D.o.Edu threatens to reduce school funding if parents dont give kids private data

DeVore

Mods: I wasn't sure if this is Politics material but since A. We don't have a government at the moment and B. its not really tied to a party or an ideology (its just plain old WTF stupidity). I thought this was better place for it to inform parents.

So, the crib notes so far:

1. The Dept of Education wants to collect data on every primary school child from now on and store it for 30 years.

2. Some of the fields they want to fill are... problematic imho. (Name, PPSN, PArents name, School Address, Home Address, learning disabilities). This database is a real timebomb if it ever saw the light of day.

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2015/05/08/pod-data-fields-a-mix-of-the-irrelevant-the-unsettling-and-the-possibly-illegal/


3. Any parent who declined having their kid "processed" has been threatened with having their school "defunded" for that kid. (This has been retracted now after the Data Protection Commission basically went WTF DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?!? But they are keeping that very quiet.)

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

4. At every step they have fought the Freedom Of Information requests to know what is in this database. And the whole thing just stinks to high heaven of "civil servant hasn't thought this through and there'll be a tribunal in 5 years time". There still isn't a full exhaustive list of the fields that will be in the DB for example (though the above ones have been confirmed)

This is a very good source of information from the lawyer who is fighting this with FOI requests (and has been for a year).

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/category/pod/


So, what do you think? Are you a parent? Are you concerned about this?

I think having data to analyse is important and useful, but the data being collected seems excessive and typically governmental (collect it all, we'll sort it out later). There seems a really shadowy reluctance to be transparent about this and there seems to be a scary lack of understanding of just how sensitive this data will be in the future and how much it needs to be secured!


ALSO, IF YOU ARE A PARENT AND YOU DONT WANT YOUR CHILDS DATA CAPTURED YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT!!

Tow

BTW: This information is being stored on Revenue's ROS computer system.

BoJack Horseman

The government already has all this information anyway.
So it's redundant.

0byme75341jo28

Why on earth does it need to be kept for thirty years? Would make some bit of sense if it was only kept while they're in primary education..

dub_skav

Kobe Zealous Sidewalk wrote: »

Why on earth does it need to be kept for thirty years? Would make some bit of sense if it was only kept while they're in primary education..

Ok, so you found 4th class easy, no need to rub it in

Clampdown

I know this will make me sound like a conspiracy nut, but somehow I can't help thinking that this is another step closer to microchipping us from birth.

matrim

I think that there was also concerns about who can access the data. IIRC, any teacher in (any?) school can access the data so it basically means that your private information is available for no reason to a lot of people.

_Whimsical_

DeVore wrote: »

2. Some of the fields they want to fill are... problematic imho. (Name, PPSN, PArents name, School Address, Home Address, learning disabilities). This database is a real timebomb if it ever saw the light of day.

I wouldn't consider any of those data fields a potential "time bomb". How would you forsee this turning nasty exactly?

A record of parents names, addresses, even PPSNs would be just basic information I'd have thought. A record of learning difficulties would also be important for educational continuity for a child with problems if they were to move school during their education and to keep track of funding of special needs in schools.

DeVore

*edit*... Letter from DoE to a parent regarding this (and the DPC smack down).

Christy42

Clampdown wrote: »

I know this will make me sound like a conspiracy nut, but somehow I can't help thinking that this is another step closer to microchipping us from birth.

I think you are giving the people running this way way waaaaayyyyy too much credit. There is no way they have planned this far ahead.

That said this looks like a data mining playground. Especially given people may be able to cross reference with other data sets. Screw it you could easily discriminate against a child who has lived in a rough area for a while this data. Say if the parents got better jobs and the kid tried to move schools.

Sleepy

TBH, I've always wondered why the various Departments of Government don't get an exemption form some of the Data Protection Laws. Given a few days with the right databases of the Dept of Health, Dept of Welfare and the Dept of Revenue, I'd be pretty certain I could return millions to the state coffers in fraud detection.

When you think about it, it's rather insane that we don't have a single government information system to process welfare, tax, drivers licenses, health records, social housing, property tax, property ownership, criminal records etc. etc. etc. Were this built properly (with one's PPSN as the primary key), the cost savings would be immense. Legal Fees would plummet, there'd be no need for a census, there'd be next to no capacity for welfare fraud, policy could be formed based on accurate details of the demographics and status of the population etc.

Sure, it'd need to be incredibly well protected but once there were sufficient data access protocols in place, such a system should revolutionise the running of the state.

Badly Drunk Boy

DeVore wrote: »

Letter from DPC regarding this:

Maybe I'm not reading it right, but is that letter not to the DPC, but quoting from a previous DPC letter in bold? Looks like the Department of Education trying to justify what they're up to (whatever that is).

