Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 23, 2023, 08:05:38 AM
-
Is there a 'right to complain'?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-67490215
-
Meh.
Having a teacher as a parent, I can assure you that they have talked like that about the children and their parents since forever.
I'd like to know what they mean by "vulnerable" because the fragment that the BBC posted seems to be about the kind of little bastards that make teachers' lives miserable.
-
I'm married to a teacher, I'm a parent of two special needs children (one mainstream, one special school) and I work for a school multi-academy trust - this is how teachers survive. This is how parents survive.
I'm also the parent to two neurotypical children, and the same thing happens with them. I love them, but sometimes they are little shits, and sometimes you need to vent that, it's part of what relationships and friendships and professional colleagues are there for.
Absolute nonsense, start to finish.
O.
-
Is there a 'right to complain'?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-67490215
Is there a right to complain? - yes there is. Or certainly there is in all maintained schools in England and Wales, and I'd be very surprised if the situation was different in Scotland.
In England and Wales all schools must have a complaints policy and procedures and this must be clearly available on their website - so not hidden away and hard to find. The policy must adhere to certain legal requirements - in the case of the school where I am a Trustee (an Academy) the policy must provide for three stages of complaint, first informal, secondly a formal stage 2 complaint which has to be independently investigated and finally a formal stage 3 panel involving panel members completely external to the school. The complainant (e.g. a parent) has an absolute right to take their complaint through all three stages if they are unhappy with the earlier stages, regardless of how baseless their complaint might be.
And even once all those stages are exhausted the complainant has a further stage which is to take the complaint to the Department of Education and the ESFA. At each stage the outcome communication must state clearly what next stage is available.
To me the issue isn't that parents don't have the right to complain, but that schools have very little ability to deal with vexatious complaint or complaints that include allegations that are wrong and/or potentially libellous against staff. Even if the process find that the complaint is completely unfounded the parent can still take it to the next stage, and on it goes.
-
Some interesting reporting on this:
'In one exchange about a pupil with additional support needs, a teacher refers to them as a "complete little" and then uses a four-letter swear word'
Now, I have no problem whatever 'four-letter swear word' waz used, as I agree with jeremyp and Outrider, but 2 candidates jump to mind; 'shit' and 'cunt'. Cunt is generally seen as worse but the construction and adjective makes shit more likely to me. They could use asterisks to protect the idiots so I'm left wondering why the coyness.
-
Is there a right to complain? - yes there is. Or certainly there is in all maintained schools in England and Wales, and I'd be very surprised if the situation was different in Scotland.
In England and Wales all schools must have a complaints policy and procedures and this must be clearly available on their website - so not hidden away and hard to find. The policy must adhere to certain legal requirements - in the case of the school where I am a Trustee (an Academy) the policy must provide for three stages of complaint, first informal, secondly a formal stage 2 complain which has to be independently investigated and finally a formal stage 3 panel. The complainant (e.g. a parent) has an absolute right to take their complaint through all three stages if they are unhappy with the earlier stages, regardless of how baseless their complaint might be.
And even once all those stages are exhausted the complainant has a further stage which is to take the complaint to the Department of Education and the ESFA. At each stage the outcome communication must state clearly what next stage is available.
To me the issue isn't that parents don't have the right to complain, but that schools have very little ability to deal with vexatious complaint or complaints that include allegations that are wrong and/or potentially libellous against staff. Even if the process find that the complaint is completely unfounded the parent can still take it to the next stage, and on it goes.
You seem to have removed the question from any relationship with the article. In order to complain the information would need to have been shared with the pupils and parents. This seems to envisage that the 'right to complsin' encompasses a right to be told what had happened in order to be able to complain.
-
You seem to have removed the question from any relationship with the article. In order to complain the information would need to have been shared with the pupils and parents. This seems to envisage that the 'right to complsin' encompasses a right to be told what had happened in order to be able to complain.
You asked whether there was a right to complain - there is.
Whether there is a right to be informed of private conversations between teachers that might relate to a particular child is a completely different question.
-
You asked whether there was a right to complain - there is.
