{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-f895f723a1540504","slug":"2014-04-14-disaggregated-education-data-a-documented-improvement-approach","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2014-04-14","last_modified_date":"2014-04-14","title":"Disaggregated education data: a documented improvement approach","summary":"Sets out a controlled approach to disaggregated education data: a documented improvement approach, linking diagnosis, accountable action, outcome measures and verification.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Equity monitoring and data gaps","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of disaggregated education data is informed by the equity monitoring and data gaps, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that a disciplined improvement process separates immediate containment from corrective action directed at the underlying cause.","A proper review of the practice should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. For the issue under review, follow-up should determine whether the change is embedded in ordinary operations and whether it has created new risks or unequal effects. In relation to disaggregated education data, the basis for selection, authority for exceptions and timing of reassessment should remain traceable."]},{"heading":"Defining the problem","paragraphs":["The reference basis—the equity monitoring and data gaps—is evidential rather than self-executing. Its value lies in identifying matters for examination; it should not be read as a legal instruction or causal finding. In applying it to disaggregated education data, users should review the source definitions, population coverage, reference period and stated limitations before transferring a system-level finding to an individual provider or learner group.","The technical issue within the corrective programme concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. In reviewing the issue under review, an average may improve while a material group experiences no improvement or a worse outcome. Disaggregation should follow a defined public-interest question and should protect confidentiality where small numbers could identify individuals. A conclusion should identify both its evidential basis and the part of the stated scope for which assurance cannot be given.","A narrow control over the issue under review may create false assurance. In the present context, admission without adequate support, completion measures detached from learning and aggregate gains concealing excluded groups may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.","Readily available material should not define the enquiry if it cannot answer the relevant decision question. For the practice, the most relevant material is likely to include evaluation of interventions, clearly defined access and completion indicators, records of barriers and support, and learner feedback and complaints. In relation to disaggregated education data, each source has limitations; confidence depends on corroboration between independent records and transparent treatment of uncertainty."]},{"heading":"Improvement method","paragraphs":["For operational review of disaggregated education data, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the practice should examine results by relevant learner, programme, location and delivery characteristics; compare both levels and rates of change; and test whether observed gaps persist after differences in coverage and prior conditions are considered.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the intervention, 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. Material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly."],"bullets":["Could missing data be unequal?","Are group definitions stable?","Are sample sizes adequate?","Which groups are concealed by the aggregate?","Which disparity requires action first?"]},{"heading":"Measures and review","paragraphs":["Where disaggregated education data involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Contractual or inter-agency arrangements should identify who holds records, informs learners and acts on incidents. Learner safeguards should remain continuous where provision is delivered by several bodies.","Improvement of the issue under review should proceed through controlled tests where risk permits."],"bullets":["Analyse barriers across the learner journey.","Target support transparently, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.","Review policies that create avoidable exclusion.","Report limitations in available data.","Evaluate differential outcomes."]},{"heading":"Residual risk and follow-up","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of disaggregated education data should be considered together. For the practice, education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. Authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably.","Interpretation of the improvement objective 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. For the improvement objective, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. Different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. The analysis of the corrective programme proceeds on the basis that methods should be proportionate to the significance and recurrence of the problem; low-risk local issues and systemic learner-protection failures require different levels of control.","The appropriate response to the intervention is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. A clear objective, proportionate evidential basis and account of affected learners are required. Assurance should be withheld for the affected scope until the limitation is resolved."]}],"word_count":786,"content_hash":"sha256-dcbe73d722117b416bdd840c400db37657cf5696b64152ed592298a937e2775e","seo_keywords":["disaggregated education data","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}