DeVore

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I wouldn't consider any of those data fields a potential "time bomb". How would you forsee this turning nasty exactly?

A record of parents names, addresses, even PPSNs would be just basic information I'd have thought. A record of learning difficulties would also be important for educational continuity for a child with problems if they were to move school during their education and to keep track of funding of special needs in schools.

I'm usually the guy saying that fear of paedos is a boll0x reason for governments TO collect data. This time I'm saying its a genuine concern FOR collecting data.

If this database leaked, how does this sound.
Johnny comes out of school to find a guy telling him his mother (gives mothers name name) told him to pick him up and bring him home (gives address of home). Johnny is targeted because he has Down's Syndrome and his mother was distracted by a call to her phone (listed in DB) saying her husband has had a heart attack.

Or, abusive husband of an estranged wife finds out where his kids are going to school after she fled him with them and he turns up to pick them up. Kids recognise "daddy" and go with him.

Its not hard to construct quite reasonably likely scenarios for misuse of this data. By "quite likely" I mean greater than 0.01% because given that we will have a million entries easily in this database, that's still quite an unacceptable level of abuse at 1 in 10,000.

DeVore

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Maybe I'm not reading it right, but is that letter not to the DPC, but quoting from a previous DPC letter in bold? Looks like the Department of Education trying to justify what they're up to (whatever that is).

Sorry, youre right that's the DoE's response to a parent after they were smacked by the DPC.

DeVore

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I've always wondered why the various Departments of Government don't get an exemption form some of the Data Protection Laws. Given a few days with the right databases of the Dept of Health, Dept of Welfare and the Dept of Revenue, I'd be pretty certain I could return millions to the state coffers in fraud detection.

When you think about it, it's rather insane that we don't have a single government information system to process welfare, tax, drivers licenses, health records, social housing, property tax, property ownership, criminal records etc. etc. etc. Were this built properly (with one's PPSN as the primary key), the cost savings would be immense. Legal Fees would plummet, there'd be no need for a census, there'd be next to no capacity for welfare fraud, policy could be formed based on accurate details of the demographics and status of the population etc.

Sure, it'd need to be incredibly well protected but once there were sufficient data access protocols in place, such a system should revolutionise the running of the state.

I would agree ....except that we don't have a good record in "incredibly well protecting" anything in this country. So, as a result I'm very sceptical of such tracking and its abuse. (I would have no issue with its intended use, I have a major issue that it will be used for things it was never intended).

One eyed Jack

DeVore wrote: »

So, what do you think? Are you a parent? Are you concerned about this?

I think having data to analyse is important and useful, but the data being collected seems excessive and typically governmental (collect it all, we'll sort it out later). There seems a really shadowy reluctance to be transparent about this and there seems to be a scary lack of understanding of just how sensitive this data will be in the future and how much it needs to be secured!

I'm a parent and I don't have any problem with this. It's basically collating data in one place that's scattered across numerous databases already, with the aim of providing better services in education. Personally, I don't think the data being collected is excessive. The more data is available to them, the better they are able to tailor services. Of course the idea is to collect it all first and then they can sort it out later, it's the same way any large database works, it's no different to the way Facebook, Google, Microsoft, any social media providers work.

I don't think there's anything shadowy about being reluctant to release information that can be used to attempt to whip up mass hysteria about "Big Bad Government", based on people's lack of understanding of how the data is being controlled, used, secured, etc.

It's a similar system to the system they have in the UK -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/national_pupil_database_now_holds_20_million_records/

SEPT 23 1989

So a child with a disability will be labelled for life by the state no matter how much they improve and try and lead a normal life

Tasden

I really don't see the issue with it tbh.
I filled the form in and returned it without a second thought.
I read the thread in parenting i think it was at the time they sent the info request home and I am still none the wiser as to why it would be a problem. That's not to say there is none... i just don't see it myself!

stoplooklisten

Can they not just look at the list of who they're paying child benefit to? Has this not already got all this data?

DeVore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm a parent and I don't have any problem with this. It's basically collating data in one place that's scattered across numerous databases already, with the aim of providing better services in education. Personally, I don't think the data being collected is excessive. The more data is available to them, the better they are able to tailor services. Of course the idea is to collect it all first and then they can sort it out later, it's the same way any large database works, it's no different to the way Facebook, Google, Microsoft, any social media providers work.

I don't think there's anything shadowy about being reluctant to release information that can be used to attempt to whip up mass hysteria about "Big Bad Government", based on people's lack of understanding of how the data is being controlled, used, secured, etc.

It's a similar system to the system they have in the UK -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/national_pupil_database_now_holds_20_million_records/

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you because I appreciate you giving your point of view.

