Also, smaller numbers of eligible children and young people would tend to mean the amount received by a service or school would be more volatile from year to year. Questions for discussion How should the indicators be combined? Should there be differing rates of additional funding for different levels of risk? For the additional funding to support those most at risk of educational under-achievement, what sort of proportion of the population should be covered? Selecting which indicators to use , overleaf, presents a number of possible indicators that could be used to identify risk of educational under-achievement. The first four indicators listed were used in research to inform the Government’s Social Investment approach. Using information already collected by government, they were found to be associated with children and young people having a range of poor outcomes later in life. A of other indicators that could be used as well as (or instead of), this set of four, is also outlined in . The number of indicators that are used may be influenced by judgments about how the indicators are to be combined together to assess risk (as discussed in the previous subsection.) Question for discussion Should we use the four Social Investment indicators parental benefit dependence; CYF – finding of abuse or neglect; parental Corrections history, parental education or do you – prefer other indicators, as well or instead? Table 3: Possible indicators of risk of educational under-achievement Possible Indictor Possible source Advantages Issues and Risks Approved Used in Social If set of indicators exclusively rely on Parental benefit information sharing Investment analysis; measures that use administrative data, dependence (as agreement (AISA) accounts for a relatively skew the at-risk population too much a proportion of with Ministry of large group of towards families receiving government child or young Social Development interventions or support person’s life) Used in Social As with benefit dependence above Child Youth and AISA with Ministry Investment analysis; Family (CYF) of Social aligns with CYF finding of abuse Development transformation work or neglect Used in Social As with benefit dependence Parental AISA with Investment analysis Department of Corrections history Corrections Established measure of Some indications that impact on Parental Direct collection via SES; used in Australia; may not be as strong as education ECE services and used in Social other Social Investment indicators above; schools Investment analysis likely to require direct collection
Also, smaller numbers of eligible children and young people would tend to mean the amount received by a service or school would be more volatile from year to year. Questions for discussion How should the indicators be combined? Should there be differing rates of additional funding for different levels of risk? For the additional funding to support those most at risk of educational under-achievement, what sort of proportion of the population should be covered? Selecting which indicators to use , overleaf, presents a number of possible indicators that could be used to identify risk of educational under-achievement. The first four indicators listed were used in research to inform the Government’s Social Investment approach. Using information already collected by government, they were found to be associated with children and young people having a range of poor outcomes later in life. A of other indicators that could be used as well as (or instead of), this set of four, is also outlined in . The number of indicators that are used may be influenced by judgments about how the indicators are to be combined together to assess risk (as discussed in the previous subsection.) Question for discussion Should we use the four Social Investment indicators – parental benefit dependence; CYF finding of abuse or neglect; parental Corrections history, parental education – or do you prefer other indicators, as well or instead? Table 3: Possible indicators of risk of educational under-achievement Possible Indictor Possible source Advantages Issues and Risks Parental benefit dependence (as a proportion of child or young person’s life) Approved information sharing agreement (AISA) with Ministry of Social Development Used in Social Investment analysis; accounts for a relatively large group of If set of indicators exclusively rely on measures that use administrative data, skew the at-risk population too much towards families receiving government interventions or support Child Youth and Family (CYF) finding of abuse or neglect AISA with Ministry of Social Development Used in Social Investment analysis; aligns with CYF transformation work As with benefit dependence above Parental Corrections history AISA with Department of Corrections Used in Social Investment analysis As with benefit dependence Parental education Direct collection via ECE services and schools Established measure of SES; used in Australia; used in Social Investment analysis Some indications that impact on may not be as strong as other Social Investment indicators above; likely to require direct collection
Most-at-risk-of-educational-under-achievement.docx