Our latest GIRFEC-related magnum opus has just been published, in which we have compared council claims in relation to the gathering and sharing of ‘wellbeing’ data on children and family members with information published on their websites.
Read our findings here: Comparison of council claims with published information
The Education and Skills Committee, who are considering our petition for a public inquiry into the human rights impact of GIRFEC policy, had requested assurances in November 2019 that legally inaccurate information sharing guidance (issued by the ICO in March 2013 and withdrawn in September 2016) was not being used. Their responses were received in January and February 2020, which we finally had sight of at the end of last month.
Thank you to all those who waded through the treacle of GIRFEC-related speak and spin published by the 32 authorities. The picture is far from rosy and much of the established practice contradicts the Supreme Court ‘named person’ ruling by blurring the threshold for interference with children’s rights and parental responsibilities and relying on pre-judgment guidance and training. Some did not appear to realise that Parts 4 & 5 of the Children and Young People Act 2014 are to be repealed, having never come into force.
Our findings have also highlighted the need for us to embark on a few more data gathering expeditions of our own, especially with regard to the SEEMiS ‘Wellbeing Application’, which has already raised concerns around the profiling of pupils and the default ‘overriding of consent’ to share information between ‘services’.
— Home Education Forums (@homeedforums) December 6, 2020