Bucks Transfer Test

Dear Mr Darcy
Thank you for your email. We will respond to your request within 20
working days.
Kind regards
Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Darcy
Thank you for your various emails and my apologies for not responding
sooner. TBGS normally meets its obligations under the FOI Act and responds
within the statutory 20 working days (note these are school days for us).
Unfortunately we have been unable to do this in the last few weeks owing
to bereavement and then illness in our team. For most FOI requests we are
dependent on our contractors to extract and provide us with the requested
information. You have made seven requests to us in the last two months,
some requiring several years' worth of historic data. All of those
requests are being worked on but unfortunately current circumstances mean
that there will unfortunately be delays. At present I am unable to give a
date for when you will receive answers.
Kind regards
Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

[1][IMG] Virus-free. [2]www.avg.com

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Darcy

Thank you for your understanding.

You have made seven requests to TBGS under the FOI Act. These were
submitted over a period of 40 days between 16 February and 26 March:

1.      16 February

2.      23 February (16.37)

3.      23 February (21.36)

4.      15 March (13.45)

5.      15 March (14.00)

6.      25 March

7.      26 March

Six of the requests are linked. The seventh (no.6) is not – I have
responded to that request separately.

The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools’ responsibility for the
Buckinghamshire Secondary Transfer Test began with the 2014 entry test –
prior to that the tests were the responsibility of Buckinghamshire County
Council (now Buckinghamshire Council). Some of the information you have
requested relates to testing prior to the 2014 test.  Normally you would
need to approach Buckinghamshire Council for the earlier information
requested but we have agreed that it is more expedient and easier for you
if TBGS deals with your requests in full. 

The Council have confirmed that they hold information for the 2013 entry
test however, to meet data protection requirements, they have a 7-year
data retention policy which means that data prior to the 2013 entry test
has been destroyed. The Council will however still hold information that
was publically available prior to 2013.

The Freedom of Information Act allows Public Authorities to charge for the
provision of information when the appropriate limit is exceeded. The
appropriate limit that applies here is £450 which on the allowable hourly
rate of £25 means 18 hours. The requests you have made will substantially
exceed that total if all the information requested is supplied. I am
supplying the information below in the first instance.  The time spent on
this request so far is 11 hours. Please can you confirm whether you still
wish to receive the remaining information and we will provide an estimate
of the expected charge.

Request 1 – Selection Review outcomes for the 2020 entry Secondary
Transfer Test

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

1.      How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each score
below 121. Supplied  – see 2020 SRP data file

2.      How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each school
within Buckinghamshire (please include fee paying and state funded).
Supplied – see 2020 SRP data file. Note that to comply with data
protection legislation values less than 5 are indicated as <5

3.      How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each school
outside Buckinghamshire (please include fee paying and state funded).
Supplied – see 2020 SRP data file. Note that to comply with data
protection legislation values less than 5 are indicated as <5

4.      How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each level
of headteacher recommendation (1, 2, etc.).  Supplied - see 2020 SRP data
file

5.      How many children had CAT scores to support their selection review
and how many of these were successful/unsuccessful for each score below
121. Information not held.

6.      A table showing the correlation between all the 11+ scores, the
child’s school and the level headteacher recommendation (1,2 etc.) Pupil
level information will be published Autumn 2020 – future publication
(exemption 22 applies). Data for 2016-2019 is available from the TBGS
website:
[1]https://www.thebucksgrammarschools.org/t...

7.      A table showing the correlation between the racial background of
the child, sex, their score and if below 121 the outcome of their
selection review if applicable. Pupil level information will be published
Autumn 2020 – future publication (exemption 22 applies). Data for
2016-2019 is available from the TBGS website:
[2]https://www.thebucksgrammarschools.org/t...
however please note that to protect the identity of individual children we
are unable to provide the information you have requested in one data set.

8.      The terms of reference for the selection review this year.
Supplied (and also for 2019 and 2018 – see 2^nd request 9 below).

9.      Details of how the panels were selected for this year’s selection
review and which schools headteachers were not included in the panels and
the reasons why this was the case. Each SRP comprises two grammar school
headteachers (all 13 grammar schools participate) plus one primary school
headteacher. There is no formal selection process for the primary
headteacher representatives. They are Headteacher Admissions Working Group
(HAWG) nominees from the county liaison groups that all Bucks headteacher
attend. Participation is also dependent on headteacher availability.

