We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are p cialfi please sign in and let everyone know.

Evidence v Rhetoric

p cialfi made this Freedom of Information request to Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

We're waiting for p cialfi to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,

Please refer to this web site for the thread relating to King Edward School ( KES )
Please note the last letter to KES - the conclusions.

Please provide the information that reconciles the determined conclusions with the contents of the last Ofsted report on KES.

Please confirm ( and if so provide details ) whether any of the now disestablished contract Ofsted inspectors were involved with the last three KES / Ofsted inspections and / or were engaged by KES in pre-Ofsted inspection coaching.

Yours faithfully,

P. Cialfi

InformationRequest, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear P Cialfi,

Please find attached our acknowledgement for your request for information.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.

Yours sincerely

Sally Telford
Information Delivery Co-ordinator
Information Management Team Ofsted
Tel: 03000131249
[email address]
www.ofsted.gov.uk
Ofsted on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

Dear Ofsted,
Below is a quote from my original request:

Please refer to this web site for the thread relating to King
Edward School ( KES )
Please note the last letter to KES - the conclusions.

This quote describes the remit of the FoIA request.
Whilst I have originally asked for a reconciliation with the last Ofsed report, because your reply omited the above quote, my request must now include not just the last Ofsted report, but reconciliation of the last THREE Ofsted reports with the determination on this web site, which refers to my FoIA request to KES..

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

InformationRequest, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

Dear P Cialfi,

This is noted.

Kind regards

Sally Telford
Information Delivery Co-ordinator
Information Management Team Ofsted
Tel: 03000131249
[email address]
www.ofsted.gov.uk
Ofsted on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

show quoted sections

Alastair O'Neill, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear P Cialfi,

 

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alastair O’Neill

Information Delivery Officer

Information Management Team

Ofsted | 2 Rivergate | Temple Quay | Bristol | BS1 6EH

Direct Tel: 0300 013 1287

 

Ofsted National Business Unit: 0300 123 1231

[1]www.gov.uk/ofsted
Ofsted on Twitter at [2]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit
www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/ofsted
2. http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

Dear Alastair O'Neill,

Thank you for your reply.

With respect to the first part of my request for information I am in fact referring to information that would normally be recorded by Ofsted.

For example, having been through the voluminous information that KES kindly provided, meticulously, Ofsted would have been provided with information that Ofsted would have passed on to the inspectors.

You will please note that my conclusions of the FoIA exercise with KES ended with a positive note, and a wish that the points raised could be used for the benefit of the school.

Therefore, from the conclusions that I determined, it is reasonable to expect that, over the past three years at least, Ofsted would have issued their inspectors with either key points of concern or specific points that needed special attention.

Therefore, I am not asking for an opinion, or explanation, or that Ofsted create new information, merely the recorded information that shows whether or not the points raised in my conclusions were reflected in the Ofsted reports for the past three years.
It would be helpful therefore if Ofsted provided whatever directions were given to the inspectors for the past three inspections as part of the reply.

I hope that this clarifies this point.

With regards the second point, the issue does not concern the applications of potential Ofsted inspectors who may or may not have been involved in any way with inspections of KES over the past three years.

I am interested in obtaining the names of the Ofsted inspectors ( especially agency ) involved with KES inspections over the past three years. As their names would appear in the public record there is no expectation of privacy and so there can no possible engagement of any exemptions that prevent disclosure.

To repeat the original request:

Please confirm ( and if so provide details ) whether any of the now
disestablished contract Ofsted inspectors were involved with the
last three KES / Ofsted inspections and / or were engaged by KES in
pre-Ofsted inspection coaching.

Ofsted inspectors, whether directly employed or via agency, have front-facing jobs and their names would be widely known.

My question is precise, as it specifies that the request for information refers to now disestablished contract Ofsted inspectors.
Please note also that the request includes reference to whether or not any Ofsted inspectors ( contract / agency ) were engaged in pre-Ofsted inspection coaching - information that Ofsted should also hold.

I look forward to receiving the information soon.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Alastair O'Neill, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear P Cialfi,

 

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alastair O’Neill

Information Delivery Officer

Information Management Team

Ofsted | 2 Rivergate | Temple Quay | Bristol | BS1 6EH

Direct Tel: 0300 013 1287

 

Ofsted National Business Unit: 0300 123 1231

[1]www.gov.uk/ofsted
Ofsted on Twitter at [2]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

 

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit
www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/ofsted
2. http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

Dear Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills's handling of my FOI request 'Evidence v Rhetoric'.

