Tribal Validation of Schools Spring Term 2024

Summary

A request was made for all documents, costs, and participation data regarding the Tribal validation of five schools in Spring 2024, but the Department of Education, Sport and Culture refused to disclose the information.

Key Facts

• The request covered five schools: CRHS, QEII, Kewaigue Primary School, Peel Clothworkers' School, and St Mary's RC School.
• The Department refused the request citing Section 33(b) regarding audit functions.
• A public interest test was conducted, weighing transparency against the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing validation process.
• The validation process is currently in a pilot phase before a three-year cycle begins in September 2024.
• The outcome of the request was 'Not upheld' on 2024-09-17.

Data Disclosed

• 2024-05-14
• 2024-09-17
• 19 pages
• 6 documents
• Section 33(b)
• September 2024
• 14
• 29

Exemptions Cited

• Section 33(b) Audit Functions

Original Request

Re the school validation process conducted by Tribal in the spring term 2024, I seek all information shared between Tribal and each of the five schools which were subject to validation (CRHS, QEII, Kewaigue Primary School, Peel Clothworkers' School and St Mary's RC School) together with DESC and all school information relating to the validation. This includes, but is not limited to, all feedback/reports given by Tribal to the Department and/or the subject schools, evidence in support of the validation process provided by the schools to Tribal, internal (Departmental/School) and external (e.g. DESC/School/Tribal) emails, apposite meeting minutes, communication between the DESC and the schools on the respective validation processes and the resulting outcomes etc. I seek the cost of each school validation. For each subject school, such information as is held showing how many parents, governors and other non DESC employees (by category not named individuals) participated in the validation process (e.g. School A, 27 parents, 3 governors etc) It appears the information published by the schools in respect of the validation is both selective and limited e.g. St. Mary's RC School has entitled its webpage document 'DESC Approved Parent & Carer Summary'. Please advise whether the brief reports published on the respective school websites are the only feedback and information received by the schools from the validation team, or, if not, I seek information as to what the policy was regarding publishing reports, what instructions on publication as were given to the schools, whether any editing changes were made and if so by whom (position not person) and the full original reports. Noting that we are now well into May 2024 (and given the DESC Information Governance Team's email to me of 5th September 2023 (at 16:41:29) which indicated the Department was unable to publish its Quality Assurance Framework until completion of the pilot phase in April 2024, I now seek a copy of this which I assume you can now release.

Data Tables (6)

Full Response Text

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST – FOI 3852509

Public Interest Test - weighting 1 = low, 5 = high This scale must be used to give different levels of importance to statements, based on degree of risk, taking into account financial impact, commercial impact on DOI and third parties/stakeholders, physical risk to individuals, reputational risk to DOI and third parties/stakeholders etc. It is important that your statements and decisions are based on fact, are an honest representation and will stand up to scrutiny

Request: Tribal Validation of Schools Spring Term 2024 Exemption – Section 33 (b) Audit Functions – the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which other public authorities use their resources in discharging their functions.

For disclosure Weight Against disclosure Weight To further public understanding of decisions made by public authorities. 5 Clear public interest in protecting the effectiveness and integrity of any audit process. 4 To promote accountability and transparency in relation to decision making and the use of public funds by public authorities.
5 The Department considers the public interest clearly rests in protecting Tribal’s ability to carry out its external validation of all schools and services. To allow the external validation team to assess the accuracy of the school or services self- evaluation judgements against the quality assurance framework to enable continued well – informed school improvement
freely, frankly and robustly without the fear of public or the school’s intrusion.

It is in the public interest for Tribal to assist and work with the schools and services to enable growth and development priorities to be put in place as quickly and as efficiently as possible. 5 Disclosure of the requested information could lead to a greater public confidence in the integrity of the validation process. 4 Full disclosure would be likely to harm and disrupt the ability of Tribal to carry out its ongoing validation of the schools and services. Whilst this process is ongoing it would be likely to hinder the external validation team’s ability to carry out further robust validation visits of schools or service.
Section 33(1)(b) is therefore engaged. 5 Full disclosure of findings could prejudice the implementation of growth priorities which schools and services need thinking space to fully consider, implement, and test recommendations away from the public gaze. 5

Full disclosure of the requested information would be likely to hinder ongoing monitoring and improvement by shifting focus backwards to the validation process rather than forward to growth and development.
Furthermore, full disclosure would be likely to harm and disrupt Tribals ability to 5 carry out its validation functions if the underlying evidence were disclosed prior to concluding the validation process.

