Primary school database

constance tench

pwurple wrote: »

LMAO.

Popping back in to the thread was good for a chuckle this morning. I love this kind of nutty conspiracy stuff. Fine gael are out to get us even though it's a different party altogether, and they're providing a service... Wahhhhh!



Good to get to the REAL issue of the evil overlords anyway. Priceless. Keep it coming.

He who laughs last...

'One of the hundreds of amendments backed by Ireland appears to water down when data collectors must delete user data, in particular data collected when the user was a child.

Germany and Ireland, for instance, have proposed deleting the obligation of data collectors to erase user data “when the storage period consented to has expired”.'



http://lobbyplag.eu/governments


http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/ireland-in-top-three-eu-countries-for-undermining-data-privacy-1.2133393?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Orion

One of the hundreds of amendments backed by Ireland appears to water down when data collectors must delete user data, in particular data collected when the user was a child.

Germany and Ireland, for instance, have proposed deleting the obligation of data collectors to erase user data “when the storage period consented to has expired”.

Ireland appears to support removing an article that “respect(s) the essence of the right to the protection of personal data”.

The proposed replacement would allow a seemingly broader user data collection, “carried out in the public interest”.

Ireland is also involved in amendments permitting “profiling” of users via their data.

Who's a conspiracy theorist now?

constance tench

...eager to see what's in this new Circular!

'The text of the latest statement from the Department of Education to Primary Schools:

Dear Principal,

Thank you for your continued participation and engagement in the POD project.

As you know both schools and the Department have received a number of comments and queries on certain aspects of the operation of POD. The Department has considered all the submissions received and is committed to taking this feedback on board, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. As a result, an updated Fair Processing Notice and a POD circular, along with supplementary information and guidance for schools and parents will issue in early April. The deadline for schools to populate POD with their pupil and class data is hereby extended until Friday the 30th April 2015.

The POD helpdesk is available Monday to Friday 8:30am-5pm on 01 8892311. If you have any queries or comments please do not hesitate to contact us at pod@education.gov.ie. Please note that schools can refer parents/guardians to the helpdesk if they wish to do so.

Kind regards,

XXXX

Statistics Section, Department of Education and Skills.

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2015/03/25/dept-of-education-abandon-march-deadline-for-pod-confirm-both-new-circular-and-revised-data-use-statement-needed-first/

zanador

We got this email from our school:

Dear Parents/Guardians,



As per your request we have not sent your child(ren's) information to the DES via POD (Primary Online Database). The DES have informed us that they must have this in writing (not by email) from each parent/guardian stating that you do not want your child's information to be sent to the DES via POD. They are also requesting a reason you do not want your child included on the database. The letter must be signed and dated. This is a DES requirement that we must comply with in order for the correct Capitation and Ancillary grants to be allocated to the school in September, and also for the correct Teacher Allocation.

The information the school is sending to POD for other students in the school is listed below:

The Child's first name, last name, date of birth, gender, address, PPS number, date enrolled, class/standard and if in some cases a previous school category. This information is required by the school when you registered your child.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Orion

They sent an email to request a letter

When I refused permission it was a soft copy of a letter with both our signatures on it. I did give a reason but there is no obligation to do so. Simply saying that you are exercising your right to protect your children's data is sufficient. That said I would encourage people to tell them why you are objecting - retention and privacy being the major ones for me. If enough people object based on the same objection it makes the database worthless and they will be forced to change their approach.

zanador

Orion wrote: »

They sent an email to request a letter

When I refused permission it was a soft copy of a letter with both our signatures on it. I did give a reason but there is no obligation to do so. Simply saying that you are exercising your right to protect your children's data is sufficient. That said I would encourage people to tell them why you are objecting - retention and privacy being the major ones for me. If enough people object based on the same objection it makes the database worthless and they will be forced to change their approach.

The school sent this email requesting we send a letter to the DES - it was in reply to the emails we sent the school asking them not to put us on POD. I would imagine the DES need us to do this so they can count us for teacher allocation etc

Orion

Absolutely not. The school are the data controllers. It is them I wrote to as they are responsible for protecting my data. If they need it I will certainly give them permission to forward the letter to the DES but I'm not writing to them.

constance tench

A FOI request shows the Department of Social Protection would access to POD data to check on payments made to families...DSP and DES had a meeting mid 2014 to discuss this.

Does anyone recall that being a specified purpose in a fair processing notice?

Orion

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2015/06/18/data-protection-commissioner-finds-pod-was-and-still-is-unlawful/

meeeeh

However, a number of POD fields are not listed in Regulation 189 and, as such, they do not constitute “prescribed” information for the purposes of
Section 266 of the 2005 Act. The data fields concerned are as follows: Mother’s Maiden Name; Enrolment Date; Enrolment Source; Leaving Date; Leaving Destination; Integrated Indicator; Indicator for Receipt of Learning Support; Pupil Type and Special Class Type. We consider that an amending statutory instrument should have been signed before these data fields were included in POD. Having identified this deficiency in the legitimising of the processing, we directed the Department of Education and Skills to have an amending statutory instrument introduced.

