SOC classification of Pilates teachers in the UK

FOI REF: FOI-2023-1420

You asked

Following on from FOI-2023-1100, please provide the following information:

1) In your response on 5 March 2020 you said that  "the SOC revision team discussed the classification of Pilates Teachers with six industry practitioners who responded to our stakeholder engagement exercise". The PTA were supplied with 3 names by ONS. 
a) What was the first date that the six industry practitioners responded to the stakeholder engagement exercise?
b) What previous input had been provided by the six industry practitioners since 2016 when the process of SOC2020 commenced.
c) What was the date and content of the stakeholder engagement exercise to which the six industry practitioners responded.
d) What steps did ONS take to share and explore the new stakeholder information with the wider stakeholders such as ourselves and CIMSPA before the decision to revoke the code was given.

2) The PTA have been stakeholders since 2014 and were contacted in 2016 by ONS when the SOC2020 review commenced. What effort did ONS make to share " the supplied evidence and comments" and "...Significant new evidence.." with existing stakeholders from 2016 to explore the evidence and comments. Please provide copies of the evidence and comments. 

3) Please advise and provide copies of the recent data which was examined to inform the content of the sub-unit group 3433/02."Pilates Teachers".

We said

Thank you for your request, following up from previous FOIs regarding Pilates teachers industry classification SOC2020 and Classification of Pilates teachers. Please see the following answers to your questions. 

1a) Objections were received from 29 March 2019 for the above proposal. 

1b) There had been no previous input from the six industry practitioners.

1c) The original proposal was circulated to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) stakeholders on 09 March 2018, objections were not received until over a year later.

1d) As noted, the Pilates Teachers Association (PTA) have been stakeholders since 2014. Proposals were circulated to the wider SOC stakeholder community and the PTA throughout the revision process. The Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity (CIMSPA) responded to the online consultation in 2016 and were kept informed throughout the revision process. The ONS did not receive any objections from CIMSPA regarding the various proposals for Comprehensive Pilates Teacher. Please see the following associated downloads which are copies of reports originally published on the GSS website:

• Major_Group_3_proposed_Draft_SOC2020 structure

• Pilates stakeholder correspondence

• SOC2010_Major Groups_4_to_9_Proposals

• SOC2010_Major_Group_3_Proposals

• SOC2010_Miscellaneous_Proposals

2) Regarding your request for us to publish correspondence between ONS and the stakeholders, who were consulted as part of the classification of Pilates teachers during the SOC2020 consultation in 2016.  

Unfortunately, we are unable to release the requested information, as disclosure would prejudice the free and frank provision of advice and the deliberation of important decisions regarding classifications and would likely cause a chilling effect on future discussions and the exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. 

The Classifications team conducts a comprehensive review, with stakeholders having an opportunity to contribute throughout. The revision process involves examining survey and Census data as well as gathering evidence from SOC users and industry experts and where relevant, proposals for change are made and circulated to SOC stakeholders and agreed by the SOC steering group. Open dialogue with our stakeholders is highly valued and important, both in the identification and prioritisation of classification needs, and in the classification process itself.   

We need to maintain a safe space within which the team and stakeholders can exchange their views with candour, as they would likely become less inclined to provide their opinions if they knew this would be subject to disclosure. 

Concern over these communications being released would likely prejudice this safe space, which would reduce the efficacy of these consultation exercises, leading to poorer decision-making and potentially inaccurate conclusions. Therefore, the requested information is exempt from release under Section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

This exemption is subject to a public interest test. 

The arguments in favour of disclosure are the promotion of transparency and public accountability for the decisions we make regarding classifications. However, we already practice transparency in this area. For example, summary documents on proposed changes to SOC were published on the GSS website and circulated to stakeholders in a timely fashion (see examples relating to this issue in response to question 1c).  

Furthermore, arguments in favour of withholding the information are to ensure we maintain a safe space for current and future discussion with internal and external stakeholders regarding classifications. As jeopardising this safe space could lead to stakeholders not having frank and open discussions with the Classifications team on proposed changes to SOC. This in turn could lead to poorer decision-making and a potentially inaccurate classification that does not reflect the modern labour market. Public trust would therefore be inhibited, which, in turn, would lead to SOC users and government departments no longer being able to rely on the ONS to provide accurate information on Labour Market statistics to make informed decisions.  

In this instance we feel that the weight of public interest is in favour of withholding the information.

3) Multiple datasets were used to inform the decision including Destination in Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) data, Labour Force Survey (LFS) data, and both 2011 and 2021 Census data.

DLHE data has subsequently been deleted as per the ONS' data sharing agreement with the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

Both the LFS and Census raw data used contains identifiable information. We are however able to supply counts of job title from the LFS and Census data that contain the term 'pilates'. This can be found in the associated download 'Pilates teacher counts.xls'.