Teacher crossed a line

[Batshitcrazy82]

My dd is in year 6 and she has recently started having counselling for complicated grief, originally over the phone but she had her 1st face to face session the day before the end of term, she missed a hour of school and just told her friends she had a appointment. On the last day of term she asked her teacher for a pen and her teacher replied in front of the whole class "no because when you left for your counselling session yesterday you left a lid off" my daughter is really upset as she doesn't want her private business broadcast to a class full of children. I feel this is a safeguarding issue a d have messaged the headteacher but have had no reply. Aibu to be so angry
Over this?

Of course no-one would have called you an arsehole if you hadn't posted a ridiculous response.

Now that's logical.

@EnidSpyton you are incorrect. I was responsible for the overseeing of the implementation of GDPR in a charity that I was a trustee of. I am also a computing professional. I know what the word "data" means.

According to the link posted up thread - on the first page

"The ICO defines a personal data breach as any event that results in
the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data."

This case is unauthorised disclosure of data that is held by the school (I assume here that there is an electronic record, including any emails relating to the child having counseling). It is clearly and unambiguously a data breach. A teacher sharing the information with a colleague on a "need to know" basis is not. A teacher telling a colleague who did not need to know (eg the school caretaker) IS a data breach.

www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/personal-data-breaches-in-schools-to-report-or-not-to-report?

Not acceptable and shows a real lack of empathy and thought

@MrMucker

I think swearing at me, calling me an arsehole, and generally reacting with venom to what is a logical point is not likely to impact on what I have said. If the kid had her own pen it wouldn't have been said. This is true. And yes, kids are meant to have their own pens at the minute more than ever. What kid has been told "no, don't bring in your own stuff, we have funds to give a new pen each lesson, each day and to each kid"? The more subtle point, is the question of how parent knows for sure what has been said? It can only be what the child has reported, and if the child has been pulled up for not respecting the property she was lent the day before. It is quite imaginable that what she conveyed to parent was not necessarily the words used by teacher. The outrage on here is just another teacher bash. Instead of going in all guns blazing, OP has the option of finding out what was said, rather than reacting to their assumption of what was said.

I don't think saying any of this makes me "an arsehole".

I can assure you it does.

@TheOnlyKoiInAPondOfGoldfish I am not incorrect.

The fact that someone has a medical appointment is not sensitive data.

The fact that someone has a medical appointment to treat their infertility is sensitive data.

You can link to internet sites all you want and interpret the words of those internet sites as you wish, but I'm telling you, as a school governor and a teacher, that revealing to a class, accidentally or otherwise, that a child has a medical or counselling appointment, is not a breach of data under GDPR guidelines and neither does it need to be reported to the ICO.

No sensitive, protected information about that child that would have a detrimental effect on their welfare or safety has been revealed. No, it's not pleasant for the child to have that information that they would rather have not shared with their classmates revealed, of course, and as I have said several times, the teacher absolutely should be reprimanded for it. But on a legal level, revealing generalised information like this would not be considered a breach of sensitive data. It's not specific enough to be classed as sensitive.

You can disagree with me all you like, and claim all sorts of professional qualifications and training in this area to disprove me. That's fine. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about it. This whole area is obviously open to interpretation. I'm just saying what I know to be true according to the training I've been given.

@Lettuceforlunch

Teacher and school governor here. This isn't a safeguarding issue or a GDPR issue.

I don’t think you are a teacher or a school governor. If you are, God help the kids you work with!

Well, I am both of those things. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd bother lying about it. I'm hardly claiming to be a member of MI5.

I'm not saying that what the teacher did isn't wrong. But on a legal level it is not a safeguarding or a GDPR issue because of the level of information that was shared. It was unprofessional to share it but not detailed enough to be classed as sensitive data.

Linking to a website with generalised information does not make you an expert in this area.

I'm just trying to give the facts here. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant.

@Zzelda I didn't say schools were exempt from GDPR regulations. What I said is that a child having a medical or counselling appointment would not be considered sensitive information. The reason WHY that child had the appointment would be. If that information had been revealed, we'd be having a different conversation.

So fertility treatment is sensitive information but mental health treatment isn’t?

@Jellycatspyjamas

So fertility treatment is sensitive information but mental health treatment isn’t?

That's not at all what I said.

What I said is that the reason for the appointment was not revealed. It's the reason that's the sensitive information.

