Skip to main content

Maintaining a UK-wide approach to the collection of TNE data

62% of respondents agreed with the statement that it is important to keep a UK-wide approach, against 31% who neither agreed nor disagreed, and one respondent who disagreed.

Those respondents who agreed with the statement made a number of points in support of maintaining a UK-wide approach:

  • Key data items, for example on types of TNE provision, need to be consistent across the UK to allow for meaningful comparisons
  • High-level contextual data on TNE provision is sufficient for comparisons of activity and benchmarking across the sector
  • Deviation across the UK has the potential to result in exclusions or negative implications with regard to league tables for providers in Northern Ireland and Scotland
  • Although UK-wide equivalence is important and has benefits, it does not justify the adoption of an individualised data model across the UK. Instead, care should be taken to ensure that any individualised dataset can be aggregated for equivalence to the approach taken in Northern Ireland and Scotland

One respondent who agreed with the statement made the case for an individualised data model across the whole UK, arguing that retaining the aggregate data model would limit the future capability of the TNE dataset, despite the increased burden associated with submitting individualised data. They also expressed an interest in submitting a subset of the individualised student data requirements, rather than in line with all of the proposals made for providers in England and Wales.

Those respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement noted that although sector comparisons of data had the potential to be useful, returning individualised data would place considerable burden on submitting providers and their partners overseas. One respondent expressed the view that sufficient cross-sector comparability could be maintained with an aggregate submission, and another was concerned that the benefits of submitting individualised data had not been adequately articulated.

The respondent who disagreed with the statement emphasised the need for equivalence at a high level, but gave the view that this could be achieved by amending the existing aggregate record, and therefore without placing disproportionate burden on submitting providers. They also noted that the proposals have arrived during a time of considerable burden and change across the sector.