ICEQC-R-2016-11 — Global Education Quality Annual Report 2016: Implementing Education 2030 in Conditions of Displacement and Risk

Education 2030 as a universal public compact defines an annual-monitoring question for the universal compact. For education 2030 as a universal public compact, the relevant population or responsible units are all national systems and learners from unequal starting points, and the direct evidence concerns entitlement, quality and national action. In examining education 2030 as a universal public compact, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on education 2030 as a universal public compact, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on education 2030 as a universal public compact, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-11]

The main risk in education 2030 as a universal public compact is that universality becomes a common slogan without differentiated baselines and owners. In examining education 2030 as a universal public compact, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on education 2030 as a universal public compact, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the universal compact, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on education 2030 as a universal public compact, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-02]

The required policy response for education 2030 as a universal public compact is to translate the common commitment into lawful national duties, resources and dated milestones. Within evidence on education 2030 as a universal public compact, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on education 2030 as a universal public compact, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting education 2030 as a universal public compact, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-02] [REF-03]

Evidence for the universal compact should be selected by coverage. For policy on education 2030 as a universal public compact, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting education 2030 as a universal public compact, for education 2030 as a universal public compact, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about education 2030 as a universal public compact, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Equity is embedded in education 2030 as a universal public compact. In interpreting education 2030 as a universal public compact, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about education 2030 as a universal public compact, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of education 2030 as a universal public compact, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For education 2030 as a universal public compact, if part of all national systems and learners from unequal starting points cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on entitlement, quality and national action should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-11]

Interpretation of entitlement, quality and national action should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about education 2030 as a universal public compact, for education 2030 as a universal public compact, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of education 2030 as a universal public compact, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For education 2030 as a universal public compact, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining education 2030 as a universal public compact, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-11]

Accountability completes education 2030 as a universal public compact. Within the annual account of education 2030 as a universal public compact, a material shortfall in the universal compact should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For education 2030 as a universal public compact, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining education 2030 as a universal public compact, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on education 2030 as a universal public compact, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-11]

The first-year boundary of implementation defines an annual-monitoring question for the 2016 implementation boundary. For the first-year boundary of implementation, the relevant population or responsible units are authorities reporting the first year of the agenda, and the direct evidence concerns adopted measures and early evidence. In examining the first-year boundary of implementation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on the first-year boundary of implementation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on the first-year boundary of implementation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-16]

The main risk in the first-year boundary of implementation is that later institutional arrangements are attributed to 2016 or activity is described as result. In examining the first-year boundary of implementation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on the first-year boundary of implementation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the 2016 implementation boundary, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on the first-year boundary of implementation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required policy response for the first-year boundary of implementation is to date each instrument and distinguish commitment, delivery, output and learner outcome. Within evidence on the first-year boundary of implementation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on the first-year boundary of implementation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting the first-year boundary of implementation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Evidence for the 2016 implementation boundary should be selected by coverage. For policy on the first-year boundary of implementation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting the first-year boundary of implementation, for the first-year boundary of implementation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about the first-year boundary of implementation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-16]

Equity is embedded in the first-year boundary of implementation. In interpreting the first-year boundary of implementation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about the first-year boundary of implementation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of the first-year boundary of implementation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For the first-year boundary of implementation, if part of authorities reporting the first year of the agenda cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on adopted measures and early evidence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-16]

Interpretation of adopted measures and early evidence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about the first-year boundary of implementation, for the first-year boundary of implementation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of the first-year boundary of implementation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For the first-year boundary of implementation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining the first-year boundary of implementation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-16]

Accountability completes the first-year boundary of implementation. Within the annual account of the first-year boundary of implementation, a material shortfall in the 2016 implementation boundary should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For the first-year boundary of implementation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining the first-year boundary of implementation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on the first-year boundary of implementation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-16]

Education as a right and public good defines an annual-monitoring question for the public education responsibility. For education as a right and public good, the relevant population or responsible units are people entitled to education across public and delegated provision, and the direct evidence concerns availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability. In examining education as a right and public good, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on education as a right and public good, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on education as a right and public good, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

The main risk in education as a right and public good is that shared delivery diffuses state responsibility and leaves remedy unclear. In examining education as a right and public good, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on education as a right and public good, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the public education responsibility, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on education as a right and public good, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-02] [REF-03]

The required policy response for education as a right and public good is to retain public duties for provision, regulation, information, finance and correction. Within evidence on education as a right and public good, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on education as a right and public good, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting education as a right and public good, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-23]

Evidence for the public education responsibility should be selected by coverage. For policy on education as a right and public good, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting education as a right and public good, for education as a right and public good, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about education as a right and public good, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-23] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in education as a right and public good. In interpreting education as a right and public good, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about education as a right and public good, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of education as a right and public good, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For education as a right and public good, if part of people entitled to education across public and delegated provision cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-02] [REF-38]

Interpretation of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about education as a right and public good, for education as a right and public good, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of education as a right and public good, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For education as a right and public good, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining education as a right and public good, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

Accountability completes education as a right and public good. Within the annual account of education as a right and public good, a material shortfall in the public education responsibility should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For education as a right and public good, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining education as a right and public good, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on education as a right and public good, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

Displacement as a development and education concern defines an annual-monitoring question for the displacement responsibility. For displacement as a development and education concern, the relevant population or responsible units are refugees, migrants, displaced people and host communities, and the direct evidence concerns admission, continuity, quality and self-reliance. In examining displacement as a development and education concern, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on displacement as a development and education concern, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on displacement as a development and education concern, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-28]

The main risk in displacement as a development and education concern is that short humanitarian arrangements become a substitute for recognised public education. In examining displacement as a development and education concern, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on displacement as a development and education concern, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the displacement responsibility, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on displacement as a development and education concern, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-08]

The required policy response for displacement as a development and education concern is to join immediate access with host-system capacity, records, progression and longer-term finance. Within evidence on displacement as a development and education concern, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on displacement as a development and education concern, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting displacement as a development and education concern, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-08] [REF-09]

Evidence for the displacement responsibility should be selected by coverage. For policy on displacement as a development and education concern, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting displacement as a development and education concern, for displacement as a development and education concern, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about displacement as a development and education concern, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-09] [REF-28]

Equity is embedded in displacement as a development and education concern. In interpreting displacement as a development and education concern, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about displacement as a development and education concern, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of displacement as a development and education concern, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For displacement as a development and education concern, if part of refugees, migrants, displaced people and host communities cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on admission, continuity, quality and self-reliance should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-28]

Interpretation of admission, continuity, quality and self-reliance should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about displacement as a development and education concern, for displacement as a development and education concern, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of displacement as a development and education concern, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For displacement as a development and education concern, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining displacement as a development and education concern, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-28]

Accountability completes displacement as a development and education concern. Within the annual account of displacement as a development and education concern, a material shortfall in the displacement responsibility should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For displacement as a development and education concern, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining displacement as a development and education concern, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on displacement as a development and education concern, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-28]

