Data Quality Plan consultation
October 26, 2010 in The information authority Blog by Richard
As part of our ongoing efforts to improve data quality across FE the information authority board has requested a prioritised Data Quality Plan. In response to this request, and in consultation with providers and stakeholders, the secretariat has produced a list of potential items for inclusion in the plan. The initial list is as follows:
- A review of Appendix P of the ILR
- Working with stakeholders to minimise the data quality issues around prior attainment
- Working with stakeholders to minimise the data quality issues around learner destination
- The impact on the FE Sector of Schools data quality
- Data Integrity Reporting
- Data Quality Metrics and KPIs to be defined and implemented at FE sector level
- Data quality issues relating to Unique Learner Numbers
- Establishing common Data Quality Standards across organisations in the FE sector
- Creation of a Data Quality Issues Log for the tracking of progress in dealing with ongoing data quality issues in the FE sector
- The quality of EDS data (New – added 12 Nov)
- Data quality issues relating to the LAD (New – added 12 Nov)
- Changes to Data Credibility Reporting (New – added 12 Nov)
We’d welcome your input on this. Is there anything missing from this list? What do you think the top priorities are?
Please respond to this post with comments and suggestions by 19th November 2010.
Many thanks
Richard
break
The impact on data quality of external databases that are outside providers’ control and sometimes slow to update – in particular the Learning Aim Database, but also the Learner Record Service (already mentioned in the initial list) and the Employer Data Service.
I have the following requests which materially affect Data Quality, but which may fall under one of the headings above or not depending upon what the real scope of the above are:-
1) Clear definition of the End Date – (learning ends, exam taken, assessment/results receieved)? bearing in mind the potential audit issues of validating this with registers, and establishing actual GLH and the potential conflict with the requirement to report data in a timely way (within 2mths)
2) Explanation by way of examples as to how and when a transfer may be used. When does a transfer become an issue for Ofsted? Can transfers occur outside the 6-2-1 period and if so what rules should apply. How late in a programme can a transfer occur and still be valid? How does this stack up against the advice that a Student’s interest must come first?
3) Agreement on the conflict beween reporting what was planned versus what actually happened.
4) Resolution of the nested qualifications issue – Diploma > Certificate > Award
5) Scope of Data Quality and in particular Appendix P – How to address the issue of data matching practicalities of the provision. For instance How do you record delivery of very short quals delivered to large groups where only a first name and surname are provided?
6) Recording Full Price Provsion where Data may be minimal for a whole range of commercial reasons. How to resolve the commercial realities against the autocratic “you will record everything” approach of recent edicts.
7) How is the non unique ULN system going to be resolved? – how about another number? – why do we need so many so called ULN’s???? – why do we need a ULN at all – I thought the ID card concept had been dropped.
Priorities
1) Simplify the whole system
2) Define what we mean clearly for each piece of data gathered – use scenarios as examples
3) Focus on a small set of key metrics (no more than 5 measures)
and If I had one wish – Simplify the whole system down to something that is manageable and understandable by a typical Curriculum staff member
I’d question why you are proposing to waste our time on quite a few of these things. Prior Attainment and Destination? We’ve been trying to crack these for ten years without any success. Either we collect too much info and no one ever uses it (the old quals on entry) or we collect not enough and everyone moans (current prior attainment field).
Colleges are only interested in data that is useful to them and things that drive funding, I’d argue that we are not bothered about other aspects of data quality. We know that we have far and away the most comprehensive, detailed, accurate data set of any part of the education system and more sophisticated and useful ways of using that data.
Wouldn’t the information authority’s time be better spent policing things such as the absolute dog’s breakfast of the Provider Course Data system? Or anything else on the horizon that will have important impacts on college’s work rather than fiddling at the edges? Almost everything you mention above relates solely to the ILR, but if the ia wants to move forward it has to look at ALL information demands on providers…