Dear Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations,

Please provide all information regarding awarding for Cambridge Technicals in IT, Level 3 for June 18.

Information should include, but not be limited to:

Lead Marker SRS
Provisional Report to Centres
Final Report to Centres
Technical qualification of awarding Committee members
Individual awarding decisions
Script ranges available at awarding meeting
Details of archive material referenced at awarding meeting
Statistical evidenced used to support the above
Minutes of the awarding meeting
Recommendations on awarded grade/mark boundaries
Any changes to the recommended grade/mark boindaries post awarding meeting
Any internal communications, prior to and post the awarding meeting

Yours faithfully,

Richard Knight

OCR General Qualifications, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

This is now receiving our attention and we will respond to you within 5 working days

Kind regards
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)

Your email:
Date/Time Sent: 2018/08/16 07:21
Sender: [FOI #510526 email]
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Cambridge Technicals IT L3 June 18 Awarding
Message: Dear Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations,

Please provide all information regarding awarding for Cambridge Technicals in IT, Level 3 for June 18.

Information should include, but not be limited to:

Lead Marker SRS
Provisional Report to Centres
Final Report to Centres
Technical qualification of awarding Committee members
Individual awarding decisions
Script ranges available at awarding meeting
Details of archive material referenced at awarding meeting
Statistical evidenced used to support the above
Minutes of the awarding meeting
Recommendations on awarded grade/mark boundaries
Any changes to the recommended grade/mark boindaries post awarding meeting
Any internal communications, prior to and post the awarding meeting

Yours faithfully,

Richard Knight

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #510526 email]

Is [OCR request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear OCR General Qualifications,

I don't appear to have had a response within the required time frame. Can I get an update on the status of this request please.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Knight

OCR General Qualifications, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

This is now receiving our attention and we will respond to you within 5 working days

Kind regards
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)

Your email:
Date/Time Sent: 2018/09/19 20:49
Sender: [FOI #510526 email]
Subject: Re: Thank you for your email.
Message: Dear OCR General Qualifications,

I don't appear to have had a response within the required time frame. Can I get an update on the status of this request please.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Knight

show quoted sections

OCR General Qualifications, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

Dear Richard,

Please accept my apologies on behalf of our Freedom of Information
officer; they have advised that they are dealing with it as a matter of
urgency.

Kind regards,

Nicola
Customer Contact Centre

Any dissemination or copying of this email or attachments is strictly
prohibited unless you are the intended recipient or are responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient. If you have received
this email in error, please let us know and then delete the original
emails and any attachments. Emails are not secure and therefore
[1]Cambridge Assessment and OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is
a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Registered office:
The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA. Company
number: 3484466 and an exempt charity) do not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Cambridge Assessment or OCR unless specifically stated. The information
contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and unless legally exempt from disclosure,
the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ab...

Susan Knight,

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Re Thank you for your email..html

    4K Download

Dear Richard

 

Further to your request below for information under the Freedom of
Information Act please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in
responding.

 

The final report to centres is available from the OCR website.

 

All other information which you have requested is exempt from disclosure
in accordance with S43(2) of the act, Prejudice to Commercial Interests.

 

The information and data is commercially sensitive and is used by OCR
internally to inform its awarding process.  This is part of our robust
quality assurance process which has been signed off by our regulator,
Ofqual.  OCR publishes the outcomes of such proceedings on its websites
which are used by school as do the other awarding organisations.

 

You may be aware that the act is not applied equally across all exam
boards, at present the only one subject to FOI is OCR.  The public
interest test was applied to your request for information and it was not
clear how the public interest would be served by releasing the information
you have requested.  As explained above, OCR publishes the outcomes of its
awarding process, on its website, as do all exam boards, at the end of the
awarding process and it is this information and data which assists schools
and centres.  Conversely there is a public interest in protecting the
ability to undertake its awarding process in accordance with the
requirements of the regulator on a level playing field with other exam
boards.  We have therefore concluded that the public interest in
withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing
the information and the information which you have requested is exempt
from disclosure.

 

Kind regards

 

Susan Knight

Company Secretary OCR

Progress House

Westwood Way

Coventry

CV4 8JQ

 

DD: 02476 856002

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Richard Knight
[[1]mailto:[FOI #510526 email]]
Sent: 16 August 2018 06:54
To: OCR General Qualifications
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Cambridge Technicals IT L3 June
18 Awarding

 

Dear Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations,

Please provide all information regarding awarding for Cambridge Technicals
in IT, Level 3 for June 18.

