Freedom of Information request

[minimoo]

@elsiegee40 @bmaloney - however, surely the intention of the act wasn't for people to do 'bulk' requests (and I do understand why people would legitimately want to do multiple requests). My point by this comment is the following - one of the questions in this request was "2. number of pupils registered at the school" - if that information is already published by school (for example on their website or in the data on the DfE's website e.g. https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/105050?tab=absence-and-pupil-population "total number of pupils on roll". It would be reasonable to respond to that with a "section 21 exemption" as the information is already accessible by other mains. Whereas Q3/4/5 are likely not published so the school would need to respond. In that context - a webform may not allow schools to respond with that as an exemption (assuming i'm correct here). Equally, from the point of sending requests to all UK schools, we'd all agree that you need to automate processing of the responses. I'd also note that in this case, asking for question 2 is irrelevant as the answer to question 2 should be the sum of 3+4+5 - at least that was the original intention.

 

The school I'm involved in has several FOI requests each year on a similar topic; all slightly different. The comment I made today is that maybe we should look at what FOI's we've had over the last few years and just publish some data - with the aim of stopping those yearly/similar repeat requests. As for various reasons I'd suspect we'll get asked for data each year (it's data that on it's own anonymalised you can't really show much with anyway), we'd potentially make things simpler by publishing the data in advance of any requests. So again, in that context, to what extent should someone using the FOI to make a request do their own homework to ensure that the public body has not already made the data being requested publically accessible?

[elsiegee40]

The intention of the act was to make how public money was being spent transparent.

 

That may mean asking one school, many schools or all of them.

 

As employees of a public sector organisation it is not for us to question how many others have been asked the same question.

 

The law is clear that there are limited reasons where an organisation can refuse a request ... and addressing it to every school in the country isn’t one of them.

[minimoo]

Not sure if that was in response to me - but if the answer to a question is already published, I thought that was a reason you could refuse that part of a request (albeit I believe the advice i might have read was to direct the requestor as to where it is published)?

[bmaloney]

My point by this comment is the following - one of the questions in this request was "2. number of pupils registered at the school" - if that information is already published by school (for example on their website or in the data on the DfE's website e.g. https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/105050?tab=absence-and-pupil-population "total number of pupils on roll". It would be reasonable to respond to that with a "section 21 exemption" as the information is already accessible by other mains. Whereas Q3/4/5 are likely not published so the school would need to respond. In that context - a webform may not allow schools to respond with that as an exemption (assuming i'm correct here). Equally, from the point of sending requests to all UK schools, we'd all agree that you need to automate processing of the responses. I'd also note that in this case, asking for question 2 is irrelevant as the answer to question 2 should be the sum of 3+4+5 - at least that was the original intention.

 

Two problems here, firstly the published pupils on roll is out of date. It won't match the responses to other questions which are current. Secondly 3+4+5 can be the same as 2 or in most cases less than 2. Many schools have looked after children or orphaned children, so they won't have parent records for all children. My form test that 3+4+5 <= 2, it does not allow 3+4+5 > 2, because that doesn't make any sense. Again schools want to email me the results because the form is telling them 3+4+5 can't be more than 2, but they haven't, or don't want to read the error message.

[Ditto]

This thread has been running for a while. Could you remind me what the goal of this FOI request is? I mean, let's assume all schools that you contacted reply using the web form, what happens next? How will all the data collected be used?

[elsiegee40]

Not sure if that was in response to me - but if the answer to a question is already published, I thought that was a reason you could refuse that part of a request (albeit I believe the advice i might have read was to direct the requestor as to where it is published)?

 

If the information is already published online you direct the requester to the answer via a link.

 

You are not refusing to answer the request. You are simply not rewriting the answer.

[elsiegee40]

This thread has been running for a while. Could you remind me what the goal of this FOI request is? I mean, let's assume all schools that you contacted reply using the web form, what happens next? How will all the data collected be used?

 

And that is a question that no requester has to answer.

 

The information requested as part of a FoI is public information. There is a right in law for it to be freely available and, once released, anyone can do anything with it.

