Is this GDPR breach

[Harass3d]

A complaint has been lodged with my employer about a comment I made on social media (not upheld!). This complaint has come from the head teacher at my son's school and he has identified himself as such (fine) but then goes on to identify me as a parent (which has no relevance to his complaint) am I right in thinking this is a breach of GDPR? It is no business of my employers where my son goes to school.

@Harass3d Perhaps if you read the thread you will see why.

Nothing to do with the school. As I said, your child lives during a time when they can teach themselves almost any school subject using the internet (the internet is unable to help though with practical hands-on stuff).

Not the case with SEN. Sometimes (too often) , the schools fail them. There's a thread right now where a child with SEN is not allowed to use their ear defenders because it's too hard for the teacher to manage other children also wanting them. Who's failing who here?

I would complain (or resume a complaint) following the school's official policy; I'd also look at complaining to the General Teaching Council of Scotland; they may direct you elsewhere. This is probably a GDPR breach, but I'd ask what basis he has to write to your employer and where he got that information from; if he did get it from school records, ask him where you consented to this way of using it. I'm confident you are in the right and absolutely do have the right to say the school/leadership is not to the standard you expect, particularly on a private status.

to @shuggles you’re coming across as daft and ignorant (you don’t have children I presume)

For the hard of understanding OP has said she is in Scotland. Naught to do with Ofsted. Scotland does have a separate educational system and legal system which existed long before the Act of Union.

The OP should also be very mindful of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Glad to see she has "lawyered" up. She may need it.

I replied to an earlier post of yours to tell you that OP's issue with the school is the lack of SEN provision for her son. Do you think that all pupils, even those with SEN, can just teach themselves using the internet?

You may have been a straight A student but you sound like you have had an empathy bypass.

Indeed. Which confirmed the principles of Derbyshire County Council also apply in Scotland and therefore schools and other public bodies have no standing to sue for libel.

Therefore the only potential actionable statement is the opinion that the headteacher is useless which is protected as honest opinion even if the head could surmount the serious harm threshold test (which he couldn’t).

So no, there is feck all for the OP to be concerned about under this act as her lawyers will tell her if this lunatic headteacher thinks he can pursue her further.

This would sound smart , if it applied in OP's case. Otherwise it's just sneery.

It is if the employer info was accessed by the Head

@thepariscrimefiles Do you think that all pupils, even those with SEN, can just teach themselves using the internet?

No. What I wrote only applies to pupils to pupils who do not have SEN.

I replied to an earlier post of yours to tell you that OP's issue with the school is the lack of SEN provision for her son.

You can blame mumsnet's archaic board layout and notification system for me missing your previous post.

Nhs policy for employees might state that no personal attacks on people on sm.

And if the OP's employer is an NHS employer who has that included in their policy as possible misconduct. .....
they have investigated and ...
concluded that their employee has not breached that policy

Ignore that poster OP. Anyone who says it's A mystery why any child gets below 90% is absolutely away with the fairies! Lots of kids get lower than that and it's not for lack of youtube

No, I mean why is he talking about your employability in education when you don’t work in that sector? He might as well say you are unemployable as a lumberjack or a chef. It’s completely irrelevant.

The relationship is Head and parent with a child in the school.
Its a single SM post, someone in her FB group offering an opinion along with the screenshots, the OP's contact with other staff in the school being reported to him, and any direct contact he has had with the OP.

At a guess this is reflecting his conclusion about the OP's contact with the school when she is advocating for her child. Which is she has no clue about what she is taking about should not be involved.
(That is unless he has written similar comments to the 100+ employers? )

This may be his personal opinion and even fair comment but it strongly suggests the statement was (mainly?) based on the Op's the involvement with the school which is him in his professional capacity.

Sorry I might be picking this up wrong - you think he has indicated that I would be unemployable (in his personal opinion) by education department due to my interactions with the school when advocating for my child?

If so why would this be in any way relevant to his complaint to my employer when I don't work in education?

You've had some strange replies on this thread @Harass3d . I assume that the HT is saying that people employed in education have a very strict code of what they can or can't post on SM, as PP suggested. The thing is we all have different rules and regulations according to where we work.
It may well be a data breach as he let your employer know where your son goes to school. I still think you are right to pursue an apology at the very least.

