Safeguarding Concerns

Dear Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills,

regarding the Ormiston Academy Trust

[extraneous materials removed]

The Trust acknowledged to me that they altered the report from the original as authored by NCC-CS so as to “not disclose information that would identify any other individual.

I am aware that just before the New Year the Ofsted conducted an inspection of the City of Norwich School, an Ormiston Academy (CNS) as well as a couple of other Academies belonging to the Trust. My Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are as follows:

FOI-1 – [non-FOI material removed, personal correspondence]

FOI-2 – [non-FOI material removed, personal correspondence]

FOI-3 – Please could the Ofsted advice where I may view the reports of the inspections of the the Trust's academies conducted prior to the New Year and any since?

FOI-4 – [extraneous material removed] did the Ofsted require the Trust to take any remedial action concerning the above alteration of Child Safeguarding reports?

FOI-5 - Has the Ofsted received any other similar concerns?

[extraneous material removed]

If the Ofsted is not the correct agency to approach with this Freedom of Information Request please could the Ofsted provide information as to which is the correct agency that should be approached.

Should the Ofsted require any clarification, further information or corrections to this FOI please do not hesitate to ask.

Yours Faithfully

Gary Symonds

Dear Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills,

Further to my FOI request made on the 16th February 2022 RE: Safeguarding Concerns.

I realised I omitted to provide a link to the correspondence between the Information Commissioner's Office and the Ormiston Academies Trust that shows that the Trust acknowledged altering a Norfolk County Council, Children's Services safeguarding report to remove reference to "unprofessional" and "inappropriate" behaviour of Trust personnel.

The link showing the correspondence is available as below:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/ICO-CASE-...

Yours faithfully,

Gary Symonds

Dear Kerry McTear,

Thank you for your initial response to my FOI request regarding the alteration of safeguarding documents, by the Ormiston Academy Trust, to remove reference of "unprofessional" and "inappropriate" behaviour and actions of OAT personnel from a Child Safeguarding investigation report authored by Norfolk County Council Children's Services.

I believe your response is not entirely compliant with Information Commissioner's Office guidelines as although you state as follows:

"If you are dissatisfied with our response or the handling of your request, you may
request a formal internal review. To do this, please write to the following address,
setting out the area(s) of the response you are unhappy with"

I understand ICO guidelines require public authorities to advise a time limit for which Requests for Internal Review may be submitted. In this case you did not. As I am dissatisfied with the response and intend to submit a Request for Internal Review pleas advise any time limits within the request must be submitted.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Symonds

Dear Kerry McTear,

Thank you for your email of the 28th March 2022. Your email was in response to a concerns I had raised regarding the response, by Ofsted, to my FOI request regarding the alteration, by the Ormiston Academies Trust of a safeguarding report authored by Norfolk County Council Children's Services as a result of their investigation concerning the safeguarding of a child. The report was altered to remove reference to "unprofessional" and "inappropriate" behaviour of Ormiston Academies Trust personnel involved in the safeguarding investigation.

The link to my original FOI is as follows:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

In your initial response, which was a refusal to process my FOI, the Ofsted failed to notify me of the time limits to submit a Request for Internal Review of the Ofsted refusal to my FOI request and I pointed this out to you on the 28th March 2022.

In your response to my concern you quote Section 5.2 of The Cabinet Office's Freedom of Information code of practice as follows:

"5.2 It is usual practice to accept a request for an internal review made within 40 working days
from the date a public authority has issued an initial response to a request and this should be
made clear in that response to the applicant. Public authorities are not obliged to accept
internal reviews after this date. Internal review requests should be made in writing to a public
authority"

You then state "My response to you did meet this requirement."

However your response failed to quote the requirement of Section 5.3 of the same document that clearly states:

"5.3 It is usual practice to accept a request for an internal review made within 40 working days
from the date a public authority has issued an initial response to a request and this should be
made clear in that response to the applicant. Public authorities are not obliged to accept
internal reviews after this date. Internal review requests should be made in writing to a public
authority."

The operative phrase being "this {time limit} should be made clear in that response to the applicant", Therefore I believe your advice and assistance of the 28th March 2022 to have been factually incorrect.

I attach a link as follows to the quoted document which I have archived to ensure a copy remains with this FOI request:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Cabinet-O...

Yours sincerely,

Gary Symonds

Dear Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills' handling of my FOI request 'Safeguarding Concerns'.

Thank you for your initial response to my FOI request made on the 16th February 2022.

I would like to request an internal review of the Ofsted decision to refuse my requests numbers 1, 2 & 4 . I accept the response to my request numbers 3 & 5.

