La Passerelle Legal Status

​​​​​Request ​852822777

Dear Freedom of Information Team 

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

I am requesting information concerning the legal status of La Passerelle under the Education (Jersey) Law 1999. 

La Passerelle is not listed as a provided school in Schedule 1 to the Education (Jersey) Law 1999. Schedule 1 lists all provided schools in Jersey, but does not list La Passerelle. The Parent's Guide to the SEN Code of Practice describes La Passerelle as a short-term support unit.

Therefore, please provide the recorded information held by CYPES which confirms the current legal status of La Passerelle for the purposes of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999. 

Please also provide the recorded information held by CYPES which identifies the statutory basis on which children are educated at La Passerelle. 

Finally, please provide the recorded information held by CYPES which identifies the statutory basis on which children with special educational needs may receive special educational provision at La Passerelle, given that Article 32(f) of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 expressly refers to Orders concerning “special educational provision otherwise than in a provided school, or otherwise than in Jersey.”

For clarity, I am seeking the document, policy, Ministerial Decision, Order, framework, registration record, governance document, or other recorded information which confirms: 

the legal status of La Passerelle; 

the statutory basis for educating children at La Passerelle; 

and the statutory basis for providing special educational provision at La Passerelle. 

If no recorded information is held confirming any of the above, please confirm that no such recorded information is held.

Response

Schedule 1 of Education (Jersey) Law 1999 lists La Sente School as a provided school. In recent years the school has been known as La Passerelle although it is still registered for legal purposes as La Sente .

The most up to date Jersey School Review Framework (JSRF) report can be found at this link: JSRF Report of La Passerelle.pdf​

Within this document there is a section titled 'Contextual Information'. This provides an explanation as to the use of the La Passerelle name, copied below for your convenience.

La Passerelle is the only specialist SEMH school on the Island. All pupils have SEND, and approximately 60% have a record of need.

The school has been known by other names previously including La Sente (the previous name for the primary school). In recent years the primary and secondary provision have been brought together as one school. The executive headteacher joined the school in 2022, leadership has been restructured and several staff are relatively new.

La Sente is the registered school name for La Passerelle primary and secondary schools. You can find a list of all registered schools at the following links.

Primary Schools: https://www.gov.je/Education/Schools/FindingSchool/Pages/PrimarySchools.aspx

Secondary Schools: https://www.gov.je/Education/Schools/FindingSchool/Pages/SecondarySchools.aspx​​

Internal Review Request

I request an internal review of the response dated 17 July 2026 to FOI request 852822777.

My original request sought the recorded information held by CYPES which:

1. confirms the current legal status of La Passerelle for the purposes of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999;

2. identifies the statutory basis upon which children are educated at La Passerelle; and

3. identifies the statutory basis upon which children with special educational needs receive special educational provision at La Passerelle.

I expressly requested any document, policy, Ministerial Decision, Order, framework, registration record, governance document or other recorded information which

confirms those matters. I also asked CYPES to confirm if no such recorded information is held.

The response does not provide the recorded information requested.

1. The central assertion in the response is not supported by the cited document

The response states:

“La Sente is the registered school name for La Passerelle primary and secondary schools.”

However, the Jersey School Review Framework report cited in support of the response does not say this.

The only relevant passage in that report states:

“The school has been known by other names previously including La Sente (the previous name for the primary school). In recent years the primary and secondary provision have been brought together as one school.”

This says that La Sente was the previous name of the primary school. It does not say that La Sente is the current registered legal identity of the combined La Passerelle primary and secondary provision.

It also does not say that the secondary provision is legally part of the provided school listed in Schedule 1 as La Sente School.

The report therefore does not support the assertion made in the FOI response.

2. No registration record has been provided

The response states that La Passerelle is “still registered for legal purposes as La Sente” and that La Sente is “the registered school name” for both the primary and secondary provision.

However, the response does not:

• identify the register concerned;

• provide the relevant registration record;

• identify the statutory or administrative basis for that registration;

• identify the date on which the combined provision was registered as La Sente or La Passerelle;

• identify the authority or person who made or approved that registration; or

• provide any document demonstrating that the secondary provision legally forms part of the Schedule 1 school called La Sente School.

Links to general primary and secondary school directory webpages are not a substitute for the underlying registration record or other recorded information upon which the assertion is based.

If a record exists confirming that the entirety of La Passerelle, including its secondary provision, is legally registered as La Sente School, that record falls squarely within the scope of my request and should be disclosed.

3. The merger of the primary and secondary provisions has not been explained by reference to any recorded information

The JSRF report states that the primary and secondary provisions were brought together as one school.

However, the response does not provide any recorded information showing:

• when that occurred;

• how it occurred;

• who authorised or approved it;

• what legal or administrative process was followed;

• whether the combined school retained the legal identity of the former La Sente primary school;

• whether any change was made to the age range, character, governance, premises or status of La Sente School;

• whether any Ministerial Decision or departmental decision was made;

• whether any consultation or report was produced;

• whether Schedule 1 was considered or amended; or

• how the secondary provision became part of a provided school for the purposes of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999.

The fact that the two provisions were described in a school-review report as having been “brought together” does not, without the underlying records, establish the legal identity or statutory status of the resulting combined provision.

4. The statutory basis for educating children at La Passerelle has not been answered

Article 3(1) of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 provides that the schools listed in Schedule 1, Part 1 are provided schools.

Schedule 1 lists La Sente School. It does not list La Passerelle.

The response appears to rely upon the proposition that the current combined La Passerelle primary and secondary school is legally the same school as the La Sente School listed in Schedule 1.

However, no recorded information establishing that link has been provided.

My request did not ask CYPES merely to assert that the two names relate to the same legal school. It asked for the recorded information confirming the legal status and statutory basis.

If CYPES holds recorded information identifying the statutory basis upon which children are educated at the current combined La Passerelle provision, that information should be supplied.

If no separate recorded information identifying that statutory basis is held, CYPES should confirm that expressly.

5. The statutory basis for special educational provision has not been answered

The response does not address the part of my request seeking recorded information identifying the statutory basis upon which children with special educational needs receive special educational provision at La Passerelle.

My reference to Article 32(f) was intended to identify why La Passerelle’s status as a provided or non-provided school matters.

If CYPES’s position is that Article 32(f) is not applicable because all La Passerelle provision legally takes place within the provided school called La Sente School, the recorded information establishing that proposition should be disclosed.

The response does not identify or provide any policy, decision, framework, governance record, registration record or other document establishing the statutory basis relied upon for the provision of special educational provision at La Passerelle.

Again, if no such recorded information is held, that should be confirmed expressly.

6. Failure to confirm whether the requested information is held

Article 8 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 provides a general right to be supplied with information held by a scheduled public authority.

Article 10 requires an authority to inform an applicant where it does not hold the requested information, subject to the limited exceptions contained in that Article.

The response does not clearly state whether:

• the requested underlying records are held;

• all information falling within the request has been supplied;

• further information is held but has been withheld;

• any exemption is being relied upon; or

• no further recorded information is held.

The response instead makes an assertion and cites a document which does not contain or support that assertion.

7. Adequacy of the searches undertaken

I ask the internal reviewer to consider the adequacy of the searches undertaken.

In particular, please establish whether searches were conducted for records concerning:

• the legal or registered identity of La Sente School;

• the legal or registered identity of La Passerelle;

• the adoption or use of the La Passerelle name;

• the combination, merger or restructuring of the La Sente primary provision and the La Passerelle secondary provision;

• the date and authority by which the provisions were brought together;

• the legal status of the combined 5-to-16 school;

• the inclusion of the secondary provision within La Sente School;

• the school’s age range, character, governance and premises;

• any consultation or process under Article 7 of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999;

• any amendment, proposed amendment or consideration of Schedule 1;

• Ministerial Decisions, departmental decisions, submissions or approvals;

• school registration or establishment records;

• governing-body records;

• school restructuring or reorganisation documents;

• policies or frameworks governing the placement and education of pupils at La Passerelle; and

• the statutory basis for making special educational provision at La Passerelle.

This is not a request for CYPES to create a new legal opinion. It is a request for the recorded information already held which supports the factual and legal assertions made in the response.

Outcome requested

I ask that the internal review:

1. determine whether adequate searches were undertaken;

2. arrange for further searches where necessary;

3. disclose the recorded information which establishes that La Passerelle primary and secondary are legally registered as the provided school called La Sente School;

4. disclose the recorded information concerning the combination, merger or restructuring of the primary and secondary provisions;

5. disclose the recorded information identifying the statutory basis upon which children are educated at La Passerelle;

6. disclose the recorded information identifying the statutory basis upon which special educational provision is made at La Passerelle;

7. identify any information being withheld and the specific exemption relied upon;

8. confirm separately, in relation to each part of the request, if no further recorded information is held; and

9. correct or withdraw the assertion that La Sente is the registered school name for the combined primary and secondary provision if no recorded information is held which supports it.

Please ensure that the review is conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision.

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​.