Education data governance: escalation and management oversight

At the publication date, Public reporting and learner-record responsibilities in 2020 provides the relevant international context for education data governance. Any consequential application still requires evidence from the affected jurisdiction or institution. Data used for the corrective action should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.

Consideration of corrective action should retain the date and status of Public reporting and learner-record responsibilities in 2020. For education data governance, later developments should not be read into the position available at publication. A national or international pattern may justify closer review of education data governance, but provider-level action requires evidence relating to the affected provision.

Application to education data governance

Risk assessment for corrective action should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.

The record for the matter should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. In the context of education data governance, naming a coordinator without these conditions may obscure rather than clarify responsibility.

Implementation of corrective action should be organised around a decision that can be tested. For decisions concerning education data governance, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. The record for education data governance should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.

Assurance of corrective action should draw on more than one form of evidence. At the publication date, Public reporting and learner-record responsibilities in 2020 provides the relevant international context for the matter. The public-interest assessment of the corrective action should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions. For education data governance, system-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event.

• Define information required for oversight.
• Escalate material exceptions.
• Assign decision authority explicitly.
• Verify corrective action independently.
• Test management assurance.

Controls for education data governance

Material concerns include governing bodies receiving activity data instead of outcome evidence, material risks omitted from reporting, management assurance accepted without testing, and corrective action closed without verification. Risk assessment for the intended improvement should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.

Implementation of corrective action can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. When examining education data governance, delegating operational work does not transfer accountability for its effect on learners. Corrective action concerning the corrective action should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated.

Data used for the intended improvement should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. When examining education data governance, reporting should identify a break in comparability before describing movement over time. The principal risks associated with the intended improvement should be assessed as connected conditions.

Review of education data governance should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. For education data governance, governance structures do not provide assurance merely because committees exist. For the intended improvement, improvement data should not be selected only because it is readily available.

In the context of education data governance, delegation should identify both the operating role and the body retaining oversight of learner impact. Consideration of education data governance should remain focused on demonstrable operation, material effects and the action required where the intended outcome is not achieved.

Across the defined scope, if definitions, coverage or evidence alter an earlier conclusion, the reason should be stated so that revision is not mistaken for changed performance.

For education data governance, assurance should be withheld for the affected scope until the limitation is resolved.