[Edutech98]

What happens if, and bare in mind a tribunal stated that even twitter isn’t an address for correspondence, but none the less what happens if the tribunal agree that a web address is a valid correspondence method. The schools still have an article 32 obligation to ensure appropriate technical and organisational measures are put in place to ensure security of their infrastructure.

 

So If the tribunal go against the ICO, I suspect that their position would then be, yes a web URL is a valid address for correspondence, but you still have an obligation to secure your infrastructure so if your procedure says not to click on URLs that you do not know, then don’t. Even if the ICO accepts the tribunals decision that a URL is a legitimate web address, they are not going to enforce a school to comprise their security just to fulfil an FOI request.

 

So then you are back at square one!

 

Would it not be better to spend your time improving your success rate of responses, then analysing the data and if it is meaningful, then fighting for reform and change. I'd even offer you my time for free because I believe overall schools do need to improve how they engage with both sets of parents.

[elsiegee40]

What happens if, and bare in mind a tribunal stated that even twitter isn’t an address for correspondence, but none the less what happens if the tribunal agree that a web address is a valid correspondence method. The schools still have an article 32 obligation to ensure appropriate technical and organisational measures are put in place to ensure security of their infrastructure.

 

So If the tribunal go against the ICO, I suspect that their position would then be, yes a web URL is a valid address for correspondence, but you still have an obligation to secure your infrastructure so if your procedure says not to click on URLs that you do not know, then don’t. Even if the ICO accepts the tribunals decision that a URL is a legitimate web address, they are not going to enforce a school to comprise their security just to fulfil an FOI request.

 

So then you are back at square one!

 

Would it not be better to spend your time improving your success rate of responses, then analysing the data and if it is meaningful, then fighting for reform and change. I'd even offer you my time for free because I believe overall schools do need to improve how they engage with both sets of parents.

 

Is there any point debating what ifs?

 

There are too many possible variables in the the judgement decision... and the decision is imminent. It was heard on 7March

 

Watch this space

 

Or this one

[Edutech98]

Sorry I thought that was the whole point of a forum. To discuss, debate, offer help, offer ideas, critically analyse, improve systems, question the norms, offer alternatives, suggest scenarios that he may not of though about, provide different point of views.

[elsiegee40]

Sorry I thought that was the whole point of a forum. To discuss, debate, offer help, offer ideas, critically analyse, improve systems, question the norms, offer alternatives, suggest scenarios that he may not of though about, provide different point of views.

 

I’m not stopping the debate

 

I use when I am moderating.

 

I am just asking an equally valid question

[Garacesh]

So If the tribunal go against the ICO, I suspect that their position would then be, yes a web URL is a valid address for correspondence, but you still have an obligation to secure your infrastructure so if your procedure says not to click on URLs that you do not know, then don’t. Even if the ICO accepts the tribunals decision that a URL is a legitimate web address, they are not going to enforce a school to comprise their security just to fulfil an FOI request.

 

I wonder, perhaps, would it be acceptable to say, for example:

"For security reasons, links using URL shorteners (e.g. goo.gl) are rejected, as we cannot see their destination. Please submit your FOI request without using these services and we will respond in due course."

 

I think that would be a fair compromise. goo.gl/etc could lead anywhere, but forms.google.com/etc is pretty clear.

I just have a very limited knowledge of FOI laws so I'm not certain if that would be acceptable.

[Edutech98]

I’m not stopping the debate

 

I use when I am moderating.

 

I am just asking an equally valid question

 

Well in that case, in answer to your question I do think there is merit in asking a what if question because it allows him to think about a different view point, that is relevant, that he may not of already thought off.

 

His original goal seems to be to analyses if schools need to improve the way they engage both sets of parents. If his data shows evidence that schools could do better, I'm presuming he will present this as a way to bring about change. (Which I support)

 

But some where along the way, in my opinion, he seems to have moved away from this and is now concentrating his efforts on arguing if a web form is a legitimate source of communication or not. I can't see how this helps him achieve his original goal, because he seems to have the technical abilities to make the changes that the schools have requested without causing any substantial work for himself. But he doesn't seem to want to do this because it seems he wants to make the point that he is right and the school/ICO is wrong.