Dear Ofsted,

24 August 2015 Request for Review

Your case reference: CAS-332179-5BXV1F

Thank you for your reply.

It appears that you have not fully read the material that was referenced in my original request to you on 9 August 2015.

Here is what I wrote:
“Please refer to this web site for the thread relating to King
Edward School ( KES )
Please note the last letter to KES - the conclusions.

Please provide the information that reconciles the determined
conclusions with the contents of the last Ofsted report on KES.

Please confirm ( and if so provide details ) whether any of the now
disestablished contract Ofsted inspectors were involved with the
last three KES / Ofsted inspections and / or were engaged by KES in
pre-Ofsted inspection coaching.”

On 12 August you wrote asking for clarification of my request:
150812 Cialfi P Response Letter.pdf
In that letter you sought clarification of my request.
Whilst I believed that the request would already have been clear, in the light of the referenced material, I nevertheless answered your request.

Because the first question was not answered, I wrote on 12 August:

“Whilst I have originally asked for a reconciliation with the last
Ofsed report, because your reply omited the above quote, my request
must now include not just the last Ofsted report, but
reconciliation of the last THREE Ofsted reports with the
determination on this web site, which refers to my FoIA request to
KES..”

On 20 August you replied, in document
150820 Cialfi P Response Letter 2.pdf

The information I requested was not provided, and you again asked for clarification, which suggests that you had not read the originally referenced material.

Therefore, this letter is also a request for a formal review.

On 12 August I wrote:
“It would be helpful therefore if Ofsted provided whatever
directions were given to the inspectors for the past three
inspections as part of the reply.”

This clarification was quite clear, in that, as part of answering the original question, the above information would be required.
However on 20 August you said that you were still not clear about what information was being sought.
I did not appreciate the remark.

Similarly, I thought that the response that appeared to divert attention away from the identity of the inspectors, whether or not contracted to Ofsted, to an issue of whether or not they had been successful applicants to be inspectors, was particularly unhelpful.
Therefore Section 40(2) is not engaged.

Your letter of 20 August continued with some generalities, but did not provide the information requested.
The above clarification of 20 August therefore still requires an answer.
Please state whether Ofsted has or has not given any directions, guidelines, concerns, advice, etc to any of the Ofsted inspections upon KES over the past three years, and, if so, please provide that material.

Your answer referred to Ofsted’s policy of only holding evidence of inspections for six months.
This was not the information requested.

Please now refer to my request for information made to yourselves on 10 March 2015.
On 17 March you wrote: ( extract only )

“The link we have provided you with previously takes you to all the reports on Local Authorities, this includes Sheffield and Rotherham. The inspection reports also include the names of the inspectors involved. As you will be able to see, there are two inspectors who were present at both the most recent inspections of Sheffield and Rotherham. There has been no further full inspection of Sheffield in the last four years. It has received annual assessments but this does not include an inspection team visiting the local authority.”

I now refer you back to my second request for information made on 9 August, as amended on 12 August.
This second question refers to contract inspectors.
Could you please confirm whether the two referenced inspectors were contractors or direct employees of Ofsted, and also whether either of these inspectors were involved with the Ofsted inspection of KES or were involved with any of the pre-Ofsted inspection coaching of KES.

Now please refer to my original request to KES made on 15 February 2015:
“ 2 Copies of the Declarations of Interests for each Governor in
office for the above period.”

Had you read the material that was referenced you will have seen that this part of the request for information put to KES was never answered.
You will also note that I did not pursue the point.

The same principle also applies of course to Ofsted employees or contractors in that there would be a conflict of interest if any inspectors were involved with pre-inspection coaching, or if there were any other undeclared relationship.

Here is an extract from the KES thread:
“16.09.14
Page 3
• JC asked if Helen Lane (HMI) had a direct connection to the
Ofsted team? BJ said Helen Lane is a lead Ofsted Inspector assigned
to the school and the team will look at what Helen is saying about
the school. BJ feels that Helen will put the school into a positive
light. BJ clarified that Helen Lane will not form part of the
inspection team.
• CL asked as Governors, can they as a team, trigger a visit: It
was clarified no, but that the visit needs to have taken place
before April 2015.
• BJ said that she intends to ask Helen Lane to look at the SEF but
it won’t be this term.
Requests:
Can you please send the reports of the inspections that took place
on 7 and 8 January 2015.
Please provide the evidence to support the claim of “BJ feels that
Helen will put the school in a positive light.”
What is the association between Helen and the Ofsted inspection
team?”
KES “declined” to answer !

