I filed a whisleblower complaint against a school in Thailand I was at - the details of the complaint and the school are beside the point. What matters is Thailand has criminal penalties for defamation and the truth of the defamation does not matter. The owner of the school immediately threatened me with criminal defamation and I immediately withdrew the complaint.
Anyway, the IBO obviously informed my school about the complaint violating their own whisleblower policy. They refuse to confirm or deny that they informed my school about the complaint. In fact, they have stopped communicating with me at all.
Any advice on forcing the IBO to either admit or deny they informed the school about my complaint?
Has a teacher ever successfully sued the IBO?
deposing IBO
Re: deposing IBO
Sorry I don't know what IBO stands for...is it the International Baccalaureate?
I commend you for reporting the school and good luck.
If I was you, I would report the school to the other organizations that they are accredited with such as CIS or WASC.
I would also report this school International Schools Association of Thailand or the Interscholastic Association of Southeast Asian.
I commend you for reporting the school and good luck.
If I was you, I would report the school to the other organizations that they are accredited with such as CIS or WASC.
I would also report this school International Schools Association of Thailand or the Interscholastic Association of Southeast Asian.
Response
A whistleblower complaint? TH has no whistleblower protection. The closest it gets is some witness protections, but theres no such thing as whistleblower protections in TH.
Truth, in the public interest, is a defense to defamation in TH. This might apply to your case, but who did you report the issue to? The IBO regional office in Asia is in SG. SG doesnt have better defamation laws, and it probably doesnt matter to your IS as they are going to pursue their issues in TH and its going to cost you a lot of coin to defend yourself.
I dont think you understand the IBO whistleblower policy. First, its not law, its a policy, and this policy is discretionary, there is no enforcement mechanism you can invoke because you dont have a contractual agreement with the IBO. A contractual agreement is the general cause of action for you to get into court so that you can move for a deposition. Even if the policy was an obligation to you the policy is very weak, the IBO states that disclosing the identity of the complainant may be necessary depending on the appropriateness of the complaint. At best the IBO can engage their inspectorate and could potentially withdraw authorization, but thats the IBOs remedy. They cant do anything else, and they wont engage in disciplinary actions or employment grievances. They will instruct you to contact a legal practitioner to pursue any claims through appropriate labor laws, etc.
So what would you hope to gain by deposing the IBO. Youre in a conference room, the camera is rolling, the reporter ready, oaths administered. You ask the IBO representative if they disclosed your identity to the IS upon receiving your complaint. Even if they answer yes, even if you get the smoking gun, so what? You have no legal protections as a whistleblower, and the IBOs policy clearly says they may disclose the identity of the whistleblower when appropriate, and they believed it was appropriate. You have no remedies, and you have no cause for damages. If you wrote the IBO and asked about an irregularity you want to report and some IBO representative wrote you back that they would not disclose your identity, and then they did you might have a cause of action that you could argue youve suffered damages from, but you dont have that. You have your interpretation of a policy for a whistleblower that is not supported by any legal protections.
Of course they arent communicating with you anymore. Its probably unproductive arguing. What more is there to resolve by continuing the conversation.
CIS accreditation isnt accreditation. CISs evaluation process is nothing more than an external validation that what an IS claims to be doing they actually are doing.
Regardless they arent going to do anything and neither is a US regional accreditation body. Nor would Ofsted for that matter. Assuming the IS is a member of such an accrediting/inspecting organization. These organizations concern themselves with implementation and execution of the academic standards and program, nothing more, and the bulk of their efforst are focused on examinations as opposed to instructional tasks and activities. Very few complaints even those the IBO receives, are of an academic nature, and of the ones that are its often discovered its the IT who is really the fault in the violation, since its very difficult to find evidence of the violation from ownership or leadership.
The other organizations (International Schools Association of Thailand and the Interscholastic Association of Southeast Asian) are just clubs that ISs join. Their allegiance is to the IS not the ITs. Even in the extraordinary scenario that they would be in any way interested and pursue action the worst they can do is drop the IS as a member IS, which amounts to little more than one less logo on the ISs webpage.
Truth, in the public interest, is a defense to defamation in TH. This might apply to your case, but who did you report the issue to? The IBO regional office in Asia is in SG. SG doesnt have better defamation laws, and it probably doesnt matter to your IS as they are going to pursue their issues in TH and its going to cost you a lot of coin to defend yourself.
I dont think you understand the IBO whistleblower policy. First, its not law, its a policy, and this policy is discretionary, there is no enforcement mechanism you can invoke because you dont have a contractual agreement with the IBO. A contractual agreement is the general cause of action for you to get into court so that you can move for a deposition. Even if the policy was an obligation to you the policy is very weak, the IBO states that disclosing the identity of the complainant may be necessary depending on the appropriateness of the complaint. At best the IBO can engage their inspectorate and could potentially withdraw authorization, but thats the IBOs remedy. They cant do anything else, and they wont engage in disciplinary actions or employment grievances. They will instruct you to contact a legal practitioner to pursue any claims through appropriate labor laws, etc.