My response would be to question why things like "home address" and "name" need to be in there... In database terms the name can at the very least be symbolised with a foreign key in a different database should it ever be needed. Realistically, I don't see why you would ever need to know the kids name anyway. Are we going to count the number of Kevins in school?

I wouldn't argue with the valid uses of this database, those I'm sure are all good and valid. My concerns are with limiting the downside if there is a breach or a misuse of data. Its not good policy to plan only for the best case scenario.

DeVore

Tasden wrote: »

I really don't see the issue with it tbh.
I filled the form in and returned it without a second thought.
I read the thread in parenting i think it was at the time they sent the info request home and I am still none the wiser as to why it would be a problem. That's not to say there is none... i just don't see it myself!

Two words: Misuse and Breach.

Misuse: The Gardaí's PULSE database has been misused so often that its now a major issue for the DPC: http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2012/02/checking-pulse.html
Everything from looking up the address of a hot girl you pulled over to selling data to armed robbers (http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2009/10/garda-databases-still-open-to-abuse.html ).

Breach: Data breaches happen all the time. If you are long enough on the internet the chances of you getting hacked or stolen and redistributed become 100%. We're talking about a database who's lifetime measured in decades, 30 year to be exact, for any given entry. The DB itself will exist in perpetuity. This database WILL leak, its a question of time. We need to accept that as a consequence, a *certainty*, of creating it and consider what happens when that occurs. Not if.

Samaris

DeVore wrote: »

Breach: Data breaches happen all the time. If you are long enough on the internet the chances of you getting hacked or stolen and redistributed become 100%.

Eek, I don't want to be stolen and redistributed O.O

Tasden

DeVore wrote: »

Two words: Misuse and Breach.

Misuse: The Gardaí's PULSE database has been misused so often that its now a major issue for the DPC: http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2012/02/checking-pulse.html
Everything from looking up the address of a hot girl you pulled over to selling data to armed robbers (http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2009/10/garda-databases-still-open-to-abuse.html ).

Breach: Data breaches happen all the time. If you are long enough on the internet the chances of you getting hacked or stolen and redistributed become 100%. We're talking about a database who's lifetime measured in decades, 30 year to be exact, for any given entry. The DB itself will exist in perpetuity. This database WILL leak, its a question of time. We need to accept that as a consequence, a *certainty*, of creating it and consider what happens when that occurs. Not if.

But if I claim child benefit/carer's allowance etc for my child then her pps, my name, our address, conditions she may have etc are all on the dsp system so why is this different?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Calhoun

Very brave of the department to take this kind of fight considering the political climate we are in and the chances of this becoming an election issue are quite high.

One eyed Jack

DeVore wrote: »

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you because I appreciate you giving your point of view.

My response would be to question why things like "home address" and "name" need to be in there... In database terms the name can at the very least be symbolised with a foreign key in a different database should it ever be needed. Realistically, I don't see why you would ever need to know the kids name anyway. Are we going to count the number of Kevins in school?

I wouldn't argue with the valid uses of this database, those I'm sure are all good and valid. My concerns are with limiting the downside if there is a breach or a misuse of data. Its not good policy to plan only for the best case scenario.

Because it's one way of keeping track of students progress through the school system, I imagine the key would be their PPSN, no need to have their names and addresses broken down into separate tables or other databases when the idea is just as you said to collect all the data, and pull records from it as necessary.

As Sleepy said - a couple of hours (maybe months would be more realistic) with the databases across Government departments could be used to streamline services across the whole area of education, welfare, employment, etc. Revenue have access to numerous sources already running fraud detection and a system like this would actually increase child safety.

To give you another scenario -

There's another thread on here where a woman moved her family around the country to avoid social care services. With a system like this in place, the children could be flagged immediately as soon as they're registered in a new school, and the data fed back to Tusla, and the same case can be picked up where they left off instead of a new case being opened.

I understand that of course a large database would be an invaluable resource were it ever to be breached, identity fraud would certainly be a concern, but the electoral register and social media are probably handier tools for anyone with more nefarious intent.

Arsemageddon

DeVore wrote: »

I would agree ....except that we don't have a good record in "incredibly well protecting" anything in this country. So, as a result I'm very sceptical of such tracking and its abuse. (I would have no issue with its intended use, I have a major issue that it will be used for things it was never intended).

For me this goes to the very heart of the matter. Establishing a database for a specific purpose is all well and good. The problem is that over time 'mission creep' can set in and the database could be used for purposes other than originally intended.

Government departments in Ireland have a pretty poor record of establishing and maintain proper protocols about who is entitled to access information and in what circumstances.