Whilst I am not required to explain reasons or background for any request, it would be helpful if history and context were provided, so that Ofsted may better understand the requests for information and therefore be better able to provide that information.

One of the issues here involves the use of sub-contracted Ofsted inspectors.
These sub-contracted inspectors were involved with Ofsted inspections of KES over the past years.
Ofsted deemed the use of sub-contracted inspection services as unacceptable, not least because of ‘erratic’ reports. ( For example, locally, Tribal and CfBT )
It must also be borne in mind that, in adjacent Rotherham where the child abuses took place, Ofsted itself conceded that it had not acted in the best interests of the vulnerable children, and the safeguarding failure was highlighted in the Jay Report.
Meanwhile, Ofsted criticised local authorities for failing to safeguard children.

In principle, Sheffield is no different.
Given that Ofsted has now withdrawn all its subcontracts, it is astounding that those inspections have not been revoked, and re-inspections called.
Given the underlying theme of this request for information, it was also astounding that there was scant mention of one of the forms of abuse, that of bullying.
It was therefore confusing that the 2013 and 2015 Ofsted inspections noted that child safeguarding was ‘good’.

From the question above that KES ‘declined’ to answer, with respect to any relationship between KES and the Ofsted inspectors, whether direct or indirect, which was indicated by the statement of the Head of KES when predicting the outcome of an inspection, there is a serious issue to be answered.
Subcontract Ofsted inspectors are operating in Sheffield, providing independent services to local education and the local authority.
In addition, subcontract Ofsted inspectors are involved with school inspections, such as at KES.

Please review your answer to my second question, repeated above.

Within that FoIA thread to KES there is also reference to bullying.
Ofsted would not only be aware of bullying, and any other forms of abuse, but also has a statutory duty to inform the relevant agencies and authorities, as well as the Ofsted inspector, that there are child safeguarding issues in the school – in this case KES.
Indeed, your own material refers to the fact that you provide your inspectors with any child safeguarding information that Ofsted may have received.

Therefore, Ofsted will have the child safeguarding information referring to KES and will have a record of informing the Ofsted inspector.

On 9 March, to yourselves, I referred to the “bigger context”
This was a direct referral to the fact that, whilst there has been much local publicity about the CSE in Rotherham, ( and the accusations of Ofsted’s failures are noted ) there was still much CSE, bullying and abuse that was not attracting similar publicity in Sheffield.

Here is another contextual reference.
Last year I made a request to a Sheffield School for its Fair Access Policy.
The school denied having the policy document.
I produced the evidence and references showing that the document not only existed, but was available.
The school lied to me, and an outside authority.
Meanwhile, a third party went to the local council, asked for it, and was given it, without problem.
Clearly, there are issues with respect to credibility when it comes to Sheffield and its schools.

On 20 August you wrote:
“As from September 2015 any inspector who Ofsted contracts with directly will not be allowed to conduct such pre-inspection coaching5.”
This comment does not relate to the information sought.
I was asking for information up to the current date, not Ofsted’s intentions from some future date.
I have been specific in asking that the information required relates to the past three Ofsted inspections of KES.

Immediately prior to the Ofsted inspection, the inspector would meet with the Head of the School, and any concerns entered on the Ofsted ‘EF’ ( Evidence Form ).
Ofsted, by consulting these forms, will be able to provide some of the information requested, and, in fact, they are required for the processing of the original requests for information made on 9 August, as later amended.

It is noted that you refuse to provide the names of the Ofsted inspectors on the grounds that their names are already available in the public domain.
I respectfully submit that the names are only part of the issue, the main core of which remains unanswered.
Therefore Section 21 is not engaged.

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

Yours faithfully,

p cialfi

InformationRequest, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Cialfi,

Please find attached a letter in relation to your email of 24 August 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Banks
Information Delivery Specialist
Ofsted

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

Dear InformationRequest,

To: Ofsted – Elizabeth Banks
From: P.Cialfi
Date: 28 August 2015
Subject: Unlawful withholding of information

Dear Ofsted,

Thank you for your letter dated 27 August 2015.

It would appear that Ofsted has not read in full, and understood, all previous correspondence and references.

Instead, Ofsted continues to seek ‘clarifications’ where none would be necessary had all the material been read and understood.

In your letter dated 27 August you wrote that you had read ‘the most recent email’.
It is necessary to read all the material to process my FoIA request.