Sustainable development and education quality defines an annual-monitoring question for the education-sustainability linkage. For sustainable development and education quality, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and communities facing environmental and social change, and the direct evidence concerns curriculum, capability and institutional practice. In examining sustainable development and education quality, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on sustainable development and education quality, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on sustainable development and education quality, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The main risk in sustainable development and education quality is that sustainability is reduced to isolated awareness activities or education is treated only as an economic input. In examining sustainable development and education quality, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on sustainable development and education quality, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the education-sustainability linkage, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on sustainable development and education quality, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-11]

The required policy response for sustainable development and education quality is to connect learning, rights, citizenship, livelihoods, institutions and ecological responsibility. Within evidence on sustainable development and education quality, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on sustainable development and education quality, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting sustainable development and education quality, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-11] [REF-20]

Evidence for the education-sustainability linkage should be selected by coverage. For policy on sustainable development and education quality, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting sustainable development and education quality, for sustainable development and education quality, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about sustainable development and education quality, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-20] [REF-21]

Equity is embedded in sustainable development and education quality. In interpreting sustainable development and education quality, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about sustainable development and education quality, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of sustainable development and education quality, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For sustainable development and education quality, if part of learners and communities facing environmental and social change cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on curriculum, capability and institutional practice should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-21]

Interpretation of curriculum, capability and institutional practice should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about sustainable development and education quality, for sustainable development and education quality, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of sustainable development and education quality, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For sustainable development and education quality, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining sustainable development and education quality, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Accountability completes sustainable development and education quality. Within the annual account of sustainable development and education quality, a material shortfall in the education-sustainability linkage should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For sustainable development and education quality, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining sustainable development and education quality, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on sustainable development and education quality, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Financing ambition and recurrent capability defines an annual-monitoring question for the financing compact. For financing ambition and recurrent capability, the relevant population or responsible units are governments and partners funding education duties, and the direct evidence concerns adequacy, equity and execution. In examining financing ambition and recurrent capability, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on financing ambition and recurrent capability, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on financing ambition and recurrent capability, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

The main risk in financing ambition and recurrent capability is that commitment totals omit teachers, maintenance, support, data and predictable crisis costs. In examining financing ambition and recurrent capability, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on financing ambition and recurrent capability, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the financing compact, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on financing ambition and recurrent capability, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-04]

The required policy response for financing ambition and recurrent capability is to cost the full recurrent service and trace allocation, release, receipt and learner use. Within evidence on financing ambition and recurrent capability, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on financing ambition and recurrent capability, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting financing ambition and recurrent capability, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-04] [REF-07]

Evidence for the financing compact should be selected by coverage. For policy on financing ambition and recurrent capability, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting financing ambition and recurrent capability, for financing ambition and recurrent capability, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about financing ambition and recurrent capability, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-07] [REF-11]

Equity is embedded in financing ambition and recurrent capability. In interpreting financing ambition and recurrent capability, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about financing ambition and recurrent capability, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of financing ambition and recurrent capability, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For financing ambition and recurrent capability, if part of governments and partners funding education duties cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on adequacy, equity and execution should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Interpretation of adequacy, equity and execution should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about financing ambition and recurrent capability, for financing ambition and recurrent capability, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of financing ambition and recurrent capability, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For financing ambition and recurrent capability, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining financing ambition and recurrent capability, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

Accountability completes financing ambition and recurrent capability. Within the annual account of financing ambition and recurrent capability, a material shortfall in the financing compact should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For financing ambition and recurrent capability, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining financing ambition and recurrent capability, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on financing ambition and recurrent capability, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

Indicator architecture as a starting point defines an annual-monitoring question for the indicator status. For indicator architecture as a starting point, the relevant population or responsible units are national statistical offices and international custodians, and the direct evidence concerns global and thematic measures. In examining indicator architecture as a starting point, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on indicator architecture as a starting point, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on indicator architecture as a starting point, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

The main risk in indicator architecture as a starting point is that the March framework is treated as immutable or aggregate availability as full monitoring readiness. In examining indicator architecture as a starting point, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on indicator architecture as a starting point, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the indicator status, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on indicator architecture as a starting point, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-15] [REF-16]

The required policy response for indicator architecture as a starting point is to preserve provisionality, document national correspondence and strengthen missing target evidence. Within evidence on indicator architecture as a starting point, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on indicator architecture as a starting point, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting indicator architecture as a starting point, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-16] [REF-17]

Evidence for the indicator status should be selected by coverage. For policy on indicator architecture as a starting point, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting indicator architecture as a starting point, for indicator architecture as a starting point, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about indicator architecture as a starting point, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in indicator architecture as a starting point. In interpreting indicator architecture as a starting point, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about indicator architecture as a starting point, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of indicator architecture as a starting point, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For indicator architecture as a starting point, if part of national statistical offices and international custodians cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on global and thematic measures should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-15] [REF-40]

Interpretation of global and thematic measures should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about indicator architecture as a starting point, for indicator architecture as a starting point, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of indicator architecture as a starting point, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For indicator architecture as a starting point, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining indicator architecture as a starting point, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

Accountability completes indicator architecture as a starting point. Within the annual account of indicator architecture as a starting point, a material shortfall in the indicator status should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For indicator architecture as a starting point, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining indicator architecture as a starting point, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on indicator architecture as a starting point, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

A national first-year implementation statement defines an annual-monitoring question for the national 2016 statement. For a national first-year implementation statement, the relevant population or responsible units are public bodies responsible for Education 2030, and the direct evidence concerns baseline, action, gap and owner. In examining a national first-year implementation statement, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on a national first-year implementation statement, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on a national first-year implementation statement, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]

The main risk in a national first-year implementation statement is that many activity lists obscure which learner conditions changed and which duties remain unowned. In examining a national first-year implementation statement, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on a national first-year implementation statement, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the national 2016 statement, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on a national first-year implementation statement, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-02] [REF-03]

The required policy response for a national first-year implementation statement is to publish entitlements, baselines, group gaps, financed actions, evidence limits and correction routes. Within evidence on a national first-year implementation statement, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on a national first-year implementation statement, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting a national first-year implementation statement, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Evidence for the national 2016 statement should be selected by coverage. For policy on a national first-year implementation statement, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting a national first-year implementation statement, for a national first-year implementation statement, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about a national first-year implementation statement, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in a national first-year implementation statement. In interpreting a national first-year implementation statement, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about a national first-year implementation statement, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of a national first-year implementation statement, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For a national first-year implementation statement, if part of public bodies responsible for Education 2030 cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on baseline, action, gap and owner should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-02] [REF-22]

Interpretation of baseline, action, gap and owner should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about a national first-year implementation statement, for a national first-year implementation statement, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of a national first-year implementation statement, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For a national first-year implementation statement, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining a national first-year implementation statement, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]

Accountability completes a national first-year implementation statement. Within the annual account of a national first-year implementation statement, a material shortfall in the national 2016 statement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For a national first-year implementation statement, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining a national first-year implementation statement, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on a national first-year implementation statement, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]

Prompt admission and early retention defines an annual-monitoring question for the admission pathway. For prompt admission and early retention, the relevant population or responsible units are eligible resident, refugee, migrant and displaced learners, and the direct evidence concerns request, decision, first attendance and early continuity. In examining prompt admission and early retention, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on prompt admission and early retention, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on prompt admission and early retention, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-23] [REF-29]