 

I'm hoping that on reflecting on the "what if" question, he realises that weather he is right, or the ICO is right, is irrelevant to his original goal of improving the life chances of young people. And who knows, he might realise that the schools have a point and improve his method of communication, which I believe would engage more schools and bring about change quicker.

[Edutech98]

I wonder, perhaps, would it be acceptable to say, for example:

"For security reasons, links using URL shorteners (e.g. goo.gl) are rejected, as we cannot see their destination. Please submit your FOI request without using these services and we will respond in due course."

 

I think that would be a fair compromise. goo.gl/etc could lead anywhere, but forms.google.com/etc is pretty clear.

I just have a very limited knowledge of FOI laws so I'm not certain if that would be acceptable.

 

The problem with this, is that it's throwing away years of IT departments educating people not to click on web links from unknown sources. It means we are now saying, you can click on unknown URL links from unknown email address providing its not a goo.gl shorteners.

[Garacesh]

The problem with this, is that it's throwing away years of IT departments educating people not to click on web links from unknown sources. It means we are now saying, you can click on unknown URL links from unknown email address providing its not a goo.gl shorteners.

 

I'm not sure there's a problem with teaching people to hover over links and see where the link goes.

We have staff here that forward me an e-mail if they feel it's a bit suspish (I'm under no illusion that all of them would do it, but some do) and I let them know if it's OK or not.

 

Edit: I appreciate that if you're doing an FOI request properly it shouldn't require any external input at all. They should be able to access all of the request, and return all of the information, by the medium you first used to communicate (eg email, snail mail), but I don't think it's fair to reject anything that contains a hyperlink on security grounds. It's overkill. We're supposed to educate our users so they can function on the wider internet as a whole too, not bubblewrap them from every potential threat ever.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Garacesh

[Edutech98]

I'm not sure there's a problem with teaching people to hover over links and see where the link goes.

We have staff here that forward me an e-mail if they feel it's a bit suspish (I'm under no illusion that all of them would do it, but some do) and I let them know if it's OK or not.

 

Edit: I appreciate that if you're doing an FOI request properly it shouldn't require any external input at all. They should be able to access all of the request, and return all of the information, by the medium you first used to communicate (eg email, snail mail), but I don't think it's fair to reject anything that contains a hyperlink on security grounds. It's overkill. We're supposed to educate our users so they can function on the wider internet as a whole too, not bubblewrap them from every potential threat ever.

 

It's not the ability to see the link that's the issue. The problem is the url is unknown (I don't mean you can't see it, I mean its not a known URL like bbc, facebook etc) and its from an unknown email address. General IT security advise would be not to click on links from unknown email addresses to unknown URLs, even if you can see what the full URL is. It's one of the layers of security that you would put in place to help protect against malware, Trojans, botnets etc.

[Garacesh]

I get your point, but forms.google could be categorised as a known url for a lot of people. You have a valid point, it's generally best practice not to click emailed urls from unknown sources - I fully expect there have been malware aggressions pretending to be FOI requests - but that's generally. You can't say 'never' because that's just not feasible with the way people communicate online.

 

Consider also that FOI doesn't (or shouldn't) go to regular teachers, but to someone who is a bit more educated about this sort of thing, and that as always, you can encourage staff to request your opinion if they are uncertain.

 

Then again, the point is pretty moot until we hear back from the appeal against the ICO's decision. I would, personally, recommend that anybody submitting an FOI request should do so in a plaintext format avoiding any need for external references (files, websites, etc) but I accept there probably aren't hard rules around it.

[Ditto]

And that is a question that no requester has to answer. The information requested as part of a FoI is public information. There is a right in law for it to be freely available and, once released, anyone can do anything with it.

Agreed, but I'm genuinely interested if the requester joins the forum to discuss the details. I think I have a basic understanding around the focus on the role of paternal parenting and how schools work with collecting with paternal details. But I feel I don't know how this data, once collected, will be used - again something under legislation the requester does not to have answer, but the opportunity is there.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Ditto

[synaesthesia]

I'm quite certain the requested joined the forums purely for the attention.