In your letter dated 27 August you wrote of ‘frustration’ for me when Ofsted repeatedly ask for clarification.
Please be assured that I do not ‘do’ frustration.

Once again, in my opinion, Ofsted are attempting to avoid complying with the FoIA, on this occasion by attempting to create a distraction through the futile use of a personalised innuendo.

In your letter of 27 August you wrote:
“You initially stated that you wish to reconcile your conclusions regarding King Edward VII School with the contents of the Ofsted inspection report.”

Here is what I actually stated:
“Please provide the information that reconciles the determined
conclusions with the contents of the last Ofsted report on KES.”

The continued inaccuracies, as with Ofsted’s previous correspondence, and as so stated, is not appreciated.

Please note that I was NOT asking that I reconcile the conclusions with Ofsted, but that I was asking OFSTED to reconcile the contents of its report with the conclusions regarding King Edward VII School, as referenced to you.

Once again, in my opinion, another futile attempt at distraction has been made, so as to avoid complying with the FoIA.

Clearly therefore, from the outset, in addition to all previous replies, Ofsted are required to provide the information – the evidence – that supported Ofsted’s opinions in their reports, where those Ofsted opinions differed from the conclusions about KES that were referenced to Ofsted in my initial request.

It is fundamental to the FoIA that citizens can see the information that informed public authorities during their decision-making processes.

On this occasion, where there were differences between the conclusions reached on the basis of the documents that King Edward VII School kindly provided and the Ofsted opinions following Ofsted’s inspections, then provision of the evidence that Ofsted used to justify those differences is a perfectly reasonable request.

Still on page 1 of your letter dated 27 August you wrote:
“The response explained that section 40 of the FOI Act (personal data) applied to that information.”

Yet again, Ofsted is inaccurate.
In my opinion, Ofsted is being deliberately inaccurate, so as to avoid complying with the FoIA.

Given the number of times these avoidance tactics have been used, the Information Commissioner shall now be briefed as to the possibility of prosecution under Section 77 of the FoIA.

Where Ofsted attempted to use S40, the reasoning was refuted, explaining that Ofsted had ( again deliberately ) misquoted my request for information and actually inventing what I had asked.

This error was explained in my correspondence.

Ofsted had attempted to claim that I was asking for details of who had applied to Ofsted - something that I had never requested.

Here is that part of the request:
“Please confirm ( and if so provide details ) whether any of the now
disestablished contract Ofsted inspectors were involved with the
last three KES / Ofsted inspections and / or were engaged by KES in
pre-Ofsted inspection coaching.”

Ofsted has still not lawfully answered this part of my FoIA request and is still required to do so.

I now refer to your claim that Ofsted no longer holds the instructions it gave to its Ofsted’s inspectors prior to the inspection of King Edward VII School.

Again, I would advise that Ofsted read my previous correspondence, as I have specifically mentioned safeguarding.

You say that Ofsted does not hold pre-inspection guidance for more than 6 months.

Your policy document that was in force at the time, ‘Handling and Retention of Inspection Evidence’, refers to a MINIMUM of 6 months, not the maximum.

In addition this retention period is extended if there are any child protection issues.

Accordingly, using your own procedure, Ofsted still has the information requested, and I would be obliged if you would provide it.

In any case, Ofsted would have copies of the correspondence to the Ofsted inspector informing the inspector of the issues that require particular attention, for example, safeguarding issues, which would naturally include bullying. ( It is noted from the last and previous Ofsted inspections there were no interviews carried out of young people who considered themselves to have been bullied. See also the admittedly unsubstantiated claims of KES management to the Board of Governors. )

In this particular case, when referring to safeguarding issues such as bullying, the expected retention period would be three years.

It would be reasonable to expect that Ofsted had fed back any expressed concerns about safeguarding or bullying to both the local authority and the school, for both the 2015 and 2013 inspections.

Please confirm whether such concerns were relayed to the local authority and the school, and also confirm that the Ofsted inspector was apprised of these issues.

In my last correspondence to Ofsted I pointed out that it was incorrect, in answering to a request for information to incidents in the past, to be referred to policy changes in the future.

In my opinion that part of the answer of 20 August was wholly inappropriate.

Thank you clarifying and making the distinction between an Ofsted inspector and a contracted inspector.

Thank you for providing the link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

However, it has been withdrawn TODAY, although was in force at the time.

In turn, the above document refers to:
www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/120100
-which has also been withdrawn TODAY, but was in force at the time.