The main risk in prompt admission and early retention is that documents, address, status or placement discretion create prolonged waiting. In examining prompt admission and early retention, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on prompt admission and early retention, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the admission pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on prompt admission and early retention, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-10]

The required policy response for prompt admission and early retention is to allow lawful provisional entry, review placement and track early attendance and support. Within evidence on prompt admission and early retention, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on prompt admission and early retention, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting prompt admission and early retention, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-10] [REF-23]

Evidence for the admission pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on prompt admission and early retention, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting prompt admission and early retention, for prompt admission and early retention, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about prompt admission and early retention, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-23] [REF-29]

Equity is embedded in prompt admission and early retention. In interpreting prompt admission and early retention, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about prompt admission and early retention, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of prompt admission and early retention, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For prompt admission and early retention, if part of eligible resident, refugee, migrant and displaced learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on request, decision, first attendance and early continuity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-29]

Interpretation of request, decision, first attendance and early continuity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about prompt admission and early retention, for prompt admission and early retention, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of prompt admission and early retention, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For prompt admission and early retention, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining prompt admission and early retention, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-10] [REF-23] [REF-29]

Accountability completes prompt admission and early retention. Within the annual account of prompt admission and early retention, a material shortfall in the admission pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For prompt admission and early retention, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining prompt admission and early retention, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on prompt admission and early retention, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-23] [REF-29]

Fees and indirect household costs defines an annual-monitoring question for the affordable participation. For fees and indirect household costs, the relevant population or responsible units are households bearing fees, transport, materials, meals and lost time, and the direct evidence concerns required cost and withdrawal. In examining fees and indirect household costs, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on fees and indirect household costs, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on fees and indirect household costs, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-38]

The main risk in fees and indirect household costs is that nominally free provision transfers decisive costs to poor or displaced families. In examining fees and indirect household costs, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on fees and indirect household costs, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the affordable participation, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on fees and indirect household costs, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-02] [REF-03]

The required policy response for fees and indirect household costs is to remove prohibited charges and provide transparent targeted support without stigma. Within evidence on fees and indirect household costs, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on fees and indirect household costs, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting fees and indirect household costs, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-14]

Evidence for the affordable participation should be selected by coverage. For policy on fees and indirect household costs, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting fees and indirect household costs, for fees and indirect household costs, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about fees and indirect household costs, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-14] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in fees and indirect household costs. In interpreting fees and indirect household costs, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about fees and indirect household costs, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of fees and indirect household costs, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For fees and indirect household costs, if part of households bearing fees, transport, materials, meals and lost time cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on required cost and withdrawal should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-02] [REF-38]

Interpretation of required cost and withdrawal should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about fees and indirect household costs, for fees and indirect household costs, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of fees and indirect household costs, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For fees and indirect household costs, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining fees and indirect household costs, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-38]

Accountability completes fees and indirect household costs. Within the annual account of fees and indirect household costs, a material shortfall in the affordable participation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For fees and indirect household costs, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining fees and indirect household costs, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on fees and indirect household costs, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-38]

Gender equality through the learner pathway defines an annual-monitoring question for the gender equity. For gender equality through the learner pathway, the relevant population or responsible units are girls, boys, women and men across stages and settings, and the direct evidence concerns entry, safety, learning, completion and pathway. In examining gender equality through the learner pathway, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on gender equality through the learner pathway, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on gender equality through the learner pathway, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-25] [REF-35]

The main risk in gender equality through the learner pathway is that parity ratios conceal low levels, care burdens, violence and subject segregation. In examining gender equality through the learner pathway, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on gender equality through the learner pathway, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the gender equity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on gender equality through the learner pathway, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-02] [REF-03]

The required policy response for gender equality through the learner pathway is to report component levels and address timing, safety, facilities, stereotypes and support. Within evidence on gender equality through the learner pathway, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on gender equality through the learner pathway, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting gender equality through the learner pathway, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-25]

Evidence for the gender equity should be selected by coverage. For policy on gender equality through the learner pathway, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting gender equality through the learner pathway, for gender equality through the learner pathway, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about gender equality through the learner pathway, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-25] [REF-35]

Equity is embedded in gender equality through the learner pathway. In interpreting gender equality through the learner pathway, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about gender equality through the learner pathway, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of gender equality through the learner pathway, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For gender equality through the learner pathway, if part of girls, boys, women and men across stages and settings cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on entry, safety, learning, completion and pathway should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-02] [REF-35]

Interpretation of entry, safety, learning, completion and pathway should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about gender equality through the learner pathway, for gender equality through the learner pathway, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of gender equality through the learner pathway, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For gender equality through the learner pathway, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining gender equality through the learner pathway, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-25] [REF-35]

Accountability completes gender equality through the learner pathway. Within the annual account of gender equality through the learner pathway, a material shortfall in the gender equity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For gender equality through the learner pathway, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining gender equality through the learner pathway, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on gender equality through the learner pathway, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-25] [REF-35]

Disability, accessibility and accommodation defines an annual-monitoring question for the inclusive education. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, the relevant population or responsible units are learners with different functional and support requirements, and the direct evidence concerns usable access, participation and learning. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-24] [REF-38]

The main risk in disability, accessibility and accommodation is that diagnosis-based records omit never-enrolled learners and inaccessible provision is counted as available. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the inclusive education, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-10]

The required policy response for disability, accessibility and accommodation is to make common provision accessible and fund individual accommodation and support. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-10] [REF-24]

Evidence for the inclusive education should be selected by coverage. For policy on disability, accessibility and accommodation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, for disability, accessibility and accommodation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-24] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in disability, accessibility and accommodation. In interpreting disability, accessibility and accommodation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of disability, accessibility and accommodation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, if part of learners with different functional and support requirements cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on usable access, participation and learning should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of usable access, participation and learning should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about disability, accessibility and accommodation, for disability, accessibility and accommodation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of disability, accessibility and accommodation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-10] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Accountability completes disability, accessibility and accommodation. Within the annual account of disability, accessibility and accommodation, a material shortfall in the inclusive education should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For disability, accessibility and accommodation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining disability, accessibility and accommodation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on disability, accessibility and accommodation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography defines an annual-monitoring question for the territorial and wealth equity. For poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the relevant population or responsible units are learners across household resources, settlements and travel conditions, and the direct evidence concerns access, teacher supply and learning conditions. In examining poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The main risk in poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography is that national and broad urban-rural averages hide informal settlements and remote-service gaps. In examining poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the territorial and wealth equity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-12] [REF-14]

The required policy response for poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography is to combine household and service evidence and allocate according to need and cost. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-14] [REF-17]

Evidence for the territorial and wealth equity should be selected by coverage. For policy on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, for poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography. In interpreting poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, if part of learners across household resources, settlements and travel conditions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on access, teacher supply and learning conditions should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-12] [REF-31]

Interpretation of access, teacher supply and learning conditions should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, for poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-14] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Accountability completes poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography. Within the annual account of poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, a material shortfall in the territorial and wealth equity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and unequal service geography, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Refugee learners and host-system capacity defines an annual-monitoring question for the refugee-host equity. For refugee learners and host-system capacity, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee and host-community learners using shared systems, and the direct evidence concerns class size, time, teachers, materials and progression. In examining refugee learners and host-system capacity, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on refugee learners and host-system capacity, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on refugee learners and host-system capacity, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

