Education - National Improvement Framework - A consultation on enhanced data collection for improvement

In the ‘Purpose of data collection’ section, it is good to see that there is recognition of the value of local data, gathered via teachers’ professional judgement, alongside nationally gathered data. However, this implies there are aspects that may not be targeted nationally. What principle articulates the distinction between local and national data?

The final bullet point in the list of principles states ‘the need to avoid perverse incentives through whatever milestones or stretch aims are set’. Arguably, a positive statement of principle would be more helpful than this negative one. For example, ‘the need to ensure that milestones and stretch aims offer […?] incentives’.

Data for all five SIMD quintiles is helpful.

They should be promoted to key measures. Attendance and exclusion are both key to attainment but each speaks to different forms of experience that will impact on learning/attainment in diverse ways. These are, no doubt, important measures but may need to be regarded as subsets of wider social or health-related issues that are problematic to generalise.

Measures of confidence and resilience are clearly correlated with subjective wellbeing, and so may offer useful insights for reflecting on other measures of attainment, if there are sufficient data from the census to enable this. Arguably, engagement in extra-curricular activities is a less clear-cut measure, since children and young people may choose to participate or not for a raft of reasons (social, cultural, psychological, economic etc.) which may have nothing to do with their attainment levels per se.

Colleges, community learning and development colleagues and third sector organisations working with disadvantaged young people and adults in Scotland will be able to offer greater insight regarding measuring confidence, resilience and engagement as they are close to their communities and could offer evidence based perspectives.

While option 1 appears fairly inclusive in terms of qualifications, it does not articulate any form of recognising non-qualification outcomes. While these are clearly more challenging to measure than qualifications, seeking to recognise the variety of possible knowledge and skills young people leave school with that are not recognised through qualifications could be beneficial.

Positive destinations may be seen as a form of attainment in their own right, therefore they are arguably a very useful measure. However, the quality of this form of attainment can only be known after a period of time. Moving from school to a positive destination cannot guarantee a successful longer-term outcome for any young person. A longitudinal element to this measure could make it more credible.

It is pleasing to see the recognition of wider measures of attainment being looked at through this consultation. This suggests that the links to key principles of the Curriculum for Excellence are being appropriately considered, as per Audit Scotland and OECD recommendations. There is a need to consider how we ensure the wider range of measures are more broadly understood across the education system from early years/school/college/university to employment. There is scope to connect this with the work being planned to develop a vision for Scottish Education and the review of assessment and qualifications.

As indicated above, these developments are moving in a positive direction. However, as with any form of data collection, it is essential to maintain awareness that this can only ever be a snapshot. There are therefore associated difficulties for drawing generalised principles in relation to the implementation of CFE and how it may link with young people’s learning and attainment nationally. The framing and discussion around what the data mean within the wider social context are critical.

We recognise the focus of this work but for example looking at Health and wellbeing data and data from census etc, wonder if there is room to look at the impact of teachers and leaders in this work, right now perhaps following Covid, a good deal of information is telling us teacher wellbeing is not where we would want it to be. What data to we have to support this as one of the most significant influencing factors?

As has been implied in the consultation narrative, the national objectives served by this data-gathering and the objectives that pertain at local level are different. Professional judgements, made within communities where specific needs and experiences are known and recognised, are crucial to meaningful school-level action. Any conclusions drawn from national data would need to be worked through alongside analysis of locally gathered data, in order to ensure blanket objectives or initiatives are not misapplied.

There is a need to ensure that the focus on ‘what works’ is nuanced – what works, in which contexts and for whom. Analysis of data to enable comparability across similar socio-economic areas can reveal variation in terms of outcome but not necessarily the reasons for this. Follow up investigation (with local authorities, school leadership, staff and learners) to find out what is contributing to these variable outcomes should enable a better understanding of how/why variability of outcome occurs.

Systemic improvement needs to be built on a holistic understanding of the range of factors that impact attainment (see Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory). Any strategic approach to mediate change needs to recognise this complexity.

We cannot ignore the value of local data (often anecdotal or intuitive from teachers) in schools and within their local communities. This includes context, local knowledge and family histories. Teachers and school leadership teams are experts in gathering insights into children, young people and their families.