10.  (numbered 9) Please provide the same information requested in
Questions 1-9 for every year going back to 2010. See earlier comments
about years and also whether you wish to have this information given
time/cost implications. SRP terms of reference for 2018 and 2019 supplied
(Q8) and see note about published data for Q7.

11.  (numbered 10) Details of how many queries were made by parents,
schools and other parties after the errors on this year’s tests. 883.

12.  (numbered 11) Details of what measures have been placed to prevent
the errors that occurred this year. GL: ‘As standard, our tests all go
through extensive checks prior to testing. Following the errors in the
2020 entry STT, we have put in place extra quality checks, such as senior
management authorisation of final checks on test materials’. TBGS will now
review and sign off printed copies ahead of pack make up in addition to
the proof checks already in place.

13.  (numbered 12) Minutes of meetings with GL Assessment, Bucks County
Council and internal meetings at TGBS following the errors in this year’s
test and subsequently. Supplied – please see Meeting minutes folder. Note
that we have already supplied minutes for January and March 2020 via your
request no 6.

14.  (numbered 13) Details of which testing centres and schools were made
aware of the error before, during and after the test. LA primary schools
were notified at 9.29. The email was recalled at 10.12 as it had been sent
from a BCC individual email and resent at 10.12. Grammar schools and out
of county schools testing individual EQA children were notified at 9.30.
Partner schools and lead invigilators at Bucks New University (used for
some out of county testing) were notified at 9.46.

15.  Details of any psychological assessment or opinion regarding the
impact of the errors in the test may have made on a child’s performance
and how this has or has not been applied. Information not held.

Request 2 – 2020 entry Secondary Transfer Test errors

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

1. Please can you release minutes of ALL meetings (internal and external)
that relate to the Secondary Transfer Test in 2019 including the issue
with the errors. Supplied – see 13 in Request 1 and also your Request 6.

2. Please can you confirm what procedures, if any, were in place to check
for errors at:
1 GL Assessment See point 12 above
2 The Bucks Grammar Schools All proofs checked several times
3 Bucks Council N/A  Buckinghamshire Council is responsible for managing
the test administration process. Review and checking of the test is not
part of their remit
4 At Buckinghamshire Schools for children residing in Buckinghamshire
Schools are not expected or required to check the test. They are only
required to check audio files to ensure they work on the school equipment
5 At centres for those children residing outside Buckinghamshire e.g.
Aylesbury Grammar School (where the Chairman of TGBS is headteacher) As
for 4

3. Please can you advise what measures are being taken to prevent such
errors taking place after being the errors in 2018 and 2019. See point 11
above

4. Please can you advise if your contract with GL Assessment includes any
penalties (financial or otherwise) for failure to deliver a test without
errors. If not then why not?  If so, have these penalties have been
exercised ? If not, why not? We are unable to supply this information –
exemption Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) applies.

5. On the basis of the errors in 2018 and 2019, is TGBS's contract with GL
Assessment in breach?  And if so why has this breach not resulted in the
contract being terminated? We are unable to supply this information –
exemption Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) applies.

Please can you detail

6. which schools/centres were aware of the errors before the tests
commenced  Information not held

7. and what communications were given to the children before, during and
after the test at each centre. Test centres were instructed: ‘Please
reassure the children that answers to these questions will not be taken
into account and children should ignore these questions and move on to the
next one.’

8. Please also include whether the children taking the tests at these
centres resided within or outwith Buckinghamshire. The same instructions
were supplied to all test centres.

Request 3 – Secondary Transfer Test Process and SRP decisions to 2000

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

Please can you provide details of the Secondary Transfer Test Process
going back to 2000.
I understand that over the years the decision has been made to move from 3
to 2 and not to a single test which impacts the reliability of the test.

1.      Please provide data regarding the scores for each year and number
and result of selection reviews, and number and result of appeals In terms
of Selection Review this repeats part of Request 1. Please also see
comments above about data retention by Bucks Council. TBGS is not
responsible for independent appeals – information about those is not held.