The main risk in refugee learners and host-system capacity is that refugee access expands through reduced shifts while host quality and trust deteriorate. In examining refugee learners and host-system capacity, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on refugee learners and host-system capacity, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the refugee-host equity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on refugee learners and host-system capacity, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-09]

The required policy response for refugee learners and host-system capacity is to finance a common quality floor and disclose distribution for both populations. Within evidence on refugee learners and host-system capacity, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on refugee learners and host-system capacity, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting refugee learners and host-system capacity, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-09] [REF-10]

Evidence for the refugee-host equity should be selected by coverage. For policy on refugee learners and host-system capacity, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting refugee learners and host-system capacity, for refugee learners and host-system capacity, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about refugee learners and host-system capacity, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-10] [REF-28]

Equity is embedded in refugee learners and host-system capacity. In interpreting refugee learners and host-system capacity, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about refugee learners and host-system capacity, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of refugee learners and host-system capacity, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For refugee learners and host-system capacity, if part of refugee and host-community learners using shared systems 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 national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-28]

Interpretation of class size, time, teachers, materials and progression should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about refugee learners and host-system capacity, for refugee learners and host-system capacity, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of refugee learners and host-system capacity, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For refugee learners and host-system capacity, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining refugee learners and host-system capacity, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

Accountability completes refugee learners and host-system capacity. Within the annual account of refugee learners and host-system capacity, a material shortfall in the refugee-host equity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For refugee learners and host-system capacity, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining refugee learners and host-system capacity, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on refugee learners and host-system capacity, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

Internally displaced and mobile learners defines an annual-monitoring question for the mobile-learner continuity. For internally displaced and mobile learners, the relevant population or responsible units are internally displaced, nomadic and frequently moving learners, and the direct evidence concerns portable admission, attendance and recognition. In examining internally displaced and mobile learners, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on internally displaced and mobile learners, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on internally displaced and mobile learners, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-08] [REF-21] [REF-26] [REF-27]

The main risk in internally displaced and mobile learners is that jurisdictional records break at movement and temporary learners vanish from national totals. In examining internally displaced and mobile learners, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on internally displaced and mobile learners, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the mobile-learner continuity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on internally displaced and mobile learners, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-08] [REF-21]

The required policy response for internally displaced and mobile learners is to use bounded portable records, flexible entry and recognised transfer evidence. Within evidence on internally displaced and mobile learners, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on internally displaced and mobile learners, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting internally displaced and mobile learners, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-21] [REF-26]

Evidence for the mobile-learner continuity should be selected by coverage. For policy on internally displaced and mobile learners, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting internally displaced and mobile learners, for internally displaced and mobile learners, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about internally displaced and mobile learners, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-27]

Equity is embedded in internally displaced and mobile learners. In interpreting internally displaced and mobile learners, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about internally displaced and mobile learners, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of internally displaced and mobile learners, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For internally displaced and mobile learners, if part of internally displaced, nomadic and frequently moving learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on portable admission, attendance and recognition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-08] [REF-27]

Interpretation of portable admission, attendance and recognition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about internally displaced and mobile learners, for internally displaced and mobile learners, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of internally displaced and mobile learners, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For internally displaced and mobile learners, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining internally displaced and mobile learners, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-21] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Accountability completes internally displaced and mobile learners. Within the annual account of internally displaced and mobile learners, a material shortfall in the mobile-learner continuity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For internally displaced and mobile learners, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining internally displaced and mobile learners, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on internally displaced and mobile learners, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-08] [REF-21] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Non-state and temporary provision defines an annual-monitoring question for the regulated shared provision. For non-state and temporary provision, the relevant population or responsible units are learners in community, private, humanitarian and temporary settings, and the direct evidence concerns common entitlement and transition. In examining non-state and temporary provision, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on non-state and temporary provision, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on non-state and temporary provision, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

The main risk in non-state and temporary provision is that parallel providers fragment fees, curriculum, safeguarding, records and recognition. In examining non-state and temporary provision, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on non-state and temporary provision, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the regulated shared provision, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on non-state and temporary provision, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-07]

The required policy response for non-state and temporary provision is to apply public minimum duties, transparent agreements, oversight and transition to recognised routes. Within evidence on non-state and temporary provision, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on non-state and temporary provision, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting non-state and temporary provision, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-26]

Evidence for the regulated shared provision should be selected by coverage. For policy on non-state and temporary provision, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting non-state and temporary provision, for non-state and temporary provision, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about non-state and temporary provision, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in non-state and temporary provision. In interpreting non-state and temporary provision, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about non-state and temporary provision, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of non-state and temporary provision, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For non-state and temporary provision, if part of learners in community, private, humanitarian and temporary settings cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on common entitlement and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of common entitlement and transition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about non-state and temporary provision, for non-state and temporary provision, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of non-state and temporary provision, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For non-state and temporary provision, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining non-state and temporary provision, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

Accountability completes non-state and temporary provision. Within the annual account of non-state and temporary provision, a material shortfall in the regulated shared provision should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For non-state and temporary provision, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining non-state and temporary provision, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on non-state and temporary provision, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

Teacher supply, distribution and workload defines an annual-monitoring question for the teacher capability. For teacher supply, distribution and workload, the relevant population or responsible units are teachers and learners in differently resourced institutions, and the direct evidence concerns qualification, presence, workload and assignment. In examining teacher supply, distribution and workload, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on teacher supply, distribution and workload, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on teacher supply, distribution and workload, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The main risk in teacher supply, distribution and workload is that national staffing totals conceal vacancies, double shifts and unequal qualified-teacher exposure. In examining teacher supply, distribution and workload, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on teacher supply, distribution and workload, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the teacher capability, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on teacher supply, distribution and workload, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-13]

The required policy response for teacher supply, distribution and workload is to plan positions and support and report learner exposure by location, stage and group. Within evidence on teacher supply, distribution and workload, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on teacher supply, distribution and workload, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting teacher supply, distribution and workload, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-17]

Evidence for the teacher capability should be selected by coverage. For policy on teacher supply, distribution and workload, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting teacher supply, distribution and workload, for teacher supply, distribution and workload, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about teacher supply, distribution and workload, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in teacher supply, distribution and workload. In interpreting teacher supply, distribution and workload, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about teacher supply, distribution and workload, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of teacher supply, distribution and workload, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For teacher supply, distribution and workload, if part of teachers and learners in differently resourced institutions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on qualification, presence, workload and assignment should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-31]

Interpretation of qualification, presence, workload and assignment should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about teacher supply, distribution and workload, for teacher supply, distribution and workload, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of teacher supply, distribution and workload, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For teacher supply, distribution and workload, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining teacher supply, distribution and workload, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Accountability completes teacher supply, distribution and workload. Within the annual account of teacher supply, distribution and workload, a material shortfall in the teacher capability should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For teacher supply, distribution and workload, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining teacher supply, distribution and workload, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on teacher supply, distribution and workload, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Instructional time and emergency schedules defines an annual-monitoring question for the learning time. For instructional time and emergency schedules, the relevant population or responsible units are learners in ordinary, double-shift and temporary arrangements, and the direct evidence concerns scheduled and delivered time. In examining instructional time and emergency schedules, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on instructional time and emergency schedules, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on instructional time and emergency schedules, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-27]