So what would you hope to gain by deposing the IBO. Youre in a conference room, the camera is rolling, the reporter ready, oaths administered. You ask the IBO representative if they disclosed your identity to the IS upon receiving your complaint. Even if they answer yes, even if you get the smoking gun, so what? You have no legal protections as a whistleblower, and the IBOs policy clearly says they may disclose the identity of the whistleblower when appropriate, and they believed it was appropriate. You have no remedies, and you have no cause for damages. If you wrote the IBO and asked about an irregularity you want to report and some IBO representative wrote you back that they would not disclose your identity, and then they did you might have a cause of action that you could argue youve suffered damages from, but you dont have that. You have your interpretation of a policy for a whistleblower that is not supported by any legal protections.
Of course they arent communicating with you anymore. Its probably unproductive arguing. What more is there to resolve by continuing the conversation.
CIS accreditation isnt accreditation. CISs evaluation process is nothing more than an external validation that what an IS claims to be doing they actually are doing.
Regardless they arent going to do anything and neither is a US regional accreditation body. Nor would Ofsted for that matter. Assuming the IS is a member of such an accrediting/inspecting organization. These organizations concern themselves with implementation and execution of the academic standards and program, nothing more, and the bulk of their efforst are focused on examinations as opposed to instructional tasks and activities. Very few complaints even those the IBO receives, are of an academic nature, and of the ones that are its often discovered its the IT who is really the fault in the violation, since its very difficult to find evidence of the violation from ownership or leadership.
The other organizations (International Schools Association of Thailand and the Interscholastic Association of Southeast Asian) are just clubs that ISs join. Their allegiance is to the IS not the ITs. Even in the extraordinary scenario that they would be in any way interested and pursue action the worst they can do is drop the IS as a member IS, which amounts to little more than one less logo on the ISs webpage.
Re: Response
PsyGuy wrote:
> I dont think you understand the IBO whistleblower policy. First, its not
> law, its a policy, and this policy is discretionary, there is no
> enforcement mechanism you can invoke because you dont have a contractual
> agreement with the IBO. A contractual agreement is the general cause of
> action for you to get into court so that you can move for a deposition.
> Even if the policy was an obligation to you the policy is very weak, the
> IBO states that disclosing the identity of the complainant may be necessary
> depending on the appropriateness of the complaint. At best the IBO can
> engage their inspectorate and could potentially withdraw authorization, but
> thats the IBOs remedy. They cant do anything else, and they wont engage in
> disciplinary actions or employment grievances. They will instruct you to
> contact a legal practitioner to pursue any claims through appropriate labor
> laws, etc.
I understand the policy enough to know that they ignored their own policy and put me and my family in jeopardy.
I also they need to have a compliance officer if they claim to have such a policy.
I know enforcement and judgement are two different words - I am seeking a judgement.
At any rate, the timeline is clear enough; an imbecile can see what happened and I enjoy contacting lawyers, explaining the timeline and acting on what little feedback lawyers give.
> I dont think you understand the IBO whistleblower policy. First, its not
> law, its a policy, and this policy is discretionary, there is no
> enforcement mechanism you can invoke because you dont have a contractual
> agreement with the IBO. A contractual agreement is the general cause of
> action for you to get into court so that you can move for a deposition.
> Even if the policy was an obligation to you the policy is very weak, the
> IBO states that disclosing the identity of the complainant may be necessary
> depending on the appropriateness of the complaint. At best the IBO can
> engage their inspectorate and could potentially withdraw authorization, but
> thats the IBOs remedy. They cant do anything else, and they wont engage in
> disciplinary actions or employment grievances. They will instruct you to
> contact a legal practitioner to pursue any claims through appropriate labor
> laws, etc.
I understand the policy enough to know that they ignored their own policy and put me and my family in jeopardy.
I also they need to have a compliance officer if they claim to have such a policy.
I know enforcement and judgement are two different words - I am seeking a judgement.
At any rate, the timeline is clear enough; an imbecile can see what happened and I enjoy contacting lawyers, explaining the timeline and acting on what little feedback lawyers give.
Reply
@fangpiren
You dont understand it nearly well enough and the timeline very clear. They IBO really promised you nothing and didnt owe you anything. You disagree with their interpretation of their policy, then made a nuisance of yourself and nothing further was to be gained by communicating further with you.
They dont need a compliance officer.
You dont understand it nearly well enough and the timeline very clear. They IBO really promised you nothing and didnt owe you anything. You disagree with their interpretation of their policy, then made a nuisance of yourself and nothing further was to be gained by communicating further with you.
They dont need a compliance officer.