As a help, here is a quote from Ofsted’s own legal guidance:
. . . “records should be kept for as long as they are needed by Ofsted: for reference or accountability purposes, to comply with regulatory requirements, or to protect legal and other rights and interests”.

In cases such as safeguarding, including how bullying is managed, and when a previous inspection mandated improvement with these issues, there is a requirement to retain records for longer than six months.

I will explain further the reasoning behind the part of my request ( relating to whether Ofsted inspectors, of any status, may have been used in both Rotherham and Sheffield ), for information, although I am not obliged to do so.

Ofsted’s performance in Rotherham was rightfully criticised, and Ofsted conceded that it had failed in Rotherham.

It is therefore reasonable to seek information that assures the public that the same ‘deemed unacceptable’ inspectors were not also used in Sheffield, and in this case, at King Edward VII school.

By the same token, as described in my previous correspondence, which appears to have been ignored in several aspects, there is a duty of candour that requires declarations of interest by Ofsted inspectors ( of any status ) on an individual basis, and also on a corporate basis when the companies employing subcontracted Ofsted inspectors are also involved in any way with the provision of pre-inspection coaching or preparations.

The requested information relating to this is also required, as requested previously.

Had the previously referenced material been read in detail and understood, it would have been seen how the management of King Edward VII School was confidently able to mention and Ofsted associate and also predict a ‘favourable’ outcome of the following Ofsted inspection.

Ofsted therefore have a case to answer, i.e. how can it be that the Head of a School is able to declare a personal association with Ofsted and inform the Board of Governors what the outcome of an inspection will be.

As it happened, the prediction was correct, in defiance of the evidence to the contrary.

There is a series of Ofsted documents, one of which was issued in August of this year:

Conducting_inspections_of_residential_provision_for_learners_aged_under_18_in_further_education_colleges
This document also references other documents that must be read in conjunction.

Here is a quote:
“9.Ofsted will also send a standard letter to the local authority designated officer for child protection (LADO) to ask about any information they have about the college. The letter requests information about child protection enquiries relating to the college that are ongoing or have been undertaken since the last inspection. The LADO is asked to send any information by secure email directly to the lead inspector.”

Given the emerging theme of my request for information, it is reasonable to expect that, as part of the information required to comply with my request for information, that Ofsted would confirm, with details, the material that Ofsted wrote to the LADO, and any answer from the LADO, prior to both the 2015 Ofsted inspection and the inspection of 2013.

Now here is the serious quote, which clearly explains the duty that Ofsted has with respect to Safeguarding:

“Safeguarding concerns
36. If serious issues of concern arise, for example in relation to the failure to follow child protection procedures and/or where a learner is discovered to be at immediate risk of harm, the principal will be notified as soon as possible unless this compromises the learner’s safety. Inspectors should always follow ‘Ofsted’s safeguarding policy and procedures’4 and contact Ofsted’s compliance, investigation and enforcement team on 0300 1231231 should they be in need of advice.”

It is therefore reasonable to be informed of whether there had been any incident, or sequence of events, where any learner had been at immediate risk of harm in the school, at any time prior to the inspection, and what the outcome was that removed the learner from the risk of further harm.

Here is one last quote from the document:
“40. Lead inspectors will submit electronic summarised evidence in the form of Word documents through the Inspection Team Room in OfficeBase.”
It has been established that Ofsted can retrieve the electronic files.

Conclusions

Once again, although unnecessary, I have gone out of my way to provide further clarifications and explanations, even though I was not obliged to do so.

Technically, as my previous correspondence was a Request for Review, I could have gone direct to the Information Commissioner.
However, I have been more than reasonable.

It would therefore be greatly appreciated if all outstanding information is now provided by return.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Richard McGowan, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

Ms Cialfi,

 

Thank you for your correspondence to date on this matter. I am the senior
official responsible for conducting internal reviews in Ofsted. I have
very carefully considered in full all of your correspondence and comments
to Ofsted.

 

Unfortunately, with regards to one aspect of your continued requests I am
still unable to understand what information you believe you are requesting
under the Freedom of Information Act. By that I mean the various attempts
you have made to explain the information you want, have unfortunately not
succeeded in describing that information in a manner which matches the
requirement (at section 8(1)(c) of the Act). This is a view shared between
myself and all colleagues who have worked hard to understand your request
to date. In these circumstances, I am afraid, Ofsted are not obliged to
consider this request as valid for the purposes of the Act.   