The main risk in instructional time and emergency schedules is that capacity expansion shortens sessions and omits practical or supportive learning. In examining instructional time and emergency schedules, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on instructional time and emergency schedules, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the learning time, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on instructional time and emergency schedules, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-13]

The required policy response for instructional time and emergency schedules is to protect minimum delivered time, curriculum breadth, breaks and restorative teaching. Within evidence on instructional time and emergency schedules, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on instructional time and emergency schedules, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting instructional time and emergency schedules, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-26]

Evidence for the learning time should be selected by coverage. For policy on instructional time and emergency schedules, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting instructional time and emergency schedules, for instructional time and emergency schedules, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about instructional time and emergency schedules, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-27]

Equity is embedded in instructional time and emergency schedules. In interpreting instructional time and emergency schedules, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about instructional time and emergency schedules, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of instructional time and emergency schedules, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For instructional time and emergency schedules, if part of learners in ordinary, double-shift and temporary arrangements cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on scheduled and delivered time should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-27]

Interpretation of scheduled and delivered time should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about instructional time and emergency schedules, for instructional time and emergency schedules, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of instructional time and emergency schedules, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For instructional time and emergency schedules, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining instructional time and emergency schedules, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Accountability completes instructional time and emergency schedules. Within the annual account of instructional time and emergency schedules, a material shortfall in the learning time should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For instructional time and emergency schedules, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining instructional time and emergency schedules, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on instructional time and emergency schedules, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Curriculum coherence and breadth defines an annual-monitoring question for the curriculum entitlement. For curriculum coherence and breadth, the relevant population or responsible units are learners across subjects, stages and routes, and the direct evidence concerns intended and taught curriculum. In examining curriculum coherence and breadth, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on curriculum coherence and breadth, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on curriculum coherence and breadth, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-39]

The main risk in curriculum coherence and breadth is that test preparation or emergency prioritisation becomes permanent narrowing. In examining curriculum coherence and breadth, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on curriculum coherence and breadth, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the curriculum entitlement, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on curriculum coherence and breadth, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-11]

The required policy response for curriculum coherence and breadth is to state essential progression, protected breadth, omitted content and restoration. Within evidence on curriculum coherence and breadth, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on curriculum coherence and breadth, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting curriculum coherence and breadth, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-11] [REF-13]

Evidence for the curriculum entitlement should be selected by coverage. For policy on curriculum coherence and breadth, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting curriculum coherence and breadth, for curriculum coherence and breadth, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about curriculum coherence and breadth, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-13] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in curriculum coherence and breadth. In interpreting curriculum coherence and breadth, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about curriculum coherence and breadth, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of curriculum coherence and breadth, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For curriculum coherence and breadth, if part of learners across subjects, stages and routes cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on intended and taught curriculum should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-39]

Interpretation of intended and taught curriculum should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about curriculum coherence and breadth, for curriculum coherence and breadth, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of curriculum coherence and breadth, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For curriculum coherence and breadth, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining curriculum coherence and breadth, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Accountability completes curriculum coherence and breadth. Within the annual account of curriculum coherence and breadth, a material shortfall in the curriculum entitlement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For curriculum coherence and breadth, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining curriculum coherence and breadth, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on curriculum coherence and breadth, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Assessment coverage and fair interpretation defines an annual-monitoring question for the assessment quality. For assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the relevant population or responsible units are eligible learners including absentees and accommodated participants, and the direct evidence concerns coverage, distribution and learning threshold. In examining assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-22]

The main risk in assessment coverage and fair interpretation is that mean scores conceal exclusions, language barriers and an unchanged learning floor. In examining assessment coverage and fair interpretation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the assessment quality, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-13]

The required policy response for assessment coverage and fair interpretation is to publish target population, participation, accommodations, thresholds and uncertainty. Within evidence on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting assessment coverage and fair interpretation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-17]

Evidence for the assessment quality should be selected by coverage. For policy on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting assessment coverage and fair interpretation, for assessment coverage and fair interpretation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about assessment coverage and fair interpretation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in assessment coverage and fair interpretation. In interpreting assessment coverage and fair interpretation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about assessment coverage and fair interpretation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of assessment coverage and fair interpretation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For assessment coverage and fair interpretation, if part of eligible learners including absentees and accommodated participants cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on coverage, distribution and learning threshold should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-22]

Interpretation of coverage, distribution and learning threshold should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about assessment coverage and fair interpretation, for assessment coverage and fair interpretation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For assessment coverage and fair interpretation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining assessment coverage and fair interpretation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-22]

Accountability completes assessment coverage and fair interpretation. Within the annual account of assessment coverage and fair interpretation, a material shortfall in the assessment quality should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For assessment coverage and fair interpretation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining assessment coverage and fair interpretation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on assessment coverage and fair interpretation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-22]

Language of instruction and bridging support defines an annual-monitoring question for the language inclusion. For language of instruction and bridging support, the relevant population or responsible units are learners entering unfamiliar languages or curricula, and the direct evidence concerns comprehension, participation and transition. In examining language of instruction and bridging support, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on language of instruction and bridging support, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on language of instruction and bridging support, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-38]

The main risk in language of instruction and bridging support is that placement is counted as access while learners cannot understand teaching or assessment. In examining language of instruction and bridging support, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on language of instruction and bridging support, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the language inclusion, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on language of instruction and bridging support, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-10]

The required policy response for language of instruction and bridging support is to provide staged language and curriculum support linked to the recognised pathway. Within evidence on language of instruction and bridging support, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on language of instruction and bridging support, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting language of instruction and bridging support, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-10] [REF-29]

Evidence for the language inclusion should be selected by coverage. For policy on language of instruction and bridging support, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting language of instruction and bridging support, for language of instruction and bridging support, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about language of instruction and bridging support, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-29] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in language of instruction and bridging support. In interpreting language of instruction and bridging support, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about language of instruction and bridging support, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of language of instruction and bridging support, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For language of instruction and bridging support, if part of learners entering unfamiliar languages or curricula cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on comprehension, participation and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-38]

Interpretation of comprehension, participation and transition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about language of instruction and bridging support, for language of instruction and bridging support, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of language of instruction and bridging support, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For language of instruction and bridging support, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining language of instruction and bridging support, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-38]

Accountability completes language of instruction and bridging support. Within the annual account of language of instruction and bridging support, a material shortfall in the language inclusion should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For language of instruction and bridging support, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining language of instruction and bridging support, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on language of instruction and bridging support, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-38]

Psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine defines an annual-monitoring question for the protective education. For psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and educators affected by violence, loss and displacement, and the direct evidence concerns safe routine, referral and continued learning. In examining psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-26] [REF-39]

The main risk in psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine is that teachers are asked to provide clinical care or schooling exposes learners to intrusive enquiry. In examining psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the protective education, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-07] [REF-08]

The required policy response for psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine is to establish supportive routines, referral boundaries, confidentiality and educator support. Within evidence on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-08] [REF-26]