I think he’s just very stupid and is somehow saying “if this woman wanted to work in education I would not employ her, so you should not employ her in your sector either Mr/Ms healthcare boss”. What a load of nonsense.

For you maybe.

My parents didn't see 'Education' as just something to receive in the context of school. We had many discussions about various topics that often stemmed from homework set, so they absolutely were involved in my education.

And for people of a working class background with a parent who left school before the age of 16 and has little free time, how are those parents going to be involved in the child's education? I didn't have the same privileges that middle class children receive, yet, somewhat bizarrely, I still achieved better grades than the majority of them.

I just want to agree that some of the replies are bat shit.

Op. I have no idea of the legal position but the Headteacher has clearly lost all perspective by emailing your employers.

Your level of upset is justified in my opinion.

As a parent of a child with SEN, some of the perspectives on this is also bizarre. None of the multiple proffessional assessment reports carried out on my son recommended youtube videos as the answer.

Op. I would say, as someone who has recently gone through conflict, think about what you want as an outcome. Think about how much you are willing to invest in the outcome and check it all tallies up and is proportionate.

Both of my parents came from a working class background but they managed to gain a university education; my Mum worked from 16 in a bank in the day and studied for A levels at night. My Mum was also a poet and my Dad became an Economist and when they had us they continued that passion for learning, the Arts, knowledge, Politics etc. they didn't see their background as something that was going to limit them and they passed that curiosity on to us, they saw it as their duty!

Sorry I might be picking this up wrong - you think he has indicated that I would be unemployable (in his personal opinion) by education department due to my interactions with the school when advocating for my child?

In real life short answer is: yes because thats why he chose to use that wording and it was not the education department it was your current job.

Long answer
On rereading your posts

You said

"apparently this is not the first time your staff member has had complaints made about her social media usage" & then goes onto say I would be "unemployable in the future by education services".

Plus

within his complaint he has made alot of false allegations

I think you need to read the letter carefully.

If it is one paragraph eg

apparently this is not the first time your staff member has had complaints made about her social media usage and because of this large digital footprint will be unemployable in the future by education services....

This is fluff and huffing because your post passes or fails your employers SM standards not his employers. In his mind you should be sacked when his standards were applied.

Or is it in summary of all the other points

apparently this is not the first time your staff member has had complaints made about her social media usage
and
apparently your staff member was seen eating icecream and caused the last snow fall
and
As a result of these numerous miscounduct she will be unemployable in the future by education services

Thats different and speaks to the whole relationship. But you are still sacked
Your legal will advise if that type of letter is actionable or not.

In general

You wrote one SM post which would not have gotten him sacked.

He located your employer then wrote a letter which worst case could have gotten you sacked.

What motivated him to go from thinking/saying what an "knobber" that random parent must be to I am going to get that parent sacked from their job.

If he only wrote to your employer and not contacted your friend's employer (if she has one) when she started the discussion, why is that?

If as you say you have no out of school community conection with him the direct link is your ongoing interactions with the school.

In real life with no social connection his first impressions will come from an in-person introduced to you as parent of child X or via the other professionals (not just teachers) in contact with your son.

Sorry but any Head will be dealing with all types of people and it take a lot of (subjectively) negitive interactions to go from she is a "sweet dear person" to "knobber" to "sack her" and one (mildly) nasty SM post is a very low tipping point.

And that is a real life problem for how your sons ongoing education is managed.

Anyway

Their is a social connection you are not aware of being one or more people in the FB group.

And if you dont do a lot of SM the person will likely have friend level access to all your other content.

So wording

apparently

I am reading this as his stating that he has been informed by someone
a) but is unable to submit proof that one or more named individual showed him SM and the letter to your employer ( well they claimed to have sent it, you would have been informed so the sent bit did not happen)
b) employed/connected to your job
c) who is a random gossip who heard it in the post office

this is not the first time

so someone a) or b) is making up stories of being aware of a prior investigation

your staff member has had complaints made

he is making a statement without proof on what happened more that one time in your employers internal complaints process (wording more likely person b because format construction is not a sending in their letter )

about her social media usage

In real life the Head trusts whoever is making up the story of the prior complaint. If they also are your SM friend they set out to cause a break in the relationship between you and the Head.

Rambling done.

@Goldenbear Right, but in my case, where my mum left school at about 15, it's understandable that she wasn't going to be helping me much with my homework. It didn't make her any less of a lovely mum.