SEIAG/03/1A - NOTE FROM RON MITCHELL ON CONSULTATION AND DECISION MAKING ISSUES
1. Introduction
This paper was written at the invitation of SEED after I had several meetings with SEED staff re issues which had caused some concern. The process of discussing these issues highlighted the need to examine the consultation processes undertaken by SEED through SEIAG and the role of SEIAG.
The remit of SEIAG is attached as background to the issues raised below.
2. Consultation
I know that a lot of effort goes into consultations by SEED through SEIAG but I just do not think it is working.
We are getting lots of papers from SEED about SCOTXED and are sometimes given little time to respond. We are getting bogged down in detail. I realise that this may pass but it highlights what I consider to be the problem regarding the role of SEAIG.
When we are consulted we are not told what other SEAIG members are saying or what other folk in the consultation process are saying (vide SCOTXED with respect to "Late2"). We do not get summaries of issues raised by other consultees. That is, we do not see the evidence upon which the SEED decisions are taken. These decisions are sometimes given (apparent) credibility by indicating that the decision had been approved by SEAIG.
Our decisions as members of SEAIG should be based on evidence. Without this evidence it will be based merely on personal prejudice.
Sometimes the things that are sent out for comment are isolated from their context and I am sure SEAIG members must find it difficult to comment. (I refer specifically to the fist version of the current Stats plan sent out recently).
Over the past two years the lack of apparent change after consultations have taken place seem to me to be leading to a low rate of response from SEAIG members born out of frustration at the lack of impact of comments made and the low level of the consultation. On several occasions I have wondered why myself and other colleagues have bothered contacting EA colleagues to get information for you just for it to be ignored. (Last year I contacted all E.A.s re the timing of the 5-14 data collection. All E.A. s wanted time to check and verify the data before it was sent off to SEED. This was ignored.)
3. Decision Making Processes.
In the past (under ACSI) the policy folk often attended meetings and argued their case face to face. This no longer seems to happen yet SEIAG was trailed as operating at a higher level than ACSI (see remit) and I thought it would deal in policy issues rather than getting bogged down in the vast amounts of detail we are now seeing.
I not think that we have had any presentations from any of the groups who wished to add new data to school census or to collect data otherwise. We have not met with policy initiators for any of the new data being collected via SCOTXED. We were only consulted after all the forums had discussed the issues and we were not really consulted about strategy but about detail.
There seem to be a conflict at a strategic level between the remit of SEAIG and its actual role in relation to how the outcomes of consultation are used. This also relates to how and when consultations are carried out.
An example of a dramatic change in procedure about which SEAIG was not consulted properly about was the move to make the for school handbooks and data for EAs only available on the web. There was little if any discussion through SEIAG of how this should be done or any feedback to members about issues raised. No testing or trialling took place. It was an SEED decision yet it dramatically affected every school and more particularly every EA. Note that even now not all the data is available as required by circular.
If SCOTXED has a Steering Board then why does SEAIG need to have a locus in this other than to agree the principles of a data interchange and the broad areas of data required? SEAIG should see progress reports on issues not huge volumes of data.
A major area that has not really been looked at by SEAIG is how the data will be used. How it will be disseminated and who will have access to processed data. This would seem to be a powerful role for SEAIG.
My fundamental question is really who decides what data is appropriate to collect, how and when it is to be collected and what is its underlying purpose? If it is SEED why have SEIAG? Why not just email directors and get views?
What role does SEAIG have? For example, if SEAIG tell you that data X that SEED wants to collect is nonsense in educational terms and SEED disagrees; how does SEAIG reach a final decision?
Does SEIAG really have any locus in SEED decision making?
4 Suggestions for a way ahead.
SEAIG members should be consulted about general principles not about the detail of implementation. The implementation should be the work of other groups either as sub groups of SEAIG or as bodies which carry out policies agreed with SEAIG. The role of SEAIG should be to ensure that the agreed principles are adhered to by these policy groups.
It might be helpful to list the policy groups who may have an impact on the work of SEAIG. For example, the Estates Strategy group, the Teacher Forecasting group, the National Priorities group, 5-14 Assessment etc. Should a meeting be arranged with the chairpersons of these groups to outline what the relation should be with SEAIG?
What is it to be?
These groups will want to work on their own to deliver their remits without having to refer back to another monitoring body. They have their own constituencies. How can SEAIG carry out its remit of ensuring that there is not an undue burden on data providers and at the same time ensure the work of these groups progresses?
In this context what is the role of the two existing sub groups i.e. the Planning and Analysis sub group and the Review sub group?
What planning are they to undertake? What analyses are they to suggest/undertake? What is to be reviewed?
It may be helpful to consider alternatives of using SEAIG in the consultation processes. Rather than consulting SEAIG members it might be useful to go directly to nominated specialists in each EA and seek their views. These views could then be provided to SEAIG members for discussion.
When views are sought from EAs or focus groups about particular matters the issues raised should be summarised for SEAIG members' consideration.
R Mitchell
May 2003
School Education Information Advisory Group
Remit
Aim of SEIAG
To provide a forum to allow partners in the school education system to consider and identify the key strategic, statistical and other information required, to promote the development and use of good quality education statistics, and to ensure that the net burden on data providers is minimised, whilst maximising the value of the information collected.
Remit
The remit of the main SEIAG group, in fulfilment of the above aim, is as follows.
To identify the key strategic statistical information on education required by all interested parties, and develop and implement a strategy for meeting these needs while minimising the burden on data suppliers and maintaining high quality. This will involve:
- Assessment of priorities in development work and among competing demands on the resources available, with the help of advice from the Planning and Analysis subgroup
- Making input to the education element of the National Statistics Plan for Scotland, with the help of advice from the Planning and Analysis subgroup
- Through the Review subgroup, reviewing existing data collections, and considering proposals for new or changed collections, with an eye to the opportunities offered by new technology.
- Considering the implications of policy developments, such as the National Priorities for Education, for statistical requirements, and how to respond to these.
- Considering the arrangements for the dissemination of the information collected, including the feeding back of data to data suppliers, and for ensuring that the risk of misuse of this information is minimised, while bearing in mind the opportunities offered by new technology at both the collection and dissemination stages, with the help of advice from the Planning and Analysis subgroup.
In taking forward detailed work the SEIAG group will (as the above remit indicates) draw on the work of two subgroups which will report to it. The subgroups and their remits are:
Planning & Analysis
Remit: to advise the main SEIAG group on issues relating to priorities in development work, and on dissemination and analysis issues, and provide the group with proposals on the education element of the National Statistics plan for Scotland.
Review
Remit: To review existing data collections (and related outputs), and consider proposals for new or changed collections, having regard to the need to minimise the burdens on data providers, and with an eye to the opportunities offered by new technology. To report accordingly to the main group.