[bmaloney]

I'm quite certain the requested joined the forums purely for the attention.

 

Anyway, back to more serious issues, if you want to protect your data, use what the ICO's "expert" called an "air break machine", a dedicated, clean machine connected to the internet via a guest network or some other means which prevents infection to you machines with sensitive data. Tablets are very cheap these days, you can get a new one for less than £30. Then you can click away on links in emails as much as you like, just clean the machine off afterwards.

 

Schools already have to teach searching for, and accessing information on the internet as part of the National Curriculum. They already have to expose some machines to infection from random sites on the internet and still protect their data. Use one of those machines. None of this is specific to FOI requests, it's just sound practice which schools should be doing anyway.

 

The approach I've taken in this FOI request is novel, it's necessary to actually gather the data otherwise it would be too slow and ultimately futile, it's necessitated by the quantity of data coming back, but it isn't the only method. I'm already working on plan B which will use PDF forms to collect the data. This can be emailed and collected by email, hopefully without being printed off and then scanned back in again!

 

I haven't finished gathering all the schools' email addresses yet, I've got primary schools and about half the secondary schools. I'm going through the secondary schools checking the contact the DfE has against the schools generic contact address. If the DfE has a named person's email address for a school I'm trying to replace that with the generic contact address to account for people leaving that school and invalidating the address. I don't know why the DfE is collecting specific addresses anyway, it just makes work for them too.

 

When I've gone as far as I can with the webform, and pending the appeal outcome, I will switch to an alternative method, but these developments are not free and take time. The webform was the easiest and most logical approach. I didn't anticipate the lengths some schools would go to not to produce the information and what the Local Authorities would do behind the scenes to coordinate refusals. Kent for instance has a two stage response, the first is to refuse on the grounds a web address is not an address for correspondence. When I send them a review request they then reply with "we didn't refuse here's our data" but the data says they are refusing on the grounds of cost. The emails are all identical, with just names and figures changed.

 

Other schools have sent me a request for clarification, using my webform, saying "we can't correspond with you via a webform, please give us an email address." or "we won't click on links in emails, please give us an email address". When I point out that using the webform to send me a request for clarification is corresponding with me via a URL, they go a bit quiet or start quoting the ICO. It's not very dignified really, if you've used the link, then please just use the link instead of trying to find ever more convoluted ways of refusing.

[Garacesh]

The approach I've taken in this FOI request is novel, it's necessary to actually gather the data

No it isn't. It's necessary to reduce your labour as much as possible. May I remind you that we are under no obligation to reduce your labour, only to respond to the questions that you have asked (if the request is deemed valid, which so far, it has not been). The fact that you have requested so much from so many schools is your problem. If you wanted less labour, you should have asked for less data. The burden of processing the data lies with you. You are trying to offload that burden. Please stop trying to dress it up as anything else.

 

Other schools have sent me a request for clarification, using my webform, saying "we can't correspond with you via a webform, please give us an email address." or "we won't click on links in emails, please give us an email address". When I point out that using the webform to send me a request for clarification is corresponding with me via a URL, they go a bit quiet or start quoting the ICO. It's not very dignified really, if you've used the link, then please just use the link instead of trying to find ever more convoluted ways of refusing.

With all due respect, the ICO have declared your request as invalid because a web form is not a method of correspondence. Therefore, a web form is not (and will remain 'is not' until the conclusion of your appeal) a valid method of correspondence. We do not have to respond because your request is invalid. End of story.

 

Even if the appeal is upheld, and the FOI request is deemed valid at a later date, schools are still (and will still have been) doing the correct thing by not responding at present. It's like if your driving license was revoked. You can appeal it, but you must still abide by the original ruling until the appeal has concluded.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Garacesh

[sparkeh]

 

Anyway, back to more serious issues, if you want to protect your data, use what the ICO's "expert" called an "air break machine", a dedicated, clean machine connected to the internet via a guest network or some other means which prevents infection to you machines with sensitive data. Tablets are very cheap these days, you can get a new one for less than £30. Then you can click away on links in emails as much as you like, just clean the machine off afterwards.