A recent example of a fairly shocking failure to put proper systems to manage data in place occurred with a state run genealogy website...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/genealogy-site-left-personal-data-open-to-identity-thieves-says-commissioner-1.1872664

Improper and/or illegal accessing of both Revenue and the Dept. of Social Welfare databases have also occurred in the recent past...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/revenue-fires-staff-for-serious-breaches-274577.html
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/how-credit-unions-used-stolen-data-to-snoop-on-customers-30510365.html

There was also a story in the papers in the last year about some of the lads in revenue looking up well known peoples tax records just for the crack. (sorry, can't find a link).

We should all be concerned when a government departments best guarantee that data will be protected consists of little more than 'ah sure, it'll be grand'

Pawwed Rig

On one school where we are applying for junior infants for the little fellah ot was listed as a question. ie 'I agree to this' Yes No.
I would suspect it is being used as part of their selection criteria.

eviltwin

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So a child with a disability will be labelled for life by the state no matter how much they improve and try and lead a normal life

This is my concern. My eldest started college last year, she has aspergers but chose not to disclose this to the college. It's not affecting her so she figured they don't need to know. That's her right. My youngest also has aspergers but we now have to disclose it. I resent that his privacy may now be compromised.

meeeeh

DeVore wrote: »

Or, abusive husband of an estranged wife finds out where his kids are going to school after she fled him with them and he turns up to pick them up. Kids recognise "daddy" and go with him.

Or abusive parents move the child everytime there is a whiff of social services looking into them. If there is no centralized data it is a lot harder to see where the kids are, if there is centralized data you can follow kids progress or problems.

Or seeing how population is changing in an area and how could schools be better adjusted to demographic changes. Or statistically observing how kids in different areas are doing to target resources.

Is that the sort of data collection we are against? Just checking?

Tombi!

I'd be against it. It's scary, almost, that this is being kept for 30 years. I figure that maybe keep it for the duration of the school stay. Nuke it from the primary school database after the kids complete first year and when the kids are legally 18, let them decide themselves if they want it remaining on the secondary school's information.

I can sort of understand some of it. Things like name/address/DoB/etc. Fine keep that in the school database. But for 30 years?
Get the f**k outta here. You don't need it kept for 30 years.

SEPT 23 1989

eviltwin wrote: »

This is my concern. My eldest started college last year, she has aspergers but chose not to disclose this to the college. It's not affecting her so she figured they don't need to know. That's her right. My youngest also has aspergers but we now have to disclose it. I resent that his privacy may now be compromised.

Congratulations to you for getting her to that place huge achievement it's not easy

The state has no right to label kids for rhe rest of their lives

meeeeh

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Congratulations to you for getting her to that place huge achievement it's not easy

The state has no right to label kids for rhe rest of their lives

However I would think state should offer extra supports where needed. And this is in no way aimed at eveiltwin or anyone else here but parents don't always have best interest of their child in mind. And there is plenty of proof of that in courts. Yes the data should be well protected but I think the benefits outweigh the pitfalls.

One eyed Jack

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Congratulations to you for getting her to that place huge achievement it's not easy

The state has no right to label kids for rhe rest of their lives

The State isn't labelling anyone for life. That's exactly the kind of misunderstanding and hysteria I was talking about earlier. In fairness to him DeV even pointed out in the opening post:

DeVore wrote: »

ALSO, IF YOU ARE A PARENT AND YOU DONT WANT YOUR CHILDS DATA CAPTURED YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT!!

In font size 3 no less

eviltwin

meeeeh wrote: »

However I would think state should offer extra supports where needed. And this is in no way aimed at eveiltwin or anyone else here but parents don't always have best interest of their child in mind. And there is plenty of proof of that in courts. Yes the data should be well protected but I think the benefits outweigh the pitfalls.

Yeah but as Sept says that diagnosis follows you throughout your schooling and beyond. If you don't want that to be a label this measure makes that harder. Btw I am all for supporting children with additional needs as much as possible but in some cases where they are managing their condition it's a breech of their privacy to be forced to disclose it.

Arsemageddon

meeeeh wrote: »

Or abusive parents move the child everytime there is a whiff of social services looking into them. If there is no centralized data it is a lot harder to see where the kids are, if there is centralized data you can follow kids progress or problems.

While there is some (limited) merit to this argument I would think that the number of cases of parents moving to avoid social services would be very limited. Why the need to keep so much data on so many people?

Or seeing how population is changing in an area and how could schools be better adjusted to demographic changes. Or statistically observing how kids in different areas are doing to target resources.

That's the job that the Central Statistics Office do already and that data is freely available to other government departments. Furthermore, it is easier to trust that the CSO preserve a degree of anonymity as they don't gather PPS numbers

Is that the sort of data collection we are against? Just checking?

