British Council Freedom of Information request: The BC “responds”

In an effort to provide teachers and examiners with the transparency that the British Council won’t, the TEFL Workers’ Union took out a Freedom of Information Request related to the employment of online teachers and examiners.  Below we detail that response.

With a growing membership amongst teachers and examiners at the BC, one of the main complaints the union hears is about the lack of transparency. Staff are shunted back and forth from the BC to Flexy/Impellam when they have questions or concerns; each side claiming it’s the responsibility of the other. Emails regarding substantial employment matters go unanswered. And when the staff surveys are sent around, management picks and chooses the responses that suit their preferred narrative. 

In an effort to shed some light on the BC’s business model, the union took out a Freedom of Information request.  We had no illusions, however, that the BC would be a great bastion of transparency and we were not wrong. However, there are some useful nuggets of information that we want to share.

We want to thank our members at the BC who helped craft these questions.  As with all things in the union, we rely on our members to provide the information so that we can hold employers to account.

The BC’s full response can be found here

Our first three questions were about the number of students and teachers. In what is a pattern, the BC confirmed they had this information but declined to share it citing commercial privilege.

Our fourth question was about the number of English Online (EOL) teachers and their average working hours. Here the BC again declined to answer these questions on commercial grounds.

Interestingly, it was in this series of questions that the BC begins to refer to the “agency”. This is useful in that, at various points, the BC has claimed Flexy/Impellam is simply a payroll provider. Well, we have it here in a formal legal document that, indeed, the BC considers online teachers and examiners to be employed (“engaged” in BC parlance) through an employment agency.

Question five was about where teachers reside globally. Again, the BC declined to answer, citing commercial matters. How the location of where teachers are based is somehow an important trade secret is anyone’s guess.

Question six was classic pedantry. We asked for the average pay data for an English Online manager and were told the position of “English Online Manager” does not exist. Have no illusions: whether through obstinance or hiding behind legal facades, the British Council is an organisation that is fundamentally opposed to any level of transparency or openness.

Questions eight and nine confirm that online staff are treated worse than directly employed staff and are not included in the BC’s yearly pay reviews. Nor do they receive London weighting.

Questions ten through fourteen were about “corporate teaching operations managers”.  The BC mostly refused to provide information on data protection grounds (although no personal data was requested).  

But we did learn that “Teaching Excellence Managers” are directly employed by the BC and not through an agency. This means they will have significantly better working conditions than agency staff, including enhanced annual leave and other benefits.

Questions fifteen and sixteen were about AI.  And, if the BC is to be believed, staff data is not being used to train AI.

Questions seventeen through nineteen focused on data retention and are useful for anyone considering taking out a subject access request.

Health and safety matters were the focus of questions twenty and twenty-one. Interestingly, the BC claims to “have not undertaken any risk assessments in relation to the English Online staff” nor to be in receipt of any risk assessment undertaken by Flexy/Impellam. 

The union is looking further into this matter. If you work online for the BC and you’ve experienced any health and safety issues, we encourage you to reach out to us at [email protected].

Questions twenty-two through twenty-four were about EOL revenue and profit and, predictably, these were denied on “commercial interest” grounds.

Question twenty-five, however, did result in a substantial response. We sought the figures on how much the BC had paid to Impellam/Flexy (and any other related subsidiary) over the past five years.

The BC came back with two separate lists, one for the “British Council” and one for “British Council – UKVI payroll”. 

The table is listed in the attached PDF and we encourage you to look at it, but the upshot is that from January 2021 to May 2055 the British Council has paid over 160 million pounds to Impellam or its subsidiaries. 

That’s 160 million pounds that didn’t go to staff wages or to improve students’ learning experiences. That’s 160 million pounds that, instead, went into the pockets of a wealthy private company that is almost universally despised by teachers and examiners alike.

Keep that in mind the next time the BC tells you how tight finances are.

Where to go from here

Like we said, we had no illusions that the BC would provide much data willingly. The laws around Freedom of Information (FOI) requests give organisations like the British Council lots of leeway to avoid the accountability that a FOI request should entail.

But, we also have illusions that our power begins and ends with legal procedures. As our membership grows at the BC, we can start asking questions and making demands.  We already have teachers and examiners at the BC working together to do that very thing.

If you work for the BC, we want you involved, too.  Send an email to [email protected] and an organiser will reach out to you to discuss how you can get involved and, as we always say, help the work along.