 

I am referring to the aspect of your request which originally stated:

 

“Please refer to this web site for the thread relating to King Edward
School (KES)

Please note the last letter to KES - the conclusions.

 

Please provide the information that reconciles the determined conclusions
with the contents of the last Ofsted report on KES”.

 

In your most recent communication with Ofsted on this matter you have
stated:

 

“Please note that I was NOT asking that I reconcile the conclusions with
Ofsted, but that I was asking OFSTED to reconcile the contents of its
report with the conclusions regarding King Edward VII School, as
referenced to you (..). Ofsted are required to provide the information –
the evidence – that supported Ofsted’s opinions in their reports, where
those Ofsted opinions differed from the conclusions about KES that were
referenced to Ofsted in my initial request”.

This issue I perceive here is that, in formulating your request, you are
continually referring to “conclusions” and “reconciling” these with Ofsted
reports. It is not entirely clear what/whose conclusions these are, or
what the envisaged process of reconciliation is expected to be with
Ofsted’s report. I can advise you (if it should be your intention) that
Ofsted not under an obligation via the FOI Act to compare (‘reconcile’)
its reports with information (‘conclusions’) subsequently written by other
parties, such as yourself, where this requires any type of evaluation or
analysis. Ofsted’s requirements under the FOI Act are only to communicate
the information that it holds; not to generate new information, such as
any product of reconciliation between ‘conclusions’ and ‘reports’.

 

In any event, Ofsted does not hold any information that might be regarded
as a “reconciliation” between its reports and any external “conclusions”.
I hope that point is now clear to you.

 

On the other hand, we may have entirely misunderstood your intentions. If
you have something different in mind you remain free to make a request for
it and this will be considered on its merits. My strong advice is to
express your request in only a couple of sentences and to focus on
describing the information you believe that Ofsted already holds in
relation to the matters that interest you – Ofsted has already explained
what information is currently retained in relation to school inspections.
Many people find it useful to seek assistance in formulating requests and
it is possible that whatdotheyknow.com or the ICO can provide you advice
in doing so, or to check that your words adequately describe the
information you think that Ofsted holds.        

 

Next steps

 

You have formally requested an internal review of all aspects of your
recent requests. This email must be regarded as Ofsted’s internal review
response to the part of your request for: “information that reconciles the
determined conclusions with the contents of the last Ofsted report on
KES”. As a result if you disagree with my comments set out above you are
entitled to approach the ICO for their decision on the same matters.  The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

[1]https://ico.org.uk/concerns/getting/  

 

or:

 

Customer Contact

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

SK9 5AF

 

For the remainder of the matters referred to in your most recent email
(personal data (s.40) and the information held by Ofsted) we will write
back shortly with the outcome of an internal review into these.  

 

In the meantime, unless you are in a position to submit a valid request
describing the information that you seek, there is no need for you to
communicate further with Ofsted on this issue.    

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Richard McGowan

Senior Information Rights & Delivery Manager

Information Management Team

Ofsted

T 03000 131 440 | E [2][email address] | 7th floor |
Aviation House | London | WC2B 6SE | W  [3]www.ofsted.gov.uk Follow Ofsted
on Twitter at [4]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Richard McGowan,

It is clear that, in my opinion, Ofsted have no intention of providing the information requested.

Therefore, it is now time to engage the Information Commissioner on the issue upon which you have replied.

It is fundamental to the FOIA that public authorities provide the information upon which its decisions were made.

Would you please provide me with the name and contact details of your line manager.

Would you please provide here the metadata generated during the processing of this FOI request.

I look forward to the remainder of the outstanding information being provided shortly.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Alastair O'Neill, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Cialfi,

 

Please find attached our response to your most recent piece of
correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alastair O’Neill

Information Delivery Officer

Information Management Team

Ofsted | 2 Rivergate | Temple Quay | Bristol | BS1 6EH

Direct Tel: 0300 013 1287

 

Ofsted National Business Unit: 0300 123 1231

[1]www.gov.uk/ofsted
Ofsted on Twitter at [2]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit
www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/ofsted
2. http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

Dear Alastair O'Neill,

A complaint is now being raised with the Information Commissioner.
Please pass this communication to your Alma Kucera.
I refer to your latest reply to my requests that required the provision of the case metadata and the name of the manager.

For both of these issues I would ask that you review the responses that refuse to provide the information.

There is no clarification needed for the definition of, and therefore requisite provision of, the case metadata. This is a well-established principle that has operated within FoIA for years, so to ask for clarification is perceived as a willful attempt to unlawfully withhold information, contrary to Section 77 of the FoIA.
For the benefit of the public accessing this site, the required metadata in this case means all internal and external correspondence associated with the processing of my request for information, including texts, memos, etc held in any format.