2.      Please provide minutes of all meetings going back to 2000
detailing reasons for the changes to the test. TBGS has only been
responsible for secondary transfer testing since 2014 entry. During that
time the test has comprised 2 separate test papers throughout.
Buckinghamshire Council holds no information about this due to the 7-year
data retention policy.

Request 4 – Secondary Transfer Test SRP process and outcomes

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

I would be most grateful if you are able to provide the following in
relation to the Selection Review process for 2020 entry and going back to
2015. Please provide for each year:

1.  A table showing STTS score, cases heard but not qualified by the
Selection Review Panel (SRP), cases heard and qualified by the SRP, total
number of cases heard, whether the child resides inside or outside Bucks,
the racial background and sex of the child This overlaps with Request 1,
point for 2020. Data held is on the basis of location of school attended
rather than residence. If that is what you are seeking data sets can be
found on the TBGS website for 2015-2019
[3]https://www.thebucksgrammarschools.org/t....
Data for 2020 will be published Autumn 2020. Note that as stated above we
are unable to provide single data sets combining this information because
of the possibility of individual children being identified.
2. Terms of reference for the Selection Review Panel for each year with a
particular focus on the errors in the tests in 2018 and 2019 Repeats
request above – supplied for 2018-2020 entry tests.

3. Selection process for the SRP and whether the primary school
headteachers are from stated funded or independent schools and details of
which schools This repeats point 9 in Request 1

4. Details of which grammar schools were represented in the SRP and to
what degree This repeats point 9 in Request 1 – all grammar school
headteachers sit on SRP panels

5. How many cases did each SRP review how long did panel members spend
deliberating at the meeting and beforehand in preparation and how is this
verified Please see the Terms of Reference supplied – a maximum of 32
cases are allocated to each half day panel. Panel members receive papers
ahead of the meeting so that they can prepare. All members are fully
trained. Deliberation times and preparation times will be dependent on the
complexity of the case and how much evidence is provided.

6. Details of which primary headteachers were excluded from the SRP and
why? N/A – headteachers are not actively excluded from the process.

7.  a) The significance of Section 4 of the form 'Other Prior Academic
Attainment' and how this affects or does not affect the outcome of the
Selection Review? i.e. if the child does not have such evidence like CAT
tests (which many in the state sector do not do due to funding) what
impact does this has on the child's chances of success in the selection
review? The SRPs consider all the evidence supplied. They are fully aware
that not all schools use additional testing and are instructed not to view
the lack of any such data negatively.

b) the impact that the headteachers recommendation has on the SRP decision
The SRPs consider all the evidence supplied.

c) comprehensive details of the moderation of the SRP process to ensure
that there is fair process and outcome for all children involved in a
Selection Review  The SRPs all follow the same process and all members are
fully trained. Meetings are independently clerked and a common digital
template form is completed to capture detailed reasons for the panel’s
decision. The record of the meeting feeds directly into the parents'
letters and gives them a detailed account of what the panel considered,
the conclusion reached and why.

d) Please can you provide details of why the child’s sex and racial
background is not kept anonymous to be 100% sure that there is no
conscious or unconscious bias on the basis of a child’s sex, racial and
religious background from the SRP members.  SRP members are only provided
with information about gender. The case is put together by parents and
that is what is reviewed by the SRPs. It is not for the SRP to edit what
the parent says/provides.

e) Please can you provide reason for the absence of a lay member to ensure
uniformity of the process and to have someone without any vested interest
from a non academic background We follow the requirements of the national
Admissions Appeal Code. This does not require lay members.

Request 5 –Secondary Transfer Test SRP 2020

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with data on Selection Review
outcomes for the 2020 11-plus test.

Please can you provide tables showing:

1. How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each score below
121. Supplied (repeat request) – see 2020 SRP file

2. How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each geographic
location. Supplied – see 2020 SRP file.

3. How many children were successful and unsuccessful for each level of
headteacher recommendation (1, 2, 3 etc.). Supplied (repeat request) – see
2020 SRP file

4. How children without headteacher recommendation were considered The SRP
looks at all evidence provided by the parents which may or may not include
the headteacher’s recommendation

5. Details of which succesful selection reviews had extenuating
circumstances attached which were not citing the errors in the paper and
were successful Information not held as a data set. If this is required it
would involved a manual review of 900+ sets of papers. Please see comment
above about time limits for FOI requests.