Well yeah, I'm against it because I don't trust the systems that Irish government departments currently have in place to manage data.

I also have a serious problem with the idea that records attached to PPS numbers be kept for 30 years. Young offenders have their criminal records expunged when they turn 18 (in most cases), yet it is proposed that kids who have not been in trouble will have records about them kept for 30 years. A lot can change in 30 years and I simply do not see understand the need to keep these records on every child in the country.

clairewithani

Tombi! wrote: »

I'd be against it. It's scary, almost, that this is being kept for 30 years. I figure that maybe keep it for the duration of the school stay. Nuke it from the primary school database after the kids complete first year and when the kids are legally 18, let them decide themselves if they want it remaining on the secondary school's information.

I can sort of understand some of it. Things like name/address/DoB/etc. Fine keep that in the school database. But for 30 years?
Get the f**k outta here. You don't need it kept for 30 years.

You think 30 years is unnecessary. Funny.

One eyed Jack

Arsemageddon wrote: »

While there is some (limited) merit to this argument I would think that the number of cases of parents moving to avoid social services would be very limited. Why the need to keep so much data on so many people?

That's the job that the Central Statistics Office do already and that data is freely available to other government departments. Furthermore, it is easier to trust that the CSO preserve a degree of anonymity as they don't gather PPS numbers

Well yeah, I'm against it because I don't trust the systems that Irish government departments currently have in place to manage data.

I also have a serious problem with the idea that records attached to PPS numbers be kept for 30 years. Young offenders have their criminal records expunged when they turn 18 (in most cases), yet it is proposed that kids who have not been in trouble will have records about them kept for 30 years. A lot can change in 30 years and I simply do not see understand the need to keep these records on every child in the country.

Just on that point:


How long will information on my child be retained for?

Identifiable pupil data will be retained until the pupil’s 19th birthday, so when your child has reached his or her 19th birthday his/her records will be anonymised and their personal details – PPSN, name, address – deleted. The anonymised records will then be used for statistical and longitudinal analysis.


You can get the answers to your other points here:


Information for parents on the new Primary Online Database (POD)

DeVore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State isn't labelling anyone for life. That's exactly the kind of misunderstanding and hysteria I was talking about earlier. In fairness to him DeV even pointed out in the opening post:


In font size 3 no less

And that's kinda the whole point of my post. The DoE has acted very shadily about a lot of this from deliberately obfuscating various issues to outright denying valid FoI requests. They've been vague about the securities around this, about the need for and use of various bits of information and they outright threatened schools with being defunded if they didn't become their bully-boy sidekicks.

The latest ruling by the DPC says you don't have to fill this in and the school cant make you and they will suffer NO NEGATIVES IF YOU DONT.

But the department isn't exactly shouting that from the rooftops.

esforum

DeVore wrote: »

If this database leaked, how does this sound.
Johnny comes out of school to find a guy telling him his mother (gives mothers name name) told him to pick him up and bring him home (gives address of home). Johnny is targeted because he has Down's Syndrome and his mother was distracted by a call to her phone (listed in DB) saying her husband has had a heart attack.

How would the person recieving the information know who Johny is unless who already knows him? and that would mean he knows the mothers name already as well.

DeVore wrote: »

Its not hard to construct quite reasonably likely scenarios for misuse of this data. By "quite likely" I mean greater than 0.01% because given that we will have a million entries easily in this database, that's still quite an unacceptable level of abuse at 1 in 10,000.

I can almost guarantee that no where in the hostory of the world has less than 1% been considered a 'reasonable possibility'

On that basis its reasonable to assume that I shall die as a result of a snake bite in Ireland.

Also, doesnt boards have my name, email address and IP addresses?

Arent most of us recorded on the voters registry?

Arent all the details being recorded already recorded on multiple government systems?

but in regards the question, no as a parent I am not even remotely worried.

Now, compare this to Spain, France, Italy and probable the biggest keepers of personal data, Switzerland. How many issues are caused?

You know in Spain its crime to not register with the police within 3 months of arrival and you must carry ID at all times in all these countries? Even an Irish person?

Zaph

esforum wrote: »

Also, doesnt boards have my name, email address and IP addresses?

Boards only has your name if you signed up using an e-mail address with your real name on it. But we have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. Similarly Boards has an e-mail address of yours. It could be your main e-mail address or it could be a throwaway one, we have no way of knowing. As for IP addresses, well that's pretty much unavoidable if you're using the site. But depending on if you access the site through a PC, on mobile, or both, whether or not you use proxies, etc., it's not necessarily going to lead us to your front door, even if we were so inclined to bother attempting to track you down in the first place.

