DfE/PFA 2012: "Parents given power of veto on schools’ use of biometric information"

[PiqueABoo]

Ugh.. didn't realise that is the last FAQ in the draft guidance:

 

Is parental notification or consent required where a child uses or accesses standard commercial sites or software which use face recognition technology?

The provisions in the Act only cover the processing of biometric data by or on behalf of the school or college. If a school or college wishes to use such software for school work then the requirement to notify parents and to obtain parental consent will apply. However, if a pupil is using this software for their own personal purposes then the provisions do not apply, even if the software is accessed using school or college equipment.

 

Murkiness: There's a difference between what I thought/said and what this says e.g. if teacher says go and do some project on your class trip without specifying precisely how then, the pupil could on their own initiative decide to upload that class photo somewhere that does biometrics, and they'd be doing that for school purposes. You want to encourage rather than take away pupil initiative surely, so I think 'own volition" (or not) has got to be the intent and answer here.

[glennda]

Ugh.. didn't realise that is the last FAQ in the draft guidance:

 

Is parental notification or consent required where a child uses or accesses standard commercial sites or software which use face recognition technology?

The provisions in the Act only cover the processing of biometric data by or on behalf of the school or college. If a school or college wishes to use such software for school work then the requirement to notify parents and to obtain parental consent will apply. However, if a pupil is using this software for their own personal purposes then the provisions do not apply, even if the software is accessed using school or college equipment.

 

Murkiness: There's a difference between what I thought/said and what this says e.g. if teacher says go and do some project on your class trip without specifying precisely how then, the pupil could on their own initiative decide to upload that class photo somewhere that does biometrics, and they'd be doing that for school purposes. You want to encourage rather than take away pupil initiative surely, so I think 'own volition" (or not) has got to be the intent and answer here.

 

 

That clause i presume is to cover items such as laptops a student may bring in under BYOD scheme which has a biometric login - they may use it at school but the school havn't forced it apon them.

 

Personally rather then getting consent the easier method is saying - We will do this unless you object as otherwise half the parents don't bother to reply and you are up the creek without a paddle!

 

@Grumbledock

@glennda There are many reasons why people refuse to use biometric systems, some for personal reasons, some medical and some due to faith. To say that we are pandering to the requirements of these ... well that is not really fair ... you might only have 2 vegetarians in the school ... you would still support them in their choice nd the choice of their family.

 

i'm not sure how a medical reason could stop somebody using a biometric scanner - unless they are the boy who's skin fell off! Faith is a different story but some people believe in all sorts we don't always pander to those people.

[localzuk]

Around 7 - 11% of the population of the UK are vegetarian. 3 objections in 1600 kids is 0.19%. That is a massive difference, one is accepting a significant percentage of the population wants something, the other is pandering to an extreme.

 

Should the government also bring in laws allowing children to be withdrawn from science lessons because a tiny percentage of the population thinks creationism is right and evolution is wrong? Or out of geography lessons because there are a few flat earthers around still?

[GrumbleDook]

Yep ... And I've come across schools where it is about 15% of children are vegetarian, and schools where none are. The example was used to show that there are situations where we deal with a minority who are perfectly entitled to make a choice. I could have said vegan (this report, The vegan diet for infants and children - The Vegan Society, on the Vegan Society site say that research in 2000 shows that there are approx 0.5% of children between 6-17 who are vegans), but hey ... Let's argue about a minor point in stats instead of the idea that children should not have choice ... Just because it makes life difficult for a few people.

 

I'm off to read the Daily Fail to find out what my views should be.

 

On a serious note ... Yes, it is about manageable compromise, but you have to be open enough to accept that there are things that where a decision has been made under law and you now have to deal with it. If you don't like it the feel free to go to your MP or start an ePetition to get it discussed again. Add your response to consultation to make sure that the difficulties it creates are understood by both DfE and suppliers.