For clarity I will repeat the requests with the subsequent Ofsted response as follows:

1 – When undertaking the inspections did the Ofsted take into account the evidence I presented to support my safeguarding concerns regarding the practice the above alteration of Child Safeguarding reports authored by NCCCS created as a result of a child safeguarding investigation?

OFSTED Response – Refused citing 40(5) of the FOI Act .

2 – More specifically, during the Ofsted inspection of the CNS in December 2021, did the inspectors take into consideration the evidence I provided to the Ofsted that the Trust acknowledged altering Child Safeguarding reports held by the CNS for a specific identifiable case? Did the inspection investigate my concerns which included screenshots of records held on the Trusts Child Protection Online Management System (CPOMS) related to the CNS that I felt an audit of all records regarding that case should be undertaken?

OFSTED Response – Refused citing 40(5) of the FOI Act .

3 – Please could the Ofsted advice where I may view the reports of the inspections of the the Trust's academies conducted prior to the New Year and any since?

OFSTED Response – link to reports supplied.

4 – In view of the evidence supplied in my complaint to the Ofsted, did the Ofsted require the Trust to take any remedial action concerning the above alteration of Child Safeguarding reports?

OFSTED Response – Refused citing 40(5) of the FOI Act .

5 - Has the Ofsted received any other similar concerns?

OFSTED Response – Refused citing section 33 of the FOI Act.

For items 1, 2, and 4 I would like to request an internal review of the response as my original FOI request already releases into the public domain, via the whatdotheyknow.com website (WDTK) , that I had raised safeguarding concerns with Ofsted regarding the safeguarding practices of the Ormiston Academies Trust and therefore publicly confirms the Ofsted holds such data about me.

Before going into further detail on this part I would like to refer the Ofsted to two separate requests I recently made via WDTK to the Ormiston Academies Trust. Although one of the requests is loosely related ('Health and Safety Concerns') the other is not directly related but the Ormiston Academies Trust Data Protection Officer's initial response to them both is important to support my Internal Review request to the Ofsted. The requests can be viewed via the following links:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

For reference the Data Protection Office acting for the Ormiston Academies Trust at the time was Laurence Boulter – the signatory of the Ormiston Academies Trust's 'Data Protection and Freedom of Information policy ' - a copy of this is archived at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/oat-data-protect...

Within the two requests the Ofsted will see that the Ormiston Academies Trust DPO quite clearly reveals that I have made previous FOI and Subject Access Requests as well as correspondence to the Ormiston Academies Trust – thus publicly (via WDTK) stating they hold such personal data about myself. The DPO, also mentions these in a way that appears to be discrediting of my previous requests/correspondence stating as follows:

“In past communications we have sent to you we have made clear that the
number of FOIA requests you have made (together with the significant
number of requests under the EU GDPR and UK GDPR; complaints; and the
substantial volume of ancillary correspondence) is imposing a grossly
oppressive burden on OAT. “

The DPO, however, fails to provide tangible evidence of any 'grossly oppressive burden'. However the fact is personal information about myself was revealed publicly by the OAT DPO on the WDTK website.

Although I am familiar with the various Information Rights Acts I am by no means expert and therefore I rely on information, guidance and advice from experts in the field – including the Information Commissioner's Office.

Initially I was concerned by the OAT DPO remarks as above and I did submit to the Ormiston Academies Trust an 'Information Rights Concern' that I felt the OAT DPO had revealed my (unrelated) personal information, without my consent, into the public domain.

The matter was dealt with by the OAT DPO (Laurence Boulter) who advised me as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Further to your recent communication with the DPO, sent to us on the 18th December, in which you describe the concerns you have about the way we have handled your personal information

Your concerns were investigated by the DPO in accordance with Recital 87 of UK GDPR as a potential data breach. This investigation was undertaken within the 72 hours provided to determine the risk to you.In the course of that investigation the DPO contacted the ICO and the "What do They Know" website to confirm the lawfulness of processing your data in this way.

During a discussion with the ICO on 20/12/2021:
The ICO asked us to identify what personal data had been provided. We explained that other than your name we did state in our response that we have informed you before that we are concerned about the significant number of requests (SARs, FOIs, complaints) we receive from you and how this may contribute to eventual application of section 14. We informed the ICO that we believed that it was this description of your past behaviours that were your concern.

The ICO confirmed that this may only be treated as a breach on our side if we could not demonstrate that we had clear instructions from you to send the response to the WDTK website.
“

The OAT DPO then went on to say:

“The ICO have advised that we take this opportunity to make clear to you that any responses we may feel we need to make to any request you may make using the WDTK website will be placed in the public domain. “

…..