The validation process is live and currently within a pilot phase before a three-year cycle across all schools and services from September 2024.
5

Total 14 Total 29

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST – FOI Reference: FOI 3852509

Public Interest Test - weighting 1 = low, 5 = high

This scale must be used to give different levels of importance to statements, based on degree of risk, impact on DESC and third parties/stakeholders. It is important that your statements and decisions are based on fact, are an honest representation and will stand up to scrutiny.

Request: Tribal Validation of Schools Spring Term
Exemption –35 (c) Conduct of Public Business
Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public business.

For disclosure Weight Against disclosure Weight Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote openness and accountability to the general public.
5 Where only the author and contributors know and understand the exact context of the information to prevent misunderstanding 4 Informing public debate on important matters. 4 Disclosure would be likely to inhibit the ability of public authority staff and others to express themselves openly, honestly and completely, or to explore options, when providing advice or giving their views as part of the process of deliberation. Disclosing such information could therefore impair the quality of decision making by the public authority. 5

The authority needs a “safe space” in which to develop ideas or make decisions and disclosure may prejudice this and/or interfere with or distract from the processing any other way, or would prejudice or undermine the decision itself, rather that the frankness of the discussions specifically. 5

The matter is live
5

The information could be misinterpreted. Disclosure may impact core authority functions. Disclosure may therefore not be in the public interest. 5

Total 9 Total 24

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST – 3852509

Request: Tribal Validation of Schools Spring term 2024 Exemption – s30 Economy and Commercial Interests (2) (b) it’s disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the public authority holding it).

For disclosure Weight Against disclosure Weight Accountability for the spending of public funds. Ensuring that public money is being used effectively and Departments are getting value for money when purchasing goods and services.

5 The External Validation is presently live and ongoing 5 Accountability - Need to ensure that commercial activities are conducted in an open and honest way.

5 The Department’s ability to obtain the best financial outcomes from a quick quote process requires a level starting position for all tenderers.
If the cost is released this would provide an indication to all businesses who tender for similar projects in future and would therefore likely impact the Department’s ability to obtain the best value for money (from public funds).

5

Ensuring that the Government and the Department is getting value for money when purchasing goods and services within a tender process. It is not in the public interest for information to be disclosed that would impact Government and Departmental Expenditure.
5

There is a need to protect the commercial interests of the private sector, which plays an important role in the general health of the economy. 3

Total

10 Total 18

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST GUIDELINES – FOI 3852509

Public Interest Test - weighting 1 = low, 5 = high This scale must be used to give different levels of importance to statements, based on degree of risk, impact on DESC and third parties/stakeholders. It is important that your statements and decisions are based on fact, are an honest representation and will stand up to scrutiny.

Request: Tribal Validation of Schools Spring Term 2024 Exemption – 34 Formulation of policy (1)(a) the formulation or development of government policy

For disclosure Weight Against disclosure Weight There’s a public interest in disclosing factual information used to provide an informed back-ground to decision taking. 5 The pilot process of the new Quality Assurance model is live. 5 Public participation in the policy is appropriate, in the sense of permitting people to contribute to policy prior to a final decision. Information disclosed prior to a decision being taken will facilitate more informed public debate. 3 Could result in information being disclosed which isn’t accurate therefore misleading the public.
4

To protect the deliberative process and provide a safe space to protect information in the early stages of policy formulation and development. 5

The need to maintain the quality of government policy making by facilitating free and frank exchanges between civil servants (“the chilling effect”) and the thorough consideration of all policy options, however extreme, without including the need to defend them (“safe space”).
5

Total 8 Total 19

Policy, Strategy and Governance Division Department of Education, Sport and Culture Thie Slieau Whallian Foxdale Road St Johns IM4 3AS

Telephone: (01624) 685808 Website: www.gov.im/desc Email: dec@foi.gov.im

Our ref: 3852509 17th September 2024

Dear

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 ("the Act")
INTERNAL REVIEW IN RELATION TO REQUEST 3852509

I write in relation to your request dated 9 July 2024 for an internal review of the Department's response to FOI request 3852509 (the "original request"), within which you requested as follows -

“Re the school validation process conducted by Tribal in the spring term 2024, I seek all information shared between Tribal and each of the five schools which were subject to validation (CRHS, QEII, Kewaigue Primary School, Peel Clothworkers' School and St Mary's RC School) together with DESC and all school information relating to the validation. This includes, but is not limited to, all feedback/reports given by Tribal to the Department and/or the subject schools, evidence in support of the validation process provided by the schools to Tribal, internal (Departmental/School) and external (e.g. DESC/School/Tribal) emails, apposite meeting minutes, communication between the DESC and the schools on the respective validation processes and the resulting outcomes etc.

