Our School Support team have been supporting our clients with an increase in parental complaints over the last few years and have been seeing the hugely negative effect on staff wellbeing and retention that some complaints can have. At times, it has prevented our clients from providing the quality of education deserved to their pupils. When it is engaged with constructively, the complaints process supports schools and parents to deal with concerns effectively and trustees and governing bodies can and should use the outcomes of complaints to evaluate the provision schools are providing and improve where necessary. No organisation is perfect and schools should be held to account if things go wrong and lessons learned where appropriate. However, in some cases the complaints process is being used by parents as a power-wielding tool and it has become debilitating for the schools.
Now, to compound the issue and further exaggerate those negative effects, we are increasingly seeing parents use AI to engage with the complaints process in their children’s schools. While tools like AI have the promise of empowering parents to advocate more effectively for their children, what we are seeing are confused arguments drawn-out over pages of incorrect legalese. All creating a growing set of challenges for school staff, administrators, and governors.
We are seeing parents increasingly turn to tools like ChatGPT and other AI writing assistants to help craft complaints to schools. It seems that some parents believe these tools are helping them frame their concerns with formal, professional language, and they believe that referring to policies, regulations, or educational law will alert the schools to what is going wrong and provide further impact and challenge. Often the letters threaten legal proceedings and are framed as ‘pre-action’ correspondence. Unfortunately, while they may believe that their complaints are being set out with clarity and focus, the opposite is occurring. We are seeing incorrect law and guidance being cited, in some cases even American case law. Although we do often see the correct guidance being quoted, it is very often misinterpreted.
In our experience, schools then feel under pressure to respond in kind, both in tone and substance. When complaints are written in formal or legalistic language, it can escalate tensions and the temperature unnecessarily. We are seeing our clients feel under attack, with the tone understandably leading to a defensive rather than collaborative response.
Impact on Schools
The complaints procedure is a necessary tool for constructive feedback and open communication with parents, however the use of AI is leading to some unintended consequences.
The complaints we are seeing have increased in volume and complexity and this is as a result of AI. AI makes it easier to submit detailed, multi-page complaints, which take significantly longer for staff to read, investigate, and respond to. What might once have been a short conversation or a one-page letter now becomes a hugely drawn-out process.
It has also led to a strain on resources for schools. Trust and school leaders, teachers, and office staff are stretched even thinner by having to handle lengthy, AI-assisted complaints. This obviously diverts attention from teaching and pupil support, potentially affecting school operations and morale.
A very depressing effect is that on the eroded trust between the school and parents. The communication between parents and schools is not personal, human to human. When interactions feel adversarial, the collaboration that our clients strive for with families can dissipate.
How schools can respond effectively
There has been a lack of change, or even real acknowledgement, by the government in how schools are being burdened by parental complaints. Changes are needed to the legal and regulatory framework as well as to the best practice guidance to support schools. There continues to be the legal requirement to ensure an academy and independent school’s policy complies with Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 for Academy Trusts and in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Education Act 2002 for Maintained Schools. There is also best practice advice for schools online from the DfE. However, more is needed.
Until this comes, schools should ensure that complaints policies are as strong, transparent and accessible as possible. It may be helpful to have a one page document to accompany the policy which summaries the process in a more accessible way. The policy is there to be used as a tool by the schools to manoeuvre complaints effectively and efficiently. As with any new complaint, schools must follow their procedure and be as transparent as possible. If the complaints were exhausted, and the parent escalated it higher, the DfE will look at the school’s procedures and whether it was implemented properly.
We would advise schools address complaints as early as possible. Many complaints escalate because concerns are not addressed early. Having the dialogue with parents at that early informal stage, with in-school meetings for example, can lower the risk of AI-drafted letters being sent. It can also help a school identify when AI is being used at a later period. If it is apparent that an early conversation or attempt to resolve the issue has not been successful, it can be effective for a school to actively signpost a parent to the complaints policy instead of continuing to exchange correspondence about the issue which can lead to frustration.
Staff are still required to read these multi-page complaints as elements of a complaint may bring about duties under safeguarding as well as under the Data Protection Act 2018 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It can be helpful to remind staff of their duties regarding the above points and to learn to identify AI-generated content. This can help take the sting away from an overwhelming complaint and also help remind staff that an appropriate response continues to be a human and professional one. Not an overly formal or impersonal response.
The last resort continues to be closing a matter complaint down and ceasing communication when it has become vexatious. The DfE considers a vexatious complaint to be one that is obsessive, persistent, harassing, prolific, repetitious. Also one that is insistent upon pursuing unmeritorious complaints and/or unrealistic outcomes beyond all reason, these are often the AI generated complaints that we are seeing! This definition of a ‘vexatious’ complaint should be spelled out in your policy so, again, you can rely on this to retain some control.
Unacceptable Behaviour policies, parent codes of conduct and communications protocols can also help schools remind parents of expectations. They can set out necessary protocols for limiting, even restricting communication between the complainant and school. Managing the complaint and complainant at when things have got to this stage can be tricky and we would recommend advice is sought to deal with this type of situation.
Conclusion
The rise of AI in the parental complaints process is a challenge for schools. More and more often it is allowing for an imbalance between schools and parents as the complainant can sometimes lose sight of the best interests of children as being the driving the purpose of resolving complaints.
However, schools still have the controls and power to navigate these challenges with confidence and care and this is by relying on their robust policies and taking a strategic instead of a kneejerk response. With the use of AI, a complaint policy can more helpful than ever in focusing a complainant and identifying a remedy. If you could like us to review these policies and advise on their effectiveness, please do not hesitate to contact us. We can also help in advising on induvial complaints.