Dear John Hampden Grammar School,

Please could you send me:

- Any a) data you have collected and b) analysis that you have done of the number of children sitting the Bucks 11-plus in recent years who received Pupil Premium, achieved a score of 115-121, and lived in John Hampden GS's catchment area.

- Any a) data you have collected and b) analysis that you have done of the number of children who qualify for Pupil Premium and live in the new areas that John Hampden GS are proposing be added to their catchment area.

- Minutes of any governing body meetings over the past year at which SWBGS's 2020 admissions policy was discussed.

- Minutes of any governing body meetings in 2017 and 2018 at which the decision to increase the PAN to 180 was discussed, then agreed.

Yours faithfully,

Rebecca Hickman

Dear Tracey Hartley

I am writing to request an internal review of John Hampden Grammar School's handling of my FOI request.

I believe that your response does not comply with the requirements of FOI legislation and guidelines for the following reasons:

Questions 1 and 2:
As is clear in the wording of these questions, I was not requesting source data. I was specifically asking in both questions for the data that John Hampden Grammar School had collected (from whatever source) and for any analysis that John Hampden Grammar School had conducted.

I would like to know what information you had/considered when you a) decided to propose 115 to be the 11-plus cut-off point for Pupil Premium children, and b) proposed an expanded catchment area. This information is held by JHGS for the purposes of FOI, because clearly only JHGS can tell me what data they used in their deliberations (part a. of each question) - neither BCC nor RBWM would know this. Similarly, neither BCC nor RBWM could be expected to know what analysis JHGS had conducted (part b. of each question).

Question 3 contained an error. For clarity, I would like to receive the minutes of any governing body meetings over the past year at which John Hampden Grammar School's 2020 admissions policy was discussed.

In respect of question 4, as many schools have released their governing body minutes under FOI the exemptions that you have invoked are clearly not blanket exemptions - in other words, you might decide to rely on them to withhold sections of the minutes but you cannot rely on them to withhold the entire minutes unless you can demonstrate how the exemptions are relevant to every item in the minutes (for example, see the Information Tribunal's ruling in relation to The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools' withholding of minutes). Please can you therefore review all minutes covered under questions 3 and 4 and release them to me with any sections that you believe to be covered by the exemptions redacted.

Furthermore, if you choose to continue to rely on the exemptions you have cited, please note that these are qualified exemptions. This means that you must balance the case for withholding the information with the case for disclosure, specifically by applying, the public interest test. As required by the law, please can you explain how the public interest test has been applied to any sections of the minutes that you choose to redact.

For the sake of clarity and transparency, I am seeking all of the above information because I would like to establish whether the information you provided to the DfE in order to secure funding from the Selective Schools Expansion Fund was knowingly misleading (in terms of the likely benefit to disadvantaged children of the changes to your admissions policy). There is significant public interest in this being established because your school has secured a substantial amount of additional public funding as a direct result of the information that you submitted.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Please respond within the statutory time-frame.

All best,
Rebecca Hickman