[localzuk]

Yep ... And I've come across schools where it is about 15% of children are vegetarian, and schools where none are. The example was used to show that there are situations where we deal with a minority who are perfectly entitled to make a choice. I could have said vegan (this report, The vegan diet for infants and children - The Vegan Society, on the Vegan Society site say that research in 2000 shows that there are approx 0.5% of children between 6-17 who are vegans), but hey ... Let's argue about a minor point in stats instead of the idea that children should not have choice ... Just because it makes life difficult for a few people.

I'm off to read the Daily Fail to find out what my views should be.

 

On a serious note ... Yes, it is about manageable compromise, but you have to be open enough to accept that there are things that where a decision has been made under law and you now have to deal with it. If you don't like it the feel free to go to your MP or start an ePetition to get it discussed again. Add your response to consultation to make sure that the difficulties it creates are understood by both DfE and suppliers.

 

Running a consultation now is much like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. As far as I remember, no actual consultation was run before it was implemented by a reactionary government listening to a very small, but very loud, minority.

 

Sometimes, children should not have a choice. Why should they? Do parents get to choose what MIS system we use? No. Why do they get to choose what system we use for cashless catering?

 

And saying it makes life difficult for a few people is a massively trollish comment - the difficulties it causes I have highlighted above, including children not eating any lunch at all because they have to queue for longer. People in the school don't care if it means having to spend 1 minute or 2 minutes per child at the till - they get paid still, but the effect for the kids is significant, and it can mean more people need employing to operate more tills, or to create new cards etc... When that money can and should be used elsewhere.

[GrumbleDook]

View the consultation as a chance to do some damage limitation then ... Because the law is there, in black & white and saying "why should we be forced to do something that is difficult?" is pointless right now ... The law says it will be done and the consultation is about guidance around it, and also a chance to make sure suppliers are in line to help mitigate any damage.

 

If I am trolling it is because people are moaning about how unfair the law is and that not being allowed to use a given technical solution will cause problems .... Problems which are best dealt with by educating the children and families, by making sure SLT give enough time for meals and that pastoral care keeps an eye on at risk children ... Oh, the things that *should* be done anyway!

[PiqueABoo]

The politicians stood in front of TV cameras and announced intent to make legislation about this and other things, IIRC around election time.. the Bill kicked off in Feb 2011 and it's clear by the debates etc. that plenty of interested parties got their concerns into the right peoples hands. This is how the system works and you had ample opportunity to: a) Notice there was new law in progress, b) Write to MPs, committee members etc.

 

Sometimes, children should not have a choice

 

Again the basis for this is consent: I'm a parent, my child is MY responsibility and some school tech (or headmaster) should not get to decide whether MY child should surrender personal data or not. I don't think there was a single voice from any party or indeed anyone opposed to that, it's uncontentious, the issues were over whether you needed all parents or just one to consent etc.

 

That said whether the child should be able to override the parental decision was one of the hot topics, especially whether there is a too young angle. You have to go read that to see the justifications (there are some proper ones).

 

Do parents get to choose what MIS system we use?

 

Irrelevant, they're not choosing what catering/whatever system you're using.

 

Are schools required to ask/tell parents before introducing a biometric system?

The law doesn’t require that parents are consulted before an automated biometric system is installed, only that parents be notified and that consent from at least one parent be gained before their child’s biometric data is obtained or used for the purposes of such a system. It is up to schools to decide whether they think it is appropriate to consult parents and pupils in advance.

Edited May 16, 2012 by PiqueABoo

[GrumbleDook]

Running a consultation now is much like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. As far as I remember, no actual consultation was run before it was implemented by a reactionary government listening to a very small, but very loud, minority.

 

The original bill was change in a number of areas due to strong lobbying from a number of groups ... and the extent of the change was reduced due to the strong lobbying of other groups ... and a number of bodies (including ASCL) did have there evidence taken into account. I am not aware of Unison or GMB lobbying, nor am I aware of BCS, IET or other groups lobbying. This is why we have bills go from one house to another ... it might not get the result either the pro- or anti-biometric groups want but it ends up in more of a compromise than if no-one got involved.