ALPS analysis for Jersey secondary schools in Jersey

​​​Request 798147673

ALPS is a UK school data analysis and performance benchmarking tool used by secondary schools in Jersey to compare departmental and whole-school performance, particularly at KS4 and KS5. Please could you provide the colour coded ALPS spreadsheets (colour coded red, blue or black by the ALPS software) for each Jersey secondary school for the subjects where there are results. Please could the data cover the years 2018/19, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2024/25. These spreadsheets should show all the subjects and give the number of entries, the ALPS score, the grade and the average PA for each subject at KS4 and KS5. Thank you.

Response

The requested information is exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the contract for the use of ALPS specifically states that the data is only to be used for internal professional purposes and is under copyright for publication.

Article 33 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Article Applied

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public interest test

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and as such, CYPES has conducted a prejudice test as required by law.

When responding to requests of this nature, CYPES are required to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the content of the ALPS spreadsheets in relation to School assessment data, protecting the commercial interests of CYPES is essential.

The use of third parties, to provide resources to CYPES to support their internal professional analysis of school assessment data is through contract and purchase. Disclosing information that has been provided with a copyright licence will mean that CYPES are in breach of their contract with that third-party provider and this would prejudice the commercial interests of CYPES.

When considering the application of this exemption, CYPES has determined that whilst it is in the public interest to disclose the requested resources, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact on its commercial interests in ensuring contractual obligations are met, Article 33 has been applied.

Internal Review Request

I am writing to request an internal review of the response to my Freedom of Information request 798147673 concerning ALPS subject-level performance data for Jersey secondary schools. The refusal relies on Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (commercial interests), on the basis that disclosure would breach contractual and copyright restrictions and prejudice commercial interests. I respectfully request that this exemption be reconsidered for the following reasons:

1. Copyright does not automatically engage Article 33 

The response states that the ALPS contract restricts publication due to copyright. However, copyright restrictions do not themselves create a valid exemption under FOI legislation. Disclosure under FOI does not transfer copyright ownership, and any copyright restrictions would continue to apply after disclosure. I therefore request clarification as to how copyright alone establishes commercial prejudice under Article 33(b). 

2. Commercial prejudice has not been evidenced 

Article 33(b) requires that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, prejudice” commercial interests. The response does not specify:

• Whose commercial interests would be prejudiced (CYPES or ALPS);

• The nature of the commercial harm anticipated;

• How disclosure of historical subject-level performance data would damage those interests;

• Whether prejudice would be real and significant rather than speculative.

A contractual confidentiality clause does not automatically demonstrate prejudice. I request that the internal review set out clearly the link between disclosure and specific commercial harm. 

3. Data controller position 

As schools and CYPES are the data controllers for pupil data under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018, and ALPS acts as a data processor providing analytical services, the underlying performance data originates from public authorities. The requested spreadsheets reflect school performance outcomes, not proprietary methodology. I therefore question whether disclosure of the output data (subject, entries, ALPS score, grade, average PA) genuinely reveals commercially sensitive intellectual property. 

4. Public interest balance 

The public interest in transparency is significant. The requested data concerns:

• Publicly funded schools;

• Public examination outcomes;

• Departmental performance;

• The use of public funds to purchase performance benchmarking services.

• Transparency regarding school performance benchmarking supports public accountability, informed debate, and scrutiny of educational standards.

The response acknowledges a public interest in disclosure but concludes it is outweighed by protecting commercial interests. I request further explanation of how this balance was assessed and what specific weight was applied to each factor. 

5. Possibility of partial disclosure 

If elements of the spreadsheets are considered commercially sensitive (for example, proprietary formatting or colour-coding logic), I request consideration of partial disclosure with redactions under Article 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance), rather than a blanket refusal.

In summary, I respectfully request that the internal review:

• Reassess whether Article 33(b) is correctly engaged;

• Provide specific evidence of likely commercial prejudice;

• Reconsider the public interest balance;

• Consider partial disclosure where appropriate.

I look forward to your response within the timeframe set out under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following: Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. Further questions if above is a yes:

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld​.