Saying to the class 'no you can't have a pen because you left the lid off when you went to counselling yesterday' is generalised information. No one knows why the child went to counselling. No one has been made aware of the circumstances or any other information that would be considered personal and sensitive under GDPR regulations.

Saying to the class 'no you can't have a pen because you left the lid off when you went to counselling to discuss your grief about your grandma's death yesterday' is sensitive information. If the teacher had said this, we'd be having a different conversation regarding GDPR.

The fact that someone has a medical appointment to treat their infertility is sensitive data.

But counselling is more specific than 'a medical appointment' and reveals the sort of treatment the child is having. So it is closer to "appointment to treat their fertility" if anything.

And you keep saying "as a teacher and a governor who has had training" while others have quoted written information and one has said they deliver the training you received. I'll take their word over yours ta, teachers and governors are not experts in this area of the law. Far from it.

Oh and before you ask, my background is law and governance. Not that you'll listen to me "teacher and governor".

@TortoiseShed no, it doesn't reveal the treatment the child is having. Counselling can be for any number of things. Just as a medical appointment can be.

Anyone can say anything they like on the internet. The 'written information' people have referred to is generalised data that is publicly available on the internet and needs specialised knowledge to interpret with accuracy. The person who has claimed they deliver training in this area has offered no evidence that they do so and neither do their responses to this question reveal any specialist knowledge in this area.

You can believe exactly what you like. As I've said upthread, I'm really not interested in getting into an argument.

I'm just informing people with what I know to be factually true regarding which type of information would be considered sensitive in a school setting.

I'm really surprised that you'd believe someone would bother wasting their time lying about something so inane. If I were to create an internet alter ego, it would be something far more exciting than a teacher and school governor.

I'm just saying what I know to be true according to the training I've been given.

You can link to internet sites all you want and interpret the words of those internet sites as you wish, but I'm telling you, as a school governor and a teacher,

So you’ll obviously know better than the ICO, whose website was linked, and than the various professionals who work in this area.

Saying to the class 'no you can't have a pen because you left the lid off when you went to counselling yesterday' is generalised information.

No, it tells people that the individual is receiving treatment for mental health, which is pretty specific information. In the same way as someone attending a fertility clinic tells you they are receiving support for fertility issues while not telling you the specifics of those issues.

@Jellycatspyjamas The ICO website linked did not prove your point at all, in fact it seemed to reiterate what @EnidSpyton was saying that this information simply isn't specific enough to constitute a breach of data protection. It really isn't relevant anyway. By all means OP can report it, nothing will be done in terms of GDPR but the teacher should be spoken to, will hopefully apologise and ensure this kind of thing isn't repeated.

I didn't say it reveals the treatment the child is having. I said it reveals the sort of treatment the child is having.

You are informing people of what you believe to be true based on the training teachers receive in addition to the in depth training they have in other areas which are their areas of professional expertise. I would take your advice on teaching and running a school, but you won't be informing me about the law. You asserting that it is absolute fact that you're right, based on extremely limited information and training speaks volumes tbh and that isn't how the law works. One person's interpretation at the level we are operating on here (a layperson in terms of the law interpreting events based on a Mumsnet thread), is not ever going to be absolutely right with no disagreement. You can go on all you like about your self appointed status as a legal expert after receiving some training in addition to your actual job, but you are not 100% right. It may be likely that a report wouldn't go anywhere, but that isn't because "teacher and governor - I know I'm right, it's a fact".

@Jellycatspyjamas

I'm just saying what I know to be true according to the training I've been given.

You can link to internet sites all you want and interpret the words of those internet sites as you wish, but I'm telling you, as a school governor and a teacher,

So you’ll obviously know better than the ICO, whose website was linked, and than the various professionals who work in this area.

Saying to the class 'no you can't have a pen because you left the lid off when you went to counselling yesterday' is generalised information.

No, it tells people that the individual is receiving treatment for mental health, which is pretty specific information. In the same way as someone attending a fertility clinic tells you they are receiving support for fertility issues while not telling you the specifics of those issues.

But the ICO website doesn't say this is sensitive information. I don't know why you keep saying this. As someone who claims they've delivered training in this area, you should know this.

Saying that someone has been to counselling is NOT specific medical information within a GDPR context. Someone may INFER that the reason for counselling is due to mental health issues, but they haven't been TOLD this. Counselling can be due to any number of circumstances; addiction, trauma, grief, PTSD, marital breakdown, OCD, etc. It is not indicative of a specific medical issue in the way fertility treatment is. The two are apples and oranges.

