Using administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning

In 2015, consideration of administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning must take account of the Education 2030 policy framework and the responsibilities it places before education systems. Evidence concerning participation in lifelong learning should inform action without implying a level of precision, coverage or causal certainty that the underlying data cannot support.

Failure in relation to the issue may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include limited routes for progression, fragmented learner records, barriers created by time, cost or location, and short programmes making unsupported outcome claims. For participation in lifelong learning, materiality depends on the consequence and extent of an exception, not only on how often it appears in sampled records.

Analytical scope

Implementation of administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning should be organised around a decision that can be tested. A sound interpretation should identify the unit of analysis, reference period, denominator, exclusions, missing values and any change in definition or collection practice. Oversight requires a traceable line from the approved objective through responsible action to evidence of outcome.

The formal status of the Education 2030 policy framework should be preserved in any public account. For comparative analysis, the instrument should be used to identify the intended direction, the actors addressed and the implementation measures that remain necessary.

For decisions concerning participation in lifelong learning, the Education 2030 Framework for Action sets out implementation approaches for Sustainable Development Goal 4. It emphasises inclusion and equity, quality and learning outcomes, lifelong learning, coordinated governance, finance and monitoring. National and provider-level use should identify the particular target being addressed, the responsible authority and the evidence of effect; broad alignment statements are not sufficient for accountability.

A proxy is useful only where its relationship with the intended outcome is sufficiently understood. Participation, activity and expenditure may support learning, but none constitutes direct evidence of learning without an explicit and tested connection. In work concerning participation in lifelong learning, a formally complete record is not reliable if its scope or measure does not correspond to the decision being made.

• Review claims against evidence.
• Remove avoidable participation barriers.
• Monitor completion and progression.
• Assess the stated competence.
• Recognise prior learning against published criteria, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.

Definitions and data coverage

Care is required in drawing conclusions about administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning. For the analysis, employment outcomes are affected by economic and labour-market conditions as well as education. They should not be attributed to a programme without an appropriate design and comparison. Association should not be presented as causation, and statistical significance should not be treated as evidence of educational importance without further analysis. Material limitations should be stated with the finding presented to decision-makers and affected learners.

Relevant evidence for the issue will normally include admission and prior-learning decisions, secure records of achieved learning, assessment in relevant contexts, transparent fees and recognition information, and completion and progression data. Within the scope under review, contradictory evidence should be investigated and resolved, not omitted from the record.

For participation in lifelong learning, decisions concerning the comparison should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. A revision should state whether the change concerns the underlying condition, the evidence, the method or the interpretation. Without this distinction, a reporting change may be mistaken for improvement or deterioration in educational practice.

Use of the findings

Authorities and providers reviewing administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning should proceed in a defined sequence. Responsible bodies should state the construct to be measured, explain why the proxy is expected to represent it, test that relationship against direct evidence and identify circumstances in which the proxy may fail. Do not allow convenience to determine the measure. The record for participation in lifelong learning should distinguish a finding that requires action from an observation that supports no formal conclusion.

Publication of findings on participation in lifelong learning should distinguish observed values, estimates and interpretation.

• For which groups may it fail?
• What evidence supports the relationship?
• Is direct evidence available?
• Would the decision change if the proxy were inaccurate?
• What outcome does the proxy represent?

Uncertainty and safeguards

In work concerning participation in lifelong learning, the relevant outcome should be capable of direct and consistent explanation. For administrative data to examine participation in lifelong learning, flexible learning should remain transparent about entry requirements, learning outcomes, assessment, progression and the uses for which a qualification or record is intended. Formal adoption, expenditure and activity do not in themselves establish the intended result. Within the scope under review, authorities and providers require evidence of operation and effect, with a route to identify and correct unequal or unintended consequences.

Public reporting on the issue should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. For participation in lifelong learning, revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion. If definitions, coverage or evidence alter an earlier conclusion, the reason should be stated so that revision is not mistaken for changed performance.

In the context of participation in lifelong learning, assurance concerning the comparison requires corroborating evidence across the material scope. A conclusion concerning participation in lifelong learning should be revised when stronger evidence materially changes the assessment of implementation, outcome or risk.