Whether there is a right to be informed of private conversations between teachers that might relate to a particular child is a completely different question.
In the context of the article linked to where the 'right to complain' was talked of and would need to encompass such information being passed on. So now that we have established that, what is your opinion of that question?
-
In the context of the article linked to where the 'right to complain' was talked of and would need to encompass such information being passed on. So now that we have established that, what is your opinion of that question?
No - they are two completely different issues.
If the parents are concerned that they aren't being appropriately informed about matters relating to their children then they can make that the matter for a complaint.
But I don't think that means that all communication between teachers, however private it was intended to be, must be passed on to parents. That would, of course, be impractical (what about a chat in a pub rather than a message on WhatsApp), but also not appropriate in my view - teachers must have the ability to be able to have private conversations.
Now what we have here is unprofessional behaviour - and I think it is correct that if that comes to light it is dealt with via a disciplinary process, which would probably be the same outcome if this had come to the attention of the parents and triggered a complaint.
-
No - they are two completely different issues.
If the parents are concerned that they aren't being appropriately informed about matters relating to their children then they can make that the matter for a complaint.
But I don't think that means that all communication between teachers, however private it was intended to be, must be passed on to parents. That would, of course, be impractical (what about a chat in a pub rather than a message on WhatsApp), but also not appropriate in my view - teachers must have the ability to be able to have private conversations.
Now what we have here is unprofessional behaviour - and I think it is correct that if that comes to light it is dealt with via a disciplinary process, which would probably be the same outcome if this had come to the attention of the parents and triggered a complaint.
I don't see how the 'pub analigy' worjs. The question is surely not whether all statements made by teachers must somehow being made transparent, but rather whether matters that have become sufficiently transparent to allow disciplinary proceedings should then be revealed to parents?
-
I don't see how the 'pub analigy' worjs. The question is surely not whether all statements made by teachers must somehow being made transparent, but rather whether matters that have become sufficiently transparent to allow disciplinary proceedings should then be revealed to parents?
So we are now onto a third issue - not whether parents have a right to complain - they do. Not whether they have a right to see communications between teachers, in confidence, that may relate to their child, which actually they can request on the basis of a freedom of information request but would not routinely expect to be provided pro-actively.
So we are now onto whether a parent must be informed about a internal disciplinary process that involved inappropriate communication about their child.
You are a bit all over the place - these are not all the same issue and you need to uncouple them as a particular response to one does not imply the same to all three issues.
-
So we are now onto a third issue - not whether parents have a right to complain - they do. Not whether they have a right to see communications between teachers, in confidence, that may relate to their child, which actually they can request on the basis of a freedom of information request.
So we are now onto whether a parent must be informed about a internal disciplinary process that involved inappropriate communication about their child.
You are a bit all over the place - these are not all the same issue and you need to uncouple them as a particular response to one does not imply the same to all three issues.
I don't think I do think a particular response implies the same for any of these, not sure where you've got that from.
I think you've arrived at the question I had hoped was implied by context in my OP. So what do you think?
-
I don't think I do think a particular response implies the same for any of these, not sure where you've got that from.
I think you've arrived at the question I had hoped was implied by context in my OP. So what do you think?
It wasn't implied in your OP.
Your OP asked a very specific question - 'Is there a 'right to complain'? - which I answered.
If you want to move onto different points than stated or implied in your OP, that's fine - let's do that.
What you seem to be suggesting to me, in a rather convoluted manner, is the following:
'When there has been a disciplinary process relating to a particular child should the parents of that child be informed so that they can complain.'
Now this is actually complicated as sometimes it is difficult to reveal details about a disciplinary matter to a parent without necessarily having to reveal details about other children, who have the right to anonymity. So there is a judgement call.
But there is another point - a complaint needs to be clear, focussed and with a specific 'ask' as remedy. In the case you are citing, what would be the specific ask of a complaint. Presumably the most obvious would be for the teachers involved to be subject to a disciplinary process. But this has already happened. Another obvious ask would be for teachers to be reminded about appropriate and inappropriate use of social media (I suspect what they did was already outside the policies for social media us that the teachers 'signed up' to). Fair enough, but it is quite likely this has already been done. A final ask might be an apology - again fair enough and I think they certainly deserve one.