ED E

Zaph wrote: »

Boards only has your name if you signed up using an e-mail address with your real name on it. But we have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. Similarly Boards has an e-mail address of yours. It could be your main e-mail address or it could be a throwaway one, we have no way of knowing. As for IP addresses, well that's pretty much unavoidable if you're using the site. But depending on if you access the site through a PC, on mobile, or both, whether or not you use proxies, etc., it's not necessarily going to lead us to your front door, even if we were so inclined to bother attempting to track you down in the first place.

IP Address -> Account = Court order a significant burden of proof.

IP Address -> Person = Not really practical to prove.

esforum

Zaph wrote: »

Boards only has your name if you signed up using an e-mail address with your real name on it. But we have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. Similarly Boards has an e-mail address of yours. It could be your main e-mail address or it could be a throwaway one, we have no way of knowing. As for IP addresses, well that's pretty much unavoidable if you're using the site. But depending on if you access the site through a PC, on mobile, or both, whether or not you use proxies, etc., it's not necessarily going to lead us to your front door, even if we were so inclined to bother attempting to track you down in the first place.

its all still data being kept about me that could identify me if stolen or leaked. I have zero concerns on the issue but its a bit much too complain about a government agency asking for relevent information that the school and the department already have for most people when you are the boss of a provate company that also retains indentifiable information.

DeVore

1. You are not a child. Extra care should be given when gathering such sensitive data as intellectual disabilities, home address, parents name and school address.

2. We do not hold directly identifying data on you. IPs from all major ISPs are circulated through a pool, so without a court order we cannot know who was on the end of a given IP on a given day. Email is laughably disposable. That's all the data we have on you.

Is you are seriously equating these two levels of data then my conversation with you is over.

meeeeh

I suspect there will be loads of fun when HSE decides to get out of stone age implement a centralized medical data system.

One eyed Jack

DeVore wrote: »

And that's kinda the whole point of my post. The DoE has acted very shadily about a lot of this from deliberately obfuscating various issues to outright denying valid FoI requests. They've been vague about the securities around this, about the need for and use of various bits of information and they outright threatened schools with being defunded if they didn't become their bully-boy sidekicks.

The latest ruling by the DPC says you don't have to fill this in and the school cant make you and they will suffer NO NEGATIVES IF YOU DONT.

But the department isn't exactly shouting that from the rooftops.

I had a good look at this over the last while, and from what I can see anyway, the DES hasn't so much threatened to defund schools, but said that from 2016/17 on, all students enrolled in the school, must be on the POD, or the Capitation grant for the school will be affected. Basically the Capitation grant is dependent upon the number of pupils enrolled in the school, and if the student isn't in the POD, the school's capitation grant will be less than it would be if all pupils were accounted for.

The purpose of POD is to monitor the progress of children through the education system in order to ensure that every student can meet their educational potential, and to ensure that every child of compulsory school age is in receipt of an education. POD data will underpin the provision of education in primary schools, with grant payments and teacher allocations to schools based on the individually verified data.

The legal obligations of Data Controllers under the Data Protection Acts can be summarised under the Eight Rules of Data Protection. This fair processing notice outlines how the Department of Education and Skills will comply with each of these rules in relation to data stored on the Primary Online Database.

The PPS number will be used as the unique pupil identifier on POD. This will allow for a child’s educational history to be maintained accurately as they move school, as well as ensuring that there are no duplicate enrolments in the system. The PPS number will be obtained from the school and used to validate the identity of the pupil using the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform PPSN Checker service. This is an automated process which validates large batches of PPS numbers using other variables from a pupil’s Public Service Identity dataset, and returns a match code to the Department of Education and Skills.

In cases where the PPS number is not available from the school, the Department will attempt to obtain the number via the PPSN checker service and add the information to POD. The PPS number may be shared by The Department of Education and Skills as necessary with the Child and Family Agency or the National Council for Special Education (as permitted under the educational Welfare Act 2000) if it is required for the provision of educational supports or ensuring the educational welfare of a child.

The Department also proposes to share some of the personal data stored on POD with other State bodies. These are:

• Central Statistics Office, under the Statistics Acts to assist with the compilation of national statistics.
  
• The National Council for Special Education, under the Education Welfare Act, in order to assist in supporting resource allocation in relation to pupils with special educational needs.
  
• The Child and Family Agency, under the Education Welfare Act, to ensure that each child of compulsory school age is in receipt of an education. The Department will put in place a memorandum of understanding with each of these bodies, which includes the purpose and legal basis for which the body requires the data, its storage, security and retention.
  
