[2024] UKUT 245 (AAC)

The request that the appellant made to the School on 14 July 2022 was in the following terms. When granting permission on this matter, I observed that the request could be read as comprising four separate requests as indicated in square brackets below. The parties have been content to adopt my reading of the request in that respect:

“Please provide data of ranking order for GCSE mock results for the 2020

batch.

[Request 1] The data should include the mock result of each assessment taken

and the actual awarded Centre assessed grade (CAG) and also include the

students’ specific ethnicity, no other personal information is needed.

Please provide this information for the whole cohort in the subjects, Business

Studies, English Language, English Literature, Maths, Chemistry and Religious

Education.

[Request 2] To check alignment with other year groups please provide the same information for years 2019 (actual exam assessed) and 2021 (CAGs).

Business Studies results for GCSE year 2020 were moderated from actual

assessed mock exams as advised by the School.

[Request 3] Under the Freedom of information Act (2000), please provide data

for the difference in moderated grades from actual assessed exams for all ethnic groups. Data to include the whole cohort showing mock examined grade vs moderated awarded grades alongside the specific ethnicity of the student.

Fisher Family trust (FFT) can be used as a benchmark to see what would be

expected by a cohort of students in terms of results.

[Request 4] Under the Freedom of information Act (2000), please provide data

FFT vs CAG for the percentage of Caucasian students vs percentage of non-

Caucasian/BAME students achieving level 7, level 8 and level 9 independently

for the subjects, Business Studies, English Language, English Literature, Maths, Chemistry and Religious Education. Please include FFT reference data.”

On 22 July 2022, the School refused to provide information in response to the request, relying on the exemption in section 40(2) FOIA for personal information. It maintained this position after internal review, on 19 October 2022.

The appellant complained to the Information Commissioner. On 3 March 2023, the Commissioner issued a Decision Notice under section 50 of FOIA upholding the School’s decision.

Exercising his right under section 57 of FOIA, the appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.