Education analytics for learner progress
Releasepathbase sits with a department’s mark columns, work samples, and scheme of work until it is possible to say which curriculum outcomes the term actually evidenced — and which ones the paperwork only claimed.
Heads of department in Georgia already know their pupils. What they often lack is a second pair of eyes on the chain between a stated curriculum outcome and the tasks that were actually sat. Releasepathbase provides that reading as a time-bounded professional service: intake, on-site or school-controlled document review, a written brief, and one faculty briefing.
We do not enrol pupils, host a live markbook, or take custody of records. An optional desktop utility can sit on a school machine for local tallies; it is a filing aid, described as a local data tracking utility, and it is listed separately through Veve.
A half-day session with faculty to walk through one set of progress notes: what moved, what stalled, and which tasks never produced evidence.
Side-by-side comparison of the tasks pupils actually sat with the outcomes listed in the scheme, noting gaps, double-counting, and orphan marks.
A narrative reading of one cohort’s term, written so non-specialist governors can follow the argument without a glossary of internal codes.
They sat with the autumn essays and the scheme on the same table. The brief pointed out that our “argument” outcome had been marked almost entirely on spelling. I did not enjoy reading that sentence. It was accurate, and we changed the next task before the spring parents’ evening.
The review method page sets out the four stages we refuse to skip: inventory, coded sampling, outcome tracing, and a briefing that faculty can contradict. If the inventory is incomplete, we wait. If a finding cannot be tied to a named task, it does not enter the brief.