Evidence for the protective education should be selected by coverage. For policy on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, for psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine. In interpreting psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, 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, referral and continued learning should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-07] [REF-39]

Interpretation of safe routine, referral and continued learning should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, for psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-08] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Accountability completes psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine. Within the annual account of psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, a material shortfall in the protective education should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on psychosocial wellbeing and protective routine, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Facilities, sanitation, routes and materials defines an annual-monitoring question for the usable learning conditions. For facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the relevant population or responsible units are learners using sites, travel routes and shared resources, and the direct evidence concerns functionality, safety and regular use. In examining facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-39]

The main risk in facilities, sanitation, routes and materials is that facility and material counts ignore inaccessibility, breakdown, late delivery and unsafe travel. In examining facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the usable learning conditions, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-13]

The required policy response for facilities, sanitation, routes and materials is to verify learner use, maintenance, routes, sanitation, storage and correction. Within evidence on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-26]

Evidence for the usable learning conditions should be selected by coverage. For policy on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, for facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in facilities, sanitation, routes and materials. In interpreting facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, if part of learners using sites, travel routes and shared resources cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on functionality, safety and regular use should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-39]

Interpretation of functionality, safety and regular use should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, for facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Accountability completes facilities, sanitation, routes and materials. Within the annual account of facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, a material shortfall in the usable learning conditions should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on facilities, sanitation, routes and materials, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Global citizenship and sustainable-development learning defines an annual-monitoring question for the target 4.7 learning. For global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the relevant population or responsible units are learners across formal, vocational and adult routes, and the direct evidence concerns curriculum, teaching and learner evidence. In examining global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The main risk in global citizenship and sustainable-development learning is that keywords and events replace progression, critical enquiry and institutional coherence. In examining global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the target 4.7 learning, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-11]

The required policy response for global citizenship and sustainable-development learning is to connect knowledge, rights, systems, dialogue, action and reflective learner work. Within evidence on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-11] [REF-20]

Evidence for the target 4.7 learning should be selected by coverage. For policy on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, for global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-20] [REF-21]

Equity is embedded in global citizenship and sustainable-development learning. In interpreting global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, if part of learners across formal, vocational and adult routes cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on curriculum, teaching and learner evidence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-21]

Interpretation of curriculum, teaching and learner evidence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, for global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Accountability completes global citizenship and sustainable-development learning. Within the annual account of global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, a material shortfall in the target 4.7 learning should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on global citizenship and sustainable-development learning, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-11] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Early childhood care and education defines an annual-monitoring question for the early-childhood pathway. For early childhood care and education, the relevant population or responsible units are young children and caregivers across diverse settings, and the direct evidence concerns development, care, participation and transition. In examining early childhood care and education, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on early childhood care and education, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on early childhood care and education, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-23]

The main risk in early childhood care and education is that pre-primary registration represents the whole early-childhood offer and excluded children remain unseen. In examining early childhood care and education, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on early childhood care and education, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the early-childhood pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on early childhood care and education, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required policy response for early childhood care and education is to join age, setting, quality, inclusion and transition evidence. Within evidence on early childhood care and education, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on early childhood care and education, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting early childhood care and education, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Evidence for the early-childhood pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on early childhood care and education, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting early childhood care and education, for early childhood care and education, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about early childhood care and education, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-23]

Equity is embedded in early childhood care and education. In interpreting early childhood care and education, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about early childhood care and education, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of early childhood care and education, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For early childhood care and education, if part of young children and caregivers across diverse settings cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on development, care, participation and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-23]

Interpretation of development, care, participation and transition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about early childhood care and education, for early childhood care and education, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of early childhood care and education, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For early childhood care and education, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining early childhood care and education, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-23]

Accountability completes early childhood care and education. Within the annual account of early childhood care and education, a material shortfall in the early-childhood pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For early childhood care and education, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining early childhood care and education, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on early childhood care and education, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-23]

Primary and secondary cohort completion defines an annual-monitoring question for the school cohort pathway. For primary and secondary cohort completion, the relevant population or responsible units are entrants moving through primary and secondary stages, and the direct evidence concerns progression, learning and timely completion. In examining primary and secondary cohort completion, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on primary and secondary cohort completion, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on primary and secondary cohort completion, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-19] [REF-31]

The main risk in primary and secondary cohort completion is that cross-sectional enrolment hides repetition, interruption and disappearance. In examining primary and secondary cohort completion, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on primary and secondary cohort completion, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the school cohort pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on primary and secondary cohort completion, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-12]

The required policy response for primary and secondary cohort completion is to trace cohorts, stage, time allowance, learning and recognised completion. Within evidence on primary and secondary cohort completion, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on primary and secondary cohort completion, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting primary and secondary cohort completion, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-12] [REF-19]

Evidence for the school cohort pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on primary and secondary cohort completion, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting primary and secondary cohort completion, for primary and secondary cohort completion, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about primary and secondary cohort completion, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-19] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in primary and secondary cohort completion. In interpreting primary and secondary cohort completion, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about primary and secondary cohort completion, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of primary and secondary cohort completion, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For primary and secondary cohort completion, if part of entrants moving through primary and secondary stages cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on progression, learning and timely completion should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-31]

Interpretation of progression, learning and timely completion should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about primary and secondary cohort completion, for primary and secondary cohort completion, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of primary and secondary cohort completion, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For primary and secondary cohort completion, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining primary and secondary cohort completion, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-12] [REF-19] [REF-31]

Accountability completes primary and secondary cohort completion. Within the annual account of primary and secondary cohort completion, a material shortfall in the school cohort pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For primary and secondary cohort completion, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining primary and secondary cohort completion, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on primary and secondary cohort completion, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-19] [REF-31]

Repetition, delay and over-age participation defines an annual-monitoring question for the delayed progression. For repetition, delay and over-age participation, the relevant population or responsible units are learners repeating or progressing above official age, and the direct evidence concerns repetition, accumulated delay and consequence. In examining repetition, delay and over-age participation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on repetition, delay and over-age participation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on repetition, delay and over-age participation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-19] [REF-22]

The main risk in repetition, delay and over-age participation is that repetition is treated as learner failure without examining teaching, language or support. In examining repetition, delay and over-age participation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on repetition, delay and over-age participation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the delayed progression, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on repetition, delay and over-age participation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-12] [REF-13]

The required policy response for repetition, delay and over-age participation is to review cause, service response, later learning, retention and equitable alternatives. Within evidence on repetition, delay and over-age participation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on repetition, delay and over-age participation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting repetition, delay and over-age participation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-19]

Evidence for the delayed progression should be selected by coverage. For policy on repetition, delay and over-age participation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting repetition, delay and over-age participation, for repetition, delay and over-age participation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about repetition, delay and over-age participation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-19] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in repetition, delay and over-age participation. In interpreting repetition, delay and over-age participation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about repetition, delay and over-age participation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of repetition, delay and over-age participation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For repetition, delay and over-age participation, if part of learners repeating or progressing above official age cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on repetition, accumulated delay and consequence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-12] [REF-22]

