Completion data: a documented improvement approach

A conclusion on the intended improvement should extend no further than the available evidence permits. In reviewing completion data, missing populations, inconsistent records and unresolved exceptions should be reported with the finding. The comparability record should identify material variation in coverage, period and classification.

Application to completion data

In the context of completion data, the required public outcome should be stated in operational terms.

Corrective action concerning completion data should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. In reviewing completion data, residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated. Corrective action concerning the matter should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Any indicator used in relation to completion data should distinguish description from causal explanation.

For completion data, completion should depend on evidence of effect rather than completion of planned activity. Delegating operational work does not transfer accountability for its effect on learners.

Assurance of the corrective action should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include evaluation of interventions, disaggregated participation and outcome data, progression and early-warning information, learner feedback and complaints, and records of barriers and support.

• Review policies that create avoidable exclusion.
• Monitor progression at useful intervals.
• Evaluate differential outcomes.
• Identify groups not represented in aggregate results before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome.
• Target support transparently.

Controls for completion data

In the present context, support allocated without evidence of need, completion measures detached from learning and aggregate gains concealing excluded groups may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.

The review method for the intended improvement should be reproducible. Risk assessment for the matter should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. For decisions concerning completion data, documentation should be sufficient to reconstruct the judgement without relying on unrecorded explanation.

Corrective action concerning the intended improvement should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.

The principal risks associated with the matter should be assessed as connected conditions. For completion data, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. For completion data, corrective action should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits.

For completion data, the evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. For completion data, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed.

In examining completion data: a documented improvement approach, the principal risks associated with corrective action should be assessed as connected conditions.

Authorities and providers should use the current development to test whether the matter connects public commitment with effective operation and evidence of result. Governance of the intended improvement requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. In reviewing completion data, material matters should be referred to the body authorised to act or accept residual risk.