Accountability for Refugee Education Commitments in Host Systems

ICEQC Research and Policy Directorate

Publication record

This is the controlled English edition. Evidence and institutional status are stated as at the evidence cut-off date.

Executive summary

The New York Declaration confirmed education as part of the international response to refugees and migrants, but accountability depends on what happens in host systems. A commitment becomes reviewable when it identifies the national and local authority, admission rule, education standard, recurrent finance, provider duties, evidence and remedy. International responsibility sharing can finance and support these duties; it cannot substitute for a lawful public owner of the learner pathway.

This report follows accountability from admission through sustained participation, quality, completion and transition. Prompt entry should not depend on documents that displaced learners cannot reasonably provide. Placement should consider age and prior learning and be reviewed after bridging support. Language provision, disability accommodation, transport, affordability and protection determine whether an offered place is usable. Host and refugee learners should share a public quality floor so that increased access does not lower teaching time, staffing or materials for either group.

Temporary and double-shift arrangements require particular scrutiny. They can expand capacity quickly, but shorter hours, staff fatigue, narrow curricula, weak practical learning and uncertain certification may create an inferior route. Authorities should disclose the difference, protect essential time and breadth, fund restoration and establish transition to ordinary recognised provision. Portable, protected records are necessary when learners move between providers, jurisdictions or countries.

Finance should cover the full service: teachers, preparation, language support, facilities, transport, materials, safeguarding, records, assessment and transition. Domestic budgets should include lawful refugee-education responsibilities, with transparent needs-based allocation to pressured localities. International support should be predictable, additional and aligned with the public plan. Pledges and contracts are not learner results; sampled finance should be traced to receipt, service and use.

The recommended public account links commitment, authority, funds, delivered service and learner result. It reports admission time, attendance, instructional time, teachers, learning, completion and transition for refugee and host populations; reconciles registration, school and household sources; protects confidentiality; and publishes revisions. Learners need accessible complaint, appeal, non-retaliation and continuity while disputes are resolved. The account uses only evidence available by 5 February 2017 and does not rely on later results.

Key findings

International refugee education commitments require a named host-system owner, lawful duties, finance, evidence and remedy.
Prompt admission should permit provisional evidence and a later placement review where records are incomplete.
Language, disability, cost, transport and protection determine whether an education place is usable.
Refugee expansion should strengthen a common quality floor for host and refugee learners.
Temporary and double-shift provision requires equivalent time, curriculum, support, recognition and an exit route.
Finance should cover recurrent host capacity and be traced from pledge and budget to service received.
Monitoring should join admission, participation, quality, learning, completion and transition rather than enrolment alone.
Accessible appeal, continuity protection and visible correction are essential parts of accountability.

Scope and method

This global policy and regulatory synthesis addresses host governments, local authorities, international agencies, donors and providers serving refugees and host communities. It concerns recognised education from early childhood through adult and vocational learning, including temporary arrangements. It does not prescribe one legal status rule but requires every distinction to be lawful, proportionate and compatible with protected education rights.

Evidence is restricted to official United Nations, UNESCO and European institutional material available by 5 February 2017. It includes the New York Declaration, Education 2030, refugee and child-rights instruments, contemporaneous displacement and education reports, humanitarian finance initiatives and European integration policy. Later frameworks, data and results are outside scope.

Part I

Commitments, authority and accountable ownership

1

From declaration to host-system duty

From declaration to host-system duty establishes an accountability question for the commitment translation. For from declaration to host-system duty, the relevant population or responsible units are host governments and partners addressed by refugee commitments, and the direct evidence concerns lawful duty and delivery. In examining from declaration to host-system duty, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on from declaration to host-system duty, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on from declaration to host-system duty, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-24]

The principal risk in from declaration to host-system duty is that international wording remains detached from admission rules, budgets and institutional owners. In examining from declaration to host-system duty, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on from declaration to host-system duty, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the commitment translation, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on from declaration to host-system duty, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required host-system response for from declaration to host-system duty is to map each commitment to national authority, funded measure, provider duty and review date. Within evidence on from declaration to host-system duty, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on from declaration to host-system duty, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting from declaration to host-system duty, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-03] [REF-04]

Evidence for the commitment translation should be selected by coverage. For policy on from declaration to host-system duty, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting from declaration to host-system duty, for from declaration to host-system duty, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about from declaration to host-system duty, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-04] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to from declaration to host-system duty. In interpreting from declaration to host-system duty, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about from declaration to host-system duty, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For from declaration to host-system duty, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining from declaration to host-system duty, if part of host governments and partners addressed by refugee commitments cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on lawful duty and delivery should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Interpretation of lawful duty and delivery should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about from declaration to host-system duty, for from declaration to host-system duty, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For from declaration to host-system duty, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining from declaration to host-system duty, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-24]

Accountability completes from declaration to host-system duty. For from declaration to host-system duty, a material shortfall in the commitment translation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining from declaration to host-system duty, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on from declaration to host-system duty, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on from declaration to host-system duty, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-24]

2

The comprehensive refugee response and education

The comprehensive refugee response and education establishes an accountability question for the comprehensive response. For the comprehensive refugee response and education, the relevant population or responsible units are refugees and host communities covered by the New York Declaration, and the direct evidence concerns education inclusion and shared responsibility. In examining the comprehensive refugee response and education, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on the comprehensive refugee response and education, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on the comprehensive refugee response and education, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-19]

The principal risk in the comprehensive refugee response and education is that education is treated as a peripheral humanitarian activity rather than a core response. In examining the comprehensive refugee response and education, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on the comprehensive refugee response and education, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the comprehensive response, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on the comprehensive refugee response and education, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-13]

The required host-system response for the comprehensive refugee response and education is to include recognised education, host capacity, finance, data and progression in national arrangements. Within evidence on the comprehensive refugee response and education, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on the comprehensive refugee response and education, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting the comprehensive refugee response and education, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-13] [REF-14]

Evidence for the comprehensive response should be selected by coverage. For policy on the comprehensive refugee response and education, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting the comprehensive refugee response and education, for the comprehensive refugee response and education, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about the comprehensive refugee response and education, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-14] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to the comprehensive refugee response and education. In interpreting the comprehensive refugee response and education, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about the comprehensive refugee response and education, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For the comprehensive refugee response and education, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining the comprehensive refugee response and education, if part of refugees and host communities covered by the New York Declaration cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on education inclusion and shared responsibility should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of education inclusion and shared responsibility should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about the comprehensive refugee response and education, for the comprehensive refugee response and education, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For the comprehensive refugee response and education, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining the comprehensive refugee response and education, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-19]

Accountability completes the comprehensive refugee response and education. For the comprehensive refugee response and education, a material shortfall in the comprehensive response should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining the comprehensive refugee response and education, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on the comprehensive refugee response and education, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on the comprehensive refugee response and education, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-19]

3

National ownership with international support

National ownership with international support establishes an accountability question for the shared responsibility. For national ownership with international support, the relevant population or responsible units are host authorities, origin states, donors and international bodies, and the direct evidence concerns role clarity and alignment. In examining national ownership with international support, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on national ownership with international support, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on national ownership with international support, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-19]

The principal risk in national ownership with international support is that every actor funds activity but no body owns unresolved learner gaps. In examining national ownership with international support, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on national ownership with international support, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the shared responsibility, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on national ownership with international support, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required host-system response for national ownership with international support is to retain one public owner and state partner finance, technical and reporting duties. Within evidence on national ownership with international support, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on national ownership with international support, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting national ownership with international support, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-03] [REF-13]

