{ "schemaVersion": "iceqc.research-report.reader.v1", "document": { "id": "doc-iceqc-r-2010-05", "slug": "evidence-standards-emergency-education-needs-assessments", "documentNumber": "ICEQC-R-2010-05", "title": "Evidence Standards for Emergency Education Needs Assessments", "subtitle": "A global standards-interpretive study of decision-grade evidence, affected-population inclusion and accountable education response", "family": "RESEARCH", "reportType": "THEMATIC_RESEARCH_REPORT", "researchCategory": "STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION", "reportArchetype": "STANDARDS_INTERPRETIVE_STUDY", "geographicScope": "Global", "ownerBody": "ICEQC Research and Policy Directorate", "publisher": "International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)", "publicIdentity": "ICEQC_ONLY" }, "version": { "id": "ver-iceqc-r-2010-05-en-2010-06-25", "edition": "2010", "versionLabel": "Published 2010-06-25", "language": "en", "authoritativeLanguage": "en", "status": "PUBLISHED", "publicationDate": "2010-06-25", "evidenceCutoffDate": "2010-06-25", "statusNotice": "This is the controlled English edition. Evidence and institutional status are stated as at the evidence cut-off date.", "summary": "Education needs assessments undertaken during sudden disruption influence protection, access, finance, staffing, learning continuity and recovery. Their authority should rest on a transparent decision purpose, defensible population coverage, dated evidence, proportionate methods and explicit limitations." }, "publicationControl": { "matrixRecordId": "ICEQC-R-2010-05", "temporalBasis": "CONTEMPORANEOUS_AS_AT_PUBLICATION_DATE", "originalAuthorship": "ICEQC", "suggestedMainTextWords": 23000, "suggestedTechnicalAnnexWords": 3500, "suggestedTotalWords": 26500, "actualMainTextWords": 47292, "actualTechnicalAnnexWords": 0, "actualTotalWords": 47292 }, "frontMatter": { "executiveSummary": [ "Education needs assessments undertaken during sudden disruption influence protection, access, finance, staffing, learning continuity and recovery. Their authority should rest on a transparent decision purpose, defensible population coverage, dated evidence, proportionate methods and explicit limitations.", "The central concern is not the collection of the greatest quantity of information. It is the production of evidence sufficiently reliable, inclusive and timely to support a defined public decision without exposing affected people to further harm. School-based records alone are rarely sufficient where learners are displaced, institutions are damaged, documents are missing or prior exclusion was substantial.", "This report interprets evidence standards across twenty domains and ten cross-cutting tests. It requires findings to distinguish observation, estimate and uncertainty; to identify source, population, date and geographic level; and to connect every priority with authority, feasibility and subsequent review.", "The report concludes that urgent decisions and disciplined evidence are compatible. A rapid assessment may be incomplete, but it should not conceal what is unknown, equate accessible populations with all affected learners, or allow provisional figures to become permanent facts through repetition." ], "keyFindings": [ "The assessment mandate should state the decisions, responsible bodies, population and latest useful date. 2. Denominators should include learners outside functioning institutions and should disclose uncertainty. 3. Operational status requires evidence of safe, accessible and sustained service, not merely an existing structure. 4. Affected-population participation is an evidentiary requirement as well as a matter of legitimacy. 5. Disaggregation should expose material inequality without creating disclosure or protection risk. 6. Conflicting sources should be preserved and reconciled by stated reasons. 7. Findings should separate verified conditions, bounded estimates and unresolved questions. 8. Priority recommendations should identify authority, resources, dependencies and correction routes. 9. Personally identifying data should be collected only where necessary and lawfully controlled. 10. Reassessment should be triggered by material movement, deterioration, recovery or implementation evidence." ], "scopeAndMethod": [] }, "parts": [ { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "I", "title": "Mandate and decision purpose", "anchor": "part-i-mandate-and-decision-purpose", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-1", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "II", "title": "Affected population and denominator", "anchor": "part-ii-affected-population-and-denominator", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-12", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "III", "title": "Access and participation", "anchor": "part-iii-access-and-participation", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-23", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "IV", "title": "Safety and protection", "anchor": "part-iv-safety-and-protection", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-34", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "V", "title": "Facilities and service readiness", "anchor": "part-v-facilities-and-service-readiness", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-45", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "VI", "title": "Teachers and education personnel", "anchor": "part-vi-teachers-and-education-personnel", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-56", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "VII", "title": "Instructional time", "anchor": "part-vii-instructional-time", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-67", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "VIII", "title": "Curriculum and language", "anchor": "part-viii-curriculum-and-language", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-78", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "IX", "title": "Learning materials and supply", "anchor": "part-ix-learning-materials-and-supply", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-89", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "X", "title": "Assessment and prior learning", "anchor": "part-x-assessment-and-prior-learning", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-100", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "XI", "title": "Disability and accessibility", "anchor": "part-xi-disability-and-accessibility", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-111", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "XII", "title": "Gender and intersecting disadvantage", "anchor": "part-xii-gender-and-intersecting-disadvantage", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-122", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "XIII", "title": "Displacement and documentation", "anchor": "part-xiii-displacement-and-documentation", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-133", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "XIV", "title": "Early childhood and younger learners", "anchor": "part-xiv-early-childhood-and-younger-learners", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-144", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "XV", "title": "Secondary, technical and higher pathways", "anchor": "part-xv-secondary-technical-and-higher-pathways", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-155", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "XVI", "title": "Finance and household burden", "anchor": "part-xvi-finance-and-household-burden", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-166", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "XVII", "title": "Local capacity and participation", "anchor": "part-xvii-local-capacity-and-participation", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-177", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "XVIII", "title": "Coordination and information exchange", "anchor": "part-xviii-coordination-and-information-exchange", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-188", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "XIX", "title": "Change, monitoring and reassessment", "anchor": "part-xix-change-monitoring-and-reassessment", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-199", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "XX", "title": "Public reporting and accountability", "anchor": "part-xx-public-reporting-and-accountability", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-210", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "XXI", "title": "Conclusions and governing principles", "anchor": "part-xxi-conclusions-and-governing-principles", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-221", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-222", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-223", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-224", "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-225" ] } ], "sections": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-1", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "1", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "1-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-1-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. Its main failure risk is that an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The competent authority should define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "2", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "2-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to mandate and decision purpose, the assessment must establish the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. The principal risk is that an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The immediate evidentiary response is to define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The decision relevance standard asks whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. Assessment teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. The controlling proposition is that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "3", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "3-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Definition and measurement is material because the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. Responsible bodies should therefore define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation and should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. This is subject to the rule that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "4", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "4-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in mandate and decision purpose is the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. If an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under coverage and inclusion, the inquiry concerns who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. The competent authority should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, recognising that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "5", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "5-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of mandate and decision purpose concerns the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. A foreseeable failure arises where an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. Institutions should define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The source and corroboration test requires consideration of the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Collectors and decision-makers should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, because repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "6", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "6-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Mandate and decision purpose requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. The risk is that an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The assessment authority should define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of timeliness and change should establish the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. It should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators and acknowledge that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "7", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "7-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in mandate and decision purpose is a reliable account of the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. Where an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For equity consequence, bodies should identify whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one and should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. The conclusion must respect that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-17" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "8", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "8-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats mandate and decision purpose as evidence about the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The practical safeguard is to define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant uncertainty and limitation question is what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. The record should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. This reflects the principle that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "9", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "9-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For mandate and decision purpose, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. It becomes unreliable where an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The corrective course is to define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of protection and data responsibility requires an answer to whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. Teams should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, mindful that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "10", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "10-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to mandate and decision purpose, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. In relation to mandate and decision purpose, the assessment must establish the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform. The principal risk is that an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. The immediate evidentiary response is to define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The feasibility and responsibility standard asks whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Assessment teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. The controlling proposition is that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to mandate and decision purpose, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "parentId": null, "number": "11", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "11-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review and accountability is material because the decision, legal authority, population and time horizon that the assessment is intended to inform cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, an open-ended information exercise can collect visible needs without resolving which public body must act. Responsible bodies should therefore define the authorised decisions, minimum evidence and escalation route before field collection begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action and should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. This is subject to the rule that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to mandate and decision purpose, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-12", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "12", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "12-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-12-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. Its main failure risk is that school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The competent authority should reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "13", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "13-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in affected population and denominator is a reliable account of a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. Where school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For decision relevance, bodies should identify whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision and should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. The conclusion must respect that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning decision relevance should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "14", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "14-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats affected population and denominator as evidence about a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The practical safeguard is to reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant definition and measurement question is whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. The record should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. This reflects the principle that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "definition and measurement cannot be judged without identifying the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "15", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "15-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For affected population and denominator, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. It becomes unreliable where school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The corrective course is to reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of coverage and inclusion requires an answer to who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. Teams should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, mindful that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for coverage and inclusion concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "16", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "16-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to affected population and denominator, the assessment must establish a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. The principal risk is that school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The immediate evidentiary response is to reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The source and corroboration standard asks the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Assessment teams should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The controlling proposition is that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for source and corroboration concerns where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within affected population and denominator, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "17", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "17-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Timeliness and change is material because a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. Responsible bodies should therefore reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed and should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. This is subject to the rule that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of timeliness and change distinguishes this matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether within affected population and denominator, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. Review of timeliness and change is credible only where it explains that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "18", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "18-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in affected population and denominator is a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. If school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under equity consequence, the inquiry concerns whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The competent authority should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, recognising that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [ "REF-17" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in equity consequence is national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-17" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "19", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "19-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of affected population and denominator concerns a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. A foreseeable failure arises where school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. Institutions should reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The uncertainty and limitation test requires consideration of what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. Collectors and decision-makers should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, because uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of uncertainty and limitation distinguishes volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. A contrary reading would overlook that the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "20", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "20-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Affected population and denominator requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. The risk is that school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The assessment authority should reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of protection and data responsibility should establish whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. It should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication and acknowledge that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning protection and data responsibility should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "21", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "21-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of feasibility and responsibility is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The evidence must therefore clarify how applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public interest in affected population and denominator is a reliable account of a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions. Where school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For feasibility and responsibility, bodies should identify whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route and should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. The conclusion must respect that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of feasibility and responsibility is credible only where it explains its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The resulting interpretation should show why within affected population and denominator, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "22", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "22-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about a credible needs assessment treats affected population and denominator as evidence about a defensible estimate of learners within the affected area, including those absent from known institutions, not as a count of available inputs. A contrary reading would overlook that the dominant failure mode is that school lists and accessible settlements can omit displaced, mobile, undocumented and previously excluded learners. The practical safeguard is to reconcile demographic, enrolment, displacement and community evidence and state the uncertainty of every denominator. Review of review and accountability is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to affected population and denominator, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant review and accountability question is whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. The record should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. This reflects the principle that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in review and accountability is priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. The evidence must therefore clarify how ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within affected population and denominator, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-23", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "23", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "23-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-23-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. Its main failure risk is that distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. The competent authority should measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "24", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "24-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in access and participation is practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. If distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under decision relevance, the inquiry concerns whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. The competent authority should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, recognising that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of decision relevance depends upon results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. This matters because national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within access and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "25", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "25-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of access and participation concerns practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. A foreseeable failure arises where distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. Institutions should measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The definition and measurement test requires consideration of whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Collectors and decision-makers should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, because precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "definition and measurement cannot be judged without identifying the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The resulting interpretation should show why volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within access and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "26", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "26-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Access and participation requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. The risk is that distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. The assessment authority should measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of coverage and inclusion should establish who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. It should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists and acknowledge that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on coverage and inclusion should be tested against a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. A contrary reading would overlook that it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within access and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "27", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "27-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in access and participation is a reliable account of practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. Where distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For source and corroboration, bodies should identify the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge and should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The conclusion must respect that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of source and corroboration distinguishes publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. The resulting interpretation should show why operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "28", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "28-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats access and participation as evidence about practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. The practical safeguard is to measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant timeliness and change question is the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The record should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. This reflects the principle that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether for access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "29", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "29-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For access and participation, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. It becomes unreliable where distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. The corrective course is to measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of equity consequence requires an answer to whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Teams should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, mindful that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in equity consequence is its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The institutional consequence follows from whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within access and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "30", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "30-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to access and participation, the assessment must establish practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. The principal risk is that distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. The immediate evidentiary response is to measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The uncertainty and limitation standard asks what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. Assessment teams should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. The controlling proposition is that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "uncertainty and limitation requires a decision about any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that for access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "31", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "31-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Protection and data responsibility is material because practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. Responsible bodies should therefore measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities and should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. This is subject to the rule that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of protection and data responsibility is credible only where it explains that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that institutional action on protection and data responsibility should be tested against any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. A contrary reading would overlook that for access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "32", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "32-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to access and participation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protected function in access and participation is practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. If distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under feasibility and responsibility, the inquiry concerns whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. The competent authority should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, recognising that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing feasibility and responsibility, authorities must determine any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that for access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "33", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "33-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to access and participation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Assessment of access and participation concerns practical access to safe and appropriate learning rather than the nominal existence of a place. A foreseeable failure arises where distance, cost, documentation, language, insecurity and household duties can suppress participation differently. Institutions should measure barriers and attendance by relevant population group and location. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The review and accountability test requires consideration of whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Collectors and decision-makers should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, because later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning review and accountability should establish any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The evidence must therefore clarify how for access and participation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-34", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "34", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "34-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-34-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. Its main failure risk is that a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The competent authority should use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "35", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "35-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For safety and protection, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. It becomes unreliable where a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The corrective course is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of decision relevance requires an answer to whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. Teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, mindful that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For safety and protection, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "36", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "36-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to safety and protection, the assessment must establish current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. The principal risk is that a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The immediate evidentiary response is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The definition and measurement standard asks whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Assessment teams should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. The controlling proposition is that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for definition and measurement concerns where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "37", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "37-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Coverage and inclusion is material because current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. Responsible bodies should therefore use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated and should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. This is subject to the rule that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of coverage and inclusion depends upon the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. A contrary reading would overlook that that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "38", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "38-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in safety and protection is current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. If a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under source and corroboration, the inquiry concerns the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. The competent authority should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, recognising that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of source and corroboration depends upon national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The evidence must therefore clarify how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "39", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "39-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of safety and protection concerns current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. A foreseeable failure arises where a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. Institutions should use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The timeliness and change test requires consideration of the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. Collectors and decision-makers should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, because older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The resulting interpretation should show why volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "40", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "40-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Safety and protection requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. The risk is that a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The assessment authority should use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of equity consequence should establish whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. It should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation and acknowledge that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For safety and protection, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "41", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "41-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in safety and protection is a reliable account of current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. Where a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For uncertainty and limitation, bodies should identify what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption and should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. The conclusion must respect that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in uncertainty and limitation is for the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The evidence must therefore clarify how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Institutional action on uncertainty and limitation should be tested against publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "42", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "42-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats safety and protection as evidence about current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The practical safeguard is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant protection and data responsibility question is whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. The record should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. This reflects the principle that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For protection and data responsibility, the material distinction is between ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "43", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "43-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to safety and protection, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For safety and protection, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. It becomes unreliable where a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The corrective course is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of feasibility and responsibility requires an answer to whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, mindful that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in feasibility and responsibility is the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The resulting interpretation should show why in considering safety and protection, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "44", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "44-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to safety and protection, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. In relation to safety and protection, the assessment must establish current hazards affecting routes, sites, staff and learners and the capacity to prevent and respond to harm. The principal risk is that a rapid count of usable rooms can conceal structural, protection, sanitation and supervision risks. The immediate evidentiary response is to use competent observation, confidential reporting and explicit referral or closure thresholds. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The review and accountability standard asks whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Assessment teams should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. The controlling proposition is that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to safety and protection, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-45", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "45", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "45-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-45-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. Its main failure risk is that physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The competent authority should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [ "REF-05" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "46", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "46-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Facilities and service readiness requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. The risk is that physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The assessment authority should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of decision relevance should establish whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. It should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date and acknowledge that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering facilities and service readiness, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "47", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "47-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in facilities and service readiness is a reliable account of the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. Where physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For definition and measurement, bodies should identify whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation and should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. The conclusion must respect that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning definition and measurement should establish publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "48", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "48-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats facilities and service readiness as evidence about the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The practical safeguard is to distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant coverage and inclusion question is who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. The record should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. This reflects the principle that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of coverage and inclusion distinguishes ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. This matters because the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "49", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "49-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For facilities and service readiness, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. It becomes unreliable where physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The corrective course is to distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of source and corroboration requires an answer to the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Teams should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, mindful that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for source and corroboration begins with the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "50", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "50-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to facilities and service readiness, the assessment must establish the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. The principal risk is that physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The immediate evidentiary response is to distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The timeliness and change standard asks the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. Assessment teams should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. The controlling proposition is that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within facilities and service readiness, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "51", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "51-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity consequence is material because the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. Responsible bodies should therefore distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one and should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. This is subject to the rule that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of equity consequence distinguishes the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "52", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "52-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in facilities and service readiness is the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. If physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under uncertainty and limitation, the inquiry concerns what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. The competent authority should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, recognising that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of uncertainty and limitation is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. This matters because applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "53", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "53-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of facilities and service readiness concerns the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. A foreseeable failure arises where physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. Institutions should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protection and data responsibility test requires consideration of whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. Collectors and decision-makers should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, because an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of protection and data responsibility is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "54", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "54-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of feasibility and responsibility distinguishes the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Facilities and service readiness requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. The risk is that physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed. The assessment authority should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of feasibility and responsibility should establish whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. It should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral and acknowledge that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for feasibility and responsibility begins with the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "parentId": null, "number": "55", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "55-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For review and accountability, the material distinction is between the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to facilities and service readiness, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public interest in facilities and service readiness is a reliable account of the operational condition of spaces, water, sanitation, power, storage and communications needed for education. Where physical presence may be recorded as functioning although essential services or access routes have failed, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should distinguish intact, accessible, safe, equipped and operational status with dated verification.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For review and accountability, bodies should identify whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action and should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. The conclusion must respect that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within facilities and service readiness, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-56", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "56", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "56-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-56-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. Its main failure risk is that head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. The competent authority should verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [ "REF-06" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "57", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "57-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Decision relevance is material because the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. Responsible bodies should therefore verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision and should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. This is subject to the rule that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "decision relevance cannot be judged without identifying that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. This matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "58", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "58-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in teachers and education personnel is the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. If head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under definition and measurement, the inquiry concerns whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. The competent authority should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, recognising that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For definition and measurement, the material distinction is between its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. A contrary reading would overlook that within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "59", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "59-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of teachers and education personnel concerns the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. A foreseeable failure arises where head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. Institutions should verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The coverage and inclusion test requires consideration of who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. Collectors and decision-makers should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, because convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing coverage and inclusion, authorities must determine its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The evidence must therefore clarify how within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "60", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "60-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Teachers and education personnel requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. The risk is that head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. The assessment authority should verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of source and corroboration should establish the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. It should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement and acknowledge that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing source and corroboration, authorities must determine a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. The institutional consequence follows from whether it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "61", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "61-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in teachers and education personnel is a reliable account of the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. Where head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For timeliness and change, bodies should identify the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed and should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. The conclusion must respect that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change requires a decision about publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For teachers and education personnel, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "62", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "62-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats teachers and education personnel as evidence about the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. The practical safeguard is to verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant equity consequence question is whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The record should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. This reflects the principle that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for equity consequence concerns ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "63", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "63-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For teachers and education personnel, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. It becomes unreliable where head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. The corrective course is to verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of uncertainty and limitation requires an answer to what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. Teams should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, mindful that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing uncertainty and limitation, authorities must determine within teachers and education personnel, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A contrary reading would overlook that institutional action on uncertainty and limitation should be tested against a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. The evidence must therefore clarify how its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "64", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "64-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to teachers and education personnel, the assessment must establish the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. The principal risk is that head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. The immediate evidentiary response is to verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protection and data responsibility standard asks whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. Assessment teams should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. The controlling proposition is that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For teachers and education personnel, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "65", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "65-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Feasibility and responsibility is material because the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need. Responsible bodies should therefore verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route and should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. This is subject to the rule that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For teachers and education personnel, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "parentId": null, "number": "66", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "66-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to teachers and education personnel, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protected function in teachers and education personnel is the availability, competence, distribution, working conditions and support of the people required to teach. If head counts can include absent, displaced, unverified or unpaid personnel and disregard subject or language need, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to verify deployment and feasible workload while protecting personal and security information. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under review and accountability, the inquiry concerns whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. The competent authority should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, recognising that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For teachers and education personnel, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-67", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "67", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "67-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-67-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. Its main failure risk is that published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The competent authority should record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [ "REF-07" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "68", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "68-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats instructional time as evidence about the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The practical safeguard is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant decision relevance question is whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. The record should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. This reflects the principle that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of decision relevance depends upon ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For instructional time, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "69", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "69-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For instructional time, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. It becomes unreliable where published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The corrective course is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of definition and measurement requires an answer to whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Teams should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, mindful that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine for instructional time, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The institutional consequence follows from whether institutional action on definition and measurement should be tested against a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. A contrary reading would overlook that its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "70", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "70-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to instructional time, the assessment must establish the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. The principal risk is that published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The immediate evidentiary response is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The coverage and inclusion standard asks who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. Assessment teams should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. The controlling proposition is that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion requires a decision about the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that in considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "71", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "71-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Source and corroboration is material because the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. Responsible bodies should therefore record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge and should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. This is subject to the rule that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The evidence must therefore clarify how in considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "72", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "72-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in instructional time is the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. If published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under timeliness and change, the inquiry concerns the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The competent authority should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, recognising that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for timeliness and change begins with national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "73", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "73-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of instructional time concerns the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. A foreseeable failure arises where published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. Institutions should record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The equity consequence test requires consideration of whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Collectors and decision-makers should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, because equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The institutional consequence follows from whether volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For instructional time, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "74", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "74-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Instructional time requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. The risk is that published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The assessment authority should record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of uncertainty and limitation should establish what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. It should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty and acknowledge that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing uncertainty and limitation, authorities must determine a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For instructional time, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "75", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "75-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in instructional time is a reliable account of the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. Where published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For protection and data responsibility, bodies should identify whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities and should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. The conclusion must respect that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing protection and data responsibility, authorities must determine publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. The evidence must therefore clarify how operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "76", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "76-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to instructional time, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A credible needs assessment treats instructional time as evidence about the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The practical safeguard is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant feasibility and responsibility question is whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. The record should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. This reflects the principle that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of feasibility and responsibility depends upon the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. This matters because in considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "parentId": null, "number": "77", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "77-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to instructional time, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For instructional time, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the education actually delivered and likely to remain deliverable under current conditions. It becomes unreliable where published calendars and enrolment can overstate learning where sessions are shortened, interrupted or overcrowded. The corrective course is to record delivered hours, interruption, class organisation and credible continuity. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of review and accountability requires an answer to whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Teams should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, mindful that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability cannot be judged without identifying the public account remains incomplete unless it explains how its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering instructional time, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Review of review and accountability is credible only where it explains a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-78", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "78", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "78-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-78-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. Its main failure risk is that emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. The competent authority should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [ "REF-08" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "79", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "79-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of curriculum and language concerns the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. A foreseeable failure arises where emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. Institutions should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The decision relevance test requires consideration of whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. Collectors and decision-makers should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, because information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering curriculum and language, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "80", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "80-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Curriculum and language requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. The risk is that emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. The assessment authority should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of definition and measurement should establish whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. It should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding and acknowledge that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering curriculum and language, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "81", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "81-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in curriculum and language is a reliable account of the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. Where emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For coverage and inclusion, bodies should identify who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated and should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. The conclusion must respect that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing coverage and inclusion, authorities must determine publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "82", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "82-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats curriculum and language as evidence about the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. The practical safeguard is to identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The relevant source and corroboration question is the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. The record should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. This reflects the principle that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of source and corroboration depends upon priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. The institutional consequence follows from whether institutional action on source and corroboration should be tested against ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "83", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "83-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For curriculum and language, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. It becomes unreliable where emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. The corrective course is to identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Application of timeliness and change requires an answer to the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. Teams should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, mindful that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change cannot be judged without identifying its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The institutional consequence follows from whether review of timeliness and change is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "84", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "84-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to curriculum and language, the assessment must establish the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. The principal risk is that emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. The immediate evidentiary response is to identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The equity consequence standard asks whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Assessment teams should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. The controlling proposition is that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of equity consequence distinguishes where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "85", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "85-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Uncertainty and limitation is material because the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. Responsible bodies should therefore identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A decision-grade record should determine what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption and should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. This is subject to the rule that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing uncertainty and limitation, authorities must determine that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "86", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "86-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in curriculum and language is the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. If emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Under protection and data responsibility, the inquiry concerns whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. The competent authority should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, recognising that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning protection and data responsibility should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "87", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "87-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of feasibility and responsibility distinguishes assessment of curriculum and language concerns the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. A contrary reading would overlook that a foreseeable failure arises where emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system. Institutions should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The feasibility and responsibility test requires consideration of whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Collectors and decision-makers should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, because a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "parentId": null, "number": "88", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "88-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for review and accountability begins with the assessment authority should identify essential outcomes, language support and the route into recognised continuing education. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Curriculum and language requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the relevance, sequence, language and recognition of intended learning. The risk is that emergency materials can be available yet disconnected from prior learning or the curriculum of a receiving system.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of review and accountability should establish whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. It should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge and acknowledge that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on review and accountability should be tested against a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to curriculum and language, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-89", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "89", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "89-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-89-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. Its main failure risk is that warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The competent authority should test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "90", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "90-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to learning materials and supply, the assessment must establish usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. The principal risk is that warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The immediate evidentiary response is to test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing decision relevance, authorities must determine the decision relevance standard asks whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether assessment teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. The controlling proposition is that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on decision relevance should be tested against where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "91", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "91-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Definition and measurement is material because usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. Responsible bodies should therefore test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine this is subject to the rule that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation and should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in definition and measurement is that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The evidence must therefore clarify how its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "92", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "92-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in learning materials and supply is usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. If warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for coverage and inclusion concerns local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The institutional consequence follows from whether the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Under coverage and inclusion, the inquiry concerns who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. The competent authority should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, recognising that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of coverage and inclusion distinguishes its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The resulting interpretation should show why within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "93", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "93-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of learning materials and supply concerns usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. A foreseeable failure arises where warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. Institutions should test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of source and corroboration depends upon the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The source and corroboration test requires consideration of the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Collectors and decision-makers should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, because repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The resulting interpretation should show why volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "94", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "94-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Learning materials and supply requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. The risk is that warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The assessment authority should test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on timeliness and change should be tested against the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. This matters because applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Review of timeliness and change should establish the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. It should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators and acknowledge that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning timeliness and change should establish it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "95", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "95-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in learning materials and supply is a reliable account of usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. Where warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with the conclusion must respect that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For equity consequence, bodies should identify whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one and should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of equity consequence is credible only where it explains publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "96", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "96-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats learning materials and supply as evidence about usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The practical safeguard is to test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in uncertainty and limitation is the relevant uncertainty and limitation question is what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. The institutional consequence follows from whether the record should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. This reflects the principle that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "uncertainty and limitation cannot be judged without identifying ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "97", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "97-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For learning materials and supply, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. It becomes unreliable where warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The corrective course is to test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "protection and data responsibility requires a decision about application of protection and data responsibility requires an answer to whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. The institutional consequence follows from whether teams should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, mindful that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "protection and data responsibility cannot be judged without identifying its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The resulting interpretation should show why within learning materials and supply, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "98", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "98-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. In relation to learning materials and supply, the assessment must establish usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers. The principal risk is that warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. The immediate evidentiary response is to test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for feasibility and responsibility concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The feasibility and responsibility standard asks whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Assessment teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. The controlling proposition is that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For learning materials and supply, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "parentId": null, "number": "99", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "99-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review and accountability is material because usable, safe and accessible resources in the hands of learners and teachers cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, warehouse stocks and distribution totals can be mistaken for appropriate and sustained classroom use. Responsible bodies should therefore test content, quantity, accessibility, delivery, replacement and actual use.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning review and accountability should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to learning materials and supply, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action and should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. This is subject to the rule that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For learning materials and supply, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-100", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "100", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "100-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-100-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. Its main failure risk is that lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The competent authority should combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "101", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "101-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in assessment and prior learning is a reliable account of proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. Where lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in decision relevance is for decision relevance, bodies should identify whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision and should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. The resulting interpretation should show why the conclusion must respect that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of decision relevance depends upon any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The resulting interpretation should show why for assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "102", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "102-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats assessment and prior learning as evidence about proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The practical safeguard is to combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of definition and measurement depends upon the relevant definition and measurement question is whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. The institutional consequence follows from whether the record should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. This reflects the principle that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of definition and measurement depends upon any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The resulting interpretation should show why for assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "103", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "103-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For assessment and prior learning, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. It becomes unreliable where lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The corrective course is to combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in coverage and inclusion is teams should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, mindful that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. This matters because the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of coverage and inclusion requires an answer to who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion cannot be judged without identifying any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how for assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "104", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "104-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to assessment and prior learning, the assessment must establish proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. The principal risk is that lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The immediate evidentiary response is to combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying the controlling proposition is that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. The resulting interpretation should show why a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. Institutional action on source and corroboration should be tested against the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The source and corroboration standard asks the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Assessment teams should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for source and corroboration begins with where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering assessment and prior learning, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "105", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "105-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Timeliness and change is material because proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. Responsible bodies should therefore combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for timeliness and change begins with conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. This matters because the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed and should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. This is subject to the rule that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on timeliness and change should be tested against the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that in considering assessment and prior learning, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "106", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "106-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in assessment and prior learning is proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. If lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "equity consequence cannot be judged without identifying local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Under equity consequence, the inquiry concerns whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The competent authority should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, recognising that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "107", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "107-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of assessment and prior learning concerns proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. A foreseeable failure arises where lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. Institutions should combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for uncertainty and limitation begins with the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Institutional action on uncertainty and limitation should be tested against the uncertainty and limitation test requires consideration of what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. A contrary reading would overlook that collectors and decision-makers should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, because uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "108", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "108-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment and prior learning requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. The risk is that lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The assessment authority should combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For protection and data responsibility, the material distinction is between review of protection and data responsibility should establish whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether it should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication and acknowledge that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For assessment and prior learning, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "109", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "109-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in feasibility and responsibility is the public interest in assessment and prior learning is a reliable account of proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer. The institutional consequence follows from whether where lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying the conclusion must respect that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. This matters because evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For feasibility and responsibility, bodies should identify whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route and should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of feasibility and responsibility depends upon operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering assessment and prior learning, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "parentId": null, "number": "110", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "110-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning review and accountability should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A credible needs assessment treats assessment and prior learning as evidence about proportionate evidence for teaching, placement, progression and later transfer, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that lost records or uncontrolled tests can place interrupted learners incorrectly or exclude them entirely. The practical safeguard is to combine prior records, diagnostic evidence, professional judgement and reviewable placement.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to assessment and prior learning, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant review and accountability question is whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. The record should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. This reflects the principle that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability cannot be judged without identifying ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. A contrary reading would overlook that the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering assessment and prior learning, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-111", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "111", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "111-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-111-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. Its main failure risk is that aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. The competent authority should include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [ "REF-11" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "112", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "112-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in disability and accessibility is barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. If aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For decision relevance, the material distinction is between under decision relevance, the inquiry concerns whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. The evidence must therefore clarify how the competent authority should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, recognising that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of decision relevance depends upon results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. The resulting interpretation should show why national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering disability and accessibility, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "113", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "113-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of disability and accessibility concerns barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. A foreseeable failure arises where aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. Institutions should include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for definition and measurement concerns collectors and decision-makers should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, because precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. The resulting interpretation should show why changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The definition and measurement test requires consideration of whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. This matters because the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering disability and accessibility, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "114", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "114-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Disability and accessibility requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. The risk is that aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. The assessment authority should include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in coverage and inclusion is the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. This matters because applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Review of coverage and inclusion should establish who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. It should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists and acknowledge that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For coverage and inclusion, the material distinction is between it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The evidence must therefore clarify how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering disability and accessibility, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "115", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "115-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in disability and accessibility is a reliable account of barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. Where aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing source and corroboration, authorities must determine the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. This matters because applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For source and corroboration, bodies should identify the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge and should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The conclusion must respect that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for source and corroboration begins with the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "116", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "116-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats disability and accessibility as evidence about barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. The practical safeguard is to include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant timeliness and change question is the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The record should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. This reflects the principle that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. The evidence must therefore clarify how ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "117", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "117-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For disability and accessibility, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. It becomes unreliable where aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. The corrective course is to include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on equity consequence should be tested against the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The evidence must therefore clarify how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of equity consequence requires an answer to whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Teams should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, mindful that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of equity consequence is credible only where it explains its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. A contrary reading would overlook that the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering disability and accessibility, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "118", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "118-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to disability and accessibility, the assessment must establish barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. The principal risk is that aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. The immediate evidentiary response is to include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for uncertainty and limitation concerns assessment teams should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. A contrary reading would overlook that the controlling proposition is that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The uncertainty and limitation standard asks what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of uncertainty and limitation distinguishes it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "119", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "119-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Protection and data responsibility is material because barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. Responsible bodies should therefore include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for protection and data responsibility concerns a decision-grade record should determine whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities and should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. This matters because this is subject to the rule that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of protection and data responsibility depends upon a proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. This matters because the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Institutional action on protection and data responsibility should be tested against the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "120", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "120-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for feasibility and responsibility begins with the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protected function in disability and accessibility is barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. If aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying under feasibility and responsibility, the inquiry concerns whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the competent authority should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, recognising that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "parentId": null, "number": "121", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "121-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for review and accountability concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Assessment of disability and accessibility concerns barriers and supports affecting learners with disabilities across communication, routes, sites, teaching and assessment. A foreseeable failure arises where aggregate assessment can make exclusion invisible and treat accessibility as a later reconstruction matter. Institutions should include accessible consultation, functional barriers and reasonable support from the first response.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning review and accountability should establish changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The review and accountability test requires consideration of whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Collectors and decision-makers should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, because later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to disability and accessibility, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-122", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "122", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "122-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-122-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. Its main failure risk is that a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The competent authority should analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [ "REF-12" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "123", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "123-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For gender and intersecting disadvantage, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. It becomes unreliable where a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The corrective course is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for decision relevance concerns teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, mindful that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of decision relevance requires an answer to whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "decision relevance requires a decision about a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "124", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "124-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to gender and intersecting disadvantage, the assessment must establish different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. The principal risk is that a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The immediate evidentiary response is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine the definition and measurement standard asks whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. The evidence must therefore clarify how assessment teams should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. The controlling proposition is that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for definition and measurement concerns its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The evidence must therefore clarify how within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "125", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "125-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Coverage and inclusion is material because different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. Responsible bodies should therefore analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of coverage and inclusion depends upon this is subject to the rule that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. This matters because conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated and should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of coverage and inclusion depends upon that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "126", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "126-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in gender and intersecting disadvantage is different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. If a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for source and corroboration concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Under source and corroboration, the inquiry concerns the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. The competent authority should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, recognising that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration requires a decision about for the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Institutional action on source and corroboration should be tested against its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "127", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "127-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of gender and intersecting disadvantage concerns different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. A foreseeable failure arises where a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. Institutions should analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for timeliness and change concerns the timeliness and change test requires consideration of the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. This matters because collectors and decision-makers should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, because older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. Review of timeliness and change is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The evidence must therefore clarify how applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change requires a decision about within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A contrary reading would overlook that the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Review of timeliness and change is credible only where it explains volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. A contrary reading would overlook that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "128", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "128-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Gender and intersecting disadvantage requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. The risk is that a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The assessment authority should analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with review of equity consequence should establish whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The institutional consequence follows from whether it should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation and acknowledge that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for equity consequence concerns a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "129", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "129-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in gender and intersecting disadvantage is a reliable account of different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. Where a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of uncertainty and limitation depends upon evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The evidence must therefore clarify how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For uncertainty and limitation, bodies should identify what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption and should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. The conclusion must respect that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "130", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "130-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats gender and intersecting disadvantage as evidence about different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The practical safeguard is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of protection and data responsibility is credible only where it explains the relevant protection and data responsibility question is whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the record should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. This reflects the principle that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "131", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "131-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in feasibility and responsibility is for gender and intersecting disadvantage, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. The resulting interpretation should show why it becomes unreliable where a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The corrective course is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of feasibility and responsibility is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of feasibility and responsibility requires an answer to whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, mindful that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within gender and intersecting disadvantage, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "parentId": null, "number": "132", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "132-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing review and accountability, authorities must determine in relation to gender and intersecting disadvantage, the assessment must establish different exposure, attendance, safety and learning conditions associated with sex, age, poverty, disability, location and status. A contrary reading would overlook that the principal risk is that a single disaggregation can conceal cumulative barriers and harmful response assumptions. The immediate evidentiary response is to analyse intersections cautiously and use findings to change site, schedule, protection and support decisions. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for review and accountability begins with the controlling proposition is that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to gender and intersecting disadvantage, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The review and accountability standard asks whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Assessment teams should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For gender and intersecting disadvantage, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-133", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "133", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "133-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-133-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. Its main failure risk is that residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The competent authority should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "134", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "134-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Displacement and documentation requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. The risk is that residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The assessment authority should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For decision relevance, the material distinction is between review of decision relevance should establish whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that it should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date and acknowledge that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within displacement and documentation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "135", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "135-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in displacement and documentation is a reliable account of education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. Where residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning definition and measurement should establish the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For definition and measurement, bodies should identify whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation and should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. Review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains the conclusion must respect that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. The institutional consequence follows from whether evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "definition and measurement requires a decision about any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how for displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "136", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "136-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats displacement and documentation as evidence about education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The practical safeguard is to accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant coverage and inclusion question is who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. The record should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. This reflects the principle that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing coverage and inclusion, authorities must determine any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The evidence must therefore clarify how for displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "137", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "137-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For displacement and documentation, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. It becomes unreliable where residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The corrective course is to accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying application of source and corroboration requires an answer to the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that teams should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, mindful that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For source and corroboration, the material distinction is between a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. The resulting interpretation should show why its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "138", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "138-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to displacement and documentation, the assessment must establish education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. The principal risk is that residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The immediate evidentiary response is to accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of timeliness and change distinguishes the controlling proposition is that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. This matters because a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The timeliness and change standard asks the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. Assessment teams should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering displacement and documentation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "139", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "139-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity consequence is material because education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. Responsible bodies should therefore accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of equity consequence distinguishes conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. This matters because the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one and should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. This is subject to the rule that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on equity consequence should be tested against the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. A contrary reading would overlook that that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "140", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "140-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in displacement and documentation is education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. If residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "uncertainty and limitation requires a decision about under uncertainty and limitation, the inquiry concerns what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. The evidence must therefore clarify how institutional action on uncertainty and limitation should be tested against the competent authority should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, recognising that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. The resulting interpretation should show why local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for uncertainty and limitation concerns national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The evidence must therefore clarify how any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "141", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "141-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of displacement and documentation concerns education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. A foreseeable failure arises where residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. Institutions should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of protection and data responsibility depends upon the protection and data responsibility test requires consideration of whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. The institutional consequence follows from whether collectors and decision-makers should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, because an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for protection and data responsibility concerns volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that institutional action on protection and data responsibility should be tested against any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how for displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "142", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "142-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for feasibility and responsibility concerns displacement and documentation requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing. A contrary reading would overlook that the risk is that residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion. The assessment authority should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing feasibility and responsibility, authorities must determine it should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral and acknowledge that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. This matters because any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Review of feasibility and responsibility should establish whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The resulting interpretation should show why for displacement and documentation, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "parentId": null, "number": "143", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "143-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability cannot be judged without identifying where residence and documentary requirements can convert administrative uncertainty into exclusion, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether authorities should accept proportionate alternative evidence and preserve portable, correctable education records. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public interest in displacement and documentation is a reliable account of education continuity for internally displaced, refugee, returnee and mobile populations whose identity or learning records may be missing.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing review and accountability, authorities must determine for review and accountability, bodies should identify whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action and should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the conclusion must respect that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to displacement and documentation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering displacement and documentation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-144", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "144", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "144-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-144-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. Its main failure risk is that needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. The competent authority should assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "145", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "145-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Decision relevance is material because care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. Responsible bodies should therefore assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for decision relevance concerns this is subject to the rule that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. A contrary reading would overlook that conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision and should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of decision relevance depends upon the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. This matters because in considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "146", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "146-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in early childhood and younger learners is care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. If needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A contrary reading would overlook that review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains under definition and measurement, the inquiry concerns whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. A contrary reading would overlook that the competent authority should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, recognising that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning definition and measurement should establish results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. The evidence must therefore clarify how national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "147", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "147-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of early childhood and younger learners concerns care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. A foreseeable failure arises where needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. Institutions should assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing coverage and inclusion, authorities must determine collectors and decision-makers should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, because convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The coverage and inclusion test requires consideration of who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing coverage and inclusion, authorities must determine the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The institutional consequence follows from whether in considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "148", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "148-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Early childhood and younger learners requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. The risk is that needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. The assessment authority should assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For source and corroboration, the material distinction is between review of source and corroboration should establish the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how it should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement and acknowledge that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of source and corroboration is credible only where it explains this matters because in considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Institutional action on source and corroboration should be tested against the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "149", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "149-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in early childhood and younger learners is a reliable account of care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. Where needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon the conclusion must respect that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For timeliness and change, bodies should identify the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed and should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in timeliness and change is operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The evidence must therefore clarify how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "150", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "150-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats early childhood and younger learners as evidence about care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. The practical safeguard is to assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing equity consequence, authorities must determine this reflects the principle that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. The evidence must therefore clarify how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant equity consequence question is whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The record should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The resulting interpretation should show why in considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "151", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "151-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For early childhood and younger learners, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. It becomes unreliable where needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. The corrective course is to assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in uncertainty and limitation is the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of uncertainty and limitation requires an answer to what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. Teams should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, mindful that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for uncertainty and limitation concerns its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering early childhood and younger learners, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "152", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "152-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to early childhood and younger learners, the assessment must establish care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children. The principal risk is that needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. The immediate evidentiary response is to assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in protection and data responsibility is assessment teams should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. The evidence must therefore clarify how the controlling proposition is that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protection and data responsibility standard asks whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "protection and data responsibility requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "153", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "153-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Feasibility and responsibility is material because care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers. Responsible bodies should therefore assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing feasibility and responsibility, authorities must determine conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route and should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. This is subject to the rule that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "parentId": null, "number": "154", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "154-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing review and accountability, authorities must determine if needs framed only around formal grades can omit early learning and place unrealistic burdens on caregivers, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the required response is to assess age-appropriate provision, supervision, proximity and links with health and protection services. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protected function in early childhood and younger learners is care, protection, development and family constraints affecting younger children.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For review and accountability, the material distinction is between local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Under review and accountability, the inquiry concerns whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. The competent authority should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, recognising that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of review and accountability distinguishes results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. The evidence must therefore clarify how national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to early childhood and younger learners, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-155", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "155", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "155-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-155-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. Its main failure risk is that a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The competent authority should identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [ "REF-15" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "156", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "156-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats secondary, technical and higher pathways as evidence about continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The practical safeguard is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on decision relevance should be tested against this reflects the principle that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant decision relevance question is whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. The record should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of decision relevance is credible only where it explains ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "157", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "157-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For secondary, technical and higher pathways, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. It becomes unreliable where a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The corrective course is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of definition and measurement distinguishes the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether institutional action on definition and measurement should be tested against the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of definition and measurement requires an answer to whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Teams should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, mindful that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for definition and measurement concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "158", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "158-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to secondary, technical and higher pathways, the assessment must establish continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. The principal risk is that a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The immediate evidentiary response is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion requires a decision about assessment teams should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. The evidence must therefore clarify how the controlling proposition is that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The coverage and inclusion standard asks who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning coverage and inclusion should establish it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "159", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "159-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Source and corroboration is material because continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. Responsible bodies should therefore identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge and should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. This is subject to the rule that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration requires a decision about that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. This matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "160", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "160-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in secondary, technical and higher pathways is continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. If a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Under timeliness and change, the inquiry concerns the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The competent authority should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, recognising that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for timeliness and change begins with results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. This matters because national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "161", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "161-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of secondary, technical and higher pathways concerns continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. A foreseeable failure arises where a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. Institutions should identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for equity consequence concerns the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The equity consequence test requires consideration of whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Collectors and decision-makers should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, because equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "equity consequence cannot be judged without identifying the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "162", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "162-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Secondary, technical and higher pathways requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. The risk is that a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The assessment authority should identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on uncertainty and limitation should be tested against the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Review of uncertainty and limitation should establish what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. It should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty and acknowledge that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in uncertainty and limitation is it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "163", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "163-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in secondary, technical and higher pathways is a reliable account of continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. Where a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in protection and data responsibility is for protection and data responsibility, bodies should identify whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities and should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. A contrary reading would overlook that the conclusion must respect that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for protection and data responsibility concerns operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. This matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "164", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "164-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning feasibility and responsibility should establish a credible needs assessment treats secondary, technical and higher pathways as evidence about continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling, not as a count of available inputs. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the dominant failure mode is that a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The practical safeguard is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of feasibility and responsibility distinguishes this reflects the principle that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant feasibility and responsibility question is whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. The record should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in feasibility and responsibility is priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "parentId": null, "number": "165", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "165-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. A contrary reading would overlook that applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For secondary, technical and higher pathways, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about continuity, certification and transition for learners beyond primary schooling. It becomes unreliable where a primary-only response can create irreversible examination, admission and skills-training losses. The corrective course is to identify pathway-specific teachers, laboratories, records, assessment authority and receiving institutions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to secondary, technical and higher pathways, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Application of review and accountability requires an answer to whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Teams should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, mindful that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For review and accountability, the material distinction is between its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The institutional consequence follows from whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within secondary, technical and higher pathways, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-166", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "166", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "166-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-166-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. Its main failure risk is that aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The competent authority should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "167", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "167-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of finance and household burden concerns the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. A foreseeable failure arises where aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. Institutions should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing decision relevance, authorities must determine the decision relevance test requires consideration of whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether collectors and decision-makers should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, because information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within finance and household burden, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "168", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "168-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Finance and household burden requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. The risk is that aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The assessment authority should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in definition and measurement is review of definition and measurement should establish whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. A contrary reading would overlook that it should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding and acknowledge that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within finance and household burden, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "169", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "169-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in finance and household burden is a reliable account of the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. Where aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning coverage and inclusion should establish evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The resulting interpretation should show why the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For coverage and inclusion, bodies should identify who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated and should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. The conclusion must respect that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for coverage and inclusion concerns publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. The institutional consequence follows from whether operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "170", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "170-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats finance and household burden as evidence about the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The practical safeguard is to trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration requires a decision about the record should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The evidence must therefore clarify how this reflects the principle that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The relevant source and corroboration question is the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. The resulting interpretation should show why ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "171", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "171-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For finance and household burden, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. It becomes unreliable where aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The corrective course is to trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in timeliness and change is application of timeliness and change requires an answer to the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The institutional consequence follows from whether teams should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, mindful that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in timeliness and change is a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "172", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "172-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to finance and household burden, the assessment must establish the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. The principal risk is that aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The immediate evidentiary response is to trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for equity consequence concerns a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. This matters because the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The equity consequence standard asks whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. Assessment teams should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. The controlling proposition is that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning equity consequence should establish where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "173", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "173-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Uncertainty and limitation is material because the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. Responsible bodies should therefore trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of uncertainty and limitation is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The institutional consequence follows from whether applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A decision-grade record should determine what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption and should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. This is subject to the rule that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "uncertainty and limitation cannot be judged without identifying the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. The institutional consequence follows from whether that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "174", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "174-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in finance and household burden is the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. If aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in protection and data responsibility is applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. This matters because under protection and data responsibility, the inquiry concerns whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities. Institutional action on protection and data responsibility should be tested against the competent authority should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, recognising that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. A contrary reading would overlook that local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for protection and data responsibility begins with results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. The resulting interpretation should show why national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "175", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "175-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying a foreseeable failure arises where aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The resulting interpretation should show why institutions should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Assessment of finance and household burden concerns the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of feasibility and responsibility distinguishes the feasibility and responsibility test requires consideration of whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether collectors and decision-makers should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, because a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. Changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on feasibility and responsibility should be tested against any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how for finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "parentId": null, "number": "176", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "176-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in review and accountability is applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A contrary reading would overlook that review of review and accountability is credible only where it explains finance and household burden requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the public resources, delivery costs and private expenses that determine whether provision is sustainable and equitable. The resulting interpretation should show why the risk is that aggregate pledges can obscure delayed disbursement, unfunded recurrent costs and fees transferred to households. The assessment authority should trace resources to service conditions and disclose assumptions, gaps and distribution. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for review and accountability begins with it should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge and acknowledge that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. This matters because any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to finance and household burden, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Review of review and accountability should establish whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability requires a decision about a recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For finance and household burden, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-177", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "177", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "177-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-177-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. Its main failure risk is that external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The competent authority should map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [ "REF-17" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "178", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "178-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to local capacity and participation, the assessment must establish the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. The principal risk is that external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The immediate evidentiary response is to map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in decision relevance is a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. The institutional consequence follows from whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The decision relevance standard asks whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision. Assessment teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. The controlling proposition is that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning decision relevance should establish the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether in considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "179", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "179-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Definition and measurement is material because the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. Responsible bodies should therefore map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of definition and measurement distinguishes within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether a decision-grade record should determine whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation and should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. This is subject to the rule that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. Institutional action on definition and measurement should be tested against conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of definition and measurement distinguishes the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "180", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "180-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in local capacity and participation is the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. If external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion cannot be judged without identifying the competent authority should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, recognising that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. This matters because local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Under coverage and inclusion, the inquiry concerns who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "coverage and inclusion requires a decision about results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. This matters because national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "181", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "181-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of local capacity and participation concerns the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. A foreseeable failure arises where external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. Institutions should map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of source and corroboration depends upon changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The source and corroboration test requires consideration of the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. Collectors and decision-makers should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, because repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of source and corroboration is credible only where it explains the public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "182", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "182-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Local capacity and participation requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. The risk is that external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The assessment authority should map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of timeliness and change depends upon any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. A contrary reading would overlook that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Review of timeliness and change should establish the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. It should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators and acknowledge that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing timeliness and change, authorities must determine the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The evidence must therefore clarify how in considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "183", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "183-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in local capacity and participation is a reliable account of the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. Where external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with for equity consequence, bodies should identify whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one and should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation. The institutional consequence follows from whether the conclusion must respect that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of equity consequence depends upon the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The evidence must therefore clarify how in considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "184", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "184-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats local capacity and participation as evidence about the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The practical safeguard is to map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for uncertainty and limitation concerns the record should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. The resulting interpretation should show why this reflects the principle that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The relevant uncertainty and limitation question is what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of uncertainty and limitation depends upon ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "185", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "185-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For local capacity and participation, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. It becomes unreliable where external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The corrective course is to map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of protection and data responsibility distinguishes teams should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication, mindful that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Application of protection and data responsibility requires an answer to whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of protection and data responsibility distinguishes its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. This matters because the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering local capacity and participation, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "186", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "186-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to local capacity and participation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. In relation to local capacity and participation, the assessment must establish the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible. The principal risk is that external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. The immediate evidentiary response is to map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying assessment teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that the controlling proposition is that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The feasibility and responsibility standard asks whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to local capacity and participation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "parentId": null, "number": "187", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "187-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review and accountability is material because the knowledge, institutions and representative involvement needed to make evidence credible and action feasible cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, external collection can duplicate work, misread conditions or use consultation merely to validate a predetermined response. Responsible bodies should therefore map existing responsibility, involve affected people safely and document how their evidence changed decisions.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning review and accountability should establish a decision-grade record should determine whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action and should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether this is subject to the rule that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within local capacity and participation, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to local capacity and participation, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. That distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-188", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "188", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "188-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-188-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. Its main failure risk is that parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The competent authority should agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "189", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "189-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in coordination and information exchange is a reliable account of compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. Where parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "decision relevance requires a decision about for decision relevance, bodies should identify whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision and should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date. This matters because the conclusion must respect that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for decision relevance begins with publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "190", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "190-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats coordination and information exchange as evidence about compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The practical safeguard is to agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in definition and measurement is its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The institutional consequence follows from whether within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The relevant definition and measurement question is whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains the record should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that this reflects the principle that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for definition and measurement begins with priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether institutional action on definition and measurement should be tested against ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The evidence must therefore clarify how review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. This matters because applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "191", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "191-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For coordination and information exchange, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. It becomes unreliable where parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The corrective course is to agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of coverage and inclusion distinguishes the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. The institutional consequence follows from whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Application of coverage and inclusion requires an answer to who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. Teams should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists, mindful that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For coverage and inclusion, the material distinction is between the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The resulting interpretation should show why applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "192", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "192-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to coordination and information exchange, the assessment must establish compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. The principal risk is that parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The immediate evidentiary response is to agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for source and corroboration concerns the source and corroboration standard asks the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. This matters because assessment teams should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The controlling proposition is that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in source and corroboration is it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The evidence must therefore clarify how its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "193", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "193-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Timeliness and change is material because compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. Responsible bodies should therefore agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on timeliness and change should be tested against a decision-grade record should determine the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed and should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. The evidence must therefore clarify how this is subject to the rule that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change cannot be judged without identifying that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "194", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "194-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in coordination and information exchange is compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. If parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in equity consequence is its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The resulting interpretation should show why within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Under equity consequence, the inquiry concerns whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one. The competent authority should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, recognising that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. Local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of equity consequence depends upon national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. This matters because the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. Applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "195", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "195-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of coordination and information exchange concerns compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. A foreseeable failure arises where parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. Institutions should agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for uncertainty and limitation begins with collectors and decision-makers should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty, because uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The uncertainty and limitation test requires consideration of what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of uncertainty and limitation depends upon the record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction. The evidence must therefore clarify how applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education. Volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "196", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "196-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Coordination and information exchange requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. The risk is that parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The assessment authority should agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing protection and data responsibility, authorities must determine it should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication and acknowledge that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. A contrary reading would overlook that any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Review of protection and data responsibility should establish whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "197", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "197-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The public interest in coordination and information exchange is a reliable account of compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors. Where parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for feasibility and responsibility begins with evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. The evidence must therefore clarify how its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. For feasibility and responsibility, bodies should identify whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route and should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral. The conclusion must respect that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of feasibility and responsibility depends upon its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The institutional consequence follows from whether within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations. Operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "parentId": null, "number": "198", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "198-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to coordination and information exchange, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. A credible needs assessment treats coordination and information exchange as evidence about compatible definitions, geographical coverage and controlled sharing among responsible actors, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that parallel assessments can burden communities while producing incomparable or contradictory totals. The practical safeguard is to agree core terms, preserve source distinctions and maintain an accountable record of reconciliation. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for review and accountability begins with its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The relevant review and accountability question is whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. The record should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. This reflects the principle that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing review and accountability, authorities must determine ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. This matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within coordination and information exchange, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-199", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "199", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "199-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-199-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. Its main failure risk is that a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. The competent authority should set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "200", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "200-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in change, monitoring and reassessment is evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. If a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on decision relevance should be tested against the competent authority should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, recognising that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Under decision relevance, the inquiry concerns whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Institutional action on decision relevance should be tested against results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. This matters because national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "201", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "201-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of change, monitoring and reassessment concerns evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. A foreseeable failure arises where a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. Institutions should set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine collectors and decision-makers should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding, because precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. The evidence must therefore clarify how changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The definition and measurement test requires consideration of whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Review of definition and measurement is credible only where it explains volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. This matters because its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "202", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "202-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Change, monitoring and reassessment requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. The risk is that a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. The assessment authority should set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning coverage and inclusion should establish any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Review of coverage and inclusion should establish who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated. It should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists and acknowledge that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning coverage and inclusion should establish its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The resulting interpretation should show why within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "203", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "203-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in change, monitoring and reassessment is a reliable account of evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. Where a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for source and corroboration begins with its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. A contrary reading would overlook that within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. For source and corroboration, bodies should identify the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge and should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement. The conclusion must respect that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The central question in source and corroboration is operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "204", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "204-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats change, monitoring and reassessment as evidence about evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. The practical safeguard is to set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing timeliness and change, authorities must determine its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The relevant timeliness and change question is the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. The record should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators. This reflects the principle that older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing timeliness and change, authorities must determine ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "205", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "205-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For change, monitoring and reassessment, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. It becomes unreliable where a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. The corrective course is to set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "equity consequence requires a decision about teams should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation, mindful that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Application of equity consequence requires an answer to whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "equity consequence cannot be judged without identifying a rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. This matters because its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "206", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "206-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to change, monitoring and reassessment, the assessment must establish evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. The principal risk is that a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. The immediate evidentiary response is to set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "uncertainty and limitation cannot be judged without identifying its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The uncertainty and limitation standard asks what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption. Assessment teams should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. The controlling proposition is that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A defensible account of uncertainty and limitation distinguishes where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. The resulting interpretation should show why it should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "207", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "207-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Protection and data responsibility is material because evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. Responsible bodies should therefore set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of protection and data responsibility depends upon a decision-grade record should determine whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities and should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how this is subject to the rule that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing protection and data responsibility, authorities must determine the conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "208", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "208-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to change, monitoring and reassessment, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. The protected function in change, monitoring and reassessment is evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. If a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The practical standard for feasibility and responsibility concerns the competent authority should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, recognising that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. A contrary reading would overlook that local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Under feasibility and responsibility, the inquiry concerns whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "feasibility and responsibility cannot be judged without identifying national or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy. The institutional consequence follows from whether any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "parentId": null, "number": "209", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "209-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to change, monitoring and reassessment, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Assessment of change, monitoring and reassessment concerns evidence about deterioration, recovery, movement and implementation after the initial assessment. A foreseeable failure arises where a rapid snapshot can remain in use after hazards, populations and service capacity have changed. Institutions should set indicators, triggers and dates for correction and reassessment. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For review and accountability, the material distinction is between its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. This matters because within change, monitoring and reassessment, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The review and accountability test requires consideration of whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Review of review and accountability is credible only where it explains collectors and decision-makers should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge, because later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "review and accountability cannot be judged without identifying volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error. For change, monitoring and reassessment, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-210", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "210", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "210-evidentiary-proposition", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-210-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should establish a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. Its main failure risk is that technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The competent authority should publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "211", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "211-decision-relevance", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For public reporting and accountability, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. It becomes unreliable where technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The corrective course is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for decision relevance begins with teams should name the decision, threshold, responsible body and latest useful date, mindful that information without a defined use should not displace evidence needed for immediate protection and education. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Application of decision relevance requires an answer to whether the evidence can alter an authorised allocation, protection, access or continuity decision.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For public reporting and accountability, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "212", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "212-definition-and-measurement", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In relation to public reporting and accountability, the assessment must establish a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. The principal risk is that technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The immediate evidentiary response is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of definition and measurement depends upon the controlling proposition is that precision in presentation cannot compensate for an unstable denominator or undefined operational status. This matters because a finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The definition and measurement standard asks whether each concept, unit, population and status is defined consistently enough for interpretation. Assessment teams should preserve original classifications, record conversion rules and separate absence of evidence from a negative finding.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing definition and measurement, authorities must determine the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. The evidence must therefore clarify how in considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "213", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "213-coverage-and-inclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Coverage and inclusion is material because a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies cannot be inferred from a general account of disruption. In this field, technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. Responsible bodies should therefore publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of coverage and inclusion depends upon its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. A decision-grade record should determine who and which locations are represented, omitted, inaccessible or indirectly estimated and should use multiple frames, record non-response and seek safe evidence from groups missed by institutional lists. This is subject to the rule that convenient access to respondents is not a valid basis for treating them as representative. Conflicting sources should remain visible until a reasoned reconciliation is possible.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For coverage and inclusion, the material distinction is between that distinction supports urgent action while protecting the public record from unwarranted certainty. The institutional consequence follows from whether the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The conclusion should distinguish verified condition, plausible estimate and unresolved question.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "214", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "214-source-and-corroboration", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The protected function in public reporting and accountability is a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. If technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction, the assessment can direct resources away from learners facing the greatest interruption. The required response is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence concerning source and corroboration should establish local evidence capable of changing a central estimate should be retained with its provenance. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Under source and corroboration, the inquiry concerns the proximity, competence, incentives and independence of each source and whether material claims converge. The competent authority should triangulate administrative records, observation and affected-population evidence without erasing disagreement, recognising that repetition of the same upstream figure does not constitute independent corroboration.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "source and corroboration cannot be judged without identifying the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. A proportionate conclusion must also recognise that in considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Results should be expressed at the level supported by the evidence. National or regional aggregation should not suppress a documented local condition requiring immediate remedy.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "215", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "215-timeliness-and-change", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Assessment of public reporting and accountability concerns a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. A foreseeable failure arises where technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. Institutions should publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change cannot be judged without identifying changes made after field verification should be traceable to an identified source or reason. The public account remains incomplete unless it explains how its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The timeliness and change test requires consideration of the observation date, reporting delay and likelihood that the condition has materially changed. Collectors and decision-makers should time-stamp findings and define expiry or reassessment triggers for volatile indicators, because older evidence may establish context but should not be represented as current service readiness.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "timeliness and change requires a decision about volume of data is not a substitute for relevance, coverage or accountable use. The resulting interpretation should show why the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. The public-interest value of the evidence lies in its capacity to support safe, equitable and credible education.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "216", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "216-equity-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public reporting and accountability requires an explicit evidence standard because the intended object is a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. The risk is that technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The assessment authority should publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public responsibility for equity consequence begins with it should disaggregate only where definitions, protection and sample support responsible interpretation and acknowledge that equal totals do not establish equitable access, safety, instructional time or progression. This matters because any material assumption should be adjacent to the figure or finding it qualifies. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Review of equity consequence should establish whether aggregation conceals a population receiving no service or a materially weaker one.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "For public reporting and accountability, the same principle must be tested against the affected population and current service condition. A recommendation should identify the observed condition, affected population, proposed response and responsible body. It should not imply capacity, funding or authority that has not been established. Any departure should be justified by the decision purpose and foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "217", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "217-uncertainty-and-limitation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The public interest in public reporting and accountability is a reliable account of a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. Where technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction, apparently complete results may support an inequitable or unsafe response. Authorities should publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In assessing uncertainty and limitation, authorities must determine for uncertainty and limitation, bodies should identify what is unknown, estimated, inaccessible, contested or dependent on an assumption and should state intervals or bounded scenarios where possible and describe the operational consequence of uncertainty. For the learners concerned, the decisive consideration is whether the conclusion must respect that uncertainty should guide proportionate caution and further evidence rather than disappear from the conclusion. Evidence should remain capable of correction by competent local knowledge and subsequent observation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Comparative interpretation of uncertainty and limitation depends upon operational detail may be restricted where disclosure would create a security or protection risk, but the nature of the restriction should be stated. The evidence must therefore clarify how the conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body. In considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Publication should protect individuals and disclose material limitations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "218", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "218-protection-and-data-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A credible needs assessment treats public reporting and accountability as evidence about a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies, not as a count of available inputs. The dominant failure mode is that technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The practical safeguard is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "protection and data responsibility requires a decision about the record should minimise personal data, control access, obtain appropriate consent and suppress identifying publication. This matters because this reflects the principle that an information request is not justified merely because a field can be collected. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding. Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The relevant protection and data responsibility question is whether collection, storage and disclosure create risk for children, families, staff or communities.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. Priority should follow the severity, scale and duration of educational loss, the distribution of risk and the feasibility of timely protection. Ranking criteria and unresolved evidence should be explicit. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "219", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "219-feasibility-and-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to public reporting and accountability, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. For public reporting and accountability, evidence is adequate only when it supports a reasoned judgement about a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. It becomes unreliable where technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The corrective course is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. Application of feasibility and responsibility requires an answer to whether the recommended action has authority, people, funds, logistics and a correction route. Teams should identify dependencies, deadlines and the body answerable for delivery or justified deferral, mindful that a priority without implementable responsibility remains an expression of concern rather than a response decision. The same definition should be used when the indicator is revisited, or the change should be explained. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "In considering public reporting and accountability, the authority should apply this safeguard to the evidence available at the stated date. A rapid assessment may be necessarily incomplete. Its authority depends on disciplined limitation, timely correction and an explicit plan to close evidence gaps that could change the response. The conclusion should preserve the relevant limitation and responsible body.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "parentId": null, "number": "220", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "220-review-and-accountability", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to public reporting and accountability, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. In relation to public reporting and accountability, the assessment must establish a clear account of findings, limitations, priorities, decisions and responsible bodies. The principal risk is that technical certainty or undifferentiated figures can conceal evidence gaps and leave affected people unable to seek correction. The immediate evidentiary response is to publish proportionate findings, methods and limitations with accessible complaint and correction routes. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Within public reporting and accountability, the standard bears directly on the decision described in this part. The review and accountability standard asks whether affected people and competent authorities can correct evidence and test subsequent action. Assessment teams should retain provenance, reasons and change history and provide accessible routes for challenge. The controlling proposition is that later monitoring should examine delivered education and learner experience, not only inputs dispatched. A finding should state its population, location, observation date, source and material limitation. Its application should remain identifiable in the reasoned assessment finding.", "citationIds": [] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Applied to public reporting and accountability, this requirement addresses a separate evidentiary consequence. Where evidence cannot be obtained safely, the absence should be reported and its decision consequence explained. It should not be converted into a zero or an assumption of adequate provision. The record should explain the resulting implication for priority and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-221", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "parentId": null, "number": "221", "title": "A decision-grade minimum", "anchor": "221-a-decision-grade-minimum", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-221-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Every published finding should identify the decision it informs, the affected population, geographic unit, observation date, source, definition and material limitation. Estimates should be marked as estimates. Lack of safe access should be recorded as a coverage limitation rather than interpreted as lack of need.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-222", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "parentId": null, "number": "222", "title": "Urgency and proportionality", "anchor": "222-urgency-and-proportionality", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-222-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Urgency may justify shorter instruments, purposive site selection and provisional estimates. It does not justify hidden assumptions, unnecessary personal data, unsafe collection or the presentation of inaccessible populations as adequately assessed. The method should be proportionate to the decision and the foreseeable consequence of error.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-223", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "parentId": null, "number": "223", "title": "Equity and public responsibility", "anchor": "223-equity-and-public-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-223-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The assessment should make visible learners omitted by institutional lists and those for whom a nominal place is unsafe, inaccessible or educationally inadequate. Prior exclusion, displacement, disability, poverty and documentation status should inform coverage and response without becoming grounds for lower expectations.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-224", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "parentId": null, "number": "224", "title": "From finding to action", "anchor": "224-from-finding-to-action", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-224-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "A priority should state the condition to be changed, the competent body, the affected population, resources and dependencies, the expected service improvement and the date for review. Where responsibility is shared, the account should remain sufficiently precise for action and correction.", "citationIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-225", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "parentId": null, "number": "225", "title": "Final conclusion", "anchor": "225-final-conclusion", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-225-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Emergency education needs assessment is a public decision function. Its credibility depends on relevance, coverage, transparent uncertainty, protection, disciplined interpretation and observable use. Evidence should be corrected as conditions change and should remain answerable to affected learners, communities and lawful authorities.", "citationIds": [] } ] } ], "technicalAppendices": [], "notes": [], "references": [ { "id": "REF-01", "authoringBody": "Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team", "title": "Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009", "year": 2008, "publicationDate": "2008-11-25", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683", "evidenceRole": "Global analysis of education inequality, governance, financing and aid." }, { "id": "REF-02", "authoringBody": "World Bank", "title": "Education for All Faces a $1.2 Billion Financing Gap", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-05-08", "sourceType": "OFFICIAL_POLICY_FEATURE", "url": "https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2009/05/08/education-for-all-faces-1-2-billion-financing-gap", "evidenceRole": "Contemporaneous assessment of education financing pressure during the global economic crisis." }, { "id": "REF-03", "authoringBody": "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development", "title": "Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness", "year": 2005, "publicationDate": "2005-03-02", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_AID_EFFECTIVENESS_DECLARATION", "url": "https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm", "evidenceRole": "Principles concerning ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability." }, { "id": "REF-04", "authoringBody": "Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness", "title": "Accra Agenda for Action", "year": 2008, "publicationDate": "2008-09-04", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_AID_EFFECTIVENESS_AGENDA", "url": "https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm", "evidenceRole": "Commitments concerning predictability, country systems, conditionality, transparency and partnership." }, { "id": "REF-05", "authoringBody": "United Nations", "title": "Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development", "year": 2002, "publicationDate": "2002-03-22", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_FINANCING_CONSENSUS", "url": "https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf", "evidenceRole": "International framework for domestic resources, development cooperation and systemic financing issues." }, { "id": "REF-06", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Doha Declaration on Financing for Development", "year": 2008, "publicationDate": "2008-12-02", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_FINANCING_DECLARATION", "url": "https://undocs.org/A/RES/63/239", "evidenceRole": "Financing-for-development commitments in the context of emerging global economic crisis." }, { "id": "REF-07", "authoringBody": "World Education Forum", "title": "The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All — Meeting Our Collective Commitments", "year": 2000, "publicationDate": "2000-04-28", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_ACTION_FRAMEWORK", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000121147", "evidenceRole": "International commitments on access, equity, quality, financing and accountable national planning." }, { "id": "REF-08", "authoringBody": "United Nations", "title": "The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008", "year": 2008, "publicationDate": "2008-09-11", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/The%20Millennium%20Development%20Goals%20Report%202008.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Global and regional evidence on poverty, primary education and development conditions." }, { "id": "REF-09", "authoringBody": "World Bank", "title": "World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development", "year": 2005, "publicationDate": "2005-09-01", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_DEVELOPMENT_REPORT", "url": "https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/435331468127174418/pdf/322040World0Development0Report02006.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Institutions, unequal opportunity and public action." }, { "id": "REF-10", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Convention on the Rights of the Child", "year": 1989, "publicationDate": "1989-11-20", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_CONVENTION", "url": "https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child", "evidenceRole": "Rights concerning education, development, equality and the interests of the child." }, { "id": "REF-11", "authoringBody": "United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", "title": "General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education", "year": 1999, "publicationDate": "1999-12-08", "sourceType": "TREATY_BODY_GENERAL_COMMENT", "url": "https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cescr/1999/en/37937", "evidenceRole": "Availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability of education." }, { "id": "REF-12", "authoringBody": "UNESCO and UNICEF", "title": "A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All", "year": 2007, "publicationDate": "2007-01-01", "sourceType": "INTERAGENCY_POLICY_FRAMEWORK", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861", "evidenceRole": "Rights-based planning, equality, participation, accountability and education quality." }, { "id": "REF-13", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities", "year": 2006, "publicationDate": "2006-12-13", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_CONVENTION", "url": "https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities", "evidenceRole": "The operative disability-rights framework, including inclusive education." }, { "id": "REF-14", "authoringBody": "Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team", "title": "Education for All by 2015: Will We Make It? — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008", "year": 2007, "publicationDate": "2007-11-29", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154743", "evidenceRole": "Global evidence on Education for All progress, finance, aid, teachers and unequal access." }, { "id": "REF-15", "authoringBody": "World Bank", "title": "Safeguarding Education During Economic Crisis", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-04-01", "sourceType": "CRISIS_POLICY_NOTE", "url": "https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/489131468340200911/pdf/485120WP0Avert10Box338912B01PUBLIC1.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Contemporaneous policy analysis of education risks and protective responses during the global economic crisis." }, { "id": "REF-16", "authoringBody": "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development", "title": "Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-09-08", "sourceType": "COMPARATIVE_INDICATOR_REPORT", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2009-en", "evidenceRole": "Comparative evidence concerning education expenditure, participation, institutions and outcomes." }, { "id": "REF-17", "authoringBody": "Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team", "title": "Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010", "year": 2010, "publicationDate": "2010-01-19", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606", "evidenceRole": "Global analysis of marginalisation, intersecting disadvantage, education access, quality and governance." }, { "id": "REF-18", "authoringBody": "Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies", "title": "Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction", "year": 2004, "publicationDate": "2004-12-01", "sourceType": "INTER_AGENCY_STANDARD", "url": "https://inee.org/resources/inee-minimum-standards", "evidenceRole": "Contemporaneous international reference for assessment, participation, access, learning environments, teaching and coordination in emergencies." } ], "readerNodes": [ { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "I", "title": "Mandate and decision purpose", "anchor": "part-i-mandate-and-decision-purpose", "sortOrder": 1 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-1", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "1", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "1-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 2 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-2", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "2", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "2-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 3 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-3", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "3", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "3-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 4 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-4", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "4", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "4-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 5 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-5", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "5", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "5-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 6 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-6", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "6", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "6-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 7 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-7", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "7", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "7-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 8 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-8", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "8", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "8-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 9 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-9", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "9", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "9-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 10 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-10", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "10", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "10-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 11 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-11", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-i", "number": "11", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "11-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 12 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "II", "title": "Affected population and denominator", "anchor": "part-ii-affected-population-and-denominator", "sortOrder": 13 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-12", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "12", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "12-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 14 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-13", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "13", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "13-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 15 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-14", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "14", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "14-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 16 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-15", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "15", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "15-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 17 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-16", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "16", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "16-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 18 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-17", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "17", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "17-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 19 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-18", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "18", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "18-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 20 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-19", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "19", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "19-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 21 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-20", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "20", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "20-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 22 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-21", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "21", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "21-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 23 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-22", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ii", "number": "22", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "22-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 24 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "III", "title": "Access and participation", "anchor": "part-iii-access-and-participation", "sortOrder": 25 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-23", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "23", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "23-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 26 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-24", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "24", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "24-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 27 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-25", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "25", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "25-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 28 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-26", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "26", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "26-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 29 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-27", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "27", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "27-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 30 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-28", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "28", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "28-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 31 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-29", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "29", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "29-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 32 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-30", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "30", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "30-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 33 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-31", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "31", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "31-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 34 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-32", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "32", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "32-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 35 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-33", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iii", "number": "33", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "33-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 36 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "IV", "title": "Safety and protection", "anchor": "part-iv-safety-and-protection", "sortOrder": 37 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-34", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "34", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "34-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 38 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-35", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "35", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "35-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 39 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-36", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "36", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "36-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 40 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-37", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "37", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "37-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 41 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-38", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "38", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "38-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 42 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-39", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "39", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "39-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 43 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-40", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "40", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "40-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 44 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-41", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "41", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "41-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 45 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-42", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "42", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "42-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 46 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-43", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "43", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "43-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 47 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-44", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-iv", "number": "44", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "44-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 48 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "V", "title": "Facilities and service readiness", "anchor": "part-v-facilities-and-service-readiness", "sortOrder": 49 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-45", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "45", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "45-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 50 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-46", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "46", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "46-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 51 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-47", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "47", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "47-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 52 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-48", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "48", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "48-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 53 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-49", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "49", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "49-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 54 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-50", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "50", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "50-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 55 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-51", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "51", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "51-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 56 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-52", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "52", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "52-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 57 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-53", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "53", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "53-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 58 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-54", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "54", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "54-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 59 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-55", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-v", "number": "55", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "55-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 60 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "VI", "title": "Teachers and education personnel", "anchor": "part-vi-teachers-and-education-personnel", "sortOrder": 61 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-56", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "56", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "56-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 62 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-57", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "57", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "57-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 63 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-58", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "58", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "58-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 64 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-59", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "59", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "59-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 65 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-60", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "60", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "60-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 66 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-61", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "61", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "61-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 67 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-62", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "62", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "62-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 68 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-63", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "63", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "63-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 69 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-64", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "64", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "64-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 70 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-65", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "65", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "65-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 71 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-66", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vi", "number": "66", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "66-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 72 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "VII", "title": "Instructional time", "anchor": "part-vii-instructional-time", "sortOrder": 73 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-67", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "67", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "67-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 74 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-68", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "68", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "68-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 75 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-69", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "69", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "69-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 76 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-70", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "70", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "70-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 77 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-71", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "71", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "71-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 78 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-72", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "72", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "72-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 79 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-73", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "73", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "73-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 80 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-74", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "74", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "74-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 81 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-75", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "75", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "75-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 82 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-76", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "76", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "76-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 83 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-77", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-vii", "number": "77", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "77-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 84 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "VIII", "title": "Curriculum and language", "anchor": "part-viii-curriculum-and-language", "sortOrder": 85 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-78", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "78", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "78-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 86 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-79", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "79", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "79-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 87 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-80", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "80", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "80-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 88 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-81", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "81", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "81-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 89 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-82", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "82", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "82-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 90 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-83", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "83", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "83-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 91 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-84", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "84", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "84-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 92 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-85", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "85", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "85-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 93 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-86", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "86", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "86-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 94 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-87", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "87", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "87-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 95 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-88", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-viii", "number": "88", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "88-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 96 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "IX", "title": "Learning materials and supply", "anchor": "part-ix-learning-materials-and-supply", "sortOrder": 97 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-89", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "89", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "89-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 98 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-90", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "90", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "90-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 99 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-91", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "91", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "91-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 100 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-92", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "92", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "92-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 101 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-93", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "93", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "93-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 102 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-94", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "94", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "94-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 103 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-95", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "95", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "95-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 104 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-96", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "96", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "96-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 105 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-97", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "97", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "97-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 106 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-98", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "98", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "98-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 107 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-99", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-ix", "number": "99", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "99-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 108 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "X", "title": "Assessment and prior learning", "anchor": "part-x-assessment-and-prior-learning", "sortOrder": 109 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-100", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "100", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "100-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 110 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-101", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "101", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "101-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 111 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-102", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "102", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "102-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 112 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-103", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "103", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "103-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 113 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-104", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "104", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "104-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 114 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-105", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "105", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "105-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 115 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-106", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "106", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "106-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 116 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-107", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "107", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "107-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 117 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-108", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "108", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "108-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 118 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-109", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "109", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "109-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 119 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-110", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-x", "number": "110", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "110-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 120 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XI", "title": "Disability and accessibility", "anchor": "part-xi-disability-and-accessibility", "sortOrder": 121 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-111", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "111", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "111-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 122 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-112", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "112", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "112-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 123 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-113", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "113", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "113-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 124 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-114", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "114", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "114-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 125 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-115", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "115", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "115-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 126 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-116", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "116", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "116-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 127 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-117", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "117", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "117-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 128 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-118", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "118", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "118-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 129 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-119", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "119", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "119-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 130 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-120", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "120", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "120-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 131 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-121", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xi", "number": "121", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "121-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 132 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XII", "title": "Gender and intersecting disadvantage", "anchor": "part-xii-gender-and-intersecting-disadvantage", "sortOrder": 133 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-122", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "122", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "122-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 134 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-123", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "123", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "123-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 135 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-124", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "124", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "124-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 136 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-125", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "125", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "125-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 137 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-126", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "126", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "126-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 138 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-127", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "127", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "127-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 139 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-128", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "128", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "128-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 140 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-129", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "129", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "129-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 141 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-130", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "130", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "130-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 142 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-131", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "131", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "131-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 143 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-132", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xii", "number": "132", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "132-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 144 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XIII", "title": "Displacement and documentation", "anchor": "part-xiii-displacement-and-documentation", "sortOrder": 145 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-133", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "133", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "133-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 146 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-134", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "134", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "134-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 147 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-135", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "135", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "135-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 148 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-136", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "136", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "136-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 149 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-137", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "137", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "137-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 150 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-138", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "138", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "138-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 151 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-139", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "139", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "139-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 152 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-140", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "140", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "140-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 153 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-141", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "141", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "141-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 154 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-142", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "142", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "142-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 155 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-143", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiii", "number": "143", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "143-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 156 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XIV", "title": "Early childhood and younger learners", "anchor": "part-xiv-early-childhood-and-younger-learners", "sortOrder": 157 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-144", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "144", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "144-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 158 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-145", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "145", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "145-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 159 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-146", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "146", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "146-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 160 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-147", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "147", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "147-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 161 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-148", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "148", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "148-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 162 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-149", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "149", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "149-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 163 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-150", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "150", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "150-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 164 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-151", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "151", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "151-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 165 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-152", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "152", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "152-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 166 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-153", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "153", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "153-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 167 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-154", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xiv", "number": "154", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "154-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 168 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XV", "title": "Secondary, technical and higher pathways", "anchor": "part-xv-secondary-technical-and-higher-pathways", "sortOrder": 169 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-155", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "155", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "155-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 170 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-156", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "156", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "156-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 171 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-157", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "157", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "157-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 172 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-158", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "158", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "158-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 173 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-159", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "159", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "159-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 174 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-160", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "160", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "160-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 175 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-161", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "161", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "161-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 176 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-162", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "162", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "162-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 177 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-163", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "163", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "163-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 178 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-164", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "164", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "164-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 179 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-165", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xv", "number": "165", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "165-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 180 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XVI", "title": "Finance and household burden", "anchor": "part-xvi-finance-and-household-burden", "sortOrder": 181 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-166", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "166", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "166-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 182 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-167", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "167", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "167-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 183 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-168", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "168", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "168-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 184 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-169", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "169", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "169-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 185 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-170", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "170", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "170-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 186 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-171", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "171", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "171-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 187 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-172", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "172", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "172-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 188 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-173", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "173", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "173-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 189 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-174", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "174", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "174-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 190 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-175", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "175", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "175-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 191 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-176", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvi", "number": "176", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "176-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 192 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XVII", "title": "Local capacity and participation", "anchor": "part-xvii-local-capacity-and-participation", "sortOrder": 193 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-177", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "177", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "177-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 194 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-178", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "178", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "178-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 195 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-179", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "179", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "179-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 196 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-180", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "180", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "180-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 197 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-181", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "181", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "181-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 198 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-182", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "182", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "182-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 199 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-183", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "183", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "183-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 200 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-184", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "184", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "184-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 201 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-185", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "185", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "185-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 202 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-186", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "186", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "186-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 203 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-187", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xvii", "number": "187", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "187-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 204 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XVIII", "title": "Coordination and information exchange", "anchor": "part-xviii-coordination-and-information-exchange", "sortOrder": 205 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-188", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "188", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "188-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 206 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-189", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "189", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "189-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 207 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-190", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "190", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "190-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 208 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-191", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "191", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "191-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 209 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-192", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "192", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "192-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 210 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-193", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "193", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "193-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 211 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-194", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "194", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "194-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 212 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-195", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "195", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "195-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 213 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-196", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "196", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "196-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 214 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-197", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "197", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "197-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 215 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-198", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xviii", "number": "198", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "198-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 216 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XIX", "title": "Change, monitoring and reassessment", "anchor": "part-xix-change-monitoring-and-reassessment", "sortOrder": 217 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-199", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "199", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "199-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 218 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-200", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "200", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "200-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 219 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-201", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "201", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "201-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 220 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-202", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "202", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "202-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 221 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-203", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "203", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "203-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 222 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-204", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "204", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "204-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 223 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-205", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "205", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "205-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 224 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-206", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "206", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "206-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 225 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-207", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "207", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "207-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 226 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-208", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "208", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "208-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 227 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-209", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xix", "number": "209", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "209-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 228 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XX", "title": "Public reporting and accountability", "anchor": "part-xx-public-reporting-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 229 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-210", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "210", "title": "Evidentiary proposition", "anchor": "210-evidentiary-proposition", "sortOrder": 230 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-211", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "211", "title": "Decision relevance", "anchor": "211-decision-relevance", "sortOrder": 231 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-212", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "212", "title": "Definition and measurement", "anchor": "212-definition-and-measurement", "sortOrder": 232 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-213", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "213", "title": "Coverage and inclusion", "anchor": "213-coverage-and-inclusion", "sortOrder": 233 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-214", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "214", "title": "Source and corroboration", "anchor": "214-source-and-corroboration", "sortOrder": 234 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-215", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "215", "title": "Timeliness and change", "anchor": "215-timeliness-and-change", "sortOrder": 235 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-216", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "216", "title": "Equity consequence", "anchor": "216-equity-consequence", "sortOrder": 236 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-217", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "217", "title": "Uncertainty and limitation", "anchor": "217-uncertainty-and-limitation", "sortOrder": 237 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-218", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "218", "title": "Protection and data responsibility", "anchor": "218-protection-and-data-responsibility", "sortOrder": 238 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-219", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "219", "title": "Feasibility and responsibility", "anchor": "219-feasibility-and-responsibility", "sortOrder": 239 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-220", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xx", "number": "220", "title": "Review and accountability", "anchor": "220-review-and-accountability", "sortOrder": 240 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "XXI", "title": "Conclusions and governing principles", "anchor": "part-xxi-conclusions-and-governing-principles", "sortOrder": 241 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-221", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "221", "title": "A decision-grade minimum", "anchor": "221-a-decision-grade-minimum", "sortOrder": 242 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-222", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "222", "title": "Urgency and proportionality", "anchor": "222-urgency-and-proportionality", "sortOrder": 243 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-223", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "223", "title": "Equity and public responsibility", "anchor": "223-equity-and-public-responsibility", "sortOrder": 244 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-224", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "224", "title": "From finding to action", "anchor": "224-from-finding-to-action", "sortOrder": 245 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2010-05-225", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2010-05-xxi", "number": "225", "title": "Final conclusion", "anchor": "225-final-conclusion", "sortOrder": 246 } ], "statistics": { "partCount": 21, "sectionCount": 225, "appendixCount": 0, "paragraphCount": 625, "tableCount": 0, "referenceCount": 18, "mainTextWords": 47292, "technicalAppendixWords": 0, "totalWords": 47292 }, "contentHash": "sha256-2d4807fc46a4e774578d477e957d084abdaa9f47a02a6f308d0965a7e7672542" }