-
It wasn't implied in your OP.
Your OP asked a very specific question - 'Is there a 'right to complain'? - which I answered.
If you want to move onto different points than stated or implied in your OP, that's fine - let's do that.
What you seem to be suggesting to me, in a rather convoluted manner, is the following:
'When there has been a disciplinary process relating to a particular child should the parents of that child be informed so that they can complain.'
Now this is actually complicated as sometimes it is difficult to reveal details about a disciplinary matter to a parent without necessarily having to reveal details about other children, who have the right to anonymity. So there is a judgement call.
But there is another point - a complaint needs to be clear, focussed and with a specific 'ask' as remedy. In the case you are citing, what would be the specific ask of a complaint. Presumably the most obvious would be for the teachers involved to be subject to a disciplinary process. But this has already happened. Another obvious ask would be for teachers to be reminded about appropriate and inappropriate use of social media (I suspect what they did was already outside the policies for social media us that the teachers 'signed up' to). Fair enough, but it is quite likely this has already been done. A final ask might be an apology - again fair enough and I think they certainly deserve one.
Now your post here does raise another question from me that relates back to your 'pub analogy'. Do you think that were it possible to relate a conversation in a pub, somewhere where being 'overheard' is more likely tban a whatsapp group, then the teachers should have been disciplined?
-
Now your post here does raise another question from me that relates back to your 'pub analogy'. Do you think that were it possible to relate a conversation in a pub, somewhere where being 'overheard' is more likely tban a whatsapp group, then the teachers should have been disciplined?
Interesting point. I think there would be a general expectation of professionalism from all teachers that would relate to conversations in a pub or on social media. However I expect there will be an additional expectation of care on social media due to the risk that confidential information can be forwarded, shared, copied, retained etc.
One of the issues with 'hearsay' in a pub is that there will always be a greater element of uncertainty - someone overhearing says person X said Y, person X says they didn't say that and the other person misheard or didn't hear the full conversation. That is far harder when a social media post is there for all to see.
-
Interesting point. I think there would be a general expectation of professionalism from all teachers that would relate to conversations in a pub or on social media. However I expect there will be an additional expectation of care on social media due to the risk that confidential information can be forwarded, shared, copied, retained etc.
One of the issues with 'hearsay' in a pub is that there will always be a greater element of uncertainty - someone overhearing says person X said Y, person X says they didn't say that and the other person misheard or didn't hear the full conversation. That is far harder when a social media post is there for all to see.
Surely though not all social media posts are 'there for all to see'? The relative ease that something may be proved is not indicative of a reason not to try to prove harder things, e.g. rape. If writing the comments being covered on a form of social media is unprofessional, then saying them down the pub is as well.
-
Surely though not all social media posts are 'there for all to see'?
Isn't that exactly the message that is put out to advice those using social media - that whatever you put out there you have no further control over. If someone copies it, shares it saves it, it will remain there in perpetuity available to be brought out in its original form at any point in the future.
The relative ease that something may be proved is not indicative of a reason not to try to prove harder things, e.g. rape. If writing the comments being covered on a form of social media is unprofessional, then saying them down the pub is as well.
Which is what I said - it would be unprofessional on both cases - the difference is the ease of sharing and therefore perpetuating the unprofessional behaviour, for example. That's why schools will expect teachers to adhere to required standards for social media use above and beyond their general professional expectations.
But the ease of evidencing is also important as we were discussing complaints and disciplinary processes. A testimony on the basis of a conversation overheard in a pub will be far harder to sustain as evidence (even when recognising that the threshold here is balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt) compared to a situation where someone has clear evidence of a social media post.
-
Isn't that exactly the message that is put out to advice those using social media - that whatever you put out there you have no further control over. If someone copies it, shares it saves it, it will remain there in perpetuity available to be brought out in its original form at any point in the future.
Which is what I said - it would be unprofessional on both cases - the difference is the ease of sharing and therefore perpetuating the unprofessional behaviour, for example.
