Teacher hand delivered certificate usually given out in class.

[howmanycorners]

I don’t know what to make of this, dc is in primary school and every week someone gets a certificate.
Suddenly I saw my child’s teacher walk past the lounge window at about 8 pm and post a certificate through the door.
Aibu to find it a bit strange and wonder why she did this having had to look up our address and purposely drive to our house when all certificates are handed out in school and she would see my child in the morning?

They posted something through the door. They didn't try and see the OP or the child or knock on the door. You're really stretching definitions here to make it sound invasive when it isn't.

None of that nonsense applies to someone shoving something through your letterbox.

So if she knew of the address through her professional relationship with the OPs family even verbally shared it’s still a breach. Maybe she know’s the op personally - it’s a stretch, maybe the op could confirm?

So gdpr matters when it's the nhs staff looking up data to sell on but it doesn't if it's a kind adult trying to access a child's home address. Or say nhs looking up thr same data to send flowers?

There's a moral difference in wanting to find health details of the POW to sell to tabloids and nurses selling injury details of those stabbed to death.

But surely its the same law?

i had access to lots of data with unrestricted access. What i dodnt have was a right to look at it without a genuine need.

Makes you wonder why have GDPR.

Does anyone seriously believe the ICO would give a rat's arse about this? Or that is would be a justifiable use of public money trying to make them investigate it?

There was absolutely no necessity for her to put anything through the door, the child read in school next day on the day it would normally be given to him.

It was a clear breach of GDPR to look up the address to go there. I hope you aren't responsible for GDPR for anyone.

I've linked to the 6 lawful bases of school data processing and have explained how none of them were satisfied. I'm not stretching definitions. The school have clearly breached GDPR in accessing the OP's address for this purpose. It's irrelevant whether they saw anybody when they got to the letterbox (but they did see the OP's child).

Did you not speak to the teacher?

Well you've hit the nail right on the head there.

Yes, random visits can be made for welfare purposes. there was no need for this visit at all.

Teachers need to understand that for safeguarding purposes they are agents of the state and there are many parents who would be very worried by a random visit by a teacher for no good reason.

This is a clear breach of GDPR and it's absolutely shocking how many people on this forum don't understand that and will not accept that now they have been told.

One of the three components of legitimate interest.

It’s likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s information:

• in ways that have a minimal impact on their privacy;

Ah yes, that nonsense known as the law.

Which applies to how you access personal data, which then could enable you to shove things through letterboxes.

So you saw the teacher and didn’t just ask them? Like an adult might?

For sure this is not a hanging offence but it is a breach and the teacher needs further training, maybe it’s a weakness across the school where they don’t place importance on it but I would be raising it. I’ve had to raise it with one of our suppliers - she was rather chippy about it - it was bad enough that she breached worse that she got defensive. I stopped dealing with the company after that.

You’re too invested in being right.

She posted a certificate. She simply needs to ask why, it’s not rocket science. Once she knows why, then see if there’s been any breach.

You don’t just go straight for the jugular because you think you know everything there is to know about GDPR for gods sake.

Right?!
This thread is unhinged. You can just talk to people you know. It might be more helpful than 27 pages of bad advice and suggestions.

“Hey Mrs x thanks so much for dropping little Jonny’s certificate round last night but you didn’t have to go out of your way to do so, is there any reason why it couldn’t have waited until today?”
“Well Jonny’s mum due to the heatwave there was a chance the school might have been closed today so I didn’t want Jonny to miss out on his certificate.”
or
“I accidentally gathered up Jonny’s certificate with my marking, was worried I’d leave it at home and he’d miss out so thought I’d just pop it in your letterbox”
or some other NORMAL interaction like that.

It really is ok to ask someone why they did something in a non-accusatory way. It’s much more sensible than asking a lot of strangers.

People can put things through your letter box without need for panic. Unsolicited mail, adverts, political flyers, charity bags.

YABU for being suspicious of a teacher doing something without finding out why they did it.

It's a 3 part test, you can't cherry pick one part. Purpose and necessity aren't passed. This is easiest to understand on necessity, as accessing the address isn't necessary for the purpose of the child receiving the certificate. They can receive it in school as per normal. Therefore, legitimate interests in the original 6 bases are not satisfied along with any the others.

Do you understand what the word ‘or’ means?

Another post completely missing the point that teachers are agents of the state for child safeguarding, not just anyone sticking a letter through your letterbox.

Yes, why?

Post is not a safeguarding issue. Its post. In a postbox. She didn’t come in. She didn’t use the address for nefarious means. She saw the outside of the house. Which is public.

You could walk past someone coming out their house and then know that’s where they live.

Most teachers know where their students live.

“agents for the state” … again , this thread is UNHINGED.

No wonder teachers are quitting in droves.

Unless you mean this
There are three elements to the legitimate interests basis. For this three-part test, you must:

• identify a legitimate interest;
• show that the use of personal information is necessary to achieve it; and
• balance it against the interests, rights and freedoms of the person whose information you want to use.

In which case presumably the argument would be. That it was legitimate to deliver the certificate (we don’t know this because the OP would rather post on MN than just ask). The information was needed to deliver it and on balance it doesn’t infringe the rights of the person whose information they used.

But like much of AIBU it is batshit, because the OP could have just asked the teacher and found out what was going on. Then taken it further if they wanted to.

Maybe the govt would be more successful rebranding their recruitment from 'teacher' to 'Agent of the State' - sounds a much more exciting career!

As to the OP, I think the only solution to this is to quit your job and start homeschooling immediately, it's the only safe thing to do.

You're determined to take offense at this, so crack on. Just don't damage your child's enjoyment of it by wingeing on about it in front of her.

Well exactly. Some people don't seem to understand that the law and professional standards sometimes protect against things that might happen, even if they don't in that particular case. You can't write grossly offensive things in communications with intent to cause distress, even though some people wouldn't be offended because it protects the wider principle. Public bodies can't discriminate against people, even though some people wouldn't care, or would accept it. Professionals can't use address data in ways that might be innocuous but are ultimately not appropriate because there are some humans professionals who might use that data and visit the outside of the house for malicious purposes.

It really doesn't matter that some people wouldn't mind or think the teacher is kind or whatever. All those saying "well I wouldn't care" or "I think it's stupid" or otherwise mocking the OP have missed the point (and are being a bit egocentric).

Ffs. Below is a pretty standard excerpt from a primary school privacy policy. I imagine in the case of one of the MN GDPR lawyers taking up the case for the OP, the school would argue this is covered by reporting on progress. Specifically ‘this child has reached a standard that makes them child of the week’.

We use the pupil data to:

• support pupils and teachers in learning
• monitor and report on progress
• provide appropriate care and security
• assess the quality of our services
• comply with the law around statutory data sharing
• promote the school (via newsletters and social media, with appropriate consent)