Schools & FOI

Schools and the Freedom of Information Act

 Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) is an organisation that upholds children’s civil rights, in particular to privacy and freedom of movement. ARCH deals with children’s confidentiality and informed consent, and the effects upon children’s human rights of developments in Information Technology. It is the only organisation working specifically in this area.

 We have been concerned with two school-related issues for some time now: the use of CCTV in schools and the use of biometric systems in school canteens, libraries and for registration. We are particularly concerned about reports of IP Video images being relayed to off-site control centres during school hours, and about the use of CCTV to monitor pupils during lessons and also in cloakrooms and toilets.

 In order to investigate the prevalence and use of CCTV and biometric systems in schools, during May and June 2007 we asked for the following information under the Freedom of Information Act from 255 primary and secondary schools in 5 different Local Authorities.

CCTV:

1. Does this school have CCTV?

 If answer to question 1 is 'yes' please complete the following: 

2. Where is the CCTV situated? 

a) Entrance to premises

b) classroom

c) corridors

d) outdoors/school grounds

e) toilets

f) other

3. How many cameras are on the school premises?

4. Can images from the CCTV cameras be viewed from a control centre off school premises?

 If answer to question 4 is 'yes' please complete the following:

a) Who has access to the images?

b) Can images be accessed from off the school premises during school hours?

c) Is consent sought from pupils and/or parents before images are relayed?

d) If consent is sought please supply a copy of consent form used.

BIOMETRIC SYSTEMS:

1. Does this school use any biometric systems? (those using fingerprints, iris scans etc.)

 If answer to question 1 is 'yes' please complete the following:

2. Please advise what the biometric system is used for:

a) library

b) catering

c) registration

d) vending machines

e) other

3. Did this school seek parental consent before taking pupils biometric data?

4. If consent is sought please supply a copy of the consent form

As we have previously received complaints from members of the public about schools’ failures to give satisfactory answers to FOI requests, we decided that our volunteer researcher should send the questions from her own email address, thus giving us an opportunity to find out how a request from an individual, rather than an organisation, might be handled.

 Our researcher received 31 replies, two of which were refusals on the grounds that it would compromise school security. We received no acknowledgment or refusal from the remaining 224 schools, and a follow-up email to these schools did not elicit any response.

The breakdown of schools response rate by area is as follows:

Our researcher was questioned by several schools as to why she wanted the information. Excerpts from some of their emails are as follows (for the time being we have removed their identifying details):

 "I am happy to provide you with the information you have requested but for security purposes before I do can you give me a little more information as to why you require the information."

"Under the FOI Act we are entitled to ask requesters to provide us with their full name and address. Therefore, to help us expedite your request, please provide us with your name and address."

"As some of the information provided is likely to come within Data Protection legislation (i.e. relating to images of the children which can be accessed possibly from outside the school and therefore without parental consent), please can you let me know your involvement with the school or which organization you are writing on behalf of, and why you are seeking this information? Could you also please provide your postal address and a contact telephone number?"

Other schools appeared to have no understanding of their own obligations under the Act:

 "As this is the first such request we have had of this nature, we would be grateful if you would put it in writing to the school, rather than an email, so that we can send it to the local authority for their guidance"

We were surprised to receive this response from the Corporate Law department of the London Borough of Islington:

 "Islington Schools are overseen by Cambridge Education Associates (CEA).  You can forward your request to me and I will send it on to CEA to determine whether they have any of the information you are requesting, which they may not. It may be helpful to advise us of your research company details too and any other background information to your research that may benefit the schools."

One or two replies were brusque, but our researcher found the following reply very intimidating:

 "You have caused a stir with the wording of your email and at the highest level in Tower Hamlets we have been asked not to comply with you until you have been checked out.  I await instructions from above."

 Believing that this might be a heavy-handed attempt at humour, we contacted the sender to explain that the researcher was working on our behalf, but we received an unhelpful response. We received no further communication from him, and his was the only school out of 76 in Tower Hamlets from which we received any kind of reply.

Second Questionnaire

 We reduced the scope of our original questions, and sent out a new version from an official ARCH email address to 96 primary and secondary schools in 6 Local Authority areas on the 11^th February 2008. The questions are as follows:

 CCTV:

1) If your school has CCTV, are cameras sited in:

a) school toilets

b) classrooms

c) changing rooms

 2) If the school's CCTV is IP video are real time images relayed to any off school site centres?

We received 24 replies; the breakdown is shown below:

 We did not receive any acknowledgments or refusal notices from the remaining 72 schools. Of those that responded, 4 contacted us to check the credentials of our researcher, and one school asked whether they were under any statutory duty to provide us with a reply.

 To date, we have contacted 351 schools in 11 Local Authorities in different parts of England and Wales, and the results indicate that there is a general failure to understand the obligations the Freedom of Information Act places on schools.

 Schools have considerable latitude in determining their own policies and allocating resources from their budget; however, they are funded from public money and, as public authorities, are answerable to the general public as the guidance issued to schools by the Department for Education and Skills in 2004 makes perfectly clear. We appreciate that some schools may have objected to our questions on security or other grounds, but this does not explain the complete lack of response from the overwhelming majority of them.

 At this stage, we are not seeking to make individual complaints about each of the 296 schools that failed to respond to our FOI requests; the problem appears so widespread that it is hard to see how it can be tackled effectively at an individual level. We do not in any case seek to provoke controversy or conflict on this issue. On the other hand, it is clear that the original DfES guidance has not been understood by the majority of schools.

 We suggest that a joint strategy be agreed between the Information Commissioner, the Department for Children Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice as a matter of urgency. Schools should be reminded that compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is not optional, and that they are required to have proper procedures in place to deal with requests from the public. A cut-off date should be set, after which schools are required to provide confirmation that they have instituted policies to meet their obligations under the Act.

28^th March 2008

top of page ¦ print this doc (word)