The previous claim of 'information not held' with respect to the records showing that the Lead Inspector received due notice of concerns relating to the school, specifically child protection issues, must have been retained. If not,then Ofsted has again broken the law.
I have not asked for new information to be created by asking that Ofsted provide the evidence to demonstrate the differences between the Ofsted inspection opinion and the evidence as provided by the school itself, as that information must have been held by Ofsted prior to arriving at the opinion in the report.

You have also refused to provide the name of a line manager.
The reason given for refusing to provide this information is not accepted.
Section 40(2) is not engaged.
The ICO guidance is helpful in determining which details of named public authority employees can reasonably expect secrecy, but this does not extend to senior personnel, or those whose salaries are above a threshold.
Not to provide the name of a senior manager is extraordinary.

I look forward to your reply on the outstanding issues, bearing in mind that the Information Commissioner is now being engaged.

As a separate issue, and for information only, it was very disturbing to learn that Ofsted uses an organisation linked to the organisation Common Purpose:
CfBT inspection services provide inspection services for Ofsted.
CfBT is linked to Common Purpose.
http://www.transformationtrust.org.uk/ab...
It is to be hoped that there are no Common Purpose 'graduates' or supporters within Ofsted.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Richard McGowan, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

Ms Cialfi,

 

As explained on 8 September I have undertaken the remaining aspects of
your original request for internal review (into Ofsted’s FOI responses of
12 and 20 August 2015).

 

Information held

 

Ofsted was correct to inform you on 20 August that it normally only holds
the evidence from an inspection for 6 months and that the evidence base
will contain any information considered by the lead inspector when
formulating his or her judgements. However, I believe you were correct in
requesting clarification on bullying and safeguarding information.

 

There are circumstances where Ofsted may hold some of that information
separately and for a longer period. For example, if a parent has made a
complaint about a school, Ofsted will retain details of that complaint,
including whether an inspection team had been made aware of the complaint.
With regards to the FOI Act Ofsted can neither confirm nor deny whether
such complaints are held in relation to a school. This is because
complainants have an expectation of confidentiality when raising
complaints in this way. Given that complaints can include issues such as
safeguarding and bullying, the matters raised with Ofsted can be
particularly sensitive. Section 41(2) of the FOI Act requires Ofsted to
withhold such information. Therefore if Ofsted had received and
investigated any information relating to safeguarding or bullying in KES,
it wouldn’t be expected to reveal or refer to that information, unless it
impacted widely on the judgement for a school during inspection.    

 

I do trust this makes the position much clearer for you.

 

Personal data (section 40)

 

You have also asked about the inspectors who have visited KES during the
last 3 inspections. As you have been informed, all of those inspectors are
named in the published reports during this period which are easily
accessible to you (section 21 of the FOI Act).   

 

I can confirm that Ofsted has located no information to suggest that its
inspectors had conducted ‘pre-inspection-coaching’ of KES, prior to
themselves inspecting the school. You have referred the work of an HMI
supporting the improvement of the school. As you are aware, that HMI was
not part of the subsequent inspection team who visited the school in
January 2015. As that HMI stated in her (published) letter to the school
of 3/7/13: “Ofsted may carry out further visits and, where necessary,
provide further support and challenge to the school until its next section
5 inspection”.

    

Insofar as any of your requests may reveal if inspectors have applied for
continued work for Ofsted (and the outcome of those
applications/assessments), I believe Ofsted’s response correctly explained
that such information was personal data and that it would contravene the
Data Protection Act to disclose it to the public.     

 

This concludes Ofsted’s internal review into its responses of 12 and 20
August 2015. I have provided you with the relevant details of the ICO
below, should you wish to contact his office on this matter.      

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Richard McGowan

Senior Information Rights & Delivery Manager

Information Management Team

Ofsted

 

 

From: Richard McGowan
Sent: 08 September 2015 12:00
To: [FOI #285004 email]
Cc: InformationRequest
Subject: FW: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Evidence
v Rhetoric [Cialfi]

 

Ms Cialfi,

 

Thank you for your correspondence to date on this matter. I am the senior
official responsible for conducting internal reviews in Ofsted. I have
very carefully considered in full all of your correspondence and comments
to Ofsted.

