Completion data: a documented improvement approach

The early leaving and progression evidence provides the immediate reference point for consideration of completion data in 2012. A disciplined improvement process separates immediate containment from corrective action directed at the underlying cause. Attention is directed to decisions with material consequences for learners, institutional responsibility and educational resources. The appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility.

The stated reference is Early leaving and progression evidence. The level of inference should not extend beyond the level at which the source data are valid. 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.

Defining the problem

In the context of completion data, the required public outcome should be stated in operational terms. Education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. Inputs and formal commitments should be distinguished from demonstrated operation and outcome.

Corrective action concerning the relevant practice 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. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process. Any indicator used in relation to the relevant practice should distinguish description from causal explanation. Material variation and uncertainty should be reported together with any restriction on wider application.

Improvement work on the intended improvement should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome. For completion data, completion should depend on evidence of effect rather than completion of planned activity. Improvement work on the corrective action should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome. Responsibility for corrective action should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. 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. Improvement work on the relevant practice should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome.

• 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.

Improvement method

A narrow control over completion data may create false assurance. 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. A case-by-case response is insufficient when evidence shows recurrence or a population beyond the cases already identified. 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 the relevant practice, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. In work concerning completion data, corrective action should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits. Wider implementation should follow evidence of benefit and acceptable unintended effects. Improvement work on corrective action should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome.

In work concerning completion data, the evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. For the relevant practice, 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. Corrective action should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits.

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.