Information should include, but not be limited to:

Lead Marker SRS
Provisional Report to Centres
Final Report to Centres
Technical qualification of awarding Committee members
Individual awarding decisions
Script ranges available at awarding meeting
Details of archive material referenced at awarding meeting
Statistical evidenced used to support the above
Minutes of the awarding meeting
Recommendations on awarded grade/mark boundaries
Any changes to the recommended grade/mark boindaries post awarding meeting
Any internal communications, prior to and post the awarding meeting

Yours faithfully,

Richard Knight

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[2][FOI #510526 email]

Is [3][OCR request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations,

Thank you for your response to my freedom of information request from 16th August 2018. It is disappointing to note that you failed to provide a response in the statutory timeframe for such requests.
I would like to request an internal review of your decision to withhold the information requested on the following grounds:

1. The final report to centres is not available on your publicly accessible web site.

2. OCR chooses to be a ‘not for profit’ examination board. This is a conscious decision by the board and one which other boards have chosen not to make. As a consequence of this choice, OCR falls within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. OCR must not be allowed to take the benefits of its ‘not for profit’ status, but then refuse to comply with those requirements that it does not like. This would be like suggesting the NHS should be exempt from the act as other private health providers do not need to respond. The board is not a commercial organisation by nature of its ‘not for profit’ status and so S43(2) of the FOI should not apply.

3. The public interest for the release of this information is as follows:
a. The government announced increased rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. The revised Cambridge Technicals was developed as a result of the requirement for this increased rigour and examinations were introduced to the qualification for the first time in January 2017.
b. The examinations were designed with a pass mark of 40 out of 80 for unit 1 and 2.
c. For the first session of the examination (January 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 31 and 32 marks respectively. This is lower than the design marks.
d. For the second session of the examination (June 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 30 and 29 marks respectively.
e. As is typical in new and revised qualifications, pass markes are often lowered due to teachers not being familiar with the demands of the qualification and candidates not having sufficient past papers with which to practice.
f. At the same time (January and June 2017), other awarding organisations had awarded their versions of these revised qualifications at a lower passing grade.
g. In subsequent sessions, rather than the passing mark increasing and moving back towards the design thresholds, OCR have continued to reduce the passing mark required further.
h. In January 2018, the passing mark was 28 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
i. In June 2018, the passing mark was 22 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
j. At the same time as reducing the marks required to pass the examined units, the content of the examination paper was simplified as well as apparently reducing the complexity requirements in the published mark schemes. This meant that candidates who sat the examination in January 2017 were significantly disadvantaged, compared to those candidates that took the examination paper in June 2018.
k. OCR has reduced the marks required to pass the examinations by almost half. This does not appear to be compatible with the governments aim of increasing rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. By now, teachers and candidates should have a much greater understanding of the requirements of the qualification and the passing mark should go up, not down.
l. The actions OCR have taken I believe, are leading to a dilution of the subject knowledge needed by candidates to pass the qualification, which will in turn, lead the value of the qualification to be reduced to universities and employers alike.
m. I therefor contend that it is firmly in the public interest to examine the decisions and actions taken by OCR in reducing the passing mark of this qualification. The decisions made by the board do not appear to be compatible with its mission statement to ‘support education in ways which enable all learners to reach their full potential and to recognise and celebrate their achievements.’
I
look forward to your swift response.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Knight

OCR General Qualifications, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

This is now receiving our attention and we will respond to you within 5 working days

Kind regards
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)

Your email:
Date/Time Sent: 2018/09/23 12:07
Sender: [FOI #510526 email]
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Cambridge Technicals IT L3 June 18 Awarding
Message: Dear Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations,

Thank you for your response to my freedom of information request from 16th August 2018. It is disappointing to note that you failed to provide a response in the statutory timeframe for such requests.
I would like to request an internal review of your decision to withhold the information requested on the following grounds:

1. The final report to centres is not available on your publicly accessible web site.

2. OCR chooses to be a ‘not for profit’ examination board. This is a conscious decision by the board and one which other boards have chosen not to make. As a consequence of this choice, OCR falls within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. OCR must not be allowed to take the benefits of its ‘not for profit’ status, but then refuse to comply with those requirements that it does not like. This would be like suggesting the NHS should be exempt from the act as other private health providers do not need to respond. The board is not a commercial organisation by nature of its ‘not for profit’ status and so S43(2) of the FOI should not apply.

3. The public interest for the release of this information is as follows:
a. The government announced increased rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. The revised Cambridge Technicals was developed as a result of the requirement for this increased rigour and examinations were introduced to the qualification for the first time in January 2017.
b. The examinations were designed with a pass mark of 40 out of 80 for unit 1 and 2.
c. For the first session of the examination (January 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 31 and 32 marks respectively. This is lower than the design marks.
d. For the second session of the examination (June 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 30 and 29 marks respectively.
e. As is typical in new and revised qualifications, pass markes are often lowered due to teachers not being familiar with the demands of the qualification and candidates not having sufficient past papers with which to practice.
f. At the same time (January and June 2017), other awarding organisations had awarded their versions of these revised qualifications at a lower passing grade.
g. In subsequent sessions, rather than the passing mark increasing and moving back towards the design thresholds, OCR have continued to reduce the passing mark required further.
h. In January 2018, the passing mark was 28 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
i. In June 2018, the passing mark was 22 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
j. At the same time as reducing the marks required to pass the examined units, the content of the examination paper was simplified as well as apparently reducing the complexity requirements in the published mark schemes. This meant that candidates who sat the examination in January 2017 were significantly disadvantaged, compared to those candidates that took the examination paper in June 2018.
k. OCR has reduced the marks required to pass the examinations by almost half. This does not appear to be compatible with the governments aim of increasing rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. By now, teachers and candidates should have a much greater understanding of the requirements of the qualification and the passing mark should go up, not down.
l. The actions OCR have taken I believe, are leading to a dilution of the subject knowledge needed by candidates to pass the qualification, which will in turn, lead the value of the qualification to be reduced to universities and employers alike.
m. I therefor contend that it is firmly in the public interest to examine the decisions and actions taken by OCR in reducing the passing mark of this qualification. The decisions made by the board do not appear to be compatible with its mission statement to ‘support education in ways which enable all learners to reach their full potential and to recognise and celebrate their achievements.’
I
look forward to your swift response.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Knight

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #510526 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear OCR General Qualifications,

Please find below update to my previous response with corrections to 3b and 3c.

Thank you for your response to my freedom of information request from 16th August 2018.

It is disappointing to note that you failed to provide a response in the statutory timeframe for such requests.

I would like to request an internal review of your decision to withhold the information requested on the following grounds:
1. The final report to centres is not available on your publicly accessible web site.

2. OCR chooses to be a ‘not for profit’ examination board. This is a conscious decision by the board and one which other boards have chosen not to make. As a consequence of this choice, OCR falls within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. OCR must not be allowed to take the benefits of its ‘not for profit’ status, but then refuse to comply with those requirements that it does not like. This would be like suggesting the NHS should be exempt from the act as other private health providers do not need to respond. The board is not a commercial organisation by nature of its ‘not for profit’ status and so S43(2) of the FOI should not apply.

3. The public interest for the release of this information is as follows:
a. The government announced increased rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. The revised Cambridge Technicals was developed as a result of the requirement for this increased rigour and examinations were introduced to the qualification for the first time in January 2017.
b. The examinations were designed with a pass mark of 32 out of 80 for unit 1 and 2.
c. For the first session of the examination (January 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 31 and 32 marks respectively. This is at and slightly lower than the design marks.
d. For the second session of the examination (June 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 30 and 29 marks respectively.
e. As is typical in new and revised qualifications, pass marks are often lowered due to teachers not being familiar with the demands of the qualification and candidates not having sufficient past papers with which to practice.
f. At the same time (January and June 2017), other awarding organisations had awarded their versions of these revised qualifications at a lower passing grade.
g. In subsequent sessions, rather than the passing mark increasing and moving back towards the design thresholds, OCR have continued to reduce the passing mark required further.
h. In January 2018, the passing mark was 28 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
i. In June 2018, the passing mark was 22 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
j. At the same time as reducing the marks required to pass the examined units, the content of the examination paper was simplified as well as apparently reducing the complexity requirements in the published mark schemes. This meant that candidates who sat the examination in January 2017 were significantly disadvantaged, compared to those candidates that took the examination paper in June 2018.
k. OCR has reduced the marks required to pass the examinations by almost half. This does not appear to be compatible with the governments aim of increasing rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. By now, teachers and candidates should have a much greater understanding of the requirements of the qualification and the passing mark should go up, not down.
l. The actions OCR have taken I believe, are leading to a dilution of the subject knowledge needed by candidates to pass the qualification, which will in turn, lead the value of the qualification to be reduced to universities and employers alike.
m. I therefor contend that it is firmly in the public interest to examine the decisions and actions taken by OCR in reducing the passing mark of this qualification. The decisions made by the board do not appear to be compatible with its mission statement to ‘support education in ways which enable all learners to reach their full potential and to recognise and celebrate their achievements.’

I look forward to your swift response.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Knight

OCR General Qualifications, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

This is now receiving our attention and we will respond to you within 5 working days

Kind regards
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)

Your email:
Date/Time Sent: 2018/09/23 18:22
Sender: [FOI #510526 email]
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Cambridge Technicals IT L3 June 18 Awarding
Message: Dear OCR General Qualifications,

Please find below update to my previous response with corrections to 3b and 3c.

Thank you for your response to my freedom of information request from 16th August 2018.

It is disappointing to note that you failed to provide a response in the statutory timeframe for such requests.

I would like to request an internal review of your decision to withhold the information requested on the following grounds:
1. The final report to centres is not available on your publicly accessible web site.

2. OCR chooses to be a ‘not for profit’ examination board. This is a conscious decision by the board and one which other boards have chosen not to make. As a consequence of this choice, OCR falls within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. OCR must not be allowed to take the benefits of its ‘not for profit’ status, but then refuse to comply with those requirements that it does not like. This would be like suggesting the NHS should be exempt from the act as other private health providers do not need to respond. The board is not a commercial organisation by nature of its ‘not for profit’ status and so S43(2) of the FOI should not apply.

3. The public interest for the release of this information is as follows:
a. The government announced increased rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. The revised Cambridge Technicals was developed as a result of the requirement for this increased rigour and examinations were introduced to the qualification for the first time in January 2017.
b. The examinations were designed with a pass mark of 32 out of 80 for unit 1 and 2.
c. For the first session of the examination (January 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 31 and 32 marks respectively. This is at and slightly lower than the design marks.
d. For the second session of the examination (June 2017), the pass mark for unit 1 and unit 2 was set at 30 and 29 marks respectively.
e. As is typical in new and revised qualifications, pass marks are often lowered due to teachers not being familiar with the demands of the qualification and candidates not having sufficient past papers with which to practice.
f. At the same time (January and June 2017), other awarding organisations had awarded their versions of these revised qualifications at a lower passing grade.
g. In subsequent sessions, rather than the passing mark increasing and moving back towards the design thresholds, OCR have continued to reduce the passing mark required further.
h. In January 2018, the passing mark was 28 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
i. In June 2018, the passing mark was 22 and 25 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
j. At the same time as reducing the marks required to pass the examined units, the content of the examination paper was simplified as well as apparently reducing the complexity requirements in the published mark schemes. This meant that candidates who sat the examination in January 2017 were significantly disadvantaged, compared to those candidates that took the examination paper in June 2018.
k. OCR has reduced the marks required to pass the examinations by almost half. This does not appear to be compatible with the governments aim of increasing rigour in academic and vocational qualifications. By now, teachers and candidates should have a much greater understanding of the requirements of the qualification and the passing mark should go up, not down.
l. The actions OCR have taken I believe, are leading to a dilution of the subject knowledge needed by candidates to pass the qualification, which will in turn, lead the value of the qualification to be reduced to universities and employers alike.
m. I therefor contend that it is firmly in the public interest to examine the decisions and actions taken by OCR in reducing the passing mark of this qualification. The decisions made by the board do not appear to be compatible with its mission statement to ‘support education in ways which enable all learners to reach their full potential and to recognise and celebrate their achievements.’

I look forward to your swift response.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Knight

show quoted sections

John Harris,

Dear Mr Knight

 

I am writing to acknowledge your request for an internal review of the
response to your freedom of information request of 16 August.

 

I shall respond to you within 20 working days.

 

Regards,

 

John Harris

Corporate Affairs Manager

Group Chief Executive's Office

 

Cambridge Assessment

Direct +44 (0)1223 553419

Address The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA

Web [1]www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk

 

Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate, a department of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge Assessment is a not-for-profit organisation.

 

 

Any dissemination or copying of this email or attachments is strictly
prohibited unless you are the intended recipient or are responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient. If you have received
this email in error, please let us know and then delete the original
emails and any attachments. Emails are not secure and therefore
[2]Cambridge Assessment and OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is
a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Registered office:
The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA. Company
number: 3484466 and an exempt charity) do not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Cambridge Assessment or OCR unless specifically stated. The information
contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and unless legally exempt from disclosure,
the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/
2. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ab...

