WhatsApp messages show teachers mocking vulnerable pupils

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?'
.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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 I mean risible.

[Nearly Sane]

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 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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?"