“The publication of the responses to the WDTK website was at your request and as such were lawful. “

…..

“This incident is assessed to not represent a data breach and will not be recorded as such.”

A full copy of the response to my concerns, by the Ormiston Academies Trust Data Protection Officer, can be viewed at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Ormiston-...

Key points from the above are that the Ormiston Academies Trust DPO publicly revealed that they hold personal information about myself. The DPO also advised that they are quite at liberty to do so, with or without my consent and that the Information Commissioner's Office confirm this is legitimate use of my personal information by advising the DPO that “The ICO have advised that we take this opportunity to make clear to you that any responses we may feel we need to make to any request you may make using the WDTK website will be placed in the public domain.” and that “The publication of the responses to the WDTK website was at your request and as such were lawful.”

At the time I felt there was some weight to the OAT DPO response because I am aware that the GDPR/UK DPA 2018 require public authorities to employ a DPO who is expert in the various Information Acts. Additionally the OAT DPO clearly states that “the ICO had advised any response {the OAT} may feel {they} need to make will be placed in the public domain”. In other words the resulting decision that the incident was not a data breach was not only the opinion of the expert DPO in Ormiston Academies Trust employ but also by way of authoritative consultation and advice from the Information Commissioner's Office directly.

Initially, because of the expert and authoritative advice as above I accepted the response – however in view of the Ofsted latest response that refuses parts of my requests because responding ”... would involve confirming Ofsted held personal data about you. This would be in contravention of the data protection principles, set out under the Data Protection Act 2018.” I now question that.

Therefore I now have two directly opposing responses – the Ofsted states my request cannot be answered because it would reveal they hold personal information about myself and the OAT DPO states the ICO has advised they can reveal any information about myself they feel they need to make in response to my FOI requests.

In view of this, and the contradiction of the Ofsted response, I decided to contact the Information Commissioner's Office with a complaint regarding the OAT DPO response in case the OAT had advised me incorrectly and they did breach my information rights after all. I am aware that the ICO are under considerable pressure since the new Information Rights Acts were implemented so I do not anticipate a decision from them in the near future.

If the OAT did breach my privacy rights I believe this will be a matter of concern for the Department for Education. This is because following complaints I had made to the Information Commissioner's Office the OAT were found to be in violation of a child's information rights (ICO Case Reference Number RFA0889414 - the ICO issued a decision notice against the OAT regarding non-consensual disclosure, by the OAT of the sensitive personal information of a child under 16).

The OAT CEO & Trustee, Nick Hudson also once personally wrote to me telling me that the OAT had “made the decision to no longer respond to future information requests from {myself}”. Although when this was referred to the Information Commissioner's Office the ICO had to advise the OAT to respond in accordance with the legislation or face contempt of court action. As per the following links:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/NH-letter...

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/20...

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/ICO-to-Or...

In view of the above I did raise a concern with the Department of Education who advised me that they “have sought assurances from the trust's CEO {Nick Hudson} on how the ICO findings would be implemented and how the future practice would be monitored”.

This is documented in the DfE response to my concern at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/ESFA-CASE...

Notwithstanding the above, I believe the public interest outweighs my privacy that I had raised a concern with the Ofsted that I provided written evidence that the Ormiston Academies Trust altered a Child Safeguarding report – authored by the Norfolk County Council Children's Services Department. The alteration was to remove reference to “unprofessional” and “inappropriate” actions or behaviours of OAT personnel.

I believe the Ofsted has a duty of care to investigate this matter in case there have been other documents or reports altered with the same intent.

As an example – I refer to a safeguarding concern I raised in 2018 where a child was subject to significant harm whilst under the care of the Ormiston Academies Trust and when I raised a safeguarding concern about the personnel involved I was told by the Deputy Head that “It is not felt that the actions taken by the teacher are a safeguarding concern. Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board are in agreement with this”. However I did contact the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board directly to confirm if they were in such an agreement and their response was not as the Deputy Head stated. The NSCB response to me was that the matter should be investigated via the Ormiston Academies Trust.

A copy of the email from the Deputy Head of the City of Norwich School, an Ormiston Academy as well as the NSCB email to myself are archived at the following links:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Email-Dep...

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Email-NSC...

(NB – the email from the CNS Deputy Head, contains identifying medical information and thus is heavily redacted to preserve the identity of the child concerned).

Therefore the above is another example of the OAT altering something the Children's Services said.