But the ease of evidencing is also important as we were discussing complaints and disciplinary processes. A testimony on the basis of a conversation overheard in a pub will be far harder to sustain as evidence (even when recognising that the threshold here is balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt) compared to a situation where someone has clear evidence of a social media post.
The whatsapp group comments are obviously 'not there for all to see' because if they were we wouldn't be having this conversation. Saying that people should be careful what they put on social media is sensible but doesn't imply that all social media is completely transparent which is what would be implied by 'there for all to see'.
As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?
-
The whatsapp group comments are obviously 'not there for all to see' because if they were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
My meaning was that there is a permanent record which unless steps are taken specifically to be deleted can readily be accessed and made public. That simple isn't the case for an overheard conversation in a pub - unless someone decides to record it.
-
Interesting point. I think there would be a general expectation of professionalism from all teachers that would relate to conversations in a pub or on social media. However I expect there will be an additional expectation of care on social media due to the risk that confidential information can be forwarded, shared, copied, retained etc.
One of the issues with 'hearsay' in a pub is that there will always be a greater element of uncertainty - someone overhearing says person X said Y, person X says they didn't say that and the other person misheard or didn't hear the full conversation. That is far harder when a social media post is there for all to see.
Whatsapp is a private messaging app. The only way the conversation could been been leaked is if one of the participants leaked it. I'd say there is an expectation of privacy in a WhatsApp conversation.
-
My meaning was that there is a permanent record which unless steps are taken specifically to be deleted can readily be accessed and made public. That simple isn't the case for an overheard conversation in a pub - unless someone decides to record it.
I have a number of whatsapp conversations on the go just now. Can you 'readily access and make them public'?
-
Whatsapp is a private messaging app. The only way the conversation could been been leaked is if one of the participants leaked it. I'd say there is an expectation of privacy in a WhatsApp conversation.
Not true - unless steps are taken the messages remain on the server and are remain able to be accessed and may be required to be provided for various purposes, including freedom of information requests. Now I'm not sure whether this particular situation would be covered, but if two teachers were discussing a pupil over whatsapps and a parent made an FOI request for communication in the school relating to that pupil, then under first principles those WhatsApp messages would need to be disclosed, in exactly the same manner as email communications.
-
I have a number of whatsapp conversations on the go just now. Can you 'readily access and make them public'?
If you were communicating as a person working for a public organisation (e.g. a teacher in a school) about matters relating to that public organisation's work (e.g. making comments about a pupil in that school) and I submit an FOI request - then yes.
-
Not true - unless steps are taken the messages remain on the server and are remain able to be accessed and may be required to be provided for various purposes, including freedom of information requests.
This is WhatsApp. It's end to end encrypted. You have to be in the conversation to view the messages.
-
This is WhatsApp. It's end to end encrypted. You have to be in the conversation to view the messages.
Would still need to be provided under FOI - and actually
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/freedom-of-information-foi-covers-whatsapp-and-other-private-channels-confirms-ico
"Emails from private accounts and WhatsApp messages between officials and ministers are covered by the Freedom of Information Act, the Information Commissioner’s Office has confirmed"
While this comment specifically relates to the civil service the principle applies to all public bodies that are subject to FOI.
And they are only encrypted when actually in transit.
-
Would still need to be provided under FOI - and actually
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/freedom-of-information-foi-covers-whatsapp-and-other-private-channels-confirms-ico
"Emails from private accounts and WhatsApp messages between officials and ministers are covered by the Freedom of Information Act, the Information Commissioner’s Office has confirmed"
While this comment specifically relates to the civil service the principle applies to all public bodies that are subject to FOI.
Teachers are not "officials and ministers". And the point is that, if the teachers set up their own private WhatsApp conversation, that the authorities didn't know about, why would a person trying to fulfil n FoI request even have any knowledge?
The only way anybody could have known about this is if one of the participants in the group blabbed.
-
If you were communicating as a person working for a public organisation (e.g. a teacher in a school) about matters relating to that public organisation's work (e.g. making comments about a pupil in that school) and I submit an FOI request - then yes.