Evidence for the shared responsibility should be selected by coverage. For policy on national ownership with international support, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting national ownership with international support, for national ownership with international support, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about national ownership with international support, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-13] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to national ownership with international support. In interpreting national ownership with international support, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about national ownership with international support, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For national ownership with international support, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining national ownership with international support, if part of host authorities, origin states, donors and international bodies cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on role clarity and alignment should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of role clarity and alignment should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about national ownership with international support, for national ownership with international support, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For national ownership with international support, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining national ownership with international support, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-19]

Accountability completes national ownership with international support. For national ownership with international support, a material shortfall in the shared responsibility should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining national ownership with international support, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on national ownership with international support, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on national ownership with international support, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-19]

4

Immediate protection and longer-term inclusion

Immediate protection and longer-term inclusion establishes an accountability question for the temporal responsibility. For immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, the relevant population or responsible units are newly arrived and protracted refugee populations, and the direct evidence concerns prompt continuity and durable pathway. In examining immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-19]

The principal risk in immediate protection and longer-term inclusion is that temporary learning becomes indefinite or long planning delays urgent entry. In examining immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the temporal responsibility, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-07]

The required host-system response for immediate protection and longer-term inclusion is to separate immediate admission and protection from funded multi-year integration. Within evidence on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-07] [REF-09]

Evidence for the temporal responsibility should be selected by coverage. For policy on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, for immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-09] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to immediate protection and longer-term inclusion. In interpreting immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, if part of newly arrived and protracted refugee populations cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on prompt continuity and durable pathway should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of prompt continuity and durable pathway should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, for immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-19]

Accountability completes immediate protection and longer-term inclusion. For immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, a material shortfall in the temporal responsibility should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on immediate protection and longer-term inclusion, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-19]

5

Non-discrimination across status categories

Non-discrimination across status categories establishes an accountability question for the status-neutral entitlement. For non-discrimination across status categories, the relevant population or responsible units are refugees, asylum seekers, persons with uncertain status and host learners, and the direct evidence concerns access and substantive service. In examining non-discrimination across status categories, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on non-discrimination across status categories, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on non-discrimination across status categories, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

The principal risk in non-discrimination across status categories is that legal or administrative labels create unequal education routes without justification. In examining non-discrimination across status categories, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on non-discrimination across status categories, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the status-neutral entitlement, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on non-discrimination across status categories, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-04] [REF-05]

The required host-system response for non-discrimination across status categories is to publish eligibility and ensure the protected minimum and fair review across statuses. Within evidence on non-discrimination across status categories, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on non-discrimination across status categories, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting non-discrimination across status categories, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-05] [REF-11]

Evidence for the status-neutral entitlement should be selected by coverage. For policy on non-discrimination across status categories, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting non-discrimination across status categories, for non-discrimination across status categories, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about non-discrimination across status categories, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-11] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to non-discrimination across status categories. In interpreting non-discrimination across status categories, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about non-discrimination across status categories, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For non-discrimination across status categories, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining non-discrimination across status categories, if part of refugees, asylum seekers, persons with uncertain status and host learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on access and substantive service should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-04] [REF-24]

Interpretation of access and substantive service should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about non-discrimination across status categories, for non-discrimination across status categories, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For non-discrimination across status categories, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining non-discrimination across status categories, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

Accountability completes non-discrimination across status categories. For non-discrimination across status categories, a material shortfall in the status-neutral entitlement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining non-discrimination across status categories, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on non-discrimination across status categories, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on non-discrimination across status categories, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

6

A public accountability compact

A public accountability compact establishes an accountability question for the accountability compact. For a public accountability compact, the relevant population or responsible units are ministries, local authorities, providers, learners and partners, and the direct evidence concerns owners, standards, finance, evidence and remedy. In examining a public accountability compact, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on a public accountability compact, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on a public accountability compact, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-17] [REF-23]

The principal risk in a public accountability compact is that commitments disperse through plans without enforceable responsibility. In examining a public accountability compact, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on a public accountability compact, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the accountability compact, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on a public accountability compact, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required host-system response for a public accountability compact is to publish one compact connecting duty, resources, milestones, group baselines and correction. Within evidence on a public accountability compact, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on a public accountability compact, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting a public accountability compact, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-03] [REF-17]

Evidence for the accountability compact should be selected by coverage. For policy on a public accountability compact, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting a public accountability compact, for a public accountability compact, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about a public accountability compact, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-17] [REF-23]

Equity is integral to a public accountability compact. In interpreting a public accountability compact, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about a public accountability compact, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For a public accountability compact, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining a public accountability compact, if part of ministries, local authorities, providers, learners and partners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on owners, standards, finance, evidence and remedy should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-23]

Interpretation of owners, standards, finance, evidence and remedy should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about a public accountability compact, for a public accountability compact, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For a public accountability compact, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining a public accountability compact, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-17] [REF-23]

Accountability completes a public accountability compact. For a public accountability compact, a material shortfall in the accountability compact should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining a public accountability compact, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on a public accountability compact, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on a public accountability compact, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-17] [REF-23]

Part II

Admission, equity and usable participation

7

Prompt admission with incomplete documentation

Prompt admission with incomplete documentation establishes an accountability question for the admission route. For prompt admission with incomplete documentation, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee learners seeking entry with varied records, and the direct evidence concerns request, decision and first attendance. In examining prompt admission with incomplete documentation, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-09]

The principal risk in prompt admission with incomplete documentation is that identity, residence or prior-school documents create prolonged waiting. In examining prompt admission with incomplete documentation, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the admission route, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-04]

The required host-system response for prompt admission with incomplete documentation is to permit lawful provisional admission and time-bound placement review. Within evidence on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting prompt admission with incomplete documentation, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-04] [REF-05]

Evidence for the admission route should be selected by coverage. For policy on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting prompt admission with incomplete documentation, for prompt admission with incomplete documentation, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about prompt admission with incomplete documentation, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-05] [REF-09]

Equity is integral to prompt admission with incomplete documentation. In interpreting prompt admission with incomplete documentation, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about prompt admission with incomplete documentation, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For prompt admission with incomplete documentation, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining prompt admission with incomplete documentation, if part of refugee learners seeking entry with varied records cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on request, decision and first attendance should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-09]

Interpretation of request, decision and first attendance should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about prompt admission with incomplete documentation, for prompt admission with incomplete documentation, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For prompt admission with incomplete documentation, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining prompt admission with incomplete documentation, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-09]

Accountability completes prompt admission with incomplete documentation. For prompt admission with incomplete documentation, a material shortfall in the admission route should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining prompt admission with incomplete documentation, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on prompt admission with incomplete documentation, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-09]

8

Placement, age and prior learning

Placement, age and prior learning establishes an accountability question for the fair placement. For placement, age and prior learning, the relevant population or responsible units are learners with interrupted or undocumented education, and the direct evidence concerns stage, support and later review. In examining placement, age and prior learning, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on placement, age and prior learning, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on placement, age and prior learning, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-24]

The principal risk in placement, age and prior learning is that available seats or age assumptions place learners far below or above suitable learning. In examining placement, age and prior learning, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on placement, age and prior learning, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the fair placement, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on placement, age and prior learning, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-08] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for placement, age and prior learning is to use flexible evidence, bridging support and a dated placement review. Within evidence on placement, age and prior learning, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on placement, age and prior learning, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting placement, age and prior learning, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-20]