6. Details of which succesful selection reviews had extenuating
circumstances attached which were citing the errors in the paper and were
successful Information not held as a data set. If this is required it
would involved a manual review of 900+ sets of papers. Please see comment
above about time limits for FOI requests.

7. Any information or briefing given to the selection review commitees in
relation to the errors in this years paper Supplied – see 2020 testing
issue information for SRP file

8. Please can you provide further detail sex of the child and
racial/ethnic background. Request is unclear. SRP is only aware of gender
unless parents have supplied additional information in their case.

9. Please can yout advise if the selection review applications are
anonymised? And if not why this is the case? Cases are not anonymised so
that the SRP members can check to see if it is a family known to any of
them. If it is the case papers are moved to another panel

10. Please can you detail the names of all panel members and their origin
eg which school, lay member etc and the number of selection review panels
they each attended and number of cases they heard  Information would need
compiling if still required. All grammar school headteachers take part.

11. For each panel member I request detail to determine how many selection
reviews were successful and were not, with additonal detail of the actual
STS score of  the child in each case including sex and racial/ethnic
background See point 10. Note that panels for each session are put
together based on availability so individual members will sit on panels
with a range of colleagues.

 12.  Please detail your moderation process for the selection reviews, I
would be grateful to receive this detail for each year from 2015 onwards.
This would need compiling.

Request 6 – this request has been dealt with separately

Request 7 –Secondary Transfer Test SRP 2020 outcomes for schools specified

You requested the following – our responses are in italics.

Please can you provide in a table for all children relating to the
Secondary Transfer Test in September 2019  for Year 7 entry in September
2020:

1.  Number of Pupils registered to take 11+ test
2.  Number of Pupils Eligible for Grammar with score of 121 or more
3.  Number of pupils eligible for Grammar with a successful review with
headteacher for each of the recommendation scores of  1:1  1:2  1:3  2:1 
2:2  2:3  3:1  3:2  3:3
4. Please provide this for all of the following schools:

Brushwood Junior School
Butlers Court School
Chalfont St Giles Junior School
Chalfont St Peter CE Academy
Chalfont Valley E-ACT Primary Academy
Chartridge Combined School
Chenies School
Chesham Bois CE School
Curzon CE Combined School
Denham Green E-ACT Primary Academy
Dorney School
Elangeni School
Farnham Common Junior School
Gerrards Cross CE School, The
Great Missenden CE Combined School
Hawridge & Cholesbury CE School
Holmer Green Junior School
Holtspur School
Iver Heath Junior School
Iver Village Junior School
Ivingswood Academy
Lent Rise School
Ley Hill School
Little Chalfont Primary School
Little Kingshill Combined School
Our Ladys RC Primary School
Prestwood Junior School
Robertswood School
Seer Green CE Combined School
St Josephs RC Primary School
St Mary & All Saints CE Primary School
St Marys CE Primary School (Amersham)
St Marys Farnham Royal CE Primary School
St Nicolas CE Combined School
St Peters CE Primary School
Stoke Poges School, The
Thomas Harding Junior School
Waterside Primary Academy
Woodside Junior School
Chiltern Way Academy
Heritage House
Beacon School, The
Chesham Prep School
Dair House Prep School
Davenies School
Gateway School
Gayhurst School
Heatherton House School
High March School
Maltmans Green School
St Marys School (Gerrards Cross)
Thorpe House School
Not yet supplied. Please note that values less than 5 will have to be
provided as <5 to comply with data protection legislation. Please confirm
that you still require the information.

Kind regards
Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Darcy
Thank you for your email. As I said in my previous email, 6 of your 7
requests were linked (and some overlapped). There is no requirement that
requests made must be answered separately and given the overlap it was
more efficient to extract and supply the information together. I am now
able to attach the information you requested for Request 7. Note that we
are now very close to the maximum of 18 hours that apply before charges
can be applied. As previously requested, please can you indicate if you do
want the rest of the information requested to be supplied or whether there
are some pieces that you no longer wish to receive. Depending on your
answer I will get an estimate from our contractor as to the likely number
of hours and therefore cost that will apply. Note that our contractor is
extremely busy with Covid-19 issues so there will be delays in supplying
information which is not part our the data sets that are normally
published.
Kind regards
Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