Well it certainly is a win for data protection. Mother's maiden name was huge bone of contention.

All they have to do is introduce an amendment adding some categories. Anyway this thread is complete mess of German findings that relate to data protection in corporations (not state), old and misleading links. It's almost like proving that chemitrails exist.

Oh and another bit from the link provided:

The collection and sharing of PPSN data was raised as a matter of concern by you and some other parents. This Office is satisfied that, in principle, the collection and sharing of PPSN data between schools and the Department of Education and Skills for the purposes of the POD, and the subsequent use of PPSN numbers by the Minister for Education in the discharge of his/her statutory functions can lawfully be undertaken. Under Section 262(4) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) a specified body may require access to an individual’s PPSN in any case where (a) the individual in question is entering into a “transaction” with the specified body; and (b) the specified body requires the individual’s PPSN number for the purposes of that transaction. The Minister for Education is a “specified body” for the purposes of Section 262(4). Transaction in this context is defined to included “a supply of a service relating to a public function of a specified body which relates to a natural person.” The provision of primary education to children resident in the State, delivered through a network of recognised schools necessarily involves the supply of a service by the Minister to natural persons relating to a public function of the Minister.

It is also the case that all children have a right to free primary education under Article 42.4 of the Constitution. That right is also the subject of primary legislation. In particular, the Education Act, 1998 expressly provides that it shall be a function of the Minister for Education that he/she shall ensure that there is made available to each person resident in the State a level and quality of education appropriate to meeting the needs and abilities of that person.

Moreover, we are satisfied that Section 262(6)(b) of the 2005 Act authorises the Minister for Education and Skills to use pupils’ PPSN numbers in performing his/her public functions as those functions relate to pupils.
The Minister’s functions also include the following:

to plan and coordinate the provision of education in recognised schools and centres for education.
to provide funding to each recognised school and centre for education
and to provide support services to recognised schools and centres for education
to monitor and assess the quality, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the education system provided in the State by recognised schools and centres for education.

Orion

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/concern-over-database-of-pupils-info-337870.html

The Department of Education did not have the authority to collect much of the information gathered for a database of primary pupils, Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon’s office has found.

However, a statutory instrument to be introduced by Education Minister Jan O’Sullivan should make the primary online database (POD) compliant with data protection law, so data already collected would not need to be discarded.

So they illegally collected data and then the Minister of the Department that illegally collected this data can, with the stroke of a pen, make it legal and not have to destroy the illegally collected data?

meeeeh

Some categories were not listed in the act. Mothers current name is legal and mother's maiden name is not. It's administrative exercise more than anything else. If you read your own link you would see that the intention and process itself were found perfectly reasonable.

OU812

Orion wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/concern-over-database-of-pupils-info-337870.html


So they illegally collected data and then the Minister of the Department that illegally collected this data can, with the stroke of a pen, make it legal and not have to destroy the illegally collected data?

Unfortunately that's the way government work. Laws suit those who make them always & the populace mostly.

Orion

I did read my own link thanks. The fact remains that they illegally collected data and will not be forced to delete it.

meeeeh

Orion wrote: »

I did read my own link thanks. The fact remains that they illegally collected data and will not be forced to delete it.

No they illegally collected some data, like mums maiden name, date of enrolment and leaving, information about learning supports and special class types... The process of collecting information is perfectly acceptable. Which was clearly understood in your first link and you would know that if you bothered to read it. The Examiner article is just the rehash of stuff in previous link.

Are you seriously suggesting it is unreasonable for department to know when is someone enrolling and leaving and weather the special supports are needed in school. Now tell me who would benefit from not disclosing that information. The kids that need it definitely not.

But yes they could discard all data, amen the act with five categories and send the same thing out next year to the cost of few million. Or are you saying that you objected to collection of data because you didn't want to write on the form mother's maiden name?

Orion

Maybe you should read the rest of this thread to see what my objections are to the POD. It is not the collating of statistical data - it is the building of a database of all primary school children and retaining all that personal information for an extended period. As I said from the start I have serious data protection concerns regarding the methods and data being collected as well as the retention. And the DPC have now agreed that they are in breach of the law regarding this. So if you want to put words in my mouth then read the rest of the thread first and get your facts straight.

meeeeh

And except changing the timeframe (till 19) personal information tied to pps no. was deemed reasonable and acceptable. There a few spurious categories that need to be amended but nothing overly serious.

While I understand why statistical data would be preferable for some, the personalized data helps with child protection and frankly I find it also helpful for tailoring and tracking different supports to disadvantaged areas. Of course there is another issue that the originator of complaints pointed out (pat Kenny today, I only caught bits of interview). It could be used to combat child benefit fraud. Personally I don't mind but there could be arguments that it is exceeding the remit of database.

Tabnabs

meeeeh wrote: »

And except changing the timeframe (till 19) personal information tied to pps no. was deemed reasonable and acceptable. There a few spurious categories that need to be amended but nothing overly serious.