I think your definition of 'readily accessible' even with your added qualifications here is a bit different to mine.
Oh and could you answer this bit from earlier post that you edited out:
'As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?'
.
-
Would still need to be provided under FOI - and actually
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/freedom-of-information-foi-covers-whatsapp-and-other-private-channels-confirms-ico
"Emails from private accounts and WhatsApp messages between officials and ministers are covered by the Freedom of Information Act, the Information Commissioner’s Office has confirmed"
While this comment specifically relates to the civil service the principle applies to all public bodies that are subject to FOI.
And they are only encrypted when actually in transit.
Are you saying that no teachers can set up a whatsapp group that isn't subject to an FOI?
-
Are you saying that no teachers can set up a whatsapp group that isn't subject to an FOI?
If they are using it to discuss school business then, no.
We've seen the recent stuff in the various covid enquiries where WhatsApp messages are admissible for the public record in the same way as any other form of 'official' communication. Same is true for other public organisations including schools and for FOI requests.
Whether in practice this would happen is another matter - firstly because schools rarely receive FOI requests, but also because the individuals may 'hide' the presence of the behind the scenes whatsapp groups and also may simply delete stuff. But a whatsapp group used to conduct the business of a public body would be just as subject to FOI request as would email communication of old fashioned hard-copy communication.
-
If they are using it to discuss school business then, no.
We've seen the recent stuff in the various covid enquiries where WhatsApp messages are admissible for the public record in the same way as any other form of 'official' communication. Same is true for other public organisations including schools and for FOI requests.
Whether in practice this would happen is another matter - firstly because schools rarely receive FOI requests, but also because the individuals may 'hide' the presence of the behind the scenes whatsapp groups and also may simply delete stuff. But a whatsapp group used to conduct the business of a public body would be just as subject to FOI request as would email communication of old fashioned hard-copy communication.
I take it you mean if they are not using it to discuss school business? You then by using the Covid enquiry as a comparison add in that it needs to be on official business. Do you mean that any whatsapp group between teachers, if it discusses anything that may relate to official business is subject to an FOI?
-
I take it you mean if they are not using it to discuss school business? You then by using the Covid enquiry as a comparison add in that it needs to be on official business.
True, but as we've seen in the covid enquiry the determination as to whether it relates to official business is likely to be a decision for the enquiry, and not the person(s) communicating by email. Hence the requirement for individuals to hand over all whatapp messages on a particular thread rather than deciding which ones to submit and which not to.
Do you mean that any whatsapp group between teachers, if it discusses anything that may relate to official business is subject to an FOI?
Yes - although FOI requests can be rebutted on various grounds, being being embarrassing wouldn't be one of them. So if a parent made a FOI request for all communication between teachers about a particular child to be released then under the basic principles then whatsapp messages would be included. Now there might be a situation where this is clearly not 'official business' - e.g. if those teachers knew that child in a personal capacity, but if they are discussing the conduct of that pupil in class it is hard to see how this isn't about the official business of the school which includes the behaviour of pupils when in class.
-
True, but as we've seen in the covid enquiry the determination as to whether it relates to official business is likely to be a decision for the enquiry, and not the person(s) communicating by email. Hence the requirement for individuals to hand over all whatapp messages on a particular thread rather than deciding which ones to submit and which not to.
Yes - although FOI requests can be rebutted on various grounds, being being embarrassing wouldn't be one of them. So if a parent made a FOI request for all communication between teachers about a particular child to be released then under the basic principles then whatsapp messages would be included. Now there might be a situation where this is clearly not 'official business' - e.g. if those teachers knew that child in a personal capacity, but if they are discussing the conduct of that pupil in class it is hard to see how this isn't about the official business of the school which includes the behaviour of pupils when in class.
I think using the Covid inquiry which has a clear legislated remit as a comparison with an FOI which just asks for any electronic communication between two or more teachers that have any mention of any child is specious.
-
I think using the Covid inquiry which has a clear legislated remit as a comparison with an FOI which just asks for any electronic communication between two or more teachers that have any mention of any child is specious.