Evidence for the fair placement should be selected by coverage. For policy on placement, age and prior learning, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting placement, age and prior learning, for placement, age and prior learning, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about placement, age and prior learning, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-20] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to placement, age and prior learning. In interpreting placement, age and prior learning, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about placement, age and prior learning, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For placement, age and prior learning, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining placement, age and prior learning, if part of learners with interrupted or undocumented education cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on stage, support and later review should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-08] [REF-24]

Interpretation of stage, support and later review should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about placement, age and prior learning, for placement, age and prior learning, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For placement, age and prior learning, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining placement, age and prior learning, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-24]

Accountability completes placement, age and prior learning. For placement, age and prior learning, a material shortfall in the fair placement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining placement, age and prior learning, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on placement, age and prior learning, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on placement, age and prior learning, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-24]

9

Language access and curriculum entry

Language access and curriculum entry establishes an accountability question for the language inclusion. For language access and curriculum entry, the relevant population or responsible units are learners entering an unfamiliar language or curriculum, and the direct evidence concerns comprehension, participation and progression. In examining language access and curriculum entry, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on language access and curriculum entry, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on language access and curriculum entry, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-22]

The principal risk in language access and curriculum entry is that enrolment is counted despite inability to understand teaching or assessment. In examining language access and curriculum entry, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on language access and curriculum entry, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the language inclusion, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on language access and curriculum entry, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for language access and curriculum entry is to provide staged language and curriculum support linked to the recognised pathway. Within evidence on language access and curriculum entry, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on language access and curriculum entry, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting language access and curriculum entry, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-20]

Evidence for the language inclusion should be selected by coverage. For policy on language access and curriculum entry, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting language access and curriculum entry, for language access and curriculum entry, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about language access and curriculum entry, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-20] [REF-22]

Equity is integral to language access and curriculum entry. In interpreting language access and curriculum entry, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about language access and curriculum entry, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For language access and curriculum entry, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining language access and curriculum entry, if part of learners entering an unfamiliar language or curriculum cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on comprehension, participation and progression should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-22]

Interpretation of comprehension, participation and progression should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about language access and curriculum entry, for language access and curriculum entry, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For language access and curriculum entry, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining language access and curriculum entry, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-22]

Accountability completes language access and curriculum entry. For language access and curriculum entry, a material shortfall in the language inclusion should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining language access and curriculum entry, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on language access and curriculum entry, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on language access and curriculum entry, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-22]

10

Disability, accessibility and accommodation

Disability, accessibility and accommodation establishes an accountability question for the inclusive refugee education. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host learners with functional support requirements, and the direct evidence concerns accessible participation and learning. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-17]

The principal risk in disability, accessibility and accommodation is that disability is missing from registration and temporary or host facilities remain inaccessible. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the inclusive refugee education, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-05] [REF-06]

The required host-system response for disability, accessibility and accommodation is to use respectful functional evidence and fund access, accommodation and support. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-06] [REF-11]

Evidence for the inclusive refugee education should be selected by coverage. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, for disability, accessibility and accommodation, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-11] [REF-17]

Equity is integral to disability, accessibility and accommodation. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, if part of refugee and host learners with functional support requirements cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on accessible participation and learning should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-05] [REF-17]

Interpretation of accessible participation and learning should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, for disability, accessibility and accommodation, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-17]

Accountability completes disability, accessibility and accommodation. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, a material shortfall in the inclusive refugee education should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-17]

11

Fees, transport and indirect cost

Fees, transport and indirect cost establishes an accountability question for the affordable refugee participation. For fees, transport and indirect cost, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host households bearing education costs, and the direct evidence concerns required cost and withdrawal. In examining fees, transport and indirect cost, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on fees, transport and indirect cost, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on fees, transport and indirect cost, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-24]

The principal risk in fees, transport and indirect cost is that nominally free places transfer transport, materials, meals and time costs to families. In examining fees, transport and indirect cost, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on fees, transport and indirect cost, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the affordable refugee participation, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on fees, transport and indirect cost, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for fees, transport and indirect cost is to remove prohibited charges and provide transparent targeted assistance. Within evidence on fees, transport and indirect cost, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on fees, transport and indirect cost, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting fees, transport and indirect cost, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-10]

Evidence for the affordable refugee participation should be selected by coverage. For policy on fees, transport and indirect cost, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting fees, transport and indirect cost, for fees, transport and indirect cost, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about fees, transport and indirect cost, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-10] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to fees, transport and indirect cost. In interpreting fees, transport and indirect cost, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about fees, transport and indirect cost, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For fees, transport and indirect cost, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining fees, transport and indirect cost, if part of refugee and host households bearing education costs cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on required cost and withdrawal should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Interpretation of required cost and withdrawal should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about fees, transport and indirect cost, for fees, transport and indirect cost, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For fees, transport and indirect cost, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining fees, transport and indirect cost, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-24]

Accountability completes fees, transport and indirect cost. For fees, transport and indirect cost, a material shortfall in the affordable refugee participation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining fees, transport and indirect cost, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on fees, transport and indirect cost, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on fees, transport and indirect cost, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-24]

12

Host-community equity and social trust

Host-community equity and social trust establishes an accountability question for the host-refugee equity. For host-community equity and social trust, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host learners using shared services, and the direct evidence concerns class size, time, teachers, materials and progression. In examining host-community equity and social trust, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on host-community equity and social trust, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on host-community equity and social trust, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-19]

The principal risk in host-community equity and social trust is that refugee access expands through reduced service for host communities or separate aid creates visible inequality. In examining host-community equity and social trust, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on host-community equity and social trust, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the host-refugee equity, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on host-community equity and social trust, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for host-community equity and social trust is to finance a common quality floor and report service distribution for both populations. Within evidence on host-community equity and social trust, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on host-community equity and social trust, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting host-community equity and social trust, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-10]

Evidence for the host-refugee equity should be selected by coverage. For policy on host-community equity and social trust, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting host-community equity and social trust, for host-community equity and social trust, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about host-community equity and social trust, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-10] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to host-community equity and social trust. In interpreting host-community equity and social trust, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about host-community equity and social trust, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For host-community equity and social trust, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining host-community equity and social trust, if part of refugee and host learners using shared services cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on class size, time, teachers, materials and progression should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of class size, time, teachers, materials and progression should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about host-community equity and social trust, for host-community equity and social trust, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For host-community equity and social trust, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining host-community equity and social trust, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-19]

Accountability completes host-community equity and social trust. For host-community equity and social trust, a material shortfall in the host-refugee equity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining host-community equity and social trust, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on host-community equity and social trust, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on host-community equity and social trust, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-19]

Part III

Quality, safety and recognised pathways

13

Teachers, language capability and workload

Teachers, language capability and workload establishes an accountability question for the teaching capacity. For teachers, language capability and workload, the relevant population or responsible units are teachers and learners in expanding host systems, and the direct evidence concerns qualification, presence, language and workload. In examining teachers, language capability and workload, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on teachers, language capability and workload, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on teachers, language capability and workload, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-03] [REF-09] [REF-16] [REF-22]

The principal risk in teachers, language capability and workload is that the same staff cover additional shifts without preparation, support or sustainable conditions. In examining teachers, language capability and workload, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on teachers, language capability and workload, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the teaching capacity, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on teachers, language capability and workload, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-03] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for teachers, language capability and workload is to cost positions, induction, language capability, planning time and difficult-post support. Within evidence on teachers, language capability and workload, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on teachers, language capability and workload, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting teachers, language capability and workload, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-16]