Taking your fertility argument, fertility issues can arise from a number of root causes. Saying (as I used as my example a few pages ago) that someone had been "to the fertility clinic" refers not to the treatment they received but to the place they received it. But it clearly implies that they are receiving treatment for fertility issues. That I think is a closer comparison, which is why I used it.

And clearly, the precise treatment someone is undergoing in a fertility clinic does not need to be detailed in order for it to be a breach of privacy. Whether it constitutes a GDPR breach is another issue (which won't be decided based on "teacher and governor I've had training"'s say so btw). But if you want to compare the two things, then I don't see that they're wildly different (apples and oranges).

See? My interpretation is different to yours. That's why we have more than one legal expert in the country. You don't get a bit of training and then tell people not to use the legal process which is there for them to use, (reporting what they feel is a breach). Yes, it could well go nowhere, but that doesn't mean the op isn't allowed to report it because Enid says so.

@TortoiseShed

Yes my interpretation is very different to yours based on the training I have received.

Of course if the OP wants to report the teacher to the ICO she is more than welcome to. Am I advising against it? Yes. Because I don’t think anything will come of it and it will be a waste of time. Am I prohibiting her from reporting it, though? No. She can do as she wishes with the information given from various sources on this thread.

I don’t know why you’re becoming so irate and insistent about something that you clearly have no specialist knowledge of. A disturbing feature of mumsnet is how so many people jump straight on others who offer specialised knowledge, seeking to undermine and suggest they are lying. It’s bizarre. I was just trying to be helpful. I shan’t bother in future.

It's logic, not blame, please stop being outraged and sweary at me. It is logic.

And if you hadn't assumed that the child either deserved this breach of confidentiality, or was lying, posters wouldn't have got outraged and sweary with you! It's logic, not blame.

What's sauce for the gosling is sauce for the goose.

I am in no way irate, and I think you probably know that, but are attempting to dismiss my posts by accusing me of being "hysterical". Cheap shot, but that's the way some people are.

You are not in a position to advise the op not to waste her time with a report in the dogged way you have been. Quoting your training as a way to intimidate her into toeing your line. Very nasty and controlling for no good reason.

Oh look, maybe I am irate now... Ok, not really, I just have low tolerance for nonsense.

@Jellycatspyjamas

Again, guys, please, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m a school governor, I’ve had training in this.

And I deliver training in this.

This interaction is very mumsnet.

Not helpful, sorry, OP. But it's kinda funny.

But the ICO website doesn't say this is sensitive information. I don't know why you keep saying this. As someone who claims they've delivered training in this area, you should know this.

The ICO website doesn’t detail every piece of information that might be considered sensitive, it gives parameters, principles and exemplars which are then interpreted in specific settings. I’m sure your extensive training will have covered that.

As a previous poster said, the regulations are open to interpretation and you and I have different interpretations. Had you left it there, I think folk wouldn't have reacted they way they have, myself included. Your insistence that anyone who disagreed with you didn’t know what they were talking about, because you’ve had training, is what’s got folks backs up.

You’ve claimed that schools can reclassify what’s considered sensitive information but given no substantiation for this.

In this circumstance, given the parameters and principles, the information given by the teacher could be considered a data breach. Good practice suggests that organisations err on the side of transparency in taking these things seriously, by logging it as a data breach with the data controller who can then use their knowledge to determine whether internal processes are enough to address or whether the organisation needs to self refer to the ICO. In any event members of the public can refer directly to the ICO who will make a determination on it.

Counselling is not a weakness or a defect.
It’s strength to say, I’m struggling, I need help please

I agree; but a class of Year 6 children are not necessarily going to realize this. And even if they don't actually tease or bully her for it, they may ask her questions about her experiences that may be upsetting to her.

Moreover, the teacher said it in the context of telling the child off, which might have given some of the other children the impression that the going for counselling was itself a fault or an aggravating circumstance.

I realize I'm getting just as off-topic and irrelevant as a few of the other posters; but: why in any case is leaving the lid off the pen so important? An ordinary biro will not stop working because the lid is removed, even long-term. I hope the children are not being required to use fountain pens (the bane of my own school life) or similar in the 21st century!

Anyway, I realize that this is a bit off-topic! Very best wishes to the OP's child, and I hope that she does not suffer too much from this incident.

Maybe felt tips or similar which do dry up?