AdamV

You might also want to look at patch 24423 which deletes records of "Proficiency in English". This is no longer required to be collected but the DfE does not say that you *must* not collect or process it as they do with Nationality and Country of birth. Also review your annual data collection process - not much help deleting all this data if you send home a paper form once a year that appears to ask for it all over again!

My point here is this: Student A says "I would like to know what rank you gave me" School responds "Because so few of you take that subject / received that grade, we can't give you that data without implicitly telling you what ranks were given to other students" Students A, B and C all say (for example in a letter co-signed by them all) "We waive our right to privacy about our rankings in this subject, and would each like to see our rankings even though we know that would mean we would figure out each other's ranks". I think where this will come up most often is in discussions about Autumn resits (putting aside the rarer case of the pushy parent who might want to bring a legal case). Being honest with a student about their chances of a better grade will inevitably lead to them needing to know did they get mnoderated down because they were the bottom rank of the grade above, with a good chance to do better, or did they get their assessed grade, unadjusted, with little chance of it being improved. (Note also the lack of jeopardy in taking the exam in Autumn as they can keep the better of the two results). I am also concerned that when organisations show any resistance to releasing data under a SAR, things tend to go downhill fast, and the scope gets increased by the data subject - "Now I want all the data you have about me including all emails where you might have discussed my grades, and all spreadsheets which have my name in them, and everything from the MIS system since I joined the school".

Just thought it was worth mentioning here that since Autumn 2018, these three items are no longer required by the Census: Student's Country of Birth Student's Nationality Student's Proficiency in English DfE guidance makes it clear that schools MUST NOT collect the first two, following a high court judgement (climate of hostility and all that). GDPR would make it clear that unless you have a specific reason to collect the proficiency in English then you should not collect that either, since the main reason (census) is now no longer the case.

I have some thoughts on this topic following similar discussions internally. Disclaimer: "I am not a lawyer" (but I have dealt with lots of DPA/GDPR matters over the years) 1) I agree that some clearer guidance would be welcome, but what I have seen from OfQual says that without new legislation (which is unlikely in the timescales we face), there can be no special exemption from GDPR for CAGs and Ranks 2) The exemptions that did/do exist are being shoehorned into existing rules about exam scripts which, even if valid, evaporate on results day 3) SARs do not have to be in a special format or use specific wording or a particular form. Realistically, they can be made verbally, although requesting them in writing is usually reasonable as it covers both parties in making sure they are accountable. On results day, if you say that a SAR must be made in writing, expect an email from the student's smartphone about 30 seconds later. They should come from the data subject (ie not parents), or be very clear that they are being submitted under the direction of and with the consent of, the data subject. 4) The ICO requires a data controller to respond to a SAR "as quickly as possible". The 1 month limit is the latest possible. Realistically, if a student asks a member of SLT who is sat in front of a laptop with access to your MIS what their CAG was, then arguably "as quickly as possible" could be interpreted as "right now" after a few clicks of the mouse. 5) A data subject can explicitly and selctively waive their right to privacy. A group of students could all send a biolerplate email stating that they are happy for their CAG and rank to be shared with others, which means the defence of "I can't tell you your rank because it would reveal someone else's too" won't last five minutes. If you have larger groups, this defence won't really wash anyway. If you have small groups, it is easier for the student's to organise themselves to do this (they could even do this just with the others they know received the same CAG as them). 6) Asking for evidence of what processes were used would be FOI, not SAR. 7) Section 36 exemption might apply to some parts of an FOI request, but not others. And a section 36 exemption must be agreed at a pretty high level before you even think of relyin on it (eg Chair of Governors, from memory). By "some parts" I mean, for example, it would likely not exempt you from having to reveal emails sent between staff and/or SLT about what process they should use, what evidence should be included or excluded etc. If you decided not to consider Mock results at all, or a particular assessment, that would become public information. If you decided to just take Mock results and add an arbitrary inflation (eg +1 grade) to them, that would come out. If you selected students with specific characteristics to be treated differently (eg to give them more advantage), that would be fair game. How you decided which students to enter or withdraw, especially those in the "wrong" year group taking an exam early, or a resit, would be open to scrutiny (with redaction of personal information of course). After sharing what the process was supposed to be, you could be expected to demonstrate that this was followed in all cases (or the cases relevant to the FOI request being made, which might be in relation to one subject or qualification type). Emails or minutes of meetings or emails about individuals or groups of students would likely be exempt, as that is the sort of "ability to speak freely and openly" that the exemption aims to protect. I can see this will all be stressfull for some teachers and leaders, knowing that in some cases students and their parents will be disappointed with a grade which was assigned by the centre, or even where the assessed grade has bene moderated downwards (if only they had been ranked higher than , they would have gone down instead). But when the internal process has been designed as fairly as possible, and followed with integrity to be fair, unbiased and led by evidence, I'm not really sure why we would want to hide any of this.