Evidence for the teaching capacity should be selected by coverage. For policy on teachers, language capability and workload, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting teachers, language capability and workload, for teachers, language capability and workload, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about teachers, language capability and workload, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-16] [REF-22]

Equity is integral to teachers, language capability and workload. In interpreting teachers, language capability and workload, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about teachers, language capability and workload, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For teachers, language capability and workload, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining teachers, language capability and workload, if part of teachers and learners in expanding host systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on qualification, presence, language and workload should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-03] [REF-22]

Interpretation of qualification, presence, language and workload should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about teachers, language capability and workload, for teachers, language capability and workload, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For teachers, language capability and workload, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining teachers, language capability and workload, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-16] [REF-22]

Accountability completes teachers, language capability and workload. For teachers, language capability and workload, a material shortfall in the teaching capacity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining teachers, language capability and workload, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on teachers, language capability and workload, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on teachers, language capability and workload, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-03] [REF-09] [REF-16] [REF-22]

14

Instructional time and double shifts

Instructional time and double shifts establishes an accountability question for the shift equivalence. For instructional time and double shifts, the relevant population or responsible units are learners in first, second and temporary sessions, and the direct evidence concerns delivered time and curriculum breadth. In examining instructional time and double shifts, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on instructional time and double shifts, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on instructional time and double shifts, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-16]

The principal risk in instructional time and double shifts is that capacity is expanded by sessions too short for credible teaching and support. In examining instructional time and double shifts, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on instructional time and double shifts, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the shift equivalence, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on instructional time and double shifts, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-08] [REF-09]

The required host-system response for instructional time and double shifts is to protect minimum time, practical learning, breaks, support and restorative action. Within evidence on instructional time and double shifts, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on instructional time and double shifts, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting instructional time and double shifts, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-09] [REF-10]

Evidence for the shift equivalence should be selected by coverage. For policy on instructional time and double shifts, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting instructional time and double shifts, for instructional time and double shifts, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about instructional time and double shifts, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-10] [REF-16]

Equity is integral to instructional time and double shifts. In interpreting instructional time and double shifts, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about instructional time and double shifts, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For instructional time and double shifts, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining instructional time and double shifts, if part of learners in first, second and temporary sessions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on delivered time and curriculum breadth should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-08] [REF-16]

Interpretation of delivered time and curriculum breadth should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about instructional time and double shifts, for instructional time and double shifts, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For instructional time and double shifts, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining instructional time and double shifts, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-16]

Accountability completes instructional time and double shifts. For instructional time and double shifts, a material shortfall in the shift equivalence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining instructional time and double shifts, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on instructional time and double shifts, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on instructional time and double shifts, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-16]

15

Curriculum, assessment and certification

Curriculum, assessment and certification establishes an accountability question for the recognised learning. For curriculum, assessment and certification, the relevant population or responsible units are learners following host, origin or adapted curricula, and the direct evidence concerns breadth, assessment and credential. In examining curriculum, assessment and certification, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on curriculum, assessment and certification, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on curriculum, assessment and certification, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-24]

The principal risk in curriculum, assessment and certification is that parallel curriculum or curtailed content leads to uncertain examination and transition. In examining curriculum, assessment and certification, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on curriculum, assessment and certification, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the recognised learning, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on curriculum, assessment and certification, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-08]

The required host-system response for curriculum, assessment and certification is to state the recognised standard, assessment route, appeal and next stage before enrolment. Within evidence on curriculum, assessment and certification, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on curriculum, assessment and certification, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting curriculum, assessment and certification, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-08] [REF-09]

Evidence for the recognised learning should be selected by coverage. For policy on curriculum, assessment and certification, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting curriculum, assessment and certification, for curriculum, assessment and certification, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about curriculum, assessment and certification, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-09] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to curriculum, assessment and certification. In interpreting curriculum, assessment and certification, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about curriculum, assessment and certification, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For curriculum, assessment and certification, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining curriculum, assessment and certification, if part of learners following host, origin or adapted curricula cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on breadth, assessment and credential should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Interpretation of breadth, assessment and credential should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about curriculum, assessment and certification, for curriculum, assessment and certification, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For curriculum, assessment and certification, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining curriculum, assessment and certification, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-24]

Accountability completes curriculum, assessment and certification. For curriculum, assessment and certification, a material shortfall in the recognised learning should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining curriculum, assessment and certification, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on curriculum, assessment and certification, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on curriculum, assessment and certification, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-24]

16

Safeguarding and psychosocial referral

Safeguarding and psychosocial referral establishes an accountability question for the protective quality. For safeguarding and psychosocial referral, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and educators affected by violence, loss and displacement, and the direct evidence concerns safe routine, reporting and referral. In examining safeguarding and psychosocial referral, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-11] [REF-24]

The principal risk in safeguarding and psychosocial referral is that education sites or journeys create new risk and teachers are asked to provide clinical care. In examining safeguarding and psychosocial referral, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the protective quality, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-05] [REF-07]

The required host-system response for safeguarding and psychosocial referral is to establish safeguarding, supportive routines, referral boundaries and non-retaliation. Within evidence on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting safeguarding and psychosocial referral, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-07] [REF-11]

Evidence for the protective quality should be selected by coverage. For policy on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting safeguarding and psychosocial referral, for safeguarding and psychosocial referral, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about safeguarding and psychosocial referral, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-11] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to safeguarding and psychosocial referral. In interpreting safeguarding and psychosocial referral, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about safeguarding and psychosocial referral, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For safeguarding and psychosocial referral, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining safeguarding and psychosocial referral, if part of learners and educators affected by violence, loss and displacement cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on safe routine, reporting and referral should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-05] [REF-24]

Interpretation of safe routine, reporting and referral should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about safeguarding and psychosocial referral, for safeguarding and psychosocial referral, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For safeguarding and psychosocial referral, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining safeguarding and psychosocial referral, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-11] [REF-24]

Accountability completes safeguarding and psychosocial referral. For safeguarding and psychosocial referral, a material shortfall in the protective quality should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining safeguarding and psychosocial referral, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on safeguarding and psychosocial referral, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-11] [REF-24]

17

Portable records and cross-border movement

Portable records and cross-border movement establishes an accountability question for the record continuity. For portable records and cross-border movement, the relevant population or responsible units are learners moving across institutions, jurisdictions and countries, and the direct evidence concerns identity, attendance, learning and certification. In examining portable records and cross-border movement, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on portable records and cross-border movement, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on portable records and cross-border movement, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-08] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The principal risk in portable records and cross-border movement is that fragmented providers and movement erase achievement or expose legal status. In examining portable records and cross-border movement, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on portable records and cross-border movement, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the record continuity, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on portable records and cross-border movement, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-08]

The required host-system response for portable records and cross-border movement is to maintain bounded portable records with secure access and replacement evidence. Within evidence on portable records and cross-border movement, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on portable records and cross-border movement, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting portable records and cross-border movement, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-08] [REF-12]

Evidence for the record continuity should be selected by coverage. For policy on portable records and cross-border movement, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting portable records and cross-border movement, for portable records and cross-border movement, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about portable records and cross-border movement, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-12] [REF-17]

Equity is integral to portable records and cross-border movement. In interpreting portable records and cross-border movement, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about portable records and cross-border movement, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For portable records and cross-border movement, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining portable records and cross-border movement, if part of learners moving across institutions, jurisdictions and countries cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on identity, attendance, learning and certification should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-17]