This article from the Information Commissioner's Office outlines the position.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-eir-and-access-to-information/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/official-information-held-in-non-corporate-communications-channels/
Non-official channels of communication are covered by the FOI and the article specifically mentions WhatsApp as one of those non official channels that would be covered.
So if teachers were discussing the behaviour of a pupil in a classroom over whatsapp that would, in principle, be covered by FOI. The only question being whether the information being discussed counted as official information - i.e. pertaining to the business of that organisation - and it would be hard to argue that the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom isn't pertaining to the business of a school.
And while the basic information providing within the FOI is largely a civil matter, concealment of deletion of information once a request has been made is a criminal offence.
-
This article from the Information Commissioner's Office outlines the position.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-eir-and-access-to-information/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/official-information-held-in-non-corporate-communications-channels/
Non-official channels of communication are covered by the FOI and the article specifically mentions WhatsApp as one of those non official channels that would be covered.
So if teachers were discussing the behaviour of a pupil in a classroom over whatsapp that would, in principle, be covered by FOI. The only question being whether the information being discussed counted as official information - i.e. pertaining to the business of that organisation - and it would be hard to argue that the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom isn't pertaining to the business of a school.
And while the basic information providing within the FOI is largely a civil matter, concealment of deletion of information once a request has been made is a criminal offence.
This is all about records, I don't think it applies here in any sense.
-
This article from the Information Commissioner's Office outlines the position.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-eir-and-access-to-information/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/official-information-held-in-non-corporate-communications-channels/
Non-official channels of communication are covered by the FOI and the article specifically mentions WhatsApp as one of those non official channels that would be covered.
So if teachers were discussing the behaviour of a pupil in a classroom over whatsapp that would, in principle, be covered by FOI. The only question being whether the information being discussed counted as official information - i.e. pertaining to the business of that organisation - and it would be hard to argue that the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom isn't pertaining to the business of a school.
And while the basic information providing within the FOI is largely a civil matter, concealment of deletion of information once a request has been made is a criminal offence.
Oh and while you're here can you just confirm as per the bit that you edited out from a previous message, and subsequently ignored
"As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?"
Whether you think that jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are unprofessional or not?
-
This is all about records, I don't think it applies here in any sense.
Yes it does - teaching professionals discussing matters pertaining to the business of the school on WhatsApp, or via private emails etc, would be considered to be official information but held by another person on behalf of the authority (in this case the school) as per section 3(2)b of the act.
There is actually a very close example used, where communication between governors of a college via private emails were considered to be in scope of the FOI. So are WhatsApp communications.
-
Yes it does - teaching professionals discussing matters pertaining to the business of the school on WhatsApp, or via private emails etc, would be considered to be official information but held by another person on behalf of the authority (in this case the school) as per section 3(2)b of the act.
There is actually a very close example used, where communication between governors of a college via private emails were considered to be in scope of the FOI. So are WhatsApp communications.
Doesn't seem like a close example at all.
-
Doesn't seem like a close example at all.
Why are you always so argumentative NS?
I've provided the official guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office to organisations about their FOI obligations on communication using non-official channels. This is very clear that communication on matters pertaining to the business of that organisation between employees of that organisations (it doesn't just have to be employees, but they would definitely be in scope) on whatsapp are in scope for a FOI request.
Rather than argue with the official guidance, perhaps you could just accept that WhatsApp messages are just as in scope for FOI requests as emails sent from official email accounts and official documents.
-
Why are you always so argumentative NS?
I've provided the official guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office to organisations about their FOI obligations on communication using non-official channels. This is very clear that communication on matters pertaining to the business of that organisation between employees of that organisations (it doesn't just have to be employees, but they would definitely be in scope) on whatsapp are in scope for a FOI request.
Rather than argue with the official guidance, perhaps you could just accept that WhatsApp messages are just as in scope for FOI requests as emails sent from official email accounts and official documents.
Hello Pot, nice being this black isn't it, lots of love Kettle.
I'm not disputing that there may be circumstances that a Whatsapp group may have info that could be requested by FOI. I'm disputing that this situation amounts to that on the evidence we have.
