A Special Report by the Audit Office, released on Thursday, documents serious shortcomings in the implementation of health and safety measures in public schools.

Auditor General Andreas Papakonstantinou points out that there is “a substantial gap between the intended compliance and the actual functioning of risk prevention and management mechanisms.”

As he notes in his preface, a significant number of schools operate without a Fire Safety Certificate or without an up-to-date Report on the Current Status of Electrical Installations, a fact that increases the risk of serious incidents with potential consequences for the safety of students and staff.

“Second-class” students compared to private school students

At the same time, it notes that the different institutional approaches between public and private schools create the impression that public school students are treated as “second-class students.”

This raises the question: “Since the legal framework for private schools is particularly strict—even providing for the suspension of their operations — with the aim of preventing serious accidents, why then isn’t the same level of strictness—and, by extension, the same level of safety—is not imposed on the environment in which public school students study”?

The Report finds that, despite the comprehensive legislative framework, the Ministry of Education does not have a structured oversight system to ensure the quality and completeness of the Written Risk Assessments (WRAs) and Civil Defense Plans, nor does it monitor the implementation of the proposed measures. Furthermore, it does not maintain a centralized compliance registry nor can it determine whether schools are operating in accordance with minimum risk prevention requirements.

In a random audit of 20 schools, only seven had submitted both a Written Risk Assessment and a Civil Defense Plan, while the rest either failed to submit the required documents or submitted documents that did not comply with the Ministry of Education’s guidelines. The Audit Office concludes that these documents serve largely as a formal requirement rather than as effective risk management tools.

Alarming findings regarding fire safety and electrical safety

The findings regarding fire safety and electrical safety are particularly alarming. According to the Report, the Ministry of Education does not have centralized, up-to-date, and reliable information on which of the 737 public schools have a valid Fire Safety Certificate or Electrical Installation Status Report (YKIE), since no central registry is maintained and there is no mechanism for regular updates from the School Boards. The absence of this information, according to the Audit Office, makes it impossible to identify high-risk schools in a timely manner, prioritize needs, and plan targeted interventions.

A sample audit of 25 schools revealed that only 11 had a valid Electrical Safety Inspection Report, while none had a valid Fire Safety Certificate. The Audit Office points out that schools are operating without documented confirmation that their electrical installations are safe, and in the event of an emergency, this increases the risk of an uncontrolled incident with serious consequences for human lives.

The failure to issue Fire Safety Certificates is attributed to recurring serious deficiencies that remain unresolved even after successive inspections by the Fire Department. These include an insufficient number of fire extinguishers, the absence of handrails and panic bars at emergency exits, locks that hinder the safe evacuation of buildings, inadequate signage for emergency exits, deficiencies in emergency lighting, as well as problems with boiler room facilities.

Greater Risk at Technical Schools

Special mention is made of Technical and Vocational Education and Training Schools (TESEK), where, due to the nature of the education provided, the inherent risk of fire or electrical failures is heightened. However, at the time of the audit, no TESEK had a valid Fire Protection Certificate, and only one had a valid Electrical Safety Inspection Report, a fact which, according to the Audit Office, highlights significant gaps in the coordination, monitoring, and completion of the required actions.

The report also cites a telling example from the schools in Ypsona, where the relevant School District reported that the Fire Department conducted inspections between January and April 2025, but did not recommend the issuance of a Fire Safety Certificate for any of the schools due to the deficiencies identified.

Different Approaches by YPAN and POED

Regarding the Written Risk Assessment, the Report also documents differing approaches between YPAN and POED. POED argues that administrative teams lack the necessary administrative time and specialized knowledge to conduct risk assessments, while YPAN considers that principals, as employers under the relevant legislation, possess the necessary knowledge of the school environment and must assume this responsibility. The Audit Office considers that these differing approaches affect the uniform application of the institutional framework and recommends strengthening coordination among the relevant stakeholders.

The Audit Office’s Recommendations

Among the Audit Office’s key recommendations are the establishment of a substantive evaluation of Written Risk Assessments, the creation of a centralized compliance registry for schools, strengthening the monitoring of the implementation of preventive measures, the creation of a central registry for fire safety certificates and electrical safety reports, as well as the strengthening of the Ministry of Education’s supervisory authority over School Boards.

At the same time, it recommends updating the relevant circulars and reviewing the institutional framework for public schools, so that binding review and monitoring procedures can be established, corresponding to those in effect for private schools.

The Position of the Ministry of Education

For its part, the Ministry of Education states in the Report that it has developed mechanisms to guide and support schools, including through recurring circulars, the promotion of the OiRA online tool for preparing Written Risk Assessments, and the organization of training programs for school administrators.

Regarding POED’s reservations, the Ministry maintains that school principals, as those responsible for school premises and daily activities, possess substantial knowledge of the school environment, and that assuming responsibility for preparing Written Risk Assessments contributes to the timely identification of risks and the immediate implementationpreventive measures.

At the same time, it should be noted that at the time of the audit, the Ministry of Education was in the process of scheduling a meeting with POED, with the aim of exchanging views and resolving the issues that had arisen regarding the implementation of the relevant procedure.