Interpretation of identity, attendance, learning and certification should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about portable records and cross-border movement, for portable records and cross-border movement, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For portable records and cross-border movement, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining portable records and cross-border movement, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-08] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Accountability completes portable records and cross-border movement. For portable records and cross-border movement, a material shortfall in the record continuity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining portable records and cross-border movement, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on portable records and cross-border movement, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on portable records and cross-border movement, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-08] [REF-12] [REF-17]

18

Transition from temporary to ordinary provision

Transition from temporary to ordinary provision establishes an accountability question for the pathway transition. For transition from temporary to ordinary provision, the relevant population or responsible units are learners in temporary, community or humanitarian arrangements, and the direct evidence concerns transfer, recognition and sustained attendance. In examining transition from temporary to ordinary provision, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-16]

The principal risk in transition from temporary to ordinary provision is that temporary routes persist without receiving capacity or recognised movement. In examining transition from temporary to ordinary provision, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the pathway transition, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-07]

The required host-system response for transition from temporary to ordinary provision is to set exit criteria, receiving responsibility, records, support and verified continuity. Within evidence on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting transition from temporary to ordinary provision, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-07] [REF-09]

Evidence for the pathway transition should be selected by coverage. For policy on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting transition from temporary to ordinary provision, for transition from temporary to ordinary provision, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about transition from temporary to ordinary provision, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-09] [REF-16]

Equity is integral to transition from temporary to ordinary provision. In interpreting transition from temporary to ordinary provision, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about transition from temporary to ordinary provision, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For transition from temporary to ordinary provision, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining transition from temporary to ordinary provision, if part of learners in temporary, community or humanitarian arrangements cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on transfer, recognition and sustained attendance should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-16]

Interpretation of transfer, recognition and sustained attendance should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about transition from temporary to ordinary provision, for transition from temporary to ordinary provision, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For transition from temporary to ordinary provision, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining transition from temporary to ordinary provision, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-16]

Accountability completes transition from temporary to ordinary provision. For transition from temporary to ordinary provision, a material shortfall in the pathway transition should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining transition from temporary to ordinary provision, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on transition from temporary to ordinary provision, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-16]

Part IV

Finance, provider agreements and host capacity

19

Full costing of refugee education

Full costing of refugee education establishes an accountability question for the full-service cost. For full costing of refugee education, the relevant population or responsible units are host authorities and partners financing additional learners, and the direct evidence concerns teachers, facilities, support, data and transition. In examining full costing of refugee education, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on full costing of refugee education, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on full costing of refugee education, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-19]

The principal risk in full costing of refugee education is that costing counts seats or construction but omits recurrent capability and household burden. In examining full costing of refugee education, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on full costing of refugee education, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the full-service cost, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on full costing of refugee education, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-10]

The required host-system response for full costing of refugee education is to prepare multi-year capital and recurrent costs and state who pays each component. Within evidence on full costing of refugee education, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on full costing of refugee education, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting full costing of refugee education, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-10] [REF-15]

Evidence for the full-service cost should be selected by coverage. For policy on full costing of refugee education, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting full costing of refugee education, for full costing of refugee education, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about full costing of refugee education, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-15] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to full costing of refugee education. In interpreting full costing of refugee education, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about full costing of refugee education, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For full costing of refugee education, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining full costing of refugee education, if part of host authorities and partners financing additional learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on teachers, facilities, support, data and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of teachers, facilities, support, data and transition should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about full costing of refugee education, for full costing of refugee education, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For full costing of refugee education, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining full costing of refugee education, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-19]

Accountability completes full costing of refugee education. For full costing of refugee education, a material shortfall in the full-service cost should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining full costing of refugee education, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on full costing of refugee education, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on full costing of refugee education, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-19]

20

Domestic budgets and equitable allocation

Domestic budgets and equitable allocation establishes an accountability question for the host public finance. For domestic budgets and equitable allocation, the relevant population or responsible units are national and local authorities funding shared systems, and the direct evidence concerns allocation, release and receipt. In examining domestic budgets and equitable allocation, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-19]

The principal risk in domestic budgets and equitable allocation is that refugee commitments rely solely on volatile aid or equal allocations ignore concentrated pressure. In examining domestic budgets and equitable allocation, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the host public finance, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required host-system response for domestic budgets and equitable allocation is to include refugee education in lawful budgets and apply transparent need and cost factors. Within evidence on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting domestic budgets and equitable allocation, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-03] [REF-10]

Evidence for the host public finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting domestic budgets and equitable allocation, for domestic budgets and equitable allocation, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about domestic budgets and equitable allocation, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-10] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to domestic budgets and equitable allocation. In interpreting domestic budgets and equitable allocation, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about domestic budgets and equitable allocation, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For domestic budgets and equitable allocation, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining domestic budgets and equitable allocation, if part of national and local authorities funding shared systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on allocation, release and receipt should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of allocation, release and receipt should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about domestic budgets and equitable allocation, for domestic budgets and equitable allocation, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For domestic budgets and equitable allocation, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining domestic budgets and equitable allocation, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-19]

Accountability completes domestic budgets and equitable allocation. For domestic budgets and equitable allocation, a material shortfall in the host public finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining domestic budgets and equitable allocation, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on domestic budgets and equitable allocation, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-19]

21

Predictable international responsibility sharing

Predictable international responsibility sharing establishes an accountability question for the international finance. For predictable international responsibility sharing, the relevant population or responsible units are donors and agencies supporting host systems, and the direct evidence concerns predictability, additionality and alignment. In examining predictable international responsibility sharing, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on predictable international responsibility sharing, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on predictable international responsibility sharing, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-19]

The principal risk in predictable international responsibility sharing is that short grants fund temporary activity but leave teacher and maintenance liabilities to hosts. In examining predictable international responsibility sharing, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on predictable international responsibility sharing, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the international finance, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on predictable international responsibility sharing, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-13]

The required host-system response for predictable international responsibility sharing is to commit multi-year aligned support covering recurrent capability and transition. Within evidence on predictable international responsibility sharing, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on predictable international responsibility sharing, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting predictable international responsibility sharing, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-13] [REF-15]

Evidence for the international finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on predictable international responsibility sharing, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting predictable international responsibility sharing, for predictable international responsibility sharing, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about predictable international responsibility sharing, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-15] [REF-19]

Equity is integral to predictable international responsibility sharing. In interpreting predictable international responsibility sharing, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about predictable international responsibility sharing, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For predictable international responsibility sharing, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining predictable international responsibility sharing, if part of donors and agencies supporting host systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on predictability, additionality and alignment should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-19]

Interpretation of predictability, additionality and alignment should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about predictable international responsibility sharing, for predictable international responsibility sharing, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For predictable international responsibility sharing, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining predictable international responsibility sharing, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-19]

Accountability completes predictable international responsibility sharing. For predictable international responsibility sharing, a material shortfall in the international finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining predictable international responsibility sharing, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on predictable international responsibility sharing, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on predictable international responsibility sharing, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-19]

22

Agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers

Agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers establishes an accountability question for the provider agreement. For agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, the relevant population or responsible units are public bodies and organisations delivering refugee education, and the direct evidence concerns standards, data, funds and exit. In examining agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-16] [REF-24]

