Prioritising corrective action for responsible education data use

The expanding public reporting and comparative indicators provide the immediate reference point for consideration of responsible education data use in 2017. For the intended improvement, effective improvement requires ownership, a time-bound intervention and independent confirmation that the intended result has been achieved. The unit of review should correspond to the full reach of the decision, including significant differences in provision and population.

The reference basis—the expanding public reporting and comparative indicators—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 the matter, 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.

For the relevant practice, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. In the context of responsible education data use, education indicators should support decisions by describing outcomes and variation with definitions and limitations that permit responsible interpretation. Learners should understand arrangements that materially affect them and have access to timely correction of inaccurate or unfair information, support or decisions.

Defining the problem

For corrective action, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Review should test the transfer points at which authority, information or follow-through may be lost. When examining responsible education data use, any condition preventing complete assurance should appear with the evidence on which the judgement relies.

For decisions concerning responsible education data use, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application. For corrective action, a complete improvement record should define the baseline, affected scope, causal hypothesis, responsible owner, resources, milestones and measures of effectiveness. Criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason.

Improvement method

The principal risks in relation to responsible education data use are averages concealing distribution, incomplete coverage, changes in definition presented as changes in performance, and small differences overstated. The relationship between the risks is material: one failed safeguard may remove the evidence needed to activate another. Within the scope under review, documents should be tested against the decision process they record and the outcome that followed.

Relevant evidence for prioritising corrective action for responsible education data use will normally include indicator definitions and metadata, uncertainty estimates where relevant, population and sampling information, revision and comparability records, and disaggregated results. Currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. An unresolved contradiction is a limitation on the conclusion and should be reported as such.

The review method for the matter should be reproducible. A competent review of the relevant practice should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. In the context of responsible education data use, a competent reviewer should be able to follow the record from source selection to conclusion and exception handling.

Measures and review

A decision to close improvement work on responsible education data use should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.

Proportionality in relation to the intended improvement does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. For responsible education data use, measurement can reveal where outcomes differ; it does not by itself establish why they differ or which intervention will work. 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.

For decisions concerning responsible education data use, traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. 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. The record for responsible education data use should prevent a later amendment from being treated as if it applied when an earlier decision was made.

When examining responsible education data use, where responsibilities for delivery are shared with partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. The division of responsibilities should cover records, communication, escalation and the power to require correction. Within the scope under review, division of delivery responsibilities must not create gaps in learner protection.

Assessment of the intended improvement should reconcile more than one source of evidence and control. As regards responsible education data use, a reasoned conclusion should reconcile the governing requirement, evidence of operation, learner outcomes and residual risk, and remain open to better evidence.