Schools complaints: 3 case study lessons for school leaders

The volume of complaints in schools has surged, escalation is happening more rapidly and the use of AI in parental correspondence has become increasingly prevalent.

This isn’t just time-consuming for schools - it erodes confidence, affects staff wellbeing and draws governors and senior leaders away from the work that matters most.

But this is a two-way street - schools can make their lives easier by responding in the right way or avoiding issues in the first place. These examples below highlight lessons on how schools and trusts can manage complaints more effectively.

Case study 1: The cost of poor communication

An undersubscribed primary school within a multi-academy trust faced a dip in pupil numbers and so took the decision to merge year groups into mixed-age classes from the start of the new academic year.

A letter was sent to parents before the summer holidays setting out the new arrangements. However, it provided little educational rationale, did not address likely concerns about friendship groups or differentiated teaching, and gave no opportunity to ask questions before the end of term.

One parent complained, claiming to be representative of the whole parent body, citing disrupted friendship groups, concerns about whether children would be taught at the right level and anger at the lack of notice.

After taking advice, the school arranged an open meeting for parents before the start of term, at which the headteacher explained the educational rationale for the change, addressed concerns about differentiated teaching and friendship groups, and outlined the support measures that would be put in place.

A follow-up FAQs letter summarising the key points was sent to all families. The lesson here was straightforward: good change management costs very little, but the absence of it can consume days or even weeks of leadership time.

Prevention is always cheaper than resolution, and the cost of proactive communication is almost always lower than managing the fallout from its absence.

Consult early, not after the fact, and explain the why, not just the what. Even sound decisions generate complaints when parents do not understand the reasoning behind them.

On a separate point, it’s also worth noting that a school is not obliged to treat a complaint from one parent as representative of the wider parent body. It is entitled to address the concerns raised on an individual basis, while making clear that any other parent who shares those concerns is welcome to raise them directly.

Case study 2: Knowing your complainant

Over three years, the parents of a Year 10 student made seven formal complaints across two schools in a trust that runs three secondary schools, all relating broadly to whether their child’s education, health and care plan (EHCP) was being properly implemented.

Each complaint followed the same pattern: formal complaint, escalation to the governing body, threatened referrals to the Department for Education and Ofsted, and a flurry of subject access and freedom-of-information requests.

In their most recent letter, the parents stated they had “lost all faith” in the trust, refused to attend any further meetings, and demanded written responses to 34 questions - the majority of which had already been raised and addressed in previous complaints.

The trust had assumed good faith throughout - but that was precisely the problem.

By continuing to treat each complaint as a genuine attempt at resolution, it failed to recognise that the parents’ conduct had shifted: they had refused to attend meetings, repeated concerns already addressed and escalated at every stage.

Each of those was a signal that resolution was no longer the objective. But rather than adjusting its approach, the trust kept responding in the same way.

The lesson here is that schools need to read the complainant, not just the complaint, and adjust their complaints management strategy accordingly.

A relational approach - dialogue, empathy, flexibility - is right where resolution is genuinely being sought.

But where the pattern of behaviour suggests otherwise, schools should move to a process-driven response: declining to reopen issues already determined, setting clear boundaries on further correspondence, and ensuring that every step is scrupulously documented.

Had the trust recognised that shift earlier - rather than treating complaint seven the same as complaint one - it could have avoided months of disproportionate time and resource being consumed.

Case study 3: The AI challenge

A community school issued a Year 5 pupil with an internal exclusion following a serious incident.

Within 48 hours, the parents submitted a formal complaint running to 28 pages. Clearly AI-generated, it was precisely formatted, used legal language throughout, and raised 21 separate grounds of complaint - from the Equality Act 2010 to GDPR.

This scenario is becoming increasingly familiar. Almost nine in 10 school leaders who have experienced AI-generated complaints report increased length and complexity, and more than four in five report a more formal or legalistic tone requiring greater professional resources to address.

However, it is worth understanding that no matter how long the complaint is or what laws it cites, schools are not obliged to respond to every point raised.

You are entitled to ask complainants to consolidate and prioritise their concerns before a formal response is prepared.

Do not let the format dictate your response - a clear, measured letter addressing the core concern is far more reasonable and proportionate than a point-by-point reply.

Schools should also update their complaints procedure to set clear expectations about how to raise concerns appropriately - including, where relevant, specific guidance on the use of AI tools in the complaints process.

The overarching lessons

Across all three scenarios, the same themes occur.

Invest in the relational and communicative foundations that prevent complaints from escalating in the first place, get to know your complainant and what they actually want, and don’t let AI-generated complaints overwhelm you.

The landscape isn’t going to become simpler, but with the right approach, schools can face it with considerably more confidence.

Victoria Hatton is a partner at legal firm Browne Jacobson specialising in education law and parental complaints