The principal risk in agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers is that informal partnership fragments fees, pay, curriculum, safeguarding and records. In examining agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the provider agreement, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-07]

The required host-system response for agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers is to state public duties, finance, information, oversight, duration and transition contractually. Within evidence on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-07] [REF-16]

Evidence for the provider agreement should be selected by coverage. For policy on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, for agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-16] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers. In interpreting agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, if part of public bodies and organisations delivering refugee education cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on standards, data, funds and exit should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Interpretation of standards, data, funds and exit should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, for agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-16] [REF-24]

Accountability completes agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers. For agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, a material shortfall in the provider agreement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on agreements with humanitarian and non-state providers, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-07] [REF-16] [REF-24]

23

Local authority capacity and escalation

Local authority capacity and escalation establishes an accountability question for the local governance. For local authority capacity and escalation, the relevant population or responsible units are municipal and regional bodies receiving refugee populations, and the direct evidence concerns authority, funds and service delivery. In examining local authority capacity and escalation, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on local authority capacity and escalation, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on local authority capacity and escalation, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The principal risk in local authority capacity and escalation is that local bodies face concentrated demand without flexible resources or a route to central correction. In examining local authority capacity and escalation, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on local authority capacity and escalation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the local governance, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on local authority capacity and escalation, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-19]

The required host-system response for local authority capacity and escalation is to map decisions, transfers, information and escalation with one accountable owner. Within evidence on local authority capacity and escalation, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on local authority capacity and escalation, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting local authority capacity and escalation, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-19] [REF-20]

Evidence for the local governance should be selected by coverage. For policy on local authority capacity and escalation, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting local authority capacity and escalation, for local authority capacity and escalation, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about local authority capacity and escalation, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-20] [REF-21]

Equity is integral to local authority capacity and escalation. In interpreting local authority capacity and escalation, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about local authority capacity and escalation, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For local authority capacity and escalation, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining local authority capacity and escalation, if part of municipal and regional bodies receiving refugee populations cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on authority, funds and service delivery should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-21]

Interpretation of authority, funds and service delivery should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about local authority capacity and escalation, for local authority capacity and escalation, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For local authority capacity and escalation, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining local authority capacity and escalation, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Accountability completes local authority capacity and escalation. For local authority capacity and escalation, a material shortfall in the local governance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining local authority capacity and escalation, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on local authority capacity and escalation, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on local authority capacity and escalation, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

24

Tracing finance to learner-facing service

Tracing finance to learner-facing service establishes an accountability question for the resource accountability. For tracing finance to learner-facing service, the relevant population or responsible units are institutions and learners expecting funded inputs, and the direct evidence concerns allocation, receipt, use and result. In examining tracing finance to learner-facing service, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on tracing finance to learner-facing service, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on tracing finance to learner-facing service, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-23]

The principal risk in tracing finance to learner-facing service is that pledge and contract totals are reported as education delivered. In examining tracing finance to learner-facing service, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on tracing finance to learner-facing service, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the resource accountability, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on tracing finance to learner-facing service, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-10] [REF-15]

The required host-system response for tracing finance to learner-facing service is to trace sampled funds to timely receipt, staff, materials, support and learner use. Within evidence on tracing finance to learner-facing service, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on tracing finance to learner-facing service, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting tracing finance to learner-facing service, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-15] [REF-17]

Evidence for the resource accountability should be selected by coverage. For policy on tracing finance to learner-facing service, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting tracing finance to learner-facing service, for tracing finance to learner-facing service, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about tracing finance to learner-facing service, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-17] [REF-23]

Equity is integral to tracing finance to learner-facing service. In interpreting tracing finance to learner-facing service, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about tracing finance to learner-facing service, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For tracing finance to learner-facing service, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining tracing finance to learner-facing service, if part of institutions and learners expecting funded inputs cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on allocation, receipt, use and result should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-10] [REF-23]

Interpretation of allocation, receipt, use and result should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about tracing finance to learner-facing service, for tracing finance to learner-facing service, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For tracing finance to learner-facing service, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining tracing finance to learner-facing service, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-23]

Accountability completes tracing finance to learner-facing service. For tracing finance to learner-facing service, a material shortfall in the resource accountability should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining tracing finance to learner-facing service, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on tracing finance to learner-facing service, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on tracing finance to learner-facing service, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-23]

Part V

Monitoring, review and practical remedy

25

A minimum refugee education indicator family

A minimum refugee education indicator family establishes an accountability question for the indicator family. For a minimum refugee education indicator family, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host populations across education stages, and the direct evidence concerns admission, attendance, time, teachers, learning, completion and transition. In examining a minimum refugee education indicator family, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on a minimum refugee education indicator family, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on a minimum refugee education indicator family, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-09] [REF-17]

The principal risk in a minimum refugee education indicator family is that one enrolment total stands for access, quality and outcome. In examining a minimum refugee education indicator family, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on a minimum refugee education indicator family, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the indicator family, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on a minimum refugee education indicator family, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required host-system response for a minimum refugee education indicator family is to publish a compact linked set with definitions, populations, dates and group levels. Within evidence on a minimum refugee education indicator family, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on a minimum refugee education indicator family, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting a minimum refugee education indicator family, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-03] [REF-09]

Evidence for the indicator family should be selected by coverage. For policy on a minimum refugee education indicator family, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting a minimum refugee education indicator family, for a minimum refugee education indicator family, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about a minimum refugee education indicator family, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-09] [REF-17]

Equity is integral to a minimum refugee education indicator family. In interpreting a minimum refugee education indicator family, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about a minimum refugee education indicator family, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For a minimum refugee education indicator family, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining a minimum refugee education indicator family, if part of refugee and host populations across education stages cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on admission, attendance, time, teachers, learning, completion and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-17]

Interpretation of admission, attendance, time, teachers, learning, completion and transition should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about a minimum refugee education indicator family, for a minimum refugee education indicator family, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For a minimum refugee education indicator family, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining a minimum refugee education indicator family, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-09] [REF-17]

Accountability completes a minimum refugee education indicator family. For a minimum refugee education indicator family, a material shortfall in the indicator family should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining a minimum refugee education indicator family, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on a minimum refugee education indicator family, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on a minimum refugee education indicator family, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-09] [REF-17]

26

Reconciling registration, school and household evidence

Reconciling registration, school and household evidence establishes an accountability question for the source reconciliation. For reconciling registration, school and household evidence, the relevant population or responsible units are people observed differently by refugee and education systems, and the direct evidence concerns population and education status. In examining reconciling registration, school and household evidence, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-18]

The principal risk in reconciling registration, school and household evidence is that mandate-specific sources use incompatible definitions and leave gaps between them. In examining reconciling registration, school and household evidence, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the source reconciliation, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-09] [REF-10]

The required host-system response for reconciling registration, school and household evidence is to map concepts and reconcile without delaying service or exposing individuals. Within evidence on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting reconciling registration, school and household evidence, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-10] [REF-12]

Evidence for the source reconciliation should be selected by coverage. For policy on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting reconciling registration, school and household evidence, for reconciling registration, school and household evidence, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about reconciling registration, school and household evidence, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-12] [REF-18]

Equity is integral to reconciling registration, school and household evidence. In interpreting reconciling registration, school and household evidence, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about reconciling registration, school and household evidence, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For reconciling registration, school and household evidence, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining reconciling registration, school and household evidence, if part of people observed differently by refugee and education systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on population and education status should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-09] [REF-18]