-
I'm not disputing that there may be circumstances that a Whatsapp group may have info that could be requested by FOI. I'm disputing that this situation amounts to that on the evidence we have.
So let's tick off the elements needed.
1. Is a state school in scope for the FOI - yes, tick.
2. Is communication between employees of a organisation in scope for FOI likely to be in scope for a FOI request - yes, tick.(but see 4 below).
3. Is communication via private WhatsApp messages in scope for FOI - yes, tick.
4. Would discussion on the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom between teachers at that school be considered information pertaining to the business of that organisation - yes, tick.
The only one that is even slightly in doubt would be 4, but it would be hard to argue that if a parent made a FOI request for the release of information containing discussion of behaviour of their child while in the classroom between professionals at that school that this would not be considered to be in scope.
-
So let's tick off the elements needed.
1. Is a state school in scope for the FOI - yes, tick.
2. Is communication between employees of a organisation in scope for FOI likely to be in scope for a FOI request - yes, tick.(but see 4 below).
3. Is communication via private WhatsApp messages in scope for FOI - yes, tick.
4. Would discussion on the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom between teachers at that school be considered information pertaining to the business of that organisation - yes, tick.
The only one that is even slightly in doubt would be 4, but it would be hard to argue that if a parent made a FOI request for the release of information containing discussion of behaviour of their child while in the classroom between professionals at that school that this would not be considered to be in scope.
Marking your own homework? I disagree on your assessment of 4.
-
So let's tick off the elements needed.
1. Is a state school in scope for the FOI - yes, tick.
2. Is communication between employees of a organisation in scope for FOI likely to be in scope for a FOI request - yes, tick.(but see 4 below).
3. Is communication via private WhatsApp messages in scope for FOI - yes, tick.
4. Would discussion on the behaviour of a pupil in the classroom between teachers at that school be considered information pertaining to the business of that organisation - yes, tick.
The only one that is even slightly in doubt would be 4, but it would be hard to argue that if a parent made a FOI request for the release of information containing discussion of behaviour of their child while in the classroom between professionals at that school that this would not be considered to be in scope.
Oh and again while you're can you just confirm as per the bit that you edited out from a previous message, and subsequently ignored
"As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?"
Whether you think that jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are unprofessional or not?
-
Marking your own homework? I disagree on your assessment of 4.
Then provide some evidence to support your assertions - and it better be as credible as official guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office.
-
Then provide some evidence to support your assertions - and it better be as credible as official guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office.
The disagreement is between us about our interpretation of how that applies in this situation.
-
Further evidence that WhatsApp messaging between colleagues working for public bodies are in scope of FOI requests. Less detailed than my previous link, but specifically about Scotland and ... err ... from the official Scottish Information Commissioner.
https://www.itspublicknowledge.info/commissioners-statement-status-non-corporate-messaging-tools-under-foi-law
-
The disagreement is between us about our interpretation of how that applies in this situation.
So are you actually arguing that is a parent put in a FOI request to a school requesting that all information pertaining to the behaviour of their child at school be released that whatsapp messages between teachers at that school about the behaviour of that child would somehow not be in scope :o I mean risible.
-
So are you actually arguing that is a parent put in a FOI request to a school requesting that all information pertaining to the behaviour of their child at school be released that whatsapp messages between teachers at that school about the behaviour of that child would somehow not be in scope :o I mean risible.
I'm arguing that not all communication between teachers about pupils can be considered official information as covered by the guidelines.
And once again while you're can you just confirm as per the bit that you edited out from a previous message, and subsequently ignored multiple times.
"As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?"
Whether you think that jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are unprofessional or not?
-
Further evidence that WhatsApp messaging between colleagues working for public bodies are in scope of FOI requests. Less detailed than my previous link, but specifically about Scotland and ... err ... from the official Scottish Information Commissioner.
https://www.itspublicknowledge.info/commissioners-statement-status-non-corporate-messaging-tools-under-foi-law
Irrelevant to the discussion since no one has argued the straw man you've put up here.
-
I'm arguing that not all communication between teachers about pupils can be considered official information as covered by the guidelines.