 

Schools already have to teach searching for, and accessing information on the internet as part of the National Curriculum. They already have to expose some machines to infection from random sites on the internet and still protect their data. Use one of those machines. None of this is specific to FOI requests, it's just sound practice which schools should be doing anyway.

 

The approach I've taken in this FOI request is novel, it's necessary to actually gather the data otherwise it would be too slow and ultimately futile, it's necessitated by the quantity of data coming back, but it isn't the only method. I'm already working on plan B which will use PDF forms to collect the data. This can be emailed and collected by email, hopefully without being printed off and then scanned back in again!

 

I haven't finished gathering all the schools' email addresses yet, I've got primary schools and about half the secondary schools. I'm going through the secondary schools checking the contact the DfE has against the schools generic contact address. If the DfE has a named person's email address for a school I'm trying to replace that with the generic contact address to account for people leaving that school and invalidating the address. I don't know why the DfE is collecting specific addresses anyway, it just makes work for them too.

 

When I've gone as far as I can with the webform, and pending the appeal outcome, I will switch to an alternative method, but these developments are not free and take time. The webform was the easiest and most logical approach. I didn't anticipate the lengths some schools would go to not to produce the information and what the Local Authorities would do behind the scenes to coordinate refusals. Kent for instance has a two stage response, the first is to refuse on the grounds a web address is not an address for correspondence. When I send them a review request they then reply with "we didn't refuse here's our data" but the data says they are refusing on the grounds of cost. The emails are all identical, with just names and figures changed.

 

Other schools have sent me a request for clarification, using my webform, saying "we can't correspond with you via a webform, please give us an email address." or "we won't click on links in emails, please give us an email address". When I point out that using the webform to send me a request for clarification is corresponding with me via a URL, they go a bit quiet or start quoting the ICO. It's not very dignified really, if you've used the link, then please just use the link instead of trying to find ever more convoluted ways of refusing.

Hi. Your request was ruled invalid by the ICO, there is an appeal pending. You are mistaking schools trying to frustrate you for schools following the rules. Its not personal.

Let the appeal process complete. Submit a valid request and you will get your data.

 

Its all very simple.

[enjay]

This thread has been running for a while. Could you remind me what the goal of this FOI request is? I mean, let's assume all schools that you contacted reply using the web form, what happens next? How will all the data collected be used?

 

And that is a question that no requester has to answer.

 

The information requested as part of a FoI is public information. There is a right in law for it to be freely available and, once released, anyone can do anything with it.

 

Agreed, the end goal is not a factor in whether or not we respond (the ICO saying not to IS a factor, but that's a tired debate now). That said, I would be interested to know how @bmaloney intends/hopes to bring about change once he has gathered all the data which shows not every natural father is listed in SIMS and the majority of school staff are female. He has been asked several times if there are specific changes he would like, but has so far declined to comment.

[Garacesh]

That said, I would be interested to know how @bmaloney intends/hopes to bring about change once he has gathered all the data which shows not every natural father is listed in SIMS and the majority of school staff are female. He has been asked several times if there are specific changes he would like, but has so far declined to comment.

 

I too am interested in this. In principle I agree with the idea that there is a huge discrepancy in mothers/fathers ratio and where there may be instances where a parent wants to be part of their child's life but are unable to do so in full due to the actions of the other partner (such as not giving contact information), but I think @elsiegee40's response was more of a "You can ask, just be aware that @bmaloney is not required to actually give an answer."

[bmaloney]

Hi. Your request was ruled invalid by the ICO, there is an appeal pending. You are mistaking schools trying to frustrate you for schools following the rules. Its not personal.

Let the appeal process complete. Submit a valid request and you will get your data.

 

Its all very simple.

 

Unfortunately I won't, what I will get from schools in Kent is a refusal on the grounds of cost. The standard calculation they are all producing will be massaged so that the time per pupil multiplied by the number of pupils will always be slightly greater than 25 hours, even if the data is available in a database on SIMs or whatever else they are using. The approach is quite obviously being coordinated to avoid answering the request.