Interpretation of population and education status should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about reconciling registration, school and household evidence, for reconciling registration, school and household evidence, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For reconciling registration, school and household evidence, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining reconciling registration, school and household evidence, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-18]

Accountability completes reconciling registration, school and household evidence. For reconciling registration, school and household evidence, a material shortfall in the source reconciliation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining reconciling registration, school and household evidence, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on reconciling registration, school and household evidence, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-18]

27

Disaggregation and confidentiality

Disaggregation and confidentiality establishes an accountability question for the safe refugee evidence. For disaggregation and confidentiality, the relevant population or responsible units are small and sensitive groups by status, sex, age, disability and location, and the direct evidence concerns group levels and gaps. In examining disaggregation and confidentiality, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on disaggregation and confidentiality, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on disaggregation and confidentiality, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-18]

The principal risk in disaggregation and confidentiality is that greater detail exposes identity or suppressed cells erase excluded learners. In examining disaggregation and confidentiality, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on disaggregation and confidentiality, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the safe refugee evidence, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on disaggregation and confidentiality, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-05] [REF-06]

The required host-system response for disaggregation and confidentiality is to apply necessity, minimum detail, controlled access and visible gap reporting. Within evidence on disaggregation and confidentiality, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on disaggregation and confidentiality, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting disaggregation and confidentiality, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-06] [REF-17]

Evidence for the safe refugee evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on disaggregation and confidentiality, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting disaggregation and confidentiality, for disaggregation and confidentiality, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about disaggregation and confidentiality, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-17] [REF-18]

Equity is integral to disaggregation and confidentiality. In interpreting disaggregation and confidentiality, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about disaggregation and confidentiality, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For disaggregation and confidentiality, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining disaggregation and confidentiality, if part of small and sensitive groups by status, sex, age, disability and location cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on group levels and gaps should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-05] [REF-18]

Interpretation of group levels and gaps should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about disaggregation and confidentiality, for disaggregation and confidentiality, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For disaggregation and confidentiality, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining disaggregation and confidentiality, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-18]

Accountability completes disaggregation and confidentiality. For disaggregation and confidentiality, a material shortfall in the safe refugee evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining disaggregation and confidentiality, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on disaggregation and confidentiality, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on disaggregation and confidentiality, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-18]

28

Learner and community participation

Learner and community participation establishes an accountability question for the accountable participation. For learner and community participation, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host learners, families and educators, and the direct evidence concerns influence on decisions and review. In examining learner and community participation, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on learner and community participation, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on learner and community participation, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

The principal risk in learner and community participation is that consultation privileges established organisations or occurs after plans and budgets. In examining learner and community participation, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on learner and community participation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the accountable participation, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on learner and community participation, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-05]

The required host-system response for learner and community participation is to include least-heard groups early and record how evidence changed action. Within evidence on learner and community participation, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on learner and community participation, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting learner and community participation, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-05] [REF-11]

Evidence for the accountable participation should be selected by coverage. For policy on learner and community participation, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting learner and community participation, for learner and community participation, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about learner and community participation, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-11] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to learner and community participation. In interpreting learner and community participation, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about learner and community participation, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For learner and community participation, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining learner and community participation, if part of refugee and host learners, families and educators cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on influence on decisions and review should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Interpretation of influence on decisions and review should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about learner and community participation, for learner and community participation, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For learner and community participation, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining learner and community participation, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

Accountability completes learner and community participation. For learner and community participation, a material shortfall in the accountable participation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining learner and community participation, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on learner and community participation, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on learner and community participation, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-11] [REF-24]

29

Public reporting and correction

Public reporting and correction establishes an accountability question for the public accountability statement. For public reporting and correction, the relevant population or responsible units are communities and partners evaluating commitments, and the direct evidence concerns commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. In examining public reporting and correction, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on public reporting and correction, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on public reporting and correction, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-18] [REF-23]

The principal risk in public reporting and correction is that reports list activities, pledges or aggregate reach without limitations or correction. In examining public reporting and correction, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on public reporting and correction, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the public accountability statement, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on public reporting and correction, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-01] [REF-17]

The required host-system response for public reporting and correction is to publish owners, funds, group baselines, service received, limits, revisions and action. Within evidence on public reporting and correction, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on public reporting and correction, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting public reporting and correction, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-17] [REF-18]

Evidence for the public accountability statement should be selected by coverage. For policy on public reporting and correction, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting public reporting and correction, for public reporting and correction, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about public reporting and correction, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-18] [REF-23]

Equity is integral to public reporting and correction. In interpreting public reporting and correction, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about public reporting and correction, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For public reporting and correction, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining public reporting and correction, if part of communities and partners evaluating commitments cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on commitment, finance, delivery and outcome should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-01] [REF-23]

Interpretation of commitment, finance, delivery and outcome should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about public reporting and correction, for public reporting and correction, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For public reporting and correction, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining public reporting and correction, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-17] [REF-18] [REF-23]

Accountability completes public reporting and correction. For public reporting and correction, a material shortfall in the public accountability statement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining public reporting and correction, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on public reporting and correction, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on public reporting and correction, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-18] [REF-23]

30

Complaint, appeal and continuing education

Complaint, appeal and continuing education establishes an accountability question for the practical remedy. For complaint, appeal and continuing education, the relevant population or responsible units are learners denied entry, accommodation, safety or recognition, and the direct evidence concerns response and correction. In examining complaint, appeal and continuing education, the analysis should begin with the legal or policy commitment, identify the host-system authority and state the learner-facing condition expected to change. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and continuing education, shared responsibility does not justify shared ambiguity. For policy on complaint, appeal and continuing education, refugee status, a partner agreement or temporary delivery should never leave families unable to identify who must admit, support, certify or correct the education offered.[REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-24]

The principal risk in complaint, appeal and continuing education is that complaint systems are feared, distant or interrupt education during dispute. In examining complaint, appeal and continuing education, this can turn a visible activity into apparent fulfilment while an inferior route, excluded group or unfunded duty persists. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and continuing education, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the practical remedy, which omissions are concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on complaint, appeal and continuing education, absence from a school or complaint record should not be treated as successful provision where mobility, documentation, language or fear suppresses reporting.[REF-04] [REF-05]

The required host-system response for complaint, appeal and continuing education is to provide accessible confidential appeal, continuity protection, non-retaliation and systemic correction. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and continuing education, the response should state lawful authority, beneficiary population, owner, supporting bodies, recurrent finance, delivery date and remedy. For policy on complaint, appeal and continuing education, where provision is delegated, public admission, fee, quality, safeguarding, record and recognition duties should remain enforceable. In interpreting complaint, appeal and continuing education, if equivalence is not immediately feasible, the limitation, protected minimum, restorative action and review date should be published.[REF-05] [REF-17]

Evidence for the practical remedy should be selected by coverage. For policy on complaint, appeal and continuing education, refugee registration may describe status and location, education records may describe enrolled learners and services, household evidence may reveal those outside institutions, and participatory evidence may explain barriers. In interpreting complaint, appeal and continuing education, for complaint, appeal and continuing education, each source should retain its definition, date, population and principal limitation. For decisions about complaint, appeal and continuing education, divergence should be investigated without delaying admission or exposing sensitive legal information.[REF-17] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to complaint, appeal and continuing education. In interpreting complaint, appeal and continuing education, comparison should retain refugee and host levels and may also concern sex, age, disability, poverty, location, language and education stage. For decisions about complaint, appeal and continuing education, every gap should preserve component levels and population shares. For complaint, appeal and continuing education, intersections require sufficient evidence and safe disclosure. In examining complaint, appeal and continuing education, if part of learners denied entry, accommodation, safety or recognition cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on response and correction should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a favourable total.[REF-04] [REF-24]

