Education Improvement Service reports - Primary School

Summary

The requester sought the most recent Education Improvement Service reports for Reading, Writing, and Mathematics for ten specific primary schools. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture refused the request, citing that disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and prejudice the effective conduct of public business.

Key Facts

• The request covered ten primary schools including Ashley Hill, Bunscoill Rhumsaa, and St Mary's RC Primary School.
• The Department refused the request under Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015.
• Disclosure was deemed to risk undermining the teacher-moderated assessment system and the recruitment of moderators.
• Redaction was considered but rejected as it would render the reports unreadable or misleading.
• The final outcome of the case was 'Not upheld' on 2019-09-03.

Data Disclosed

• 2019-06-24
• 2019-09-03
• 22 July 2019
• 30 reports
• 10 schools
• Section 35
• FOI 808066
• case_id: 864165

Exemptions Cited

• Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (Inhibition of free and frank provision of advice and prejudice to effective conduct of public business)

Original Request

Following the Department's response to FOI 808066, in respect of the following schools: Ashley Hill Primary School, Bunscoill Rhumsaa, Cronk-y-Berry School, Henry Bloom Noble Primary School, Onchan Primary School, Peel Clothworkers School, Rushen Primary School, Scoill yn Jubilee, St Mary's RC Primary School, Victoria Road Primary School I seek the most recent Education Improvement Service reports for each of Reading, Writing and Mathematics (ie a maximum of 30 reports).

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Corporate Services Division Department of Education, Sport and Culture Hamilton House Peel Road, Douglas IM1 5EZ Telephone: (01624) 685808 Website: www.gov.im/dec Email: dec@foi.gov.im Our ref: 864165

22 July 2019 Dear ###, We write further to your request which was received on 24 June 2019 and which states: "Following the Department's response to FOI 808066, in respect of the following schools: Ashley Hill Primary School, Bunscoill Rhumsaa, Cronk-y-Berry School, Henry Bloom Noble Primary School, Onchan Primary School, Peel Clothworkers School, Rushen Primary School, Scoill yn Jubilee, St Mary's RC Primary School, Victoria Road Primary School I seek the most recent Education Improvement Service reports for each of Reading, Writing and Mathematics (i.e. a maximum of 30 reports)." While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt under section 35 of the Act, as disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public business. This is because it would inhibit the work of the Department-appointed Moderators in each of the respective areas being considered in their giving of an objective judgement of the level of the work being moderated. Currently Headteachers and class teachers share information about assessment judgments, without prejudice, and are able to give and receive candid feedback and advice. This ensures that each teacher’s understanding of assessment criteria is in line with class teacher judgements across the island, and as such is part of a teacher’s continual professional development. From time to time this may result in slight discrepancies in judgements but supports the schools in continual improvements in accuracy. Moving away from this moderation system would undermine the whole basis of the Department’s approach to teacher- moderated assessment and thereby risk the improvement of standards across schools. As section 35 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large. Factors in favour of disclosure • There is an expectation the public have the right of access to information held by the Department, under the Freedom of Information Act 2015; • Public and parents are aware of and have a better understanding of the moderation process, what it involves and how it relates to their children’s school; • The moderation reports would show how the Department and the Schools work together with the aim of continuous improvement for both pupils and the schools; • Public and parents would have confidence in the way children are assessed and the way in which schools are moderated. Factors in favour of withholding • Moderators would have to consider the audience for which they are making a judgement and therefore would be inhibited in their ability to offer free and frank advice and so prejudice the moderation process; • The schools’ and the teachers’ trust in the Department and the moderation process would be eroded due to the lack of free and frank advice being given; • Due to the lack of free and frank advice being given by the moderators to the teachers the moderation process would become ineffective and inadequate; • Teachers would become more or less cautious with the grades given to children as rigorous feedback would not be provided by the Moderators and as a result this would impact children’s ability to progress; • The Moderators are recruited from across the Island’s schools, as part of their current job description. The knowledge that moderation reports are liable to be made available to a wider audience would affect the Department’s ability to recruit Moderators; • Where constructive feedback has been provided to a teacher or teachers within a moderation report this could create unnecessary concerns, and impact the way in which the school seeks to improve; • Individual teachers would be identifiable from the moderation reports, especially in small schools, specific subjects and specific year groups. Disclosure of information which could enable the identification of an individual without their permission would contravene the data protection principles and unredacted disclosure of the same would also be likely to cause damage or distress. Removal of Exemption The Department has considered how the exemption applied under section 35 of the Act could be removed through the redaction of the moderation reports. If the moderation reports were redacted to remove the free and frank advice and personal identifiable data this would render the redacted reports such that they would be unreadable or would provide an incomplete or misleading context. In addition to this the amount of redaction to the moderation reports, or required extraction and reformatting of information, would introduce a burden for the Department in reviewing and redacting the reports to provide the correct context. Likewise, the possibility of removing the exemption by seeking Moderators and other individuals’ permission to disclose their personally identifiable information including free and frank views expressed within the moderation reports, is considered to be
unrealistic and an additional burden to the Department. In taking these factors into account the Department of Education, Sport and Culture determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. Please quote the reference number 864165 in any future communications. Your right to request a review If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post. An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded. If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested. In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi. I will now close your request as of this date. Yours sincerely ###

Freedom of Information Coordinator