• To meet the Department’s business needs in regard to the allocation of resources to schools, the Department will share a limited amount of each pupil’s personal data, including a child’s PPS number with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform PPSN validation service, using an automated matching process, in order to validate the identity of each pupil. The legal basis for this sharing of data is set out in Social Welfare Acts.

Source: Fair Processing Notice to explain how the personal data of pupils in primary schools on the Primary Online Database (POD) will be recorded, processed and shared.

In relation to all new enrolments into primary schools from 2015/2016 onwards, schools must ensure that parents/guardians are fully informed of the requirement on schools to transfer data onwards to POD and parents/guardians should be made fully aware that they are giving their child’s details for this purpose, in addition to providing it for the purpose of local school administration. Schools and parents/guardians should be aware that provision of all required pupil data to POD for all new enrolments from 2015/2016 onwards is mandatory in order to have that pupil counted for grant payment and teacher allocation purposes. Schools should be cognisant of this when enrolling new pupils to their school in the future.

Schools will be required, from the 2016/2017 academic year, to have a record for all enrolled pupils on POD. In the case of those pupils for whom a partial record has been created for an enrolled pupil (see (b) above), a corresponding letter from that pupil’s parent objecting to the transfer of certain data must be available on file in the school. These records must be available for future inspection on request by the Department’s Inspectorate.

Source: Circular Number: 0025/2015


The need for a Primary Online Database to be established has good reason, as noted in this report from Barnardos:

“A primary pupil database is necessary as the lack of data generally is very significant as we are unable to track pupils’ transfer to secondary school. When DEIS was being organised, secondary schools just pushed a button and they were able to tell the number of families with medical cards, unemployment etc. But at primary level you had principals trying to guess without being invasive to the families they are serving.”

Education Stakeholder

Source: Writen Out, Written Off (Failure to invest in education deprives children of their potential) May 2009


And according to this OECD report from 2012:

Ireland has a Home/School/Community Liaison Scheme (HCSL) which is a preventative strategy targeted at students at risk of not reaching their full potential in the educational system because of background characteristics. The service focuses directly on the salient adults within children's educational lives and seeks indirect benefit for the children themselves. At present there are some 400 home school community liaison coordinators deployed across all disadvantaged post-primary schools and urban primary schools that benefit from extra support. The HCSL programme aims to establish partnership with parents and teachers in the interests of the children's learning and work with staff to develop this spirit of collaboration. The coordinator organises locally based activities to encourage greater contact between parents, teachers and local voluntary and statutory groups to tackle issues in the community that impinge on learning. Approximately EUR 25 million has been allocated to HCSL for 2011, and with 155,000 students attending 545 schools (200 post primary, 345 primary) have access to the service, with some 50,000 of these pupils families being specifically targeted for the services of home school community liaison officers.

Equity and Quality in Education, Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, Pg. 147


50,000 families?

Well, according to figures from Barnardos in 2006:

A database of primary school pupils must be set up to track up to 1,000 young people who fail to progress to secondary school, a children’s charity demanded today.

In Barnardo’s Budget 2007 recommendations launched to mark the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the charity called for action as it highlighted one in three children in disadvantaged areas cannot read or write to appropriate standards.

Fergus Finlay, Barnardo’s chief executive, said there are high rates of absenteeism but there is no database to follow where up to 1,000 children who fall out of the system between primary school and secondary school end up.

“Poverty blights the lives of over 100,000 children in Ireland – and the number of children at risk of poverty whose parents are on low pay for example is much greater,” Mr Finlay said.

Source: Charity demands funding for education of poorest children, Breaking News article, 2006


So there is clearly a need for a Primary Online Database.


Ok, but what about the objections on the grounds of privacy and the processing of sensitive student data?

Information regarding health including psychological assessment and information regarding disability: Schools require this data, subject to parental consent from the parent/guardian, for the provision of special needs education and learning support to make reasonable accommodations for the individual needs of students see DES CL 0038/2010. The school may transfer this data to the Department of Education and Skills (DES), and the Special Education Needs Organiser (SENO) for the purposes of teacher and resource allocation, and to the National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) in the case of referral.

Source: Data Protection in Schools


But what about the security concerns?

FAQ for schools using the excel template

Q: How can I return the data template securely to Statistics section?

A: All personal data which is emailed to Statistics section must be encrypted using the instructions forwarded by Statistics section.

Q: Who should encrypt and send the template file, the school or the software provider?

A: Statistics section will accept the file from either the school or the software provider. It is a matter for each school and software provider to decide who sends the file to Statistics Section.

Q: I am having problems with the encryption software or process, or I’m not sure whether I am encrypting the file properly?

A: If after following the steps outlined in the instructions you are having problems, please contact the POD project team for help.

FAQ for schools with Administrative software

Q: How is POD going to work with local school admin software?

