The article treats internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes as a controlled process requiring clear ownership, outcome evidence and review of residual risk.
Any indicator used in relation to internal review of the corrective action should distinguish description from causal explanation. Any indicator used in relation to internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes should distinguish description from causal explanation.
Consideration of internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes should retain the date and status of PISA 2009 results released on 7 December 2010. In the context of reading, mathematics and science outcomes, later developments should not be read into the position available at publication. Any indicator used in relation to the matter should distinguish description from causal explanation.
Application of the evidence to internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes
When examining reading, mathematics and science outcomes, the source can frame further questions without supplying either a binding direction or proof of causation. Any indicator used in relation to reading, mathematics and science outcomes should distinguish description from causal explanation.
Data used for internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. For reading, mathematics and science outcomes, changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. Governance of the corrective action requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. Material matters should be referred to the body authorised to act or accept residual risk.
The review method for internal review of the intended improvement should connect the question under examination to suitable evidence and a conclusion no broader than the tested scope. Corrective action concerning the intended improvement should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. For reading, mathematics and science outcomes, residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated.
For reading, mathematics and science outcomes, apparent movement caused by revision should not be attributed to educational performance. For reading, corrective action, the corrective action should be tested on a scale proportionate to the risk before wider implementation, unless immediate system-wide action is necessary to protect learners.
Failure in relation to reading, corrective action may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Data used for the intended improvement should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Risk assessment for corrective action should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.
When examining reading, mathematics and science outcomes, the evidential record should be limited to material that can answer the question under review. Any indicator used in relation to the intended improvement should distinguish description from causal explanation.
Controls relevant to internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes
Risk assessment for internal review of the corrective action should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. The principal risks associated with the corrective action should be assessed as connected conditions. The assurance record for the intended improvement should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.
The record for internal review of reading, mathematics and science outcomes should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Corrective action concerning the matter should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.
Corrective action concerning the corrective action should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Data used for corrective action should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.
Decisions concerning reading, the matter should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. For decisions concerning reading, mathematics and science outcomes, the reason for revision should be explicit, including whether it arises from new evidence, a methodological change or a different interpretation.
Where delivery relating to reading, mathematics and science outcomes involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service.
Any indicator used in relation to the corrective action should distinguish description from causal explanation. Risk assessment for the corrective action should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.