This policy note addresses student progression data, with legal authority, decision responsibility, learner protection and jurisdictional limits made explicit.
Evidence relevant to student progression data
For decisions concerning student progression data, the source can frame further questions without supplying either a binding direction or proof of causation.
Review of the arrangements should address both system-level conditions and institutional practice. In reviewing student progression data, education indicators should support decisions by describing outcomes and variation with definitions and limitations that permit responsible interpretation.
Application to student progression data
In examining student progression data: legal and governance considerations, cross-jurisdiction interpretation should distinguish international commitment, regional instrument, national law, regulatory direction and provider policy.
For decisions concerning student progression data, implementation of the measure should be organised around a decision that can be tested.
Controls for student progression data
Risk assessment of student progression data should give particular attention to changes in definition presented as changes in performance, averages concealing distribution, and data revisions not carried through to published conclusions. A provider should also consider small differences overstated and incomplete coverage. The control response should reflect whether an affected learner can identify the error and obtain an effective remedy in time.
Relevant evidence for the measure will normally include uncertainty estimates where relevant, disaggregated results, revision and comparability records, indicator definitions and metadata, and coverage and missingness analysis. Across the defined scope, an unresolved contradiction is a limitation on the conclusion and should be reported as such.
Review of student progression data
In examining student progression data: legal and governance considerations, responsible bodies should prepare a jurisdictional register identifying the service, learner location, provider location, responsible authority, applicable instrument and conflict rule.
For student progression data, a policy conclusion on the issue should state who is required or expected to act, the source of that expectation and the consequence of non-implementation. Public communication should not present an aspiration, recommendation or proposed measure as an existing legal duty.
Implications for student progression data
For the measure, measurement can reveal where outcomes differ; it does not by itself establish why they differ or which intervention will work.
When examining student progression data, the evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. For implementation, 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 student progression data: legal and governance considerations, across the defined scope, a clear objective, proportionate evidential basis and account of affected learners are required.