen. In den meisten anderen Flächenbundesländern werden die Landräte durch die wahlberechtigten Kreiseinwohner gewählt und es gibt auf Landkreisebene direktdemokratische Instrumente in vergleichbarer Weise wie auf Gemeindeebene.

Während für die Wahl der Volksvertretungen in den Gemeinden und Landkreisen (Gemeinderat, Kreistag) durch das Grundgesetz und die Verfassung des Landes Baden-Württemberg eine unmittelbare Wahl durch die Bevölkerung vorgeschrieben ist, gibt es für die Bestellung der Hauptverwaltungsbeamten (Bürgermeister, Landrat) keine verfassungsrechtlichen Vorgaben. Die Festlegung des Wahlverfahrens für die Wahl des Landrats liegt deshalb im Gestaltungsermessen des Landesgesetzgebers. (...)

In this month’s edition of the Ombudsman’s findings, we discuss kinship care cases.

This month we published decision reports from 11 complaints investigated by the Ombudsman. Nine of these were about health services, one about health and social care and one about local government. The outcome of these 11 complaints were

• Fully upheld: 6
• Some upheld: 2
• Not upheld: 2
• Resolved: 1

We made 29 recommendations. 

Kinship care 

Two of our published complaints this month relate to kinship care. Kinship care is where a child is unable to live with their birth parent(s) and resides instead with a relative, a friend or someone else known to them. 

In one case, our investigation found that a local authority had failed to provide appropriate support to a grandparent after their grandchild came into their care. As well as financial support, local authorities should provide practical advice and support to kinship carers or refer them to other appropriate agencies. 

We asked the local authority in this case to reflect on our findings and the responsibilities of the local authority in supporting kinship carers. 

Not all complaints require a long or detailed investigation. We actively seek opportunities to resolve complaints as it improves customer experience by providing redress more quickly and helps to rebuild relationships with public bodies. 

In another case, a health and social care partnership agreed to review their decision not to backdate kinship care allowance in light of new Scottish Government guidance. 

Following contact from this office, the partnership said they would apologise to the complainant and calculate the allowance due. 

You can find a guide to alternative complaint resolution approaches on the support and guidance section of our website. 

All our published decision reports can be read in full on our website.

People who have been treated poorly by their local council are all too often having their situations made worse when their council delays putting things right.

In its annual review of local government complaints, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman highlights for the first time that more than one in five remedies (20.8%) by councils are being implemented later than agreed.

This means that people, who have already gone through the process of complaining to their local authority, and then to the Ombudsman, are waiting even longer for things to be put right.

Nearly 60% of all authorities against whom a remedy was required have a late compliance registered against them.

The Ombudsman’s report also details how it is now upholding 80% of the investigations it carries out, up from 74% in 2022-23.

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“What we’re seeing in the majority of cases isn’t a lack of care or an inability to take responsibility for what has gone wrong, but a sector struggling to cope.

“Councils want to comply with our recommendations, accept responsibility when things go wrong, and provide good services to residents, and our 99.5% compliance rate indicates this is the case. But all too often resources and finances prevent them from doing so as swiftly as they should.

“However, there are a small number of councils that seem unwilling to respond to our investigations as we expect them to, and we have had to tell those councils that we will issue a witness summons for them to provide information that should otherwise be forthcoming.

“Regardless of the reason for the delays in responding, the impact is the same on the people at the centre of the complaints and councils risk losing the opportunity to restore faith when things have gone wrong.

"I urge those few councils that do not talk to us and engage in the process to get on board to benefit their local residents. The service improvement recommendations we make are practical steps that should be in the gift of local authorities to put in place. If councils are unable to implement them in the timescales we require, they should let us know before they agree to them.”

The highest area of complaint across the Ombudsman’s casework remains complaints about poor services for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. This area now dominates its casework, making up 26% of all complaints the service received in the period and 42% of all upheld complaints. The Ombudsman found fault in 92% of the education cases it investigated and the numbers are increasing rapidly.

Another key area was Adult Social Care Services, which made up 14% of the Ombudsman’s casework; 80% of investigated complaints were upheld.

Complaints about housing and homelessness made up a further 16% of casework, with 84% of investigations upheld – a situation particularly acute in London.

Article date: 24 July 2024

A woman had to be tested for HIV after a doctor performed an intimate exam with a swab that had already been used on another person’s genitals.

England’s Health Ombudsman, who investigated the incident, is urging GPs to be vigilant about ensuring infection prevention and control processes are followed to make sure this does not happen again.

The 40-year-old mother-of-one visited her GP in Batley in December 2022 for a vaginal examination for an existing health condition. After the examination was carried out, she was told that the swab had previously been used on another person.

The woman was then told she was at risk of being infected by blood-borne diseases including HIV and hepatitis. She had to wait three months before she could be tested for HIV and learn that the results were negative.

She complained about the experience to the doctor’s surgery, but after being dissatisfied with their response brought the case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

The woman, who lives near Leeds, said:

 “When I found out the swab had already been used and I would need to have tests for HIV and hepatitis, I was extremely upset and scared. I was shocked and worried about what this might mean for my health.

“It was a grave error, and I still can’t fathom how it happened. I accept that humans make mistakes, but the way the practice dealt with it was appalling. They were apathetic and not understanding of what I had been through.

“The mistake was bad enough in the first place, but the aftercare was worse. That is why I escalated it to the Ombudsman as there was no acknowledgement of the distress I experienced for three months.”

The practice had already apologised to the woman and put steps in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

However, PHSO found that the practice had not done enough to acknowledge its failing and put it right. It recommended that the practice pay the woman £500 in recognition of the distress caused. It has complied.

Ombudsman Rebecca Hilsenrath said:

 “We all know that mistakes happen. There is always the possibility for human error in any profession. Fortunately, in this instance this serious mistake had no medical repercussions.

“The focus of our investigation was the impact on the patient. For three months, she had to live with the uncertainty of whether she could be suffering from a serious disease, with all the implications that entailed for her own life and that of her child. This was not addressed by the practice and needed to be put right. The practice has now acknowledged its failings and taken steps to make sure the same mistake doesn’t happen again. This shows the power of complaining in bringing resolution to issues like this.”