WhatsApp messages show teachers mocking vulnerable pupils

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a 'right to complain'?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-67490215

[jeremyp]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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? 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

  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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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'?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.