Interpretation of response and correction should separate commitment, finance, delivery and outcome. For decisions about complaint, appeal and continuing education, for complaint, appeal and continuing education, a pledge or plan does not establish that an institution received resources, and enrolment does not establish regular participation, learning or progression. For complaint, appeal and continuing education, the public account should trace the chain while testing alternative explanations and uncertainty. In examining complaint, appeal and continuing education, all evidence should be dated so that institutional changes or results after 5 February 2017 are not read backwards.[REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-24]

Accountability completes complaint, appeal and continuing education. For complaint, appeal and continuing education, a material shortfall in the practical remedy should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. In examining complaint, appeal and continuing education, refugee and host communities need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and continuing education, if no immediate action is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be public. For policy on complaint, appeal and continuing education, the finding should end as a chain of duty, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list without required response.[REF-04] [REF-05] [REF-17] [REF-24]

References

REF-01
United Nations General Assembly. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. 2016.
Adopted commitments on refugee and migrant protection, education and shared responsibility.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1
REF-02
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015.
Universal development agenda and commitment to leave no one behind.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1
REF-03
World Education Forum 2015 and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Education 2030 Framework for Action. 2015.
Education 2030 implementation responsibilities for inclusion, equity, quality and monitoring.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
REF-04
United Nations General Assembly. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 1951.
Education rights and standards of treatment for refugees.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees
REF-05
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, protection and participation obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
REF-06
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
REF-07
United Nations General Assembly. The Right to Education in Emergency Situations. 2010.
Continuity, protection, inclusion and quality of education during emergencies.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/64/290
REF-08
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Education Strategy 2012–2016. 2012.
Strategy for refugee access, quality, learning, protection and recognised education.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/education-strategy-2012-2016
REF-09
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Missing Out: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2016.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee education participation and barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/missing-out-refugee-education-crisis
REF-10
Global Education Monitoring Report Team and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. No More Excuses: Provide Education to All Forcibly Displaced People. 2016.
Policy evidence on education access, finance and data for forcibly displaced people.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244847
REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. Uprooted: The Growing Crisis for Refugee and Migrant Children. 2016.
Evidence on refugee and migrant children, protection and access to services.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/uprooted-growing-crisis-refugee-and-migrant-children
REF-12
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global Trends 2015. 2016.
Official evidence on forced displacement at the end of 2015.
https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends-2015.html
REF-13
United Nations Secretary-General. One Humanity: Shared Responsibility. 2016.
Analysis of humanitarian need, displacement and shared responsibility.
https://undocs.org/A/70/709
REF-14
United Nations Secretary-General. In Safety and Dignity: Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants. 2016.
Recommendations preceding the New York Declaration on protection and responsibility sharing.
https://undocs.org/A/70/59
REF-15
Education Cannot Wait. Education Cannot Wait: A Fund for Education in Emergencies. 2016.
Launch material on education finance in emergencies.
https://www.educationcannotwait.org/
REF-16
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Crisis-sensitive Education Planning. 2011.
Guidance on education planning attentive to conflict and disaster risks.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000190296
REF-17
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive evidence, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf
REF-18
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality in official statistics.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261
REF-19
European Commission. Lives in Dignity: From Aid-dependence to Self-reliance — Forced Displacement and Development. 2016.
European policy on protracted displacement and development-oriented support.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0234
REF-20
European Commission. Action Plan on the Integration of Third-country Nationals. 2016.
European policy on education, language, skills and participation of third-country nationals.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0377
REF-21
European Commission. Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe. 2016.
European policy context for asylum, responsibility and legal pathways.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0197
REF-22
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1
REF-23
Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All — Global Education Monitoring Report 2016. 2016.
Global education monitoring and accountability evidence in the Education 2030 era.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245752
REF-24
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861

[reference-ref-01] REF-01
United Nations General Assembly. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. 2016.
Adopted commitments on refugee and migrant protection, education and shared responsibility.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1

[reference-ref-02] REF-02
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015.
Universal development agenda and commitment to leave no one behind.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1

[reference-ref-03] REF-03
World Education Forum 2015 and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Education 2030 Framework for Action. 2015.
Education 2030 implementation responsibilities for inclusion, equity, quality and monitoring.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656

[reference-ref-04] REF-04
United Nations General Assembly. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 1951.
Education rights and standards of treatment for refugees.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees

[reference-ref-05] REF-05
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, protection and participation obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

[reference-ref-06] REF-06
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

[reference-ref-07] REF-07
United Nations General Assembly. The Right to Education in Emergency Situations. 2010.
Continuity, protection, inclusion and quality of education during emergencies.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/64/290

[reference-ref-08] REF-08
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Education Strategy 2012–2016. 2012.
Strategy for refugee access, quality, learning, protection and recognised education.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/education-strategy-2012-2016

[reference-ref-09] REF-09
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Missing Out: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2016.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee education participation and barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/missing-out-refugee-education-crisis

[reference-ref-10] REF-10
Global Education Monitoring Report Team and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. No More Excuses: Provide Education to All Forcibly Displaced People. 2016.
Policy evidence on education access, finance and data for forcibly displaced people.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244847

[reference-ref-11] REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. Uprooted: The Growing Crisis for Refugee and Migrant Children. 2016.
Evidence on refugee and migrant children, protection and access to services.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/uprooted-growing-crisis-refugee-and-migrant-children

[reference-ref-12] REF-12
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global Trends 2015. 2016.
Official evidence on forced displacement at the end of 2015.
https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends-2015.html

[reference-ref-13] REF-13
United Nations Secretary-General. One Humanity: Shared Responsibility. 2016.
Analysis of humanitarian need, displacement and shared responsibility.
https://undocs.org/A/70/709

[reference-ref-14] REF-14
United Nations Secretary-General. In Safety and Dignity: Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants. 2016.
Recommendations preceding the New York Declaration on protection and responsibility sharing.
https://undocs.org/A/70/59

[reference-ref-15] REF-15
Education Cannot Wait. Education Cannot Wait: A Fund for Education in Emergencies. 2016.
Launch material on education finance in emergencies.
https://www.educationcannotwait.org/

[reference-ref-16] REF-16
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Crisis-sensitive Education Planning. 2011.
Guidance on education planning attentive to conflict and disaster risks.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000190296

[reference-ref-17] REF-17
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive evidence, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf

[reference-ref-18] REF-18
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality in official statistics.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261

[reference-ref-19] REF-19
European Commission. Lives in Dignity: From Aid-dependence to Self-reliance — Forced Displacement and Development. 2016.
European policy on protracted displacement and development-oriented support.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0234

[reference-ref-20] REF-20
European Commission. Action Plan on the Integration of Third-country Nationals. 2016.
European policy on education, language, skills and participation of third-country nationals.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0377

[reference-ref-21] REF-21
European Commission. Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe. 2016.
European policy context for asylum, responsibility and legal pathways.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0197

[reference-ref-22] REF-22
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-23] REF-23
Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All — Global Education Monitoring Report 2016. 2016.
Global education monitoring and accountability evidence in the Education 2030 era.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245752

[reference-ref-24] REF-24
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861

ICEQC-R-2017-01 — Accountability for Refugee Education Commitments in Host Systems