A: Most school software providers have begun the process of redeveloping their software to synchronise with the POD system. It may take some time for your provider to complete the development process. Once POD is up and running, schools will be able to run a sync routine that will harmonise the changes made in POD into their admin software. However the solution being put in place differs for each software providers and not all providers are making POD-related updates to their systems so please check the details for your own software provider for more information. Documentation on how each software provider is handling the move to POD are available on our
website at http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Primary-Online-Database-POD-/Software-Providers.html . Following reading this documentation, any specific questions in relation to your local software should be directed in the first instance to your software provider.

Source: FAQ on the Primary Online Database


Right. So what then is the "alternative explanation" for all this data collection?

Well, according to the author of the blog linked to in your opening post, and they mention this nowhere on the site (because I checked), the "alternative explanation" they suspect all this data is being collected, is on the back of the O' Keefe v Ireland case, and the State wanting to have the information regarding health including psychological assessment on the POD so that they can defend themselves in any future cases where the State may be held liable in a case where there is a complaint of abuse made, and the State will have the person's psychological assessment from the POD to use in it's defence.

It's about 17 minutes into this Podcast:

https://archive.org/details/Episode1ThePOD

Source: adventuresininformation.com

That, to me at least, sounds like an incredibly cynical effort to, as I said earlier, whip up mass hysteria about the introduction of this database in primary schools. If the privacy concerns argument falls flat on it's face, resort to implying a more nefarious intent.

Bad form really, IMO.

The J Stands for Jay

clairewithani wrote: »

You think 30 years is unnecessary. Funny.

Why does a kid's primary school need to hold data on them until they are 42 years old?

One eyed Jack

McGaggs wrote: »

Why does a kid's primary school need to hold data on them until they are 42 years old?

It doesn't:


How long will information on my child be retained for?

Identifiable pupil data will be retained until the pupil’s 19th birthday, so when your child has reached his or her 19th birthday his/her records will be anonymised and their personal details – PPSN, name, address – deleted. The anonymised records will then be used for statistical and longitudinal analysis


Information for parents on the new Primary Online Database (POD)

DeVore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't:


How long will information on my child be retained for?

Identifiable pupil data will be retained until the pupil’s 19th birthday, so when your child has reached his or her 19th birthday his/her records will be anonymised and their personal details – PPSN, name, address – deleted. The anonymised records will then be used for statistical and longitudinal analysis


Information for parents on the new Primary Online Database (POD)

That was a late concession from them (like the "we wont defund your school for students who don't agree to be tracked").
Won only because the people "whipping up mass hysteria" brought it before the DPC.


Nothing about the way they have gone about this inspires me with feelings of trust.

One eyed Jack

DeVore wrote: »

That was a late concession from them (like the "we wont defund your school for students who don't agree to be tracked").
Won only because the people "whipping up mass hysteria" brought it before the DPC.


Nothing about the way they have gone about this inspires me with feelings of trust.

I'll be honest, I do have a couple of issues with the way the DES trying to roll this out before it's ready, such as not having it integrated into computerised school management systems like Aladdin already. The idea of sending email containing sensitive personal data that has only been encrypted with open source software does make me wonder alright, but the data retention time doesn't actually bother me to be honest.

I think the implication that this idea was the brainfart of a civil servant with nothing better to do, or that it was anything to do with the Louise O' Keefe case, is the stuff of conspiracy theory and attempting to whip up mass hysteria, when Barnardos, a children's charity, were calling for it's implementation 10 years ago, for the reasons I outlined in my post above.

If the FOI act is being used for the purposes of alluding to conspiracies and nefarious goings on in Government, then of course the purpose of that is meant to have people question their trust in Government. I think on this occasion though, it's over-reacting to something that should have been implemented long ago, albeit with appropriate security measures and systems in place to make sure the data is as secure as possible. It's never going to be 100% secure, but the overall aim of the project is going to be of massive benefit to those children who are constantly falling behind in education and they carry that with them throughout their lives.

This system will enable service providers to make sure that every child is accounted for and that nobody, regardless of their background or their circumstances, is denied a chance to fulfil their potential through education. Personally, I think a system like this provides an invaluable opportunity to reshape the education and welfare of children in Ireland. I would support any measures to try and make that happen, rather than trying to whip up hysteria about our children being tracked or the idea that the State is only compiling the database in case someone makes a complaint of abuse against them.

This database should have been introduced a decade ago, because I'm wondering now how many children have been denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential when there was no way of tracking their progress to make sure they didn't fall through the cracks of a badly run education and welfare system.

Esel

Tow wrote: »

BTW: This information is being stored on Revenue's ROS computer system.

???