th West and London partnerships, we also see representation from almost every region nationally. This breadth of experience and expertise – not only in terms of geographical location but also the different kinds of council and different modes of organization – was crucial to developing a picture of data work in the sector which reflected the interests of the whole sector, not only the most data mature or well-resourced councils. Other LAs not noted in this map also contributed to the survey exercise. We also engaged with the academic research community and with different teams within DfE, seeking to understand the purposes to which local administrative data may be put once it leaves the originating LA. We spoke to more than 50 colleagues across these sessions, as well as receiving approximately 50 survey responses. We summarised key insights from initial research under the following headings: • Most LAs want better data and most LAs place high value on benchmarking capability. • Many LAs mistrust DfE use of their data. • We’re right to think current data doesn’t do a good job of exploring outcomes/“voice”. • Expanding or changing data arrangements in LAs is costly. • LAs aren’t all the same. As well as providing varied and valuable insight into local perspectives on the value of standard data work, our initial research identified design principles for our dataset specification, including: • the need for a “broader and flatter” core data output than existing standard returns. 9 • the need for a distinction between “current” and “new” data items, i.e. those which should be included in our dataset specification and extract method, and those which are not currently sufficiently common across LAs but should be captured and communicated in a separate report to DfE. A separate