External validation reports

Summary

The requester sought full external validation reports and the quality assurance framework for schools, but the Department of Education, Sport and Culture only provided parent information leaflets and links to other government reports. The Information Commissioner upheld the request partially, ruling that the exemptions cited for withholding the full reports were inappropriate.

Key Facts

• The Department of Education, Sport and Culture withheld full external validation reports, providing only parent information leaflets instead.
• The Information Commissioner ruled that the exemption applied by the Department was inappropriate and contrary to government practice.
• The Commissioner noted that other external inspection reports, such as those for prisons and the constabulary, are routinely published.
• The Department claimed the quality assurance framework was due for publication later, but the Commissioner argued this was misleading as changes had already been confirmed.
• The outcome was 'Upheld - partial' because the authority failed to provide the specific reports requested despite conducting a reasonable search.

Data Disclosed

• 2025-01-28
• 2025-07-02
• 16
• 2
• 4404237
• S34(a)
• S35(c)

Exemptions Cited

• S34(a) Formulation of Policy
• S35(c) Conduct of Public business

Original Request

Please provide a copy of every report produced and provided as part of the external validation process of schools and educational services. I am not seeking the parent information prepared, but the full reports provided to the Department following the external validation that was undertaken. Please also provide the quality assurance framework that these reports are produced under and that schools are being assessed against.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

It is self-evident that this exemption cannot apply.
Equally, a range of other external inspection reports are in fact published by the Isle of Man Government, two easily locatable examples are below:

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/health-and-social- care/registration-and-inspection-team/inspection-reports/independent-clinics- inspection-reports/

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/health-and-social- care/external-quality-regulation/

In this respect, it was also usual practice for DESC to publish reports under the previous SSRE inspection framework

Some schools actually publish their own self review assessments undertaken as part of the current process (e.g. https://laxey.sch.im/site/uploads/pages/143/media/20241021_59c2a28c/QA Self_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_Final_Version.pdf)

This exemption being applied is clearly inappropriate.

1. S34(a) Formulation of Policy and S35 (c) Conduct of Public business

If these are audit reports, as the Department claims under the previous exemption, they are not used for policy formulation. They are an assessment of performance, efficiency or effectiveness of individual schools.

You state that disclosure in the format provided could be misleading – this is extremely concerning as if these reports aren’t understandable or explainable then they surely can serve no purpose.

Audit and inspection reports are usually published when they are produced, as part of ongoing inspection cycles. Arguing that the reports can’t be published as the validation process is “ongoing” makes little sense. Either the reports stand up as at a point in time, or they don’t and if this is the case they would provide no value to the end user.

Not publishing independent external reports is contrary to the approach taken by the rest of government.
A few examples:
https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/health-and-social- care/external-quality-regulation/
https://www.gov.im/media/1379902/hmip-inspection-report-of-isle-of-man- prison-final compressed.pdf
https://www.gov.im/media/1378866/inspection-isle-of-man-constabularypdf- nov-22.pdf

It cannot be the case that quite simply every other type of external inspection report can be published but the external reports about schools cannot. This is underlined by the fact that in other jurisdictions school inspection reports are routinely published.

There is no evidence the publication of any of these other reports has had any of the impacts listed in the FOI response, nor has the publication of any of these reports had an impact on the conduct of public business.

1. Broader points

The parent information leaflets are meaningless and provide no useful information whatsoever. Parents have an absolute right to understand how their schools are performing, what challenges are being faced and how these are being addressed. Publishing this information can only lead to improved confidence in school leadership.

In respect of the quality assurance framework:

1. You state this is due for publication at a later date. This is not the case.

The Minister has already confirmed to the House of Keys that changes to the framework have been made. Therefore whatever is published will not be the same framework the schools were assessed against.

1. Even the limited information published to date is meaningless if parents don’t have an understanding of the framework against which the inspections have been conducted. As far as I can tell every other inspection or regulatory agency publishes its inspection framework and methodology.

2. Parts of the methodology and framework have already been published by some schools on their websites. For example Laxey school have published their own self assessment against the framework, which details the aspects of the framework they have assessed themselves against

https://laxey.sch.im/site/uploads/pages/143/media/20241021_59c2a28c/QA Self_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_Final_Version.pdf

Withholding the framework when the most relevant parts have already been published is entirely pointless. Publication of part of the framework could lead to misunderstandings in the public domain and the Department refusing to publish the framework in its entirety can only lead to confusion.

Equally, withdrawing documents already published would lead to a loss of confidence in the Department and its inspection framework

Statutory Considerations 1. Did the public authority respond to your request within the required timescales?
Yes, the authority responded within the required timescales. No extended period was sought. 2. Did the public authority provide the information requested? No, the information provided to individual school’s / service’s following their external validation were not supplied, although links were provided to parent/carer information.

1. Did the public authority conduct a reasonable search for the information? Yes, the authority conducted a reasonable search for the information.

2. If the public authority did not provide the information because of the application of a practical refusal reason, was the refusal clear? No practical refusal reasons were applied.

3. If the public authority applied an exemption was it correct and was it explained?

A section S33(1)(b) Audit functions exemption was applied incorrectly. The Department is not an authority that has audit functions in respect of accounts of other public authorities, nor does it examine the economy, efficiency or effectiveness of other public authorities in use of resources in discharging such.
A school or its governing body could not in its own right be a public authority, and they are not listed as ‘public authorities’ in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015, nor are headteachers.

A section 34(a) – formulation of policy exemption has been applied. There are aspects of the pilot phase that may be subject to policy development.

A section 35(c) – conduct of public business has been applied. Section 35 (b) may also have been considered as a key feature of the external validation process, in consulting with some key stakeholders, free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and for the provision of advice and assistance.

A section 41 – information for future publication has been applied. The external validation process has been implemented via a pilot approach, which will not be complete until July 2025. This is due to the pilot approach being extended to allow for full meaningful consultation with all teaching trade unions and professional associations. Therefore, the Department of Education, Sport and Culture are unable to publish a copy of the Quality Assurance Framework, which schools and educational services self-evaluate against currently.

1. Did the public authority offer appropriate advice and assistance? Yes, the Department offered advice and assistance.

2. Did the public authority advise you of the internal review process and your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner? Yes, the Department did provide information about the internal review process and your right to appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Outcomes 1. Yes, the public authority answered 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. Yes, the public authority did conduct a reasonable search for the information 4. The application of a practical refusal reason was N/A.

1. The public authority did not apply all exemptions correctly although explanations were provided.
2. Yes, the public authority did offer appropriate advice but did not seek to obtain further clarification of what was requested.
3. Yes, the public authority did advise the requester of the internal review process and their right of appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Specific Issues you raised You raised the following issues and then expanded on the points that you were raising

I believe the qualified exemptions have been inappropriately applied.
In respect of individual reports:

1. S33 (1)b) Audit functions - this applies where one public authority has functions in relation to the audit of the accounts of other public authorities, or

the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which other public authorities use their resources in discharging their functions DESC and Schools are not independent public authorities – schools are part of DESC, their budgets are set by DESC and the accountable officer of their budgets is the DESC Chief Officer.

It is agreed that this exemption has been incorrectly applied.

Equally, a range of other external inspection reports are in fact published by the Isle of Man Government,

Yes, a range of external inspection reports are published by the Isle of Man Government as you have indicated.

….. it was also usual practice for DESC to publish reports under the previous SSRE inspection framework

Yes, SSRE reports were published.

Some schools actually publish their own self review assessments undertaken as part of the current process

It is the headteachers discretion in consultation with their governing body what information they publish as part of their self-review assessments and other information.

If these are audit reports, as the Department claims under the previous exemption, they are not used for policy formulation. They are an assessment of performance, efficiency or effectiveness of individual schools.

You state that disclosure in the format provided could be misleading – this is extremely concerning as if these reports aren’t understandable or explainable then they surely can serve no purpose.

Audit and inspection reports are usually published when they are produced, as part of ongoing inspection cycles. Arguing that the reports can’t be published as the validation process is “ongoing” makes little sense. Either the reports stand up as at a point in time, or they don’t and if this is the case they would provide no value to the end user.

Not publishing independent external reports is contrary to the approach taken by the rest of government.

It is agreed that these are not audit reports or inspection reports. The external validation process undertaken by Etio is a process which is centred around growth, designed to validate and confirm where possible, the school’s / service’s own self- evaluation of its strengths and areas of development in conjunction with school / service leaders. The information provided to schools / services prepared by Etio is used to inform school / service improvement plans. This information is not released publicly due to its detailed nature which permits the identification/re-identification of Departments, individual members of staff (both directly by name and/or by inference by role/function) and their relationship to individual external validation priorities in each school or service.

To mitigate issues around this, the information provided for each of the schools and services is consolidated, aggregated, and anonymised to create the “Parent / Carer Information” for public release, which includes key findings, themes and any areas of growth and uses language, terminology and descriptions deemed appropriate for parents/carers.

The Department is developing the external validation process which focuses on continuous improvement, reducing the pressure of external accountability and focusing on genuine school improvement, as an alternative to the high stakes inspection model adopted by other jurisdictions.

You have also raised broader points:

The parent information leaflets are meaningless and provide no useful information whatsoever. Parents have an absolute right to understand how their schools are performing, what challenges are being faced and how these are being addressed. Publishing this information can only lead to improved confidence in school leadership.

The information provided to each of the schools and services is used to update and develop the school or services improvement plans. The information provided to schools / services is consolidated, aggregated, and anonymised to create the “Parent / Carer Information” for public release. The information published does contain the key findings, themes and any areas of growth and development.

Schools and services have a key part to play in communicating information to parents / carers which is meaningful and gives confidence in their leadership.

For the framework you raise the following:

1. You state this is due for publication at a later date. This is not the case.

It is the Department’s intention to publish the final version of the quality assurance framework in July. While indicators have been published by Laxey school as part of their Executive Summary of their own self-evaluation, these indicators relate to the framework as it was at the time of their own school external validation.

The Minister has already confirmed to the House of Keys that changes to the framework have been made. Therefore whatever is published will not be the same framework the schools were assessed against.

The external validation process has been implemented via a pilot approach. Once the full roll out of the external validation process is in place then the same documentation and framework will be applicable to all schools and services undergoing the external validation process.

Even the limited information published to date is meaningless if parents don’t have an understanding of the framework against which the inspections have been conducted. As far as I can tell every other inspection or regulatory agency publishes its inspection framework and methodology.

The final quality assurance framework will be published in July following the completion of the pilot phase. All schools / services after July 2025 will be externally validated using the final version of the quality assurance framework.

Parts of the methodology and framework have already been published by some schools on their websites. For example, Laxey school have published their own self assessment against the framework, which details the aspects of the framework they have assessed themselves against

https://laxey.sch.im/site/uploads/pages/143/media/20241021_59c2a28c/QA Self_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_Final_Version.pdf

How a school puts over information to parents / carers, pupils and the public is at the discretion of the headteacher in consultation with the school governing body.

Withholding the framework when the most relevant parts have al

[Response truncated — full text is 32,928 characters]