I seek the cost of each school validation

For each subject school, such information as is held showing how many parents, governors and other non DESC employees (by category not named individuals) participated in the validation process (e.g. School A, 27 parents, 3 governors etc)

It appears the information published by the schools in respect of the validation is both selective and limited e.g. St. Mary's RC School has entitled its webpage document 'DESC Approved Parent & Carer Summary'. Please advise whether the brief reports published on the respective school websites are the only feedback and information received by the schools from the validation team, or, if not, I seek information as to what the policy was regarding publishing reports, what instructions on publication as were given to the schools, whether any editing changes were made and if so by whom (position not person) and the full original reports.

Noting that we are now well into May 2024 (and given the DESC Information Governance Team's email to me of 5th September 2023 (at 16:41:29) which indicated the Department was unable to publish its Quality Assurance Framework until completion of the pilot phase in April 2024, I now seek a copy of this which I assume you can now release.”

An internal review of the Department’s handling of the original response has been completed. The review included a re-assessment of the range of information subject to disclosure to you in response to the request and the original disclosure decisions made by the Department, having regard for the following statutory conditions:

Statutory Considerations 1. Did the public authority respond to your request within the required timescales? No
2. Did the public authority provide the information requested? No 3. Did the public authority conduct a reasonable search for the information? Yes
4. If the public authority did not provide the information because of the application of a practical refusal reason, was the refusal clear? No refusal was made 5. If the public authority applied an exemption was it correct and was it explained? Yes 6. Did the public authority offer appropriate advice and assistance? Yes 7. Did the public authority advise you of the internal review process and your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner? Yes

Outcomes 1. No, the public authority did not answer your request within the statutory time limit. 2. No, the public authority did not provide the information requested and did not seek further clarification of what was required. 3. The public authority did conduct a reasonable search for the information. 4. There was no application of a practical refusal reason.
5. The public authority applied exemption(s) correctly and they were explained? Yes. 6. Yes, the public authority did offer appropriate advice or seek to obtain further clarification of the uncertainty of what was requested. 7. Yes, the public authority did advise the requester of the internal review process and their right of appeal to the Information Commissioner.

REVIEW OF DISCLOSURE DECISIONS

Request Part 1 “Re the school validation process conducted by Tribal in the spring term 2024, I seek all information shared between Tribal and each of the five schools which were subject to validation (CRHS, QEII, Kewaigue Primary School, Peel Clothworkers' School and St Mary's RC School) together with DESC and all school information relating to the validation. This includes, but is not limited to, all feedback/reports given by Tribal to the Department and/or the subject schools, evidence in support of the validation process provided by the schools to Tribal, internal

(Departmental/School) and external (e.g. DESC/School/Tribal) emails, apposite meeting minutes, communication between the DESC and the schools on the respective validation processes and the resulting outcomes etc.”

DISCLOSURE DECISION

Section 33 (1) (b) Audit Functions and Section 35 Conduct of Public Business. Exemptions under Section 33 and Section 35 (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (“the Act”) were applied in which the decision was to not disclose the information.

I attached the public interest tests for Section 33 (1) (b) Audit Function and Section 35(c) Conduct of Public Business, including weightings as requested. Appendix A and Appendix B.

REVIEW OUTCOME

When considering the application of Section 33 (1) (b) Audit Functions, in the absence of previous requests for similar information to this public authority, the UK ICO Decision notices were included in the rationale, in particular:

IC-247877-Q4Y7 Decision Notice: “In line with his previous decisions in similar cases such as IC-196631- R4G513, IC-228068- S1D524 and IC-235429-B5T65, the Commissioner is satisfied that Ofsted was entitled to apply section 33 of FOIA to the requested information.

This is because, at the time of the request, disclosure of the requested information would be likely to frustrate ongoing monitoring by shifting focus backwards to the inspection rather than forward to monitoring and improvement. Furthermore, disclosure would be likely to harm and disrupt Ofsted’s ability to carry out its inspection functions if the underlying evidence were disclosed prior to concluding its monitoring of t

[Response truncated — full text is 38,895 characters]