Thus I believe the public interest is the safeguarding of children. Parents need to be reassured that documents, especially reports of Child Safeguarding investigations authored by Children's Services won't be altered to remove references to unprofessional or inappropriate actions or behaviour of adults responsible for their children, and that when such incidences are identified the process is transparent and appropriate investigations and remedial action is transparently taken where safeguarding concerns are raised.

If the Ofsted wish to confirm my identity I will be happy to provide, via gmail confidential mode email, the appropriate identity documents and a signed declaration that I consent that the Ofsted make public that I have raised a safeguarding concern with them regarding a document supplied to me as a result of an Information Request that shows the Ormiston Academies Trust Safeguarding manager, in cooperation with a Designated Safeguarding Lead – altered a Norfolk County Council Children's Services report to remove reference to “unprofessional” and “inappropriate” actions or behaviours of OAT personnel.

For clarity the document confirming this is archived at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/ICO-CASE-...

In conclusion I believe my FOI request is in the public interest for child safeguarding transparency but also I believe other Multi Academy Trusts will be interested -as an example, a 'Termination Notice' was issued to to the Directors of the Community Inclusive Trust in respect of Woodlands Academy due to an Ofsted inspection uncovering safeguarding weaknesses during an inspection in February 2022. The inspection report and the Termination Notice can be viewed at the following links:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Woodlands...

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Terminati...

In the case of the Woodlands CIT the safeguarding weaknesses were a result of failure of management whereas in the Ormiston Academies Trust concern I raised the safeguarding weakness was a result of deliberate alteration of documents by managers.

In response to my FOI 3 – “Please could the Ofsted advice where I may view the reports of the inspections of the the Trust's academies conducted prior to the New Year and any since?” The Ofsted has provided a link to the reports.

Focussing only on the report for the City of Norwich School, an Ormiston Academy I noticed that in the inspection report does not indicate acknowledgement of the concerns I had raised. Viewing the 'Information about this inspection' section I see no reference to the two safeguarding concerns I had raised. By convention I believe the Ofsted acknowledges input to inspections from such sources as 'Parent View' and complaints made about an academy.

The Ofsted Inspection Report for the CNS is archived at this link:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/CNS-Ofste...

It can be seen there is no reference to my two concerns emailed to Ofsted.

It can be seen that the Ofsted notes:

“Inspectors met with the designated safeguarding lead to discuss the arrangements in place to safeguard all members of the school community. Inspectors scrutinised checks leaders make on the suitability of staff, and other safeguarding records.”

The Ofsted will recall that my original concern related to a document presented to representatives of the High Court (The Information Commissioner's Office) that the Ormiston Academies Trust acknowledged that the the designated safeguarding lead (in cooperation with the safeguarding manager) removed references to “unprofessional” and “inappropriate” actions or behaviour of personnel from a Child Safeguarding Report authored by the Norfolk County Council Children's Services.

For clarity I repeat the link to the documents here:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Ofsted-em...

As the DSL in post during the inspection is the same DSL in office regarding the alteration of the Children's Services report I would like to view the Inspector's Notes of the inspection. I have made a new FOI request to the Ofsted regarding this matter (in line with WDTK recommended practice). The link to the new request is here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Copies of Ofsted acknowledgement to my two safeguarding concerns are archived at the following links:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Ofsted-Ac...

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Ofsted-em...

An example of an Ofsted inspection report demonstrating the convention of noting public input to inspections is archived at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/ofsted/Ofsted-in...

Where it clearly states “Inspectors took account of responses to the Ofsted Parent View survey and written comments from parents and carers, including two emails. “

Regarding the Ofsted response to my FOI which included my right to request an internal review of the response. I did point out to the Ofsted that I considered the response incomplete as it did not specify the time limits the FOI Act allows for a request for internal review. I did do some research on the WDTK website and found that the Ofsted, as a matter of routine, does not specify a time limit.

Although I am familiar with this part of the FOI Act I believe the routine exclusion of stating time limits to the general public could mean requests for internal review might be submitted after the 40 working day time limit so I queried this. This initial response pointed me to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice for FOI and cited Section 5.2 which does not specify time limits – however when I further queried this the Ofsted quoted directly from the FOI Act. My concern is that the Ofsted states although they will look at internal review requests received after 40 working days they will not necessarily accept them.

I have submitted an FOI to the Minister of the Cabinet Office on this matter to get authoritative advice on whether the Ofsted should completely comply with the Cabinet Office FOI guidance and state any time limits.

My request to the Cabinet Office can be viewed here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Gary Symonds

Dear InformationRequest,

Thank you for your response, I have now contacted the described email address via my personal email.

Yours sincerely,

Gary