Interpretation of repetition, accumulated delay and consequence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about repetition, delay and over-age participation, for repetition, delay and over-age participation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of repetition, delay and over-age participation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For repetition, delay and over-age participation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining repetition, delay and over-age participation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-19] [REF-22]

Accountability completes repetition, delay and over-age participation. Within the annual account of repetition, delay and over-age participation, a material shortfall in the delayed progression should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For repetition, delay and over-age participation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining repetition, delay and over-age participation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on repetition, delay and over-age participation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-19] [REF-22]

Interruption, return and crisis continuity defines an annual-monitoring question for the return pathway. For interruption, return and crisis continuity, the relevant population or responsible units are learners leaving temporarily or moving during crisis, and the direct evidence concerns interruption, re-entry and restored credit. In examining interruption, return and crisis continuity, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on interruption, return and crisis continuity, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on interruption, return and crisis continuity, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-27]

The main risk in interruption, return and crisis continuity is that leavers vanish from responsibility and return rules are informal or punitive. In examining interruption, return and crisis continuity, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on interruption, return and crisis continuity, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the return pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on interruption, return and crisis continuity, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-07]

The required policy response for interruption, return and crisis continuity is to publish flexible re-entry, record replacement, credit and support. Within evidence on interruption, return and crisis continuity, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on interruption, return and crisis continuity, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting interruption, return and crisis continuity, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-26]

Evidence for the return pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on interruption, return and crisis continuity, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting interruption, return and crisis continuity, for interruption, return and crisis continuity, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about interruption, return and crisis continuity, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-27]

Equity is embedded in interruption, return and crisis continuity. In interpreting interruption, return and crisis continuity, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about interruption, return and crisis continuity, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of interruption, return and crisis continuity, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For interruption, return and crisis continuity, if part of learners leaving temporarily or moving during crisis cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on interruption, re-entry and restored credit should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-27]

Interpretation of interruption, re-entry and restored credit should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about interruption, return and crisis continuity, for interruption, return and crisis continuity, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of interruption, return and crisis continuity, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For interruption, return and crisis continuity, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining interruption, return and crisis continuity, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Accountability completes interruption, return and crisis continuity. Within the annual account of interruption, return and crisis continuity, a material shortfall in the return pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For interruption, return and crisis continuity, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining interruption, return and crisis continuity, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on interruption, return and crisis continuity, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Technical and vocational quality and progression defines an annual-monitoring question for the technical-vocational pathway. For technical and vocational quality and progression, the relevant population or responsible units are youth and adults seeking occupational and broader capabilities, and the direct evidence concerns access, completion, relevance and onward movement. In examining technical and vocational quality and progression, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on technical and vocational quality and progression, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on technical and vocational quality and progression, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-30] [REF-36] [REF-37]

The main risk in technical and vocational quality and progression is that vocational routes become low-status terminal tracks for disadvantaged learners. In examining technical and vocational quality and progression, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on technical and vocational quality and progression, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the technical-vocational pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on technical and vocational quality and progression, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-30]

The required policy response for technical and vocational quality and progression is to protect transferable learning, work relevance, recognition and progression. Within evidence on technical and vocational quality and progression, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on technical and vocational quality and progression, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting technical and vocational quality and progression, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-30] [REF-36]

Evidence for the technical-vocational pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on technical and vocational quality and progression, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting technical and vocational quality and progression, for technical and vocational quality and progression, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about technical and vocational quality and progression, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-36] [REF-37]

Equity is embedded in technical and vocational quality and progression. In interpreting technical and vocational quality and progression, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about technical and vocational quality and progression, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of technical and vocational quality and progression, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For technical and vocational quality and progression, if part of youth and adults seeking occupational and broader capabilities cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on access, completion, relevance and onward movement should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-37]

Interpretation of access, completion, relevance and onward movement should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about technical and vocational quality and progression, for technical and vocational quality and progression, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of technical and vocational quality and progression, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For technical and vocational quality and progression, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining technical and vocational quality and progression, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-30] [REF-36] [REF-37]

Accountability completes technical and vocational quality and progression. Within the annual account of technical and vocational quality and progression, a material shortfall in the technical-vocational pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For technical and vocational quality and progression, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining technical and vocational quality and progression, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on technical and vocational quality and progression, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-30] [REF-36] [REF-37]

Tertiary access and completion defines an annual-monitoring question for the tertiary pathway. For tertiary access and completion, the relevant population or responsible units are qualified learners across social, geographic and migration groups, and the direct evidence concerns entry, support, completion and transition. In examining tertiary access and completion, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on tertiary access and completion, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on tertiary access and completion, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-28] [REF-31]

The main risk in tertiary access and completion is that fees, opaque selection and weak recognition reproduce prior inequality. In examining tertiary access and completion, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on tertiary access and completion, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the tertiary pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on tertiary access and completion, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required policy response for tertiary access and completion is to publish criteria and group progression and provide financial and academic support. Within evidence on tertiary access and completion, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on tertiary access and completion, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting tertiary access and completion, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-28]

Evidence for the tertiary pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on tertiary access and completion, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting tertiary access and completion, for tertiary access and completion, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about tertiary access and completion, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-28] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in tertiary access and completion. In interpreting tertiary access and completion, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about tertiary access and completion, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of tertiary access and completion, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For tertiary access and completion, if part of qualified learners across social, geographic and migration groups cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on entry, support, completion and transition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-31]

Interpretation of entry, support, completion and transition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about tertiary access and completion, for tertiary access and completion, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of tertiary access and completion, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For tertiary access and completion, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining tertiary access and completion, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-28] [REF-31]

Accountability completes tertiary access and completion. Within the annual account of tertiary access and completion, a material shortfall in the tertiary pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For tertiary access and completion, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining tertiary access and completion, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on tertiary access and completion, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-28] [REF-31]

Adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning defines an annual-monitoring question for the adult learning pathway. For adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the relevant population or responsible units are adults across prior education, work and displacement status, and the direct evidence concerns participation, proficiency and use. In examining adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-36]

The main risk in adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning is that adult learning remains residual or reaches those already most educated. In examining adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the adult learning pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-29]

The required policy response for adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning is to provide sustained accessible learning with recognition, language and livelihood relevance. Within evidence on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence for the adult learning pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, for adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-30] [REF-36]

Equity is embedded in adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning. In interpreting adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, if part of adults across prior education, work and displacement status cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on participation, proficiency and use should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-36]

Interpretation of participation, proficiency and use should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, for adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-36]

Accountability completes adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning. Within the annual account of adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, a material shortfall in the adult learning pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on adult literacy, skills and lifelong learning, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-36]

Recognition across borders and learning forms defines an annual-monitoring question for the recognition pathway. For recognition across borders and learning forms, the relevant population or responsible units are learners moving across countries, institutions and formal or non-formal routes, and the direct evidence concerns credit, certification and placement. In examining recognition across borders and learning forms, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on recognition across borders and learning forms, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on recognition across borders and learning forms, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-29] [REF-37]

The main risk in recognition across borders and learning forms is that credentials and prior learning are lost at migration, return or transfer. In examining recognition across borders and learning forms, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on recognition across borders and learning forms, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the recognition pathway, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on recognition across borders and learning forms, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-18]

