Managing Quality Education – Identifying the Learning Needs of the Individual, Then Satisfying Them

  • Don Passey
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 348)


Do teachers have access yet to the forms of data that will allow them to meet the needs of different learners? School head teachers and managers, when seeking to manage quality education, are challenged by the dilemmas of balancing quality of provision through classroom interactions with quality of provision that meets the needs of the individual learner. A number of processes and technologies are now available that support schools in managing those balances: availability of data; access to different forms of data; and technologies that support areas of learning and different learning approaches. Although there is continued development of systems to support schools in each of these areas, this paper will argue that there is need to consider further development in all of these areas, and to link up critical elements and features more. This paper will look at, in a United Kingdom (UK) context: the forms of data normally accessible to schools; an example of the ways that some forms of technology are supporting the learning needs of the individual; and an indication of the limitations for consequential quality management arising from lack of ‘learning-to-data-to-learning’ links.


Managing quality education individual learning needs data management systems formative assessment social and emotional aspects of learning 


  1. Becta: Harnessing Technology Delivery Plan. Becta, Coventry (2007)Google Scholar
  2. Condie, R., Munro, B., Seagraves, L., Kenesson, S.: The impact of ICT in schools: a landscape review. Becta, Coventry (2007)Google Scholar
  3. DfES Primary National Strategy: Excellence and enjoyment: social and emotional aspects of learning – Guidance. DfES, Nottingham (2005)Google Scholar
  4. DfES: Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. DfES, Norwich (2005)Google Scholar
  5. DfES: Releasing Potential, Raising Attainment: Managing Data in Secondary Schools. DfES, London (2002), (accessed December 11, 2009)
  6. Fischer Family Trust. FFT Live Student Explorer. Fischer Family Trust, Cowbridge (2009), (accessed December 11, 2009)
  7. GL Assessment: CAT – Cognitive Abilities Test. GL Assessment, London (2009), (accessed December 11, 2009)
  8. Learning Possibilities. LP+. Learning Possibilities, Borehamwood (2009), (accessed December 11, 2009)
  9. Passey, D.: First no choice, then some choice, and finally overload: A reasonable data management evolution? In: Tatnall, A., Visscher, A., Finegan, A., O’Mahoney, C. (eds.) Evolution of Information Technology in Educational Management. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  10. Passey, D.: Technology enhancing learning: Limited data handling facilities limit educational management potential. In: Tatnall, A., Okamoto, T., Visscher, A. (eds.) Knowledge Management for Educational Innovation, Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  11. Passey, D.: Virtual Workspace: An Independent Evaluative Review. Wolverhampton: Wolverhampton City Council and Worcestershire County Council, Wolverhampton (2007b)Google Scholar
  12. Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group: 2020 Vision. DfES, London (2006)Google Scholar
  13. online learning. SamLearning, London (n.d.), (accessed July 13, 2007)
  14., no place specified (n.d.), (accessed December 11, 2009)
  15. W3 Insights: The P.A.S.S. Audit Process. W3 Insights, no place specified (n.d.), (accessed December 11, 2009)

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations