{ "schemaVersion": "iceqc.research-report.reader.v1", "document": { "id": "doc-iceqc-r-2017-07", "slug": "regulatory-responses-low-performance-fair-process-contextual-evidence", "documentNumber": "ICEQC-R-2017-07", "title": "Regulatory Responses to Low Performance: Fair Process and Contextual Evidence", "subtitle": "A global policy and regulatory synthesis of evidence, proportionality, institutional response and learner protection", "family": "RESEARCH", "reportType": "THEMATIC_RESEARCH_REPORT", "researchCategory": "INDUSTRY_POLICY_AND_REGIONAL_REGULATORY_ANALYSIS", "reportArchetype": "POLICY_AND_REGULATORY_SYNTHESIS", "geographicScope": "Global", "ownerBody": "ICEQC Research and Policy Directorate", "publisher": "International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)", "publicIdentity": "ICEQC_ONLY" }, "version": { "id": "ver-iceqc-r-2017-07-en-2017-07-23", "edition": "2017", "versionLabel": "Published 2017-07-23", "language": "en", "authoritativeLanguage": "en", "status": "PUBLISHED", "publicationDate": "2017-07-23", "evidenceCutoffDate": "2017-07-23", "statusNotice": "This is the controlled English edition. Evidence and institutional status are stated as at the evidence cut-off date.", "summary": "Regulatory responses to low performance can protect learners and restore educational quality, but they can also amplify statistical error, punish schools for conditions controlled elsewhere and disrupt current education. A lawful and proportionate response therefore begins with a clearly defined concern, competent authority and evidence threshold. A low category or rank prompts enquiry; it does not by itself establish institutional fault." }, "publicationControl": { "matrixRecordId": "ICEQC-R-2017-07", "temporalBasis": "CONTEMPORANEOUS_AS_AT_PUBLICATION_DATE", "originalAuthorship": "ICEQC", "suggestedMainTextWords": 19000, "suggestedTechnicalAnnexWords": 7000, "suggestedTotalWords": 26000, "actualMainTextWords": 21045, "actualTechnicalAnnexWords": 0, "actualTotalWords": 21045 }, "frontMatter": { "executiveSummary": [ "Regulatory responses to low performance can protect learners and restore educational quality, but they can also amplify statistical error, punish schools for conditions controlled elsewhere and disrupt current education. A lawful and proportionate response therefore begins with a clearly defined concern, competent authority and evidence threshold. A low category or rank prompts enquiry; it does not by itself establish institutional fault.", "Contextual evidence is essential but does not justify lower expectations. Prior attainment, poverty, location, language, migration, disability, school size, staffing and disruption can affect observed results. They should be used to diagnose barriers and allocate responsibility between school and system. Absolute levels and minimum entitlements must remain visible so adjustment does not predict away the learning of disadvantaged pupils.", "Fair procedure requires timely notice of the specific case, access to data and methods, a meaningful opportunity to respond, impartial consideration, written reasons, appeal and correction. Schools near statistical thresholds or facing severe consequences require corroborating evidence. Learners need continuity of teaching, support, assessment and records during dispute. Automated categorisation should not replace bounded professional judgement, but context should not become evidence-free discretion.", "The response ladder starts with diagnosis, resources and supported improvement. Where the verified cause is controlled by a higher authority, staffing, finance or access duties must be corrected there. Directed action and enhanced monitoring should remain specific. Governance change is justified only where less intrusive measures are inadequate or urgent protection requires it. Closure, merger or transfer is a last resort and depends on safe adequate receiving provision, transport, records and sustained attendance.", "Intervention should have learner-facing milestones, equity review and exit conditions. Plans, meetings and purchases are not results unless learners receive better time, teaching, support, safety or progression. Public reporting should avoid permanent stigma, preserve confidentiality and disclose evidence, reasons, resources and corrections. The label should be removed when verified conditions improve. Repeated cases should inform correction of system finance, staffing, regulation and measure design." ], "keyFindings": [ "A low-performance category is a trigger for enquiry, not proof of school fault.", "Evidence requirements should rise with the severity and irreversibility of the proposed consequence.", "Context should assign causes and resources without lowering the common learner entitlement.", "Notice, disclosure, response, impartial review, reasons, appeal and continuity are essential protections.", "Resource and capability support normally precede intrusive governance change.", "Closure or transfer requires verified better receiving provision and protection of attendance, transport and records.", "Regulatory milestones should concern learner-facing service and distribution, not activities alone.", "Exit criteria should remove intervention and stigma when the verified shortfall has been corrected." ], "scopeAndMethod": [ "This global policy and regulatory synthesis addresses ministries, inspectorates, local authorities and other bodies intervening in schools or providers identified with low performance. It covers support, direction, governance action and structural remedies. It does not prescribe one classification model or national legal form.", "Evidence is restricted to official United Nations, UNESCO and European institutional material available by 23 July 2017. It combines education-quality, statistical, rights, school-evaluation, child-friendly-school and early-leaving guidance, with education levels interpreted against the international classification. Later accountability reports, data and outcomes are excluded." ] }, "parts": [ { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "I", "title": "Trigger, authority and evidential threshold", "anchor": "part-i-trigger-authority-and-evidential-threshold", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "II", "title": "Contextual evidence without lower expectations", "anchor": "part-ii-contextual-evidence-without-lower-expectations", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "III", "title": "Fair procedure and reviewable decisions", "anchor": "part-iii-fair-procedure-and-reviewable-decisions", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "IV", "title": "A graduated ladder of regulatory response", "anchor": "part-iv-a-graduated-ladder-of-regulatory-response", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24" ] }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "V", "title": "Monitoring, public accountability and ending intervention", "anchor": "part-v-monitoring-public-accountability-and-ending-intervention", "sectionIds": [ "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29", "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30" ] } ], "sections": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "1", "title": "Defining the regulatory concern", "anchor": "1-defining-the-regulatory-concern", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Defining the regulatory concern establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory concern. For defining the regulatory concern, the affected population or bodies are schools, providers and learners potentially affected, and the direct evidence concerns material educational shortfall. In examining defining the regulatory concern, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on defining the regulatory concern, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of defining the regulatory concern, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-05", "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in defining the regulatory concern is that a low rank or one-year result is treated as self-explanatory failure. In examining defining the regulatory concern, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on defining the regulatory concern, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory concern, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of defining the regulatory concern, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-05" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for defining the regulatory concern is to state the entitlement, measure, threshold, period and decision that may follow. Within evidence on defining the regulatory concern, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of defining the regulatory concern, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting defining the regulatory concern, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-05", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory concern should be selected by coverage. For regulation of defining the regulatory concern, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting defining the regulatory concern, for defining the regulatory concern, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about defining the regulatory concern, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to defining the regulatory concern. In interpreting defining the regulatory concern, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about defining the regulatory concern, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For defining the regulatory concern, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining defining the regulatory concern, if part of schools, providers and learners potentially affected is missing, its likely effect on material educational shortfall and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of material educational shortfall should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about defining the regulatory concern, for defining the regulatory concern, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For defining the regulatory concern, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining defining the regulatory concern, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-05", "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes defining the regulatory concern. For defining the regulatory concern, a material finding about the regulatory concern should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining defining the regulatory concern, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on defining the regulatory concern, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-05", "REF-10", "REF-16" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "2", "title": "Competence and decision authority", "anchor": "2-competence-and-decision-authority", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Competence and decision authority establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory competence. For competence and decision authority, the affected population or bodies are ministries, inspectorates, local bodies and governing authorities, and the direct evidence concerns lawful decision right. In examining competence and decision authority, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on competence and decision authority, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of competence and decision authority, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in competence and decision authority is that a body imposes conditions beyond its mandate or no body owns correction. In examining competence and decision authority, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on competence and decision authority, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory competence, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of competence and decision authority, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for competence and decision authority is to map legal authority, delegated duty, finance and escalation before intervention. Within evidence on competence and decision authority, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of competence and decision authority, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting competence and decision authority, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory competence should be selected by coverage. For regulation of competence and decision authority, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting competence and decision authority, for competence and decision authority, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about competence and decision authority, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to competence and decision authority. In interpreting competence and decision authority, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about competence and decision authority, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For competence and decision authority, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining competence and decision authority, if part of ministries, inspectorates, local bodies and governing authorities is missing, its likely effect on lawful decision right and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of lawful decision right should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about competence and decision authority, for competence and decision authority, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For competence and decision authority, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining competence and decision authority, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes competence and decision authority. For competence and decision authority, a material finding about the regulatory competence should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining competence and decision authority, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on competence and decision authority, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "3", "title": "Evidence threshold proportionate to consequence", "anchor": "3-evidence-threshold-proportionate-to-consequence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence threshold proportionate to consequence establishes the regulatory question for the evidence sufficiency. For evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, the affected population or bodies are institutions facing support, direction, sanction or closure, and the direct evidence concerns strength and consequence. In examining evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in evidence threshold proportionate to consequence is that unstable estimates trigger severe action unsupported by corroboration. In examining evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the evidence sufficiency, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for evidence threshold proportionate to consequence is to raise coverage, certainty and independent review requirements with the consequence. Within evidence on evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the evidence sufficiency should be selected by coverage. For regulation of evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, for evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to evidence threshold proportionate to consequence. In interpreting evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, if part of institutions facing support, direction, sanction or closure is missing, its likely effect on strength and consequence and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of strength and consequence should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, for evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes evidence threshold proportionate to consequence. For evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, a material finding about the evidence sufficiency should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on evidence threshold proportionate to consequence, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "4", "title": "Notice of the case to be answered", "anchor": "4-notice-of-the-case-to-be-answered", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Notice of the case to be answered establishes the regulatory question for the notice requirement. For notice of the case to be answered, the affected population or bodies are school leaders, staff, learners and governing bodies, and the direct evidence concerns disclosed evidence and proposed action. In examining notice of the case to be answered, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on notice of the case to be answered, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of notice of the case to be answered, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in notice of the case to be answered is that institutions receive a category without source, calculation or specific concern. In examining notice of the case to be answered, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on notice of the case to be answered, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the notice requirement, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of notice of the case to be answered, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for notice of the case to be answered is to provide timely evidence, method, authority, consequence and response route. Within evidence on notice of the case to be answered, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of notice of the case to be answered, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting notice of the case to be answered, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the notice requirement should be selected by coverage. For regulation of notice of the case to be answered, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting notice of the case to be answered, for notice of the case to be answered, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about notice of the case to be answered, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to notice of the case to be answered. In interpreting notice of the case to be answered, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about notice of the case to be answered, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For notice of the case to be answered, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining notice of the case to be answered, if part of school leaders, staff, learners and governing bodies is missing, its likely effect on disclosed evidence and proposed action and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of disclosed evidence and proposed action should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about notice of the case to be answered, for notice of the case to be answered, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For notice of the case to be answered, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining notice of the case to be answered, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes notice of the case to be answered. For notice of the case to be answered, a material finding about the notice requirement should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining notice of the case to be answered, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on notice of the case to be answered, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "5", "title": "Non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection", "anchor": "5-non-discrimination-and-equal-regulatory-protection", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection establishes the regulatory question for the equal regulatory treatment. For non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, the affected population or bodies are schools serving different groups and contexts, and the direct evidence concerns consistent standards and review. In examining non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04", "REF-10", "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection is that schools serving disadvantaged learners face greater sanction for intake or system conditions. In examining non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the equal regulatory treatment, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection is to apply common entitlement and examine differential impact and system responsibility. Within evidence on non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the equal regulatory treatment should be selected by coverage. For regulation of non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, for non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection. In interpreting non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, if part of schools serving different groups and contexts is missing, its likely effect on consistent standards and review and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of consistent standards and review should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, for non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-10", "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection. For non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, a material finding about the equal regulatory treatment should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04", "REF-10", "REF-13" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "parentId": null, "number": "6", "title": "Proportionality and least harmful effective response", "anchor": "6-proportionality-and-least-harmful-effective-response", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Proportionality and least harmful effective response establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory proportionality. For proportionality and least harmful effective response, the affected population or bodies are learners and institutions affected by intervention, and the direct evidence concerns fit, necessity and harm. In examining proportionality and least harmful effective response, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on proportionality and least harmful effective response, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of proportionality and least harmful effective response, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in proportionality and least harmful effective response is that a punitive or disruptive measure is selected before support or narrower correction. In examining proportionality and least harmful effective response, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on proportionality and least harmful effective response, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory proportionality, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of proportionality and least harmful effective response, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for proportionality and least harmful effective response is to choose the least harmful measure capable of correcting the verified shortfall. Within evidence on proportionality and least harmful effective response, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of proportionality and least harmful effective response, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting proportionality and least harmful effective response, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory proportionality should be selected by coverage. For regulation of proportionality and least harmful effective response, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting proportionality and least harmful effective response, for proportionality and least harmful effective response, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about proportionality and least harmful effective response, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to proportionality and least harmful effective response. In interpreting proportionality and least harmful effective response, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about proportionality and least harmful effective response, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For proportionality and least harmful effective response, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining proportionality and least harmful effective response, if part of learners and institutions affected by intervention is missing, its likely effect on fit, necessity and harm and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of fit, necessity and harm should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about proportionality and least harmful effective response, for proportionality and least harmful effective response, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For proportionality and least harmful effective response, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining proportionality and least harmful effective response, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes proportionality and least harmful effective response. For proportionality and least harmful effective response, a material finding about the regulatory proportionality should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining proportionality and least harmful effective response, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on proportionality and least harmful effective response, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "7", "title": "Prior attainment and learner mobility", "anchor": "7-prior-attainment-and-learner-mobility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Prior attainment and learner mobility establishes the regulatory question for the learner starting point. For prior attainment and learner mobility, the affected population or bodies are cohorts entering with varied prior opportunity and movement, and the direct evidence concerns starting distribution and exposure. In examining prior attainment and learner mobility, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on prior attainment and learner mobility, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of prior attainment and learner mobility, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-05", "REF-17", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in prior attainment and learner mobility is that raw outcomes classify intake and partial exposure as current school contribution. In examining prior attainment and learner mobility, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on prior attainment and learner mobility, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the learner starting point, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of prior attainment and learner mobility, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-05" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for prior attainment and learner mobility is to report prior evidence, time enrolled, mobility and absolute later levels. Within evidence on prior attainment and learner mobility, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of prior attainment and learner mobility, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting prior attainment and learner mobility, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-05", "REF-17" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the learner starting point should be selected by coverage. For regulation of prior attainment and learner mobility, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting prior attainment and learner mobility, for prior attainment and learner mobility, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about prior attainment and learner mobility, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-17", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to prior attainment and learner mobility. In interpreting prior attainment and learner mobility, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about prior attainment and learner mobility, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For prior attainment and learner mobility, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining prior attainment and learner mobility, if part of cohorts entering with varied prior opportunity and movement is missing, its likely effect on starting distribution and exposure and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of starting distribution and exposure should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about prior attainment and learner mobility, for prior attainment and learner mobility, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For prior attainment and learner mobility, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining prior attainment and learner mobility, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-05", "REF-17", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes prior attainment and learner mobility. For prior attainment and learner mobility, a material finding about the learner starting point should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining prior attainment and learner mobility, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on prior attainment and learner mobility, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-05", "REF-17", "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "8", "title": "Poverty, location and service cost", "anchor": "8-poverty-location-and-service-cost", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Poverty, location and service cost establishes the regulatory question for the socio-territorial context. For poverty, location and service cost, the affected population or bodies are schools serving poor, remote or informal-settlement communities, and the direct evidence concerns barrier and service condition. In examining poverty, location and service cost, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on poverty, location and service cost, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of poverty, location and service cost, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04", "REF-07", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in poverty, location and service cost is that broad proxies are treated as destiny or ignored in allocation. In examining poverty, location and service cost, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on poverty, location and service cost, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the socio-territorial context, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of poverty, location and service cost, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for poverty, location and service cost is to use context to diagnose cost and access while preserving the common standard. Within evidence on poverty, location and service cost, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of poverty, location and service cost, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting poverty, location and service cost, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-07" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the socio-territorial context should be selected by coverage. For regulation of poverty, location and service cost, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting poverty, location and service cost, for poverty, location and service cost, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about poverty, location and service cost, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-07", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to poverty, location and service cost. In interpreting poverty, location and service cost, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about poverty, location and service cost, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For poverty, location and service cost, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining poverty, location and service cost, if part of schools serving poor, remote or informal-settlement communities is missing, its likely effect on barrier and service condition and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of barrier and service condition should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about poverty, location and service cost, for poverty, location and service cost, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For poverty, location and service cost, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining poverty, location and service cost, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-07", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes poverty, location and service cost. For poverty, location and service cost, a material finding about the socio-territorial context should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining poverty, location and service cost, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on poverty, location and service cost, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-04", "REF-07", "REF-11" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "9", "title": "Language, migration and interrupted education", "anchor": "9-language-migration-and-interrupted-education", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Language, migration and interrupted education establishes the regulatory question for the language and migration context. For language, migration and interrupted education, the affected population or bodies are newly arrived, refugee and multilingual learners, and the direct evidence concerns comprehension, support and continuity. In examining language, migration and interrupted education, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on language, migration and interrupted education, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of language, migration and interrupted education, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-13", "REF-18", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in language, migration and interrupted education is that schools are penalised for partial exposure or exclude learners to protect results. In examining language, migration and interrupted education, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on language, migration and interrupted education, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the language and migration context, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of language, migration and interrupted education, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-13" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for language, migration and interrupted education is to report entry date, language support, mobility, coverage and progress. Within evidence on language, migration and interrupted education, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of language, migration and interrupted education, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting language, migration and interrupted education, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the language and migration context should be selected by coverage. For regulation of language, migration and interrupted education, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting language, migration and interrupted education, for language, migration and interrupted education, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about language, migration and interrupted education, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to language, migration and interrupted education. In interpreting language, migration and interrupted education, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about language, migration and interrupted education, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For language, migration and interrupted education, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining language, migration and interrupted education, if part of newly arrived, refugee and multilingual learners is missing, its likely effect on comprehension, support and continuity and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of comprehension, support and continuity should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about language, migration and interrupted education, for language, migration and interrupted education, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For language, migration and interrupted education, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining language, migration and interrupted education, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-18", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes language, migration and interrupted education. For language, migration and interrupted education, a material finding about the language and migration context should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining language, migration and interrupted education, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on language, migration and interrupted education, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-13", "REF-18", "REF-20" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "10", "title": "Disability and reasonable accommodation", "anchor": "10-disability-and-reasonable-accommodation", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Disability and reasonable accommodation establishes the regulatory question for the disability context. For disability and reasonable accommodation, the affected population or bodies are learners with different functional and support requirements, and the direct evidence concerns access, accommodation and progress. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of disability and reasonable accommodation, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-11", "REF-15", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in disability and reasonable accommodation is that incomparable diagnoses or assessment exclusions distort school results. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the disability context, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of disability and reasonable accommodation, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for disability and reasonable accommodation is to review accessibility, accommodations, participation and substantive learning. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of disability and reasonable accommodation, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting disability and reasonable accommodation, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-11", "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the disability context should be selected by coverage. For regulation of disability and reasonable accommodation, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting disability and reasonable accommodation, for disability and reasonable accommodation, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-15", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to disability and reasonable accommodation. In interpreting disability and reasonable accommodation, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For disability and reasonable accommodation, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, if part of learners with different functional and support requirements is missing, its likely effect on access, accommodation and progress and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of access, accommodation and progress should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, for disability and reasonable accommodation, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For disability and reasonable accommodation, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-11", "REF-15", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes disability and reasonable accommodation. For disability and reasonable accommodation, a material finding about the disability context should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-11", "REF-15", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "11", "title": "School size and exceptional events", "anchor": "11-school-size-and-exceptional-events", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "School size and exceptional events establishes the regulatory question for the stability context. For school size and exceptional events, the affected population or bodies are small schools and institutions affected by unusual disruption, and the direct evidence concerns cohort size and event effect. In examining school size and exceptional events, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on school size and exceptional events, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of school size and exceptional events, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-08", "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in school size and exceptional events is that a few learners or one disruption causes categorical change treated as durable quality. In examining school size and exceptional events, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on school size and exceptional events, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the stability context, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of school size and exceptional events, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-08", "REF-09" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for school size and exceptional events is to publish counts, intervals, event evidence and multiple-year stability. Within evidence on school size and exceptional events, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of school size and exceptional events, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting school size and exceptional events, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the stability context should be selected by coverage. For regulation of school size and exceptional events, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting school size and exceptional events, for school size and exceptional events, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about school size and exceptional events, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to school size and exceptional events. In interpreting school size and exceptional events, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about school size and exceptional events, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For school size and exceptional events, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining school size and exceptional events, if part of small schools and institutions affected by unusual disruption is missing, its likely effect on cohort size and event effect and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-08", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of cohort size and event effect should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about school size and exceptional events, for school size and exceptional events, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For school size and exceptional events, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining school size and exceptional events, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes school size and exceptional events. For school size and exceptional events, a material finding about the stability context should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining school size and exceptional events, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on school size and exceptional events, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-08", "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "parentId": null, "number": "12", "title": "Staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions", "anchor": "12-staffing-finance-and-system-controlled-conditions", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions establishes the regulatory question for the system context. For staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, the affected population or bodies are schools with different staffing, time, facilities and support, and the direct evidence concerns opportunity to learn. In examining staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02", "REF-03", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions is that school sanction substitutes for correction of resource failures controlled by higher authorities. In examining staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the system context, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions is to assign school and system causes separately and resource each corrective duty. Within evidence on staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-03" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the system context should be selected by coverage. For regulation of staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, for staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions. In interpreting staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, if part of schools with different staffing, time, facilities and support is missing, its likely effect on opportunity to learn and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of opportunity to learn should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, for staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-03", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions. For staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, a material finding about the system context should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02", "REF-03", "REF-18" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "13", "title": "Access to data, methods and source limitations", "anchor": "13-access-to-data-methods-and-source-limitations", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Access to data, methods and source limitations establishes the regulatory question for the evidence disclosure. For access to data, methods and source limitations, the affected population or bodies are institutions asked to respond to a low-performance finding, and the direct evidence concerns reproducible evidence. In examining access to data, methods and source limitations, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on access to data, methods and source limitations, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of access to data, methods and source limitations, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in access to data, methods and source limitations is that raw data or formulas are withheld and errors cannot be identified. In examining access to data, methods and source limitations, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on access to data, methods and source limitations, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the evidence disclosure, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of access to data, methods and source limitations, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for access to data, methods and source limitations is to disclose sufficient data, definitions, source coverage, model and uncertainty securely. Within evidence on access to data, methods and source limitations, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of access to data, methods and source limitations, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting access to data, methods and source limitations, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the evidence disclosure should be selected by coverage. For regulation of access to data, methods and source limitations, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting access to data, methods and source limitations, for access to data, methods and source limitations, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about access to data, methods and source limitations, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to access to data, methods and source limitations. In interpreting access to data, methods and source limitations, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about access to data, methods and source limitations, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For access to data, methods and source limitations, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining access to data, methods and source limitations, if part of institutions asked to respond to a low-performance finding is missing, its likely effect on reproducible evidence and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of reproducible evidence should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about access to data, methods and source limitations, for access to data, methods and source limitations, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For access to data, methods and source limitations, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining access to data, methods and source limitations, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes access to data, methods and source limitations. For access to data, methods and source limitations, a material finding about the evidence disclosure should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining access to data, methods and source limitations, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on access to data, methods and source limitations, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "14", "title": "Meaningful opportunity to respond", "anchor": "14-meaningful-opportunity-to-respond", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Meaningful opportunity to respond establishes the regulatory question for the right to response. For meaningful opportunity to respond, the affected population or bodies are leaders, staff, learners and governing bodies affected by the decision, and the direct evidence concerns counter-evidence and explanation. In examining meaningful opportunity to respond, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on meaningful opportunity to respond, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of meaningful opportunity to respond, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in meaningful opportunity to respond is that response is invited after a decision or within an impossible timetable. In examining meaningful opportunity to respond, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on meaningful opportunity to respond, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the right to response, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of meaningful opportunity to respond, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for meaningful opportunity to respond is to allow reasonable time, representation and relevant documentary and contextual evidence. Within evidence on meaningful opportunity to respond, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of meaningful opportunity to respond, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting meaningful opportunity to respond, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the right to response should be selected by coverage. For regulation of meaningful opportunity to respond, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting meaningful opportunity to respond, for meaningful opportunity to respond, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about meaningful opportunity to respond, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to meaningful opportunity to respond. In interpreting meaningful opportunity to respond, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about meaningful opportunity to respond, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For meaningful opportunity to respond, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining meaningful opportunity to respond, if part of leaders, staff, learners and governing bodies affected by the decision is missing, its likely effect on counter-evidence and explanation and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of counter-evidence and explanation should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about meaningful opportunity to respond, for meaningful opportunity to respond, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For meaningful opportunity to respond, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining meaningful opportunity to respond, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes meaningful opportunity to respond. For meaningful opportunity to respond, a material finding about the right to response should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining meaningful opportunity to respond, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on meaningful opportunity to respond, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "15", "title": "Impartial technical and contextual review", "anchor": "15-impartial-technical-and-contextual-review", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Impartial technical and contextual review establishes the regulatory question for the independent review. For impartial technical and contextual review, the affected population or bodies are schools near thresholds or facing high consequences, and the direct evidence concerns verification and reasoned judgement. In examining impartial technical and contextual review, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on impartial technical and contextual review, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of impartial technical and contextual review, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in impartial technical and contextual review is that the original analyst confirms the result without testing error or alternative interpretation. In examining impartial technical and contextual review, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on impartial technical and contextual review, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the independent review, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of impartial technical and contextual review, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for impartial technical and contextual review is to use independent competence and declare conflicts while preserving bounded criteria. Within evidence on impartial technical and contextual review, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of impartial technical and contextual review, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting impartial technical and contextual review, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the independent review should be selected by coverage. For regulation of impartial technical and contextual review, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting impartial technical and contextual review, for impartial technical and contextual review, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about impartial technical and contextual review, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to impartial technical and contextual review. In interpreting impartial technical and contextual review, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about impartial technical and contextual review, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For impartial technical and contextual review, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining impartial technical and contextual review, if part of schools near thresholds or facing high consequences is missing, its likely effect on verification and reasoned judgement and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of verification and reasoned judgement should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about impartial technical and contextual review, for impartial technical and contextual review, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For impartial technical and contextual review, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining impartial technical and contextual review, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes impartial technical and contextual review. For impartial technical and contextual review, a material finding about the independent review should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining impartial technical and contextual review, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on impartial technical and contextual review, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-16", "REF-19", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "16", "title": "Written reasons and evidential findings", "anchor": "16-written-reasons-and-evidential-findings", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Written reasons and evidential findings establishes the regulatory question for the reasoned decision. For written reasons and evidential findings, the affected population or bodies are institutions and communities needing to understand action, and the direct evidence concerns finding, authority and response. In examining written reasons and evidential findings, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on written reasons and evidential findings, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of written reasons and evidential findings, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in written reasons and evidential findings is that a label or template conclusion replaces reasons linking evidence to consequence. In examining written reasons and evidential findings, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on written reasons and evidential findings, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the reasoned decision, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of written reasons and evidential findings, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for written reasons and evidential findings is to state material facts, contested points, interpretation, authority and proportionality. Within evidence on written reasons and evidential findings, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of written reasons and evidential findings, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting written reasons and evidential findings, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the reasoned decision should be selected by coverage. For regulation of written reasons and evidential findings, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting written reasons and evidential findings, for written reasons and evidential findings, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about written reasons and evidential findings, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to written reasons and evidential findings. In interpreting written reasons and evidential findings, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about written reasons and evidential findings, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For written reasons and evidential findings, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining written reasons and evidential findings, if part of institutions and communities needing to understand action is missing, its likely effect on finding, authority and response and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of finding, authority and response should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about written reasons and evidential findings, for written reasons and evidential findings, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For written reasons and evidential findings, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining written reasons and evidential findings, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes written reasons and evidential findings. For written reasons and evidential findings, a material finding about the reasoned decision should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining written reasons and evidential findings, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on written reasons and evidential findings, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "17", "title": "Appeal and correction of material error", "anchor": "17-appeal-and-correction-of-material-error", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Appeal and correction of material error establishes the regulatory question for the appeal route. For appeal and correction of material error, the affected population or bodies are institutions and learners affected by contested action, and the direct evidence concerns review, correction and outcome. In examining appeal and correction of material error, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on appeal and correction of material error, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of appeal and correction of material error, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in appeal and correction of material error is that appeal cannot correct data before sanctions or is heard by the same unbounded discretion. In examining appeal and correction of material error, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on appeal and correction of material error, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the appeal route, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of appeal and correction of material error, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for appeal and correction of material error is to provide time-bound independent appeal, data correction and published outcome. Within evidence on appeal and correction of material error, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of appeal and correction of material error, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting appeal and correction of material error, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the appeal route should be selected by coverage. For regulation of appeal and correction of material error, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting appeal and correction of material error, for appeal and correction of material error, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about appeal and correction of material error, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to appeal and correction of material error. In interpreting appeal and correction of material error, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about appeal and correction of material error, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For appeal and correction of material error, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining appeal and correction of material error, if part of institutions and learners affected by contested action is missing, its likely effect on review, correction and outcome and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of review, correction and outcome should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about appeal and correction of material error, for appeal and correction of material error, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For appeal and correction of material error, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining appeal and correction of material error, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes appeal and correction of material error. For appeal and correction of material error, a material finding about the appeal route should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining appeal and correction of material error, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on appeal and correction of material error, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-20", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "parentId": null, "number": "18", "title": "Continuity of learner entitlement during dispute", "anchor": "18-continuity-of-learner-entitlement-during-dispute", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Continuity of learner entitlement during dispute establishes the regulatory question for the continuity protection. For continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, the affected population or bodies are learners relying on the institution under review, and the direct evidence concerns teaching, support and certification. In examining continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in continuity of learner entitlement during dispute is that regulatory dispute interrupts services or creates staff flight and family uncertainty. In examining continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the continuity protection, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for continuity of learner entitlement during dispute is to protect current education, records, assessment and support pending final decision. Within evidence on continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the continuity protection should be selected by coverage. For regulation of continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, for continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to continuity of learner entitlement during dispute. In interpreting continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, if part of learners relying on the institution under review is missing, its likely effect on teaching, support and certification and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of teaching, support and certification should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, for continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes continuity of learner entitlement during dispute. For continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, a material finding about the continuity protection should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on continuity of learner entitlement during dispute, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "19", "title": "Diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan", "anchor": "19-diagnostic-support-and-a-bounded-improvement-plan", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan establishes the regulatory question for the supported improvement. For diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, the affected population or bodies are schools with verified but remediable shortcomings, and the direct evidence concerns cause, action and milestone. In examining diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-16", "REF-23", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan is that a generic plan repeats the performance label without identifying change. In examining diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the supported improvement, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan is to state the cause, beneficiary, owner, resources, dosage and learner-facing test. Within evidence on diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-23" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the supported improvement should be selected by coverage. For regulation of diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, for diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-23", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan. In interpreting diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, if part of schools with verified but remediable shortcomings is missing, its likely effect on cause, action and milestone and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of cause, action and milestone should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, for diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-23", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan. For diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, a material finding about the supported improvement should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-16", "REF-23", "REF-24" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "20", "title": "Resource correction under system responsibility", "anchor": "20-resource-correction-under-system-responsibility", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Resource correction under system responsibility establishes the regulatory question for the resource remedy. For resource correction under system responsibility, the affected population or bodies are schools lacking staff, time, facilities or specialist support, and the direct evidence concerns receipt and service. In examining resource correction under system responsibility, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on resource correction under system responsibility, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of resource correction under system responsibility, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03", "REF-18", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in resource correction under system responsibility is that institutions are directed to improve conditions they lack authority or finance to change. In examining resource correction under system responsibility, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on resource correction under system responsibility, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the resource remedy, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of resource correction under system responsibility, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for resource correction under system responsibility is to assign higher-authority action, funds and delivery dates alongside school duties. Within evidence on resource correction under system responsibility, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of resource correction under system responsibility, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting resource correction under system responsibility, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-18" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the resource remedy should be selected by coverage. For regulation of resource correction under system responsibility, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting resource correction under system responsibility, for resource correction under system responsibility, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about resource correction under system responsibility, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-18", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to resource correction under system responsibility. In interpreting resource correction under system responsibility, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about resource correction under system responsibility, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For resource correction under system responsibility, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining resource correction under system responsibility, if part of schools lacking staff, time, facilities or specialist support is missing, its likely effect on receipt and service and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of receipt and service should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about resource correction under system responsibility, for resource correction under system responsibility, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For resource correction under system responsibility, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining resource correction under system responsibility, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-18", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes resource correction under system responsibility. For resource correction under system responsibility, a material finding about the resource remedy should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining resource correction under system responsibility, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on resource correction under system responsibility, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03", "REF-18", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "21", "title": "Professional support and leadership development", "anchor": "21-professional-support-and-leadership-development", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Professional support and leadership development establishes the regulatory question for the capacity support. For professional support and leadership development, the affected population or bodies are teachers, leaders and governing bodies needing capability, and the direct evidence concerns practice, support and institutional learning. In examining professional support and leadership development, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on professional support and leadership development, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of professional support and leadership development, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in professional support and leadership development is that staff replacement or training hours stand for changed teaching and leadership. In examining professional support and leadership development, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on professional support and leadership development, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the capacity support, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of professional support and leadership development, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for professional support and leadership development is to provide sustained coaching, collaboration and evidence from ordinary practice. Within evidence on professional support and leadership development, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of professional support and leadership development, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting professional support and leadership development, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the capacity support should be selected by coverage. For regulation of professional support and leadership development, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting professional support and leadership development, for professional support and leadership development, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about professional support and leadership development, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to professional support and leadership development. In interpreting professional support and leadership development, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about professional support and leadership development, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For professional support and leadership development, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining professional support and leadership development, if part of teachers, leaders and governing bodies needing capability is missing, its likely effect on practice, support and institutional learning and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of practice, support and institutional learning should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about professional support and leadership development, for professional support and leadership development, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For professional support and leadership development, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining professional support and leadership development, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-02", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes professional support and leadership development. For professional support and leadership development, a material finding about the capacity support should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining professional support and leadership development, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on professional support and leadership development, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-02", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "22", "title": "Directed action and enhanced monitoring", "anchor": "22-directed-action-and-enhanced-monitoring", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Directed action and enhanced monitoring establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory direction. For directed action and enhanced monitoring, the affected population or bodies are schools failing agreed milestones with adequate support, and the direct evidence concerns specific compliance and learner condition. In examining directed action and enhanced monitoring, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on directed action and enhanced monitoring, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of directed action and enhanced monitoring, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in directed action and enhanced monitoring is that broad direction creates bureaucracy without correcting the material shortfall. In examining directed action and enhanced monitoring, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on directed action and enhanced monitoring, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory direction, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of directed action and enhanced monitoring, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for directed action and enhanced monitoring is to limit direction to verified duties and publish monitoring evidence and exit criteria. Within evidence on directed action and enhanced monitoring, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of directed action and enhanced monitoring, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting directed action and enhanced monitoring, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory direction should be selected by coverage. For regulation of directed action and enhanced monitoring, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting directed action and enhanced monitoring, for directed action and enhanced monitoring, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about directed action and enhanced monitoring, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to directed action and enhanced monitoring. In interpreting directed action and enhanced monitoring, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about directed action and enhanced monitoring, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For directed action and enhanced monitoring, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining directed action and enhanced monitoring, if part of schools failing agreed milestones with adequate support is missing, its likely effect on specific compliance and learner condition and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of specific compliance and learner condition should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about directed action and enhanced monitoring, for directed action and enhanced monitoring, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For directed action and enhanced monitoring, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining directed action and enhanced monitoring, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes directed action and enhanced monitoring. For directed action and enhanced monitoring, a material finding about the regulatory direction should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining directed action and enhanced monitoring, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on directed action and enhanced monitoring, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "23", "title": "Governance change and provider intervention", "anchor": "23-governance-change-and-provider-intervention", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Governance change and provider intervention establishes the regulatory question for the governance intervention. For governance change and provider intervention, the affected population or bodies are institutions with persistent or serious failure, and the direct evidence concerns authority, capacity and continuity. In examining governance change and provider intervention, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on governance change and provider intervention, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of governance change and provider intervention, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in governance change and provider intervention is that leadership change is assumed to improve outcomes without transition or system correction. In examining governance change and provider intervention, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on governance change and provider intervention, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the governance intervention, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of governance change and provider intervention, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for governance change and provider intervention is to require necessity evidence, transition protection, resources and later review. Within evidence on governance change and provider intervention, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of governance change and provider intervention, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting governance change and provider intervention, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the governance intervention should be selected by coverage. For regulation of governance change and provider intervention, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting governance change and provider intervention, for governance change and provider intervention, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about governance change and provider intervention, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to governance change and provider intervention. In interpreting governance change and provider intervention, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about governance change and provider intervention, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For governance change and provider intervention, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining governance change and provider intervention, if part of institutions with persistent or serious failure is missing, its likely effect on authority, capacity and continuity and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of authority, capacity and continuity should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about governance change and provider intervention, for governance change and provider intervention, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For governance change and provider intervention, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining governance change and provider intervention, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes governance change and provider intervention. For governance change and provider intervention, a material finding about the governance intervention should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining governance change and provider intervention, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on governance change and provider intervention, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "parentId": null, "number": "24", "title": "Closure, merger or transfer as last resort", "anchor": "24-closure-merger-or-transfer-as-last-resort", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Closure, merger or transfer as last resort establishes the regulatory question for the structural remedy. For closure, merger or transfer as last resort, the affected population or bodies are learners in institutions facing closure, merger or transfer, and the direct evidence concerns continuity and receiving capacity. In examining closure, merger or transfer as last resort, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on closure, merger or transfer as last resort, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of closure, merger or transfer as last resort, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in closure, merger or transfer as last resort is that closure displaces learners to distant or equally weak provision and erases records. In examining closure, merger or transfer as last resort, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on closure, merger or transfer as last resort, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the structural remedy, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of closure, merger or transfer as last resort, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for closure, merger or transfer as last resort is to verify safer adequate receiving provision, transport, records, staff transition and sustained attendance. Within evidence on closure, merger or transfer as last resort, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of closure, merger or transfer as last resort, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting closure, merger or transfer as last resort, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the structural remedy should be selected by coverage. For regulation of closure, merger or transfer as last resort, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting closure, merger or transfer as last resort, for closure, merger or transfer as last resort, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about closure, merger or transfer as last resort, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to closure, merger or transfer as last resort. In interpreting closure, merger or transfer as last resort, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about closure, merger or transfer as last resort, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For closure, merger or transfer as last resort, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining closure, merger or transfer as last resort, if part of learners in institutions facing closure, merger or transfer is missing, its likely effect on continuity and receiving capacity and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of continuity and receiving capacity should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about closure, merger or transfer as last resort, for closure, merger or transfer as last resort, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For closure, merger or transfer as last resort, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining closure, merger or transfer as last resort, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes closure, merger or transfer as last resort. For closure, merger or transfer as last resort, a material finding about the structural remedy should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining closure, merger or transfer as last resort, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on closure, merger or transfer as last resort, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-16", "REF-21" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "25", "title": "Learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence", "anchor": "25-learner-facing-milestones-and-delivery-evidence", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory milestone. For learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, the affected population or bodies are learners intended to benefit from corrective action, and the direct evidence concerns service received and interim condition. In examining learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence is that meetings, plans and purchases are reported without evidence of learner reach. In examining learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory milestone, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence is to set milestones for time, teaching, support, safety, participation or learning. Within evidence on learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory milestone should be selected by coverage. For regulation of learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, for learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence. In interpreting learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, if part of learners intended to benefit from corrective action is missing, its likely effect on service received and interim condition and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of service received and interim condition should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, for learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence. For learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, a material finding about the regulatory milestone should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-24" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "26", "title": "Equity and unintended-effect monitoring", "anchor": "26-equity-and-unintended-effect-monitoring", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity and unintended-effect monitoring establishes the regulatory question for the equity review. For equity and unintended-effect monitoring, the affected population or bodies are groups differently affected by regulatory action, and the direct evidence concerns distribution and harm. In examining equity and unintended-effect monitoring, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on equity and unintended-effect monitoring, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of equity and unintended-effect monitoring, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-10", "REF-11", "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in equity and unintended-effect monitoring is that average improvement hides exclusion, transfer, narrowing or burden for disadvantaged learners. In examining equity and unintended-effect monitoring, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on equity and unintended-effect monitoring, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the equity review, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of equity and unintended-effect monitoring, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for equity and unintended-effect monitoring is to retest group levels, admission, curriculum, staffing and participation. Within evidence on equity and unintended-effect monitoring, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of equity and unintended-effect monitoring, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting equity and unintended-effect monitoring, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-11" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the equity review should be selected by coverage. For regulation of equity and unintended-effect monitoring, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting equity and unintended-effect monitoring, for equity and unintended-effect monitoring, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about equity and unintended-effect monitoring, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-11", "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to equity and unintended-effect monitoring. In interpreting equity and unintended-effect monitoring, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about equity and unintended-effect monitoring, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For equity and unintended-effect monitoring, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining equity and unintended-effect monitoring, if part of groups differently affected by regulatory action is missing, its likely effect on distribution and harm and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of distribution and harm should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about equity and unintended-effect monitoring, for equity and unintended-effect monitoring, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For equity and unintended-effect monitoring, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining equity and unintended-effect monitoring, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-11", "REF-15" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes equity and unintended-effect monitoring. For equity and unintended-effect monitoring, a material finding about the equity review should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining equity and unintended-effect monitoring, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on equity and unintended-effect monitoring, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-04", "REF-10", "REF-11", "REF-15" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "27", "title": "Public reporting with confidentiality and restraint", "anchor": "27-public-reporting-with-confidentiality-and-restraint", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Public reporting with confidentiality and restraint establishes the regulatory question for the public regulatory account. For public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, the affected population or bodies are families, learners and communities evaluating action, and the direct evidence concerns finding, reason, support and progress. In examining public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in public reporting with confidentiality and restraint is that public labels stigmatise communities or conceal evidence and responsibility. In examining public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the public regulatory account, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for public reporting with confidentiality and restraint is to publish proportionate reasons, uncertainty, owners, resources, milestones and corrections. Within evidence on public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-19" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the public regulatory account should be selected by coverage. For regulation of public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, for public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to public reporting with confidentiality and restraint. In interpreting public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, if part of families, learners and communities evaluating action is missing, its likely effect on finding, reason, support and progress and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of finding, reason, support and progress should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, for public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes public reporting with confidentiality and restraint. For public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, a material finding about the public regulatory account should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on public reporting with confidentiality and restraint, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-10", "REF-19", "REF-20" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "28", "title": "Complaint and remedy for learners and staff", "anchor": "28-complaint-and-remedy-for-learners-and-staff", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Complaint and remedy for learners and staff establishes the regulatory question for the practical remedy. For complaint and remedy for learners and staff, the affected population or bodies are learners and staff experiencing harm during intervention, and the direct evidence concerns report, response and correction. In examining complaint and remedy for learners and staff, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on complaint and remedy for learners and staff, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of complaint and remedy for learners and staff, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in complaint and remedy for learners and staff is that complaints are routed through implicated leaders or trigger retaliation. In examining complaint and remedy for learners and staff, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on complaint and remedy for learners and staff, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the practical remedy, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of complaint and remedy for learners and staff, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for complaint and remedy for learners and staff is to provide confidential independent routes, non-retaliation and continuing education. Within evidence on complaint and remedy for learners and staff, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of complaint and remedy for learners and staff, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting complaint and remedy for learners and staff, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the practical remedy should be selected by coverage. For regulation of complaint and remedy for learners and staff, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting complaint and remedy for learners and staff, for complaint and remedy for learners and staff, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about complaint and remedy for learners and staff, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to complaint and remedy for learners and staff. In interpreting complaint and remedy for learners and staff, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about complaint and remedy for learners and staff, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For complaint and remedy for learners and staff, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining complaint and remedy for learners and staff, if part of learners and staff experiencing harm during intervention is missing, its likely effect on report, response and correction and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of report, response and correction should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about complaint and remedy for learners and staff, for complaint and remedy for learners and staff, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For complaint and remedy for learners and staff, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining complaint and remedy for learners and staff, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes complaint and remedy for learners and staff. For complaint and remedy for learners and staff, a material finding about the practical remedy should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining complaint and remedy for learners and staff, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on complaint and remedy for learners and staff, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-13", "REF-14", "REF-21", "REF-22" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "29", "title": "Exit criteria and removal of the label", "anchor": "29-exit-criteria-and-removal-of-the-label", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Exit criteria and removal of the label establishes the regulatory question for the ending intervention. For exit criteria and removal of the label, the affected population or bodies are schools meeting verified corrective conditions, and the direct evidence concerns sustained improvement and restored autonomy. In examining exit criteria and removal of the label, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on exit criteria and removal of the label, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of exit criteria and removal of the label, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in exit criteria and removal of the label is that intervention and stigma persist after conditions improve or end after activity completion alone. In examining exit criteria and removal of the label, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on exit criteria and removal of the label, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the ending intervention, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of exit criteria and removal of the label, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for exit criteria and removal of the label is to publish exit thresholds, evidence period, residual support and label removal. Within evidence on exit criteria and removal of the label, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of exit criteria and removal of the label, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting exit criteria and removal of the label, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the ending intervention should be selected by coverage. For regulation of exit criteria and removal of the label, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting exit criteria and removal of the label, for exit criteria and removal of the label, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about exit criteria and removal of the label, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to exit criteria and removal of the label. In interpreting exit criteria and removal of the label, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about exit criteria and removal of the label, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For exit criteria and removal of the label, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining exit criteria and removal of the label, if part of schools meeting verified corrective conditions is missing, its likely effect on sustained improvement and restored autonomy and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of sustained improvement and restored autonomy should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about exit criteria and removal of the label, for exit criteria and removal of the label, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For exit criteria and removal of the label, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining exit criteria and removal of the label, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes exit criteria and removal of the label. For exit criteria and removal of the label, a material finding about the ending intervention should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining exit criteria and removal of the label, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on exit criteria and removal of the label, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-10", "REF-16", "REF-21", "REF-24" ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30", "partId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "parentId": null, "number": "30", "title": "System learning without retrospective blame", "anchor": "30-system-learning-without-retrospective-blame", "level": 1, "blocks": [ { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b001", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "System learning without retrospective blame establishes the regulatory question for the regulatory learning. For system learning without retrospective blame, the affected population or bodies are authorities reviewing recurring causes across schools, and the direct evidence concerns policy correction and prevention. In examining system learning without retrospective blame, the authority should begin with the learner entitlement, competent decision maker and specific condition that may justify action. Within evidence on system learning without retrospective blame, a category cannot substitute for factual findings. For regulation of system learning without retrospective blame, the institution should know the evidence, consequence and route to correction before an intrusive response begins.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03", "REF-09", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b002", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The main risk in system learning without retrospective blame is that individual cases repeat while staffing, finance or measure-design failures remain unchanged. In examining system learning without retrospective blame, this can misallocate responsibility and create harm while the underlying learner condition persists. Within evidence on system learning without retrospective blame, authorities should identify how people and events enter or leave the regulatory learning, whether omission is concentrated and which body controls the barrier. For regulation of system learning without retrospective blame, missing records, absence of complaint or a one-year estimate should not be treated as conclusive where coverage, fear or instability affects evidence.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b003", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "The required response for system learning without retrospective blame is to aggregate recurring causes, revise system duties and publish preventive action. Within evidence on system learning without retrospective blame, it should state legal authority, material facts, beneficiary population, owner, supporting duties, resources, milestone and remedy. For regulation of system learning without retrospective blame, the severity of intervention should match evidence strength and urgency. In interpreting system learning without retrospective blame, where equivalence or correction needs time, the protected minimum, temporary measure and review date should be public.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-09" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b004", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Evidence for the regulatory learning should be selected by coverage. For regulation of system learning without retrospective blame, administrative records, assessments, surveys, observation and community evidence observe different aspects of school performance. In interpreting system learning without retrospective blame, for system learning without retrospective blame, each source should retain its population, date, uncertainty and principal limitation. For decisions about system learning without retrospective blame, disagreement should be investigated before a decision, because it may identify error, a different construct or a system condition.", "citationIds": [ "REF-09", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b005", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Equity is integral to system learning without retrospective blame. In interpreting system learning without retrospective blame, the effect may differ by poverty, location, disability, language, migration, prior attainment or another material characteristic. For decisions about system learning without retrospective blame, group levels and population shares should remain visible. For system learning without retrospective blame, context should guide diagnosis and responsibility without lowering the common standard. In examining system learning without retrospective blame, if part of authorities reviewing recurring causes across schools is missing, its likely effect on policy correction and prevention and the proposed action should be stated.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b006", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Interpretation of policy correction and prevention should separate observation, explanation and attribution. For decisions about system learning without retrospective blame, for system learning without retrospective blame, a low result does not establish institutional contribution, and an improvement after intervention does not alone establish causation. For system learning without retrospective blame, review should test alternatives, uncertainty and unintended effects. In examining system learning without retrospective blame, evidence and authority should be dated so later methods or results are not read backwards into the 23 July 2017 decision.", "citationIds": [ "REF-03", "REF-09", "REF-24" ] }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30-b007", "type": "PARAGRAPH", "text": "Accountability completes system learning without retrospective blame. For system learning without retrospective blame, a material finding about the regulatory learning should lead to a proportionate action, assigned school or system owner, finance, milestone and later learner-facing test. In examining system learning without retrospective blame, institutions and communities need access to correction and appeal, while learners need continued education and protection. Within evidence on system learning without retrospective blame, intervention and labels should end when verified conditions improve.", "citationIds": [ "REF-01", "REF-03", "REF-09", "REF-24" ] } ] } ], "technicalAppendices": [], "notes": [], "references": [ { "id": "REF-01", "authoringBody": "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization", "title": "General Education Quality Analysis and Diagnosis Framework", "year": 2012, "publicationDate": "2012-01-01", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_QUALITY_FRAMEWORK", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217520", "evidenceRole": "Systemic analysis of education quality, inputs, teaching, learning and outcomes." }, { "id": "REF-02", "authoringBody": "Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team", "title": "Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4", "year": 2014, "publicationDate": "2014-01-29", "sourceType": "GLOBAL_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660", "evidenceRole": "Evidence on teaching, learning, inequality and education quality." }, { "id": "REF-03", "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": "Evidence on governance, inequality, finance and public accountability." }, { "id": "REF-04", "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": "Evidence on intersecting disadvantage and educational marginalisation." }, { "id": "REF-05", "authoringBody": "UNESCO Institute for Statistics", "title": "Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-11-01", "sourceType": "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_GUIDANCE", "url": "https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Definitions, numerators, denominators and limitations for education indicators." }, { "id": "REF-06", "authoringBody": "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization", "title": "International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011", "year": 2012, "publicationDate": "2012-01-01", "sourceType": "INTERNATIONAL_CLASSIFICATION", "url": "https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Common definitions for education programmes and attainment." }, { "id": "REF-07", "authoringBody": "UNESCO Institute for Statistics", "title": "Guide to the Analysis and Use of Household Survey and Census Education Data", "year": 2004, "publicationDate": "2004-01-01", "sourceType": "STATISTICAL_METHOD_GUIDE", "url": "https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/guide-to-the-analysis-and-use-of-household-survey-and-census-education-data-en_0.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Methods and limits for household and census education indicators." }, { "id": "REF-08", "authoringBody": "United Nations Statistics Division", "title": "Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries", "year": 2005, "publicationDate": "2005-03-01", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_STATISTICAL_METHODS_PUBLICATION", "url": "https://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/sectiona_new.htm", "evidenceRole": "Guidance on sampling, response, weighting and statistical error." }, { "id": "REF-09", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics", "year": 2014, "publicationDate": "2014-01-29", "sourceType": "RESOLUTION", "url": "https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261", "evidenceRole": "Relevance, professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality." }, { "id": "REF-10", "authoringBody": "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights", "title": "Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation", "year": 2012, "publicationDate": "2012-11-01", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_GUIDANCE", "url": "https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf", "evidenceRole": "Rights-sensitive measurement, disaggregation and interpretation." }, { "id": "REF-11", "authoringBody": "United Nations Children’s Fund", "title": "The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child Counts — Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights", "year": 2014, "publicationDate": "2014-01-30", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_FLAGSHIP_REPORT", "url": "https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2014", "evidenceRole": "Evidence on disaggregation, unequal outcomes and statistical visibility." }, { "id": "REF-12", "authoringBody": "United Nations Children’s Fund", "title": "Child Friendly Schools Manual", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-03-01", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_GUIDANCE", "url": "https://www.unicef.org/reports/child-friendly-schools-manual", "evidenceRole": "Guidance on inclusive, effective, protective and participatory schools." }, { "id": "REF-13", "authoringBody": "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund", "title": "A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All", "year": 2007, "publicationDate": "2007-01-01", "sourceType": "UNITED_NATIONS_GUIDANCE", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861", "evidenceRole": "Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability." }, { "id": "REF-14", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Convention on the Rights of the Child", "year": 1989, "publicationDate": "1989-11-20", "sourceType": "TREATY", "url": "https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child", "evidenceRole": "Education, non-discrimination, development, participation and protection obligations." }, { "id": "REF-15", "authoringBody": "United Nations General Assembly", "title": "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities", "year": 2006, "publicationDate": "2006-12-13", "sourceType": "TREATY", "url": "https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities", "evidenceRole": "Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation." }, { "id": "REF-16", "authoringBody": "European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice", "title": "Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe", "year": 2015, "publicationDate": "2015-01-27", "sourceType": "EU_COMPARATIVE_REPORT", "url": "https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4a244ff8-7bac-11e5-9fae-01aa75ed71a1", "evidenceRole": "Comparative European evidence on external and internal school evaluation." }, { "id": "REF-17", "authoringBody": "European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice", "title": "National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-09-01", "sourceType": "EU_COMPARATIVE_REPORT", "url": "https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/df628df4-4e5b-4014-adbd-2ed54a274fd9", "evidenceRole": "European evidence on test purposes, coverage and uses." }, { "id": "REF-18", "authoringBody": "European Commission", "title": "Education and Training Monitor 2016", "year": 2016, "publicationDate": "2016-11-07", "sourceType": "EU_MONITORING_REPORT", "url": "https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1", "evidenceRole": "European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions." }, { "id": "REF-19", "authoringBody": "European Statistical System Committee", "title": "European Statistics Code of Practice", "year": 2011, "publicationDate": "2011-09-28", "sourceType": "EU_INSTITUTIONAL_STANDARD", "url": "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/european-statistics-code-of-practice", "evidenceRole": "Institutional and statistical principles for trustworthy public evidence." }, { "id": "REF-20", "authoringBody": "European Parliament and Council of the European Union", "title": "Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European Statistics", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-03-11", "sourceType": "EU_REGULATION", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0223", "evidenceRole": "European requirements for independence, quality, confidentiality and dissemination." }, { "id": "REF-21", "authoringBody": "European Union", "title": "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union", "year": 2000, "publicationDate": "2000-12-18", "sourceType": "EU_PRIMARY_RIGHTS_INSTRUMENT", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT", "evidenceRole": "Rights concerning education, equality, good administration and effective remedy." }, { "id": "REF-22", "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_INTERPRETATION", "url": "https://undocs.org/E/C.12/1999/10", "evidenceRole": "Interpretation of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability in education." }, { "id": "REF-23", "authoringBody": "Council of the European Union", "title": "Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving", "year": 2011, "publicationDate": "2011-06-28", "sourceType": "EU_COUNCIL_RECOMMENDATION", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0701(01)", "evidenceRole": "European framework for prevention, intervention and compensation concerning early school leaving." }, { "id": "REF-24", "authoringBody": "European Parliament and Council of the European Union", "title": "Recommendation on the Establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training", "year": 2009, "publicationDate": "2009-06-18", "sourceType": "EU_RECOMMENDATION", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)", "evidenceRole": "European reference points for planning, implementation, evaluation and review in vocational education." } ], "readerNodes": [ { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "I", "title": "Trigger, authority and evidential threshold", "anchor": "part-i-trigger-authority-and-evidential-threshold", "sortOrder": 1 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-1", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "1", "title": "Defining the regulatory concern", "anchor": "1-defining-the-regulatory-concern", "sortOrder": 2 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-2", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "2", "title": "Competence and decision authority", "anchor": "2-competence-and-decision-authority", "sortOrder": 3 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-3", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "3", "title": "Evidence threshold proportionate to consequence", "anchor": "3-evidence-threshold-proportionate-to-consequence", "sortOrder": 4 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-4", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "4", "title": "Notice of the case to be answered", "anchor": "4-notice-of-the-case-to-be-answered", "sortOrder": 5 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-5", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "5", "title": "Non-discrimination and equal regulatory protection", "anchor": "5-non-discrimination-and-equal-regulatory-protection", "sortOrder": 6 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-6", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-i", "number": "6", "title": "Proportionality and least harmful effective response", "anchor": "6-proportionality-and-least-harmful-effective-response", "sortOrder": 7 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "II", "title": "Contextual evidence without lower expectations", "anchor": "part-ii-contextual-evidence-without-lower-expectations", "sortOrder": 8 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-7", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "7", "title": "Prior attainment and learner mobility", "anchor": "7-prior-attainment-and-learner-mobility", "sortOrder": 9 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-8", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "8", "title": "Poverty, location and service cost", "anchor": "8-poverty-location-and-service-cost", "sortOrder": 10 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-9", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "9", "title": "Language, migration and interrupted education", "anchor": "9-language-migration-and-interrupted-education", "sortOrder": 11 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-10", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "10", "title": "Disability and reasonable accommodation", "anchor": "10-disability-and-reasonable-accommodation", "sortOrder": 12 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-11", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "11", "title": "School size and exceptional events", "anchor": "11-school-size-and-exceptional-events", "sortOrder": 13 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-12", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-ii", "number": "12", "title": "Staffing, finance and system-controlled conditions", "anchor": "12-staffing-finance-and-system-controlled-conditions", "sortOrder": 14 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "III", "title": "Fair procedure and reviewable decisions", "anchor": "part-iii-fair-procedure-and-reviewable-decisions", "sortOrder": 15 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-13", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "13", "title": "Access to data, methods and source limitations", "anchor": "13-access-to-data-methods-and-source-limitations", "sortOrder": 16 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-14", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "14", "title": "Meaningful opportunity to respond", "anchor": "14-meaningful-opportunity-to-respond", "sortOrder": 17 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-15", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "15", "title": "Impartial technical and contextual review", "anchor": "15-impartial-technical-and-contextual-review", "sortOrder": 18 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-16", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "16", "title": "Written reasons and evidential findings", "anchor": "16-written-reasons-and-evidential-findings", "sortOrder": 19 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-17", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "17", "title": "Appeal and correction of material error", "anchor": "17-appeal-and-correction-of-material-error", "sortOrder": 20 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-18", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iii", "number": "18", "title": "Continuity of learner entitlement during dispute", "anchor": "18-continuity-of-learner-entitlement-during-dispute", "sortOrder": 21 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "IV", "title": "A graduated ladder of regulatory response", "anchor": "part-iv-a-graduated-ladder-of-regulatory-response", "sortOrder": 22 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-19", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "19", "title": "Diagnostic support and a bounded improvement plan", "anchor": "19-diagnostic-support-and-a-bounded-improvement-plan", "sortOrder": 23 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-20", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "20", "title": "Resource correction under system responsibility", "anchor": "20-resource-correction-under-system-responsibility", "sortOrder": 24 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-21", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "21", "title": "Professional support and leadership development", "anchor": "21-professional-support-and-leadership-development", "sortOrder": 25 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-22", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "22", "title": "Directed action and enhanced monitoring", "anchor": "22-directed-action-and-enhanced-monitoring", "sortOrder": 26 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-23", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "23", "title": "Governance change and provider intervention", "anchor": "23-governance-change-and-provider-intervention", "sortOrder": 27 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-24", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-iv", "number": "24", "title": "Closure, merger or transfer as last resort", "anchor": "24-closure-merger-or-transfer-as-last-resort", "sortOrder": 28 }, { "id": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "nodeType": "PART", "parentId": null, "number": "V", "title": "Monitoring, public accountability and ending intervention", "anchor": "part-v-monitoring-public-accountability-and-ending-intervention", "sortOrder": 29 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-25", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "25", "title": "Learner-facing milestones and delivery evidence", "anchor": "25-learner-facing-milestones-and-delivery-evidence", "sortOrder": 30 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-26", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "26", "title": "Equity and unintended-effect monitoring", "anchor": "26-equity-and-unintended-effect-monitoring", "sortOrder": 31 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-27", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "27", "title": "Public reporting with confidentiality and restraint", "anchor": "27-public-reporting-with-confidentiality-and-restraint", "sortOrder": 32 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-28", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "28", "title": "Complaint and remedy for learners and staff", "anchor": "28-complaint-and-remedy-for-learners-and-staff", "sortOrder": 33 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-29", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "29", "title": "Exit criteria and removal of the label", "anchor": "29-exit-criteria-and-removal-of-the-label", "sortOrder": 34 }, { "id": "sec-iceqc-r-2017-07-30", "nodeType": "SECTION", "parentId": "part-iceqc-r-2017-07-v", "number": "30", "title": "System learning without retrospective blame", "anchor": "30-system-learning-without-retrospective-blame", "sortOrder": 35 } ], "statistics": { "partCount": 5, "sectionCount": 30, "appendixCount": 0, "paragraphCount": 210, "tableCount": 0, "referenceCount": 24, "mainTextWords": 21045, "technicalAppendixWords": 0, "totalWords": 21045 }, "contentHash": "sha256-aacc771051d74d35d995665b42b6827831f2ac9054d96b489919e889f830152c" }