Evidence concerning data governance in monitoring evidence-informed teaching is reviewed for source definitions, coverage, comparability, uncertainty and limits on inference.
Data used for the available evidence should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Arrangements for the comparison should provide accurate information, timely support and an accessible route for correction or review without adverse treatment.
Evidence base for data governance in monitoring evidence-informed teaching
Analysis of evidence-informed teaching should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information.
For the available evidence, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the measure, education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively. For decisions concerning evidence-informed teaching, where learners rely on published information or support decisions, errors should be identifiable and capable of prompt, fair correction.
Governance of the available evidence requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. A material issue should not remain with a function lacking authority to resolve it.
Any indicator used in relation to the comparison should distinguish description from causal explanation.
For evidence-informed teaching, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Material concerns include weak evaluation of teaching support, use of staff outside their competence, professional learning disconnected from practice, and workload that limits preparation and feedback. Risk assessment for the analysis should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.
Assurance of the analysis should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include induction and professional learning participation, support and supervision records, workload and allocation data, observation and learner feedback, and workforce plans and vacancy information.
Controls relevant to data governance in monitoring evidence-informed teaching
The method for the available evidence is to map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. For evidence-informed teaching, the conclusion should identify whether further sampling or system-level action is required.
Publication of findings on evidence-informed teaching should distinguish observed values, estimates and interpretation.
Interpretation of the available evidence should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. A proportionate examination of the analysis should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings. For the measure, a single indicator rarely provides an adequate account of quality. For evidence-informed teaching, quantitative evidence should be considered with implementation records and the experience of affected learners.
Decisions concerning the analysis should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. Any indicator used in relation to the measure should distinguish description from causal explanation. For evidence-informed teaching, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information.
A proportionate examination of the available evidence should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings.
When examining evidence-informed teaching, progress should not be assessed by the amount of policy or documentation produced.