John Harris,

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Knight

 

I am writing regarding the outcome of my internal review of OCR’s response
to your freedom of information request of 16 August.

 

First of all I would like to apologise for the fact that the response to
your original request was late and I also need to apologise for some
confusion about the final report to centres for Cambridge Technicals in IT
Level 3  – these have been on OCR’s Interchange site (for schools and
teachers) but are not yet available on OCR’s website. They will be put on
OCR’s website in due course but, in the circumstances, I am attaching
copies for you now – please note that there is no report for the other
unit (Cloud technology) as there were only a handful of entries and any
report would run the risk of commenting on one centre’s cohort.

 

In terms of the rest of your request I am upholding OCR’s decision to
withhold the information to protect its commercial interests through the
application of the Section 43 (2) exemption. Before explaining my
reasoning I should just clarify that OCR is subject to Freedom of
Information legislation because it is owned by the University of Cambridge
and not because it is a not-for-profit organisation.

 

I reject your argument that OCR does not have any commercial interests.
OCR has to compete with the likes of AQA, Pearson and City & Guilds to get
customers to choose its general and vocational qualifications and centres
(i.e. schools) are of course free to select any of the products available
so there is clearly competition in the sector in which OCR operates. Given
that the market is competitive OCR does have to take steps to protect its
commercial interests and, while we are fully aware of our obligations
under Freedom of Information legislation, we are also very conscious that
our main competitors are not subject to the same legislation and can never
be required, therefore, to disclose any commercially sensitive
information. We also believe that a competitive market is beneficial to
the customers as it provides choice and we also know that the more sales
we make the more we can re-invest in our infrastructure and services for
the benefit of customers. If, therefore, we agreed to release information
that had the potential to damage OCR’s competitive position then we could
be undermining the market as a whole as well as placing ourselves at a
competitive disadvantage.

 

I think it would be highly unusual for operators in any commercial markets
to disclose information about their core processes which could provide a
potential advantage to their competitors. As an exam board OCR’s awarding
processes are absolutely central to what it does and are vital to its
interests. I accept that there is a public interest in public examinations
and that is why, for example, OCR publishes the reports to centres and
grade boundaries on its website and why there are processes in place for
candidates and centres to challenge results. In terms of the broader
public interest I think that this is taken care of by the fact that OCR is
subject to the scrutiny provided by Ofqual (the regulator for the
qualifications sector) which can, and does, investigate specific and
broader issues affecting the sector. This scrutiny, in my view, helps to
preserve the integrity of the public examinations system and is a far more
effective way of looking after the public interest than an uninformed
public debate based on the disclosure of information about a single exam
board’s awarding processes.

 

One final issue I would like to highlight is the involvement of assessors
in our awarding process. Assessors are not members of staff but are but
are used on a contractual basis to assist with the process and play a key
role in it. It can be difficult enough to recruit and retain assessors
without them having to be concerned about the prospect of their
discussions and advice being disclosed and I think they would, rightly,
expect us to treat this in confidence just as we expect them to handle
material confidentially. If we release the information it could
potentially jeopardise our ability to recruit and retain assessors which
would not be in the public interest given their vital role in the delivery
of public examinations.

 

In the light of the reasons I have outlined above, I do not believe that
the public interest in disclosing the rest of the information you have
requested outweighs the public information in releasing it.

 

In undertaking this review I have not considered the potential application
of other exemptions such as section 40 which could apply to, for example,
information about the qualifications held by committee members.

 

If you are unhappy with this response, or the way that your complaint has
been handled, you have the right to appeal to the Information
Commissioner’s Office. You can find further information about how to do so
here - [1]https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...

 

Regards,

 

John Harris

Corporate Affairs Manager

Group Chief Executive's Office

 

Cambridge Assessment

Direct +44 (0)1223 553419

Address The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA

Web [2]www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk

 

Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate, a department of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge Assessment is a not-for-profit organisation.

 

 

Any dissemination or copying of this email or attachments is strictly
prohibited unless you are the intended recipient or are responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient. If you have received
this email in error, please let us know and then delete the original
emails and any attachments. Emails are not secure and therefore
[3]Cambridge Assessment and OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is
a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Registered office:
The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA. Company
number: 3484466 and an exempt charity) do not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Cambridge Assessment or OCR unless specifically stated. The information
contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and unless legally exempt from disclosure,
the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...
2. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/
3. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ab...