While I understand why statistical data would be preferable for some, the personalized data helps with child protection and frankly I find it also helpful for tailoring and tracking different supports to disadvantaged areas. Of course there is another issue that the originator of complaints pointed out (pat Kenny today, I only caught bits of interview). It could be used to combat child benefit fraud. Personally I don't mind but there could be arguments that it is exceeding the remit of database.

I find that rather chilling, can you explain why you consider this to be the case?

meeeeh

Tabnabs wrote: »

I find that rather chilling, can you explain why you consider this to be the case?

Children can be tracked from school to school as parents move them. I remember the case of horrendous abuse by mother irc came out few years ago. And when questions were asked why nothing was done an excuse was used that they didn't stay in one place/school long enough to do something. If you have a file for each child under unique number their progress can be tracked regardless of the school they are in. You might call this chilling but I consider it a minimum requirement for protection of vulnerable Kids.

Tabnabs

Has this been mentioned already?


Dept of Ed tells schools to upload data even where consent's refused, unless reasons are given, on a deadline

OU812

Was at my child's school meting for new starters yesterday evening. At it we were informed that as part of the registration (on school forms) we were willingly submitting data for the POD. Now have to go through the refusal process again !!!

Orion

Make an addendum on the form denying the school the right to pass information to the POD. The funding issue has been removed so the school is under no threat anymore by not complying.

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2016/04/08/department-throws-in-the-towel-on-a-compulsory-pod/

2RockMountain

I heard a discussion the radio today about the possibility of linking child benefit to school attendance, and somebody (not sure who) mentioned that the Department had linked up the two school attendance systems now, so would be able to give TUSLA full access to school attendance data!

Surely not?

meeeeh

Surely yes? You think it's not child protection issue if a child is missing from school for prolonged periods without explanation? Oh wait that is interfering with the right of a parent to neglect their kids.

2RockMountain

meeeeh wrote: »

Surely yes? You think it's not child protection issue if a child is missing from school for prolonged periods without explanation? Oh wait that is interfering with the right of a parent to neglect their kids.

You've missed my point. There is a current mandatory process for principals to notify TUSLA of any case where a child is absent for 20 days or more. This notification goes through even where the principal is satisfied that there is good reason for the absence, like a family trip back to a home country or similar. This process is in place and works.

But what I heard today seemed to suggest that Dept Ed currently has access to the individual schools attendance records, and will now be sharing those records with TUSLA. Surely not.

killbillvol2

2RockMountain wrote: »

You've missed my point. There is a current mandatory process for principals to notify TUSLA of any case where a child is absent for 20 days or more. This notification goes through even where the principal is satisfied that there is good reason for the absence, like a family trip back to a home country or similar. This process is in place and works.

But what I heard today seemed to suggest that Dept Ed currently has access to the individual schools attendance records, and will now be sharing those records with TUSLA. Surely not.

No. It doesn't work. TUSLA does nothing when a child is reported for missing 20 days. Education Welfare Officers don't even have access to the information submitted.

There is no system where the DES has access to individual schools' attendance records without visiting the school. They can't share them with TUSLA if they don't have them and even if they did TUSLA would do nothing.

I heard some of the discussion this morning - typical Fine Gael BS from a minister who has no understanding of how the system actually "works".

Orion

killbillvol2 wrote: »

No. It doesn't work. TUSLA does nothing when a child is reported for missing 20 days. Education Welfare Officers don't even have access to the information submitted.

There is no system where the DES has access to individual schools' attendance records without visiting the school. They can't share them with TUSLA if they don't have them and even if they did TUSLA would do nothing.

I heard some of the discussion this morning - typical Fine Gael BS from a minister who has no understanding of how the system actually "works".

You are completely wrong. 2rockmountain is almost completely correct. If a child has 20 unexplained absences from school the school has to notify Tusla. (emphasis on unexplained).

meeeeh

Orion wrote: »

You are completely wrong. 2rockmountain is almost completely correct. If a child has 20 unexplained absences from school the school has to notify Tusla. (emphasis on unexplained).

Which is fine but if kids move school mid year, they can teorethically have 19 in each school without Tusla knowing anything.

Considering you can be prosecuted for not sending kids to school I really don't know what is the issue with centralized data.

killbillvol2

Orion wrote: »

You are completely wrong. 2rockmountain is almost completely correct. If a child has 20 unexplained absences from school the school has to notify Tusla. (emphasis on unexplained).

Wrong.

The school notifies TUSLA whether the absences are explained or not. The school is required to report any child who misses 20 days regardless of the explanation.

TUSLA - Reporting absenteeism

TUSLA then generally does nothing. They don't have the staff. They might act if a child has missed 50 or 60 days. Even then the school would have to submit a separate report outlining what steps have been taken at school level.

killbillvol2

meeeeh wrote: »

Which is fine but if kids move school mid year, they can teorethically have 19 in each school without Tusla knowing anything.

Considering you can be prosecuted for not sending kids to school I really don't know what is the issue with centralized data.

If a child was missing 19 days each year the school would probably report them anyway. There's a facility for reporting any student whose attendance is causing concern.