[1][IMG] Virus-free. [2]www.avg.com

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Darcy
Thank you for your email. We will respond in due course.
Kind regards
Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Darcy

Thank you for your email. You requested internal reviews on 20 June and
five others on 5 July. These were in connection with 6 of the requests you
made to TBGS under the Freedom Act on connected matters between 16
February and 26 March.  The internal review was carried out by Dave
Hudson, Vice Chair and Former Chair of TBGS. Mr Hudson’s conclusions are
as below:

I confirm that, as reviewer for this request from Mr Darcy, I was not
involved in the original correspondence; I am also of the same level of
seniority as the original decision maker and therefore suitably placed to
have reviewed in detail Mr Darcy’s request and the response provided by
TBGS.

Mr Darcy’s request is to review TBGS’s handling of his FOI request “in
relation to your refusal to answer my requests in full and requesting
payment”.

On the basis of the evidence reviewed, my findings are as follows:

●        TBGS did not follow the correct timeline for responding to Mr
Coombs in regard to requests 1-5 & 7.  TBGS did follow the correct
timeline for request 6.  TBGS did communicate the reasons for the delay in
responding to Mr Darcy.

ICO has stated that it will take “an empathetic and pragmatic approach” to
the way in which public bodies have responded to FOI requests.  They go on
to say, “We recognise that the reduction in organisations’ resources could
impact their ability to comply with aspects of freedom of information law,
such as how quickly FOI requests are handled, but we expect appropriate
measures to still be taken to record decision making, so that information
is available at the conclusion of the emergency.” (both quotations taken
from [1]https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...)

In this light, I conclude that TBGS acted as reasonably as possible in
challenging and unprecedented circumstances.

●        TBGS has also followed appropriate advice regarding what
information can and cannot be shared - for example, data protection
legislation has changed in recent years and TBGS has to provide
information accordingly in order that individual pupils are not able to be
identified.

●        Given the nature and duplication of the information requested
from Mr Darcy (in requests 1-5 & 7), TBGS was justified in treating them
as one request

●        TBGS has also followed the appropriate statutory framework on its
request for payment.  Section 12(1) of the FOIA allows a public authority
to refuse to comply with a request for information where the cost of
compliance is estimated to exceed a set limit. TBGS has communicated
appropriately with Mr Darcy to enable him to provide a focus for his
requests in the time available.

My overall conclusion, therefore, is that whilst TBGS did not respond in
the timeline set out by the FOIA, this was understandable in the
circumstances.  TBGS has been able to provide a significant amount of
information in response to Mr Darcy’s many requests and has also made a
suitable response to allow him to decide how he wishes to proceed.

In your email of 20 June you also asked the following in relation to CSB
Recommendations 2020 entry that we supplied:

I am keen to know why you have withheld number less than 5 when you have
freely shared these details in the past. I would happily share this with
you if you need proof.

As we have explained previously in our responses to you, we have had to
replace values of less than 5 with <5 to comply with data protection
legislation. In the past we published full data sets but it was drawn to
our attention in 2019 that by doing so it was possible to identify some
individual children. As a consequence we changed the way we publish data
so that that is no longer possible. All data sets published on our website
are in the new format.

You also requested information about the costs for responding to your
requests. As we have explained previously, the Freedom of Information Act
allows Public Authorities to charge for the provision of information when
the appropriate limit is exceeded. The appropriate limit that applies here
is £450 which on the allowable hourly rate of £25 means 18 hours. Note
that £25 per hour is the rate allowed by the Act and does not equate to
the actual costs incurred by the Public Authority. The time spent on
requests 1-5 and 7 to date is 15.5 hours. The estimated number of hours to
complete your requests is 117.5 to 123 hours (please see details in
separate document). If you wish the remaining information to be supplied
there will therefore be a cost of £2932-£3075 (please see breakdown in
separate document) less the cost for 2.5 hours up to the threshold. If you
wish to request all or part of the remaining information payment please
send a cheque payable to The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools within 90
days of the date of this email to our registered address.

Finally, we have previously given reasons for the delays in responding to
your requests which include bereavement and illness and also additional
work arising from the unusual circumstances arising from Covid-19. Please
see Mr Hudson’s comments about this earlier in this email.

Kind regards

Mark Sturgeon
Chair
The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools

show quoted sections