 

Unfortunately, with regards to one aspect of your continued requests I am
still unable to understand what information you believe you are requesting
under the Freedom of Information Act. By that I mean the various attempts
you have made to explain the information you want, have unfortunately not
succeeded in describing that information in a manner which matches the
requirement (at section 8(1)(c) of the Act). This is a view shared between
myself and all colleagues who have worked hard to understand your request
to date. In these circumstances, I am afraid, Ofsted are not obliged to
consider this request as valid for the purposes of the Act.   

 

I am referring to the aspect of your request which originally stated:

 

“Please refer to this web site for the thread relating to King Edward
School (KES)

Please note the last letter to KES - the conclusions.

 

Please provide the information that reconciles the determined conclusions
with the contents of the last Ofsted report on KES”.

 

In your most recent communication with Ofsted on this matter you have
stated:

 

“Please note that I was NOT asking that I reconcile the conclusions with
Ofsted, but that I was asking OFSTED to reconcile the contents of its
report with the conclusions regarding King Edward VII School, as
referenced to you (..). Ofsted are required to provide the information –
the evidence – that supported Ofsted’s opinions in their reports, where
those Ofsted opinions differed from the conclusions about KES that were
referenced to Ofsted in my initial request”.

 

This issue I perceive here is that, in formulating your request, you are
continually referring to “conclusions” and “reconciling” these with Ofsted
reports. It is not entirely clear what/whose conclusions these are, or
what the envisaged process of reconciliation is expected to be with
Ofsted’s report. I can advise you (if it should be your intention) that
Ofsted not under an obligation via the FOI Act to compare (‘reconcile’)
its reports with information (‘conclusions’) subsequently written by other
parties, such as yourself, where this requires any type of evaluation or
analysis. Ofsted’s requirements under the FOI Act are only to communicate
the information that it holds; not to generate new information, such as
any product of reconciliation between ‘conclusions’ and ‘reports’.

 

In any event, Ofsted does not hold any information that might be regarded
as a “reconciliation” between its reports and any external “conclusions”.
I hope that point is now clear to you.

 

On the other hand, we may have entirely misunderstood your intentions. If
you have something different in mind you remain free to make a request for
it and this will be considered on its merits. My strong advice is to
express your request in only a couple of sentences and to focus on
describing the information you believe that Ofsted already holds in
relation to the matters that interest you – Ofsted has already explained
what information is currently retained in relation to school inspections.
Many people find it useful to seek assistance in formulating requests and
it is possible that whatdotheyknow.com or the ICO can provide you advice
in doing so, or to check that your words adequately describe the
information you think that Ofsted holds.        

 

Next steps

 

You have formally requested an internal review of all aspects of your
recent requests. This email must be regarded as Ofsted’s internal review
response to the part of your request for: “information that reconciles the
determined conclusions with the contents of the last Ofsted report on
KES”. As a result if you disagree with my comments set out above you are
entitled to approach the ICO for their decision on the same matters.  The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

[1]https://ico.org.uk/concerns/getting/  

 

or:

 

Customer Contact

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

SK9 5AF

 

For the remainder of the matters referred to in your most recent email
(personal data (s.40) and the information held by Ofsted) we will write
back shortly with the outcome of an internal review into these.  

 

In the meantime, unless you are in a position to submit a valid request
describing the information that you seek, there is no need for you to
communicate further with Ofsted on this issue.    

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Richard McGowan

Senior Information Rights & Delivery Manager

Information Management Team

Ofsted

T 03000 131 440 | E [2][email address] | 7th floor |
Aviation House | London | WC2B 6SE | W  [3]www.ofsted.gov.uk Follow Ofsted
on Twitter at [4]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Alastair O'Neill, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Cialfi,

 

Please find attached our response to your correspondence dated 23
September 2015.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alastair O’Neill

Information Delivery Officer

Information Management Team

Ofsted | 2 Rivergate | Temple Quay | Bristol | BS1 6EH

Direct Tel: 0300 013 1287

 

Ofsted National Business Unit: 0300 123 1231

[1]www.gov.uk/ofsted
Ofsted on Twitter at [2]http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

 

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit
www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/ofsted
2. http://twitter.com/Ofstednews

InformationRequest, Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Cialfi,

Please find attached the outcome of my review of the handling of your recent request for information.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Banks
Information Delivery Specialist
Ofsted

*************************************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email

show quoted sections

You can now register and subscribe for tailored Ofsted updates. Visit www.ofsted.gov.uk/user to register

*************************************************************************************************

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are p cialfi please sign in and let everyone know.