I don't understand why you are struggling with this - it isn't a hard concept.
The key here is that the mode of communication isn't relevant - what it relevant is the information. And there is no hierarchy - so communication in a written document, or via the school's official emails, or through private emails, or via WhatsApp or other messaging media are all treated the same for the purposes of the FOI.
So all you need to do is to consider the situation had the channel of communication been (as examples) the school's official emails or a written memo.
So do you really think that is one teacher had send an email to another teacher through the official school email saying that 'X had behaved appallingly in my class and is a little s**t' that it wouldn't be in scope for FOI. Or had one teacher sent a written memo to another teacher saying that 'X had behaved appallingly in my class and is a little s**t' that it wouldn't be in scope for FOI. Of course it would. And as the channel of communication is irrelevant if it is in scope if sent by school email or written memo then it is in scope if sent via WhatsApp.
-
I don't understand why you are struggling with this - it isn't a hard concept.
The key here is that the mode of communication isn't relevant - what it relevant is the information. And there is no hierarchy - so communication in a written document, or via the school's official emails, or through private emails, or via WhatsApp or other messaging media are all treated the same for the purposes of the FOI.
So all you need to do is to consider the situation had the channel of communication been (as examples) the school's official emails or a written memo.
So do you really think that is one teacher had send an email to another teacher through the official school email saying that 'X had behaved appallingly in my class and is a little s**t' that it wouldn't be in scope for FOI. Or had one teacher sent a written memo to another teacher saying that 'X had behaved appallingly in my class and is a little s**t' that it wouldn't be in scope for FOI. Of course it would. And as the channel of communication is irrelevant if it is in scope if sent by school email or written memo then it is in scope if sent via WhatsApp.
I'm not arguing about the mode of communication. And yes, I think a comment about a chold being a shit isn't official communication.
I see you've edited this out again.
"And once again while you're here can you just confirm as per the bit that you edited out from a previous message, and subsequently ignored multiple times.
"As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?"
Whether you think that jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are unprofessional or not?"
-
I'm not arguing about the mode of communication. And yes, I think a comment about a chold being a shit isn't official communication.
Between two teachers discussing the behaviour of a pupil while in class at school, which clearly relates to their professional duties as employees of that school ...hmm. I think the FOI Act and the Information Commissioner would bed to differ, particularly as their is a presumption to disclose under the FOI - in other words it is not up to the authority itself to determine what is, and what isn't information under the FOI.
-
Between two teachers discussing the behaviour of a pupil while in class at school, which clearly relates to their professional duties as employees of that school ...hmm. I think the FOI Act and the Information Commissioner would bed to differ, particularly as their is a presumption to disclose under the FOI - in other words it is not up to the authority itself to determine what is, and what isn't information under the FOI.
And again didn't say it was. I just disagree with you that it would be part of official information.
And yet again I see you've edited this out.
"And once again while you're here can you just confirm as per the bit that you edited out from a previous message, and subsequently ignored multiple times.
"As to ease of proof, the pount is surely that it doesn't make any difference to what you think of as unprofessional behaviour, and given your position on that it would seem that you think jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are both guilty of that if their posts here are correct?"
Whether you think that jeremyp's parent, and Outrider's partner are unprofessional or not?"
Is it a form of nervous tic that's making you do it?
-
Between two teachers discussing the behaviour of a pupil while in class at school,
What is the evidence that the teachers were in class at school?
which clearly relates to their professional duties as employees of that school ...hmm. I think the FOI Act and the Information Commissioner would bed to differ, particularly as their is a presumption to disclose under the FOI - in other words it is not up to the authority itself to determine what is, and what isn't information under the FOI.
I don't think there's any question about official communications, although, if the communication was by voice and nobody was recording it, then the record will be lost. But what we have here is an informal rant from one teacher to another such as they might have in the pub after work. There is no way it should form part of the official record.
I'd also be interested in your answer to NS's question about my mother and Outrider's partner. Were they unprofessional? Because if you think they were, so are pretty much all teachers. Some children are obnoxious shits and so are some parents and teachers talk about them amongst themselves.