The required policy response for recognition across borders and learning forms is to use transparent assessment, portable records, appeal and institutional cooperation. Within evidence on recognition across borders and learning forms, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on recognition across borders and learning forms, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting recognition across borders and learning forms, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-18] [REF-29]

Evidence for the recognition pathway should be selected by coverage. For policy on recognition across borders and learning forms, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting recognition across borders and learning forms, for recognition across borders and learning forms, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about recognition across borders and learning forms, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-29] [REF-37]

Equity is embedded in recognition across borders and learning forms. In interpreting recognition across borders and learning forms, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about recognition across borders and learning forms, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of recognition across borders and learning forms, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For recognition across borders and learning forms, if part of learners moving across countries, institutions and formal or non-formal routes cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on credit, certification and placement should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-37]

Interpretation of credit, certification and placement should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about recognition across borders and learning forms, for recognition across borders and learning forms, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of recognition across borders and learning forms, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For recognition across borders and learning forms, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining recognition across borders and learning forms, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-18] [REF-29] [REF-37]

Accountability completes recognition across borders and learning forms. Within the annual account of recognition across borders and learning forms, a material shortfall in the recognition pathway should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For recognition across borders and learning forms, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining recognition across borders and learning forms, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on recognition across borders and learning forms, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-29] [REF-37]

Availability and sufficient public capacity defines an annual-monitoring question for the availability standard. For availability and sufficient public capacity, the relevant population or responsible units are people entitled to education in ordinary and crisis settings, and the direct evidence concerns places, teachers, facilities and continuity. In examining availability and sufficient public capacity, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on availability and sufficient public capacity, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on availability and sufficient public capacity, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

The main risk in availability and sufficient public capacity is that temporary or private capacity is counted without sufficient staffing, duration or recognition. In examining availability and sufficient public capacity, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on availability and sufficient public capacity, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the availability standard, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on availability and sufficient public capacity, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-02] [REF-03]

The required policy response for availability and sufficient public capacity is to plan adequate recognised provision and disclose material service limitations. Within evidence on availability and sufficient public capacity, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on availability and sufficient public capacity, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting availability and sufficient public capacity, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-23]

Evidence for the availability standard should be selected by coverage. For policy on availability and sufficient public capacity, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting availability and sufficient public capacity, for availability and sufficient public capacity, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about availability and sufficient public capacity, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-23] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in availability and sufficient public capacity. In interpreting availability and sufficient public capacity, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about availability and sufficient public capacity, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of availability and sufficient public capacity, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For availability and sufficient public capacity, if part of people entitled to education in ordinary and crisis settings cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on places, teachers, facilities and continuity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-02] [REF-38]

Interpretation of places, teachers, facilities and continuity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about availability and sufficient public capacity, for availability and sufficient public capacity, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of availability and sufficient public capacity, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For availability and sufficient public capacity, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining availability and sufficient public capacity, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

Accountability completes availability and sufficient public capacity. Within the annual account of availability and sufficient public capacity, a material shortfall in the availability standard should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For availability and sufficient public capacity, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining availability and sufficient public capacity, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on availability and sufficient public capacity, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-02] [REF-03] [REF-23] [REF-38]

Accessibility in law and practice defines an annual-monitoring question for the accessibility standard. For accessibility in law and practice, the relevant population or responsible units are learners facing legal, physical, geographic and economic barriers, and the direct evidence concerns usable entry and participation. In examining accessibility in law and practice, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on accessibility in law and practice, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on accessibility in law and practice, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-24] [REF-38]

The main risk in accessibility in law and practice is that formal non-discrimination coexists with documents, cost, distance or inaccessible design. In examining accessibility in law and practice, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on accessibility in law and practice, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the accessibility standard, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on accessibility in law and practice, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-22]

The required policy response for accessibility in law and practice is to remove direct and indirect barriers and provide effective appeal. Within evidence on accessibility in law and practice, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on accessibility in law and practice, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting accessibility in law and practice, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-24]

Evidence for the accessibility standard should be selected by coverage. For policy on accessibility in law and practice, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting accessibility in law and practice, for accessibility in law and practice, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about accessibility in law and practice, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-24] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in accessibility in law and practice. In interpreting accessibility in law and practice, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about accessibility in law and practice, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of accessibility in law and practice, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For accessibility in law and practice, if part of learners facing legal, physical, geographic and economic barriers cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on usable entry and participation should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of usable entry and participation should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about accessibility in law and practice, for accessibility in law and practice, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of accessibility in law and practice, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For accessibility in law and practice, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining accessibility in law and practice, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Accountability completes accessibility in law and practice. Within the annual account of accessibility in law and practice, a material shortfall in the accessibility standard should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For accessibility in law and practice, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining accessibility in law and practice, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on accessibility in law and practice, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Acceptability and substantive quality defines an annual-monitoring question for the acceptability standard. For acceptability and substantive quality, the relevant population or responsible units are learners receiving curriculum, teaching and assessment, and the direct evidence concerns quality, relevance, safety and dignity. In examining acceptability and substantive quality, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on acceptability and substantive quality, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on acceptability and substantive quality, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-23] [REF-39]

The main risk in acceptability and substantive quality is that any available seat is treated as acceptable regardless of teaching or protection. In examining acceptability and substantive quality, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on acceptability and substantive quality, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the acceptability standard, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on acceptability and substantive quality, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-13]

The required policy response for acceptability and substantive quality is to apply a common quality floor, participation and safeguarding across delivery forms. Within evidence on acceptability and substantive quality, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on acceptability and substantive quality, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting acceptability and substantive quality, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-23]

Evidence for the acceptability standard should be selected by coverage. For policy on acceptability and substantive quality, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting acceptability and substantive quality, for acceptability and substantive quality, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about acceptability and substantive quality, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-23] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in acceptability and substantive quality. In interpreting acceptability and substantive quality, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about acceptability and substantive quality, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of acceptability and substantive quality, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For acceptability and substantive quality, if part of learners receiving curriculum, teaching and assessment cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on quality, relevance, safety and dignity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-39]

Interpretation of quality, relevance, safety and dignity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about acceptability and substantive quality, for acceptability and substantive quality, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of acceptability and substantive quality, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For acceptability and substantive quality, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining acceptability and substantive quality, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-23] [REF-39]

Accountability completes acceptability and substantive quality. Within the annual account of acceptability and substantive quality, a material shortfall in the acceptability standard should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For acceptability and substantive quality, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining acceptability and substantive quality, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on acceptability and substantive quality, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-23] [REF-39]

Adaptability to learner circumstance defines an annual-monitoring question for the adaptability standard. For adaptability to learner circumstance, the relevant population or responsible units are learners differing by language, disability, age, movement and prior learning, and the direct evidence concerns reasonable and recognised adaptation. In examining adaptability to learner circumstance, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on adaptability to learner circumstance, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on adaptability to learner circumstance, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-38]

The main risk in adaptability to learner circumstance is that uniform rules exclude learners or separate routes become permanently inferior. In examining adaptability to learner circumstance, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on adaptability to learner circumstance, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the adaptability standard, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on adaptability to learner circumstance, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-24]

The required policy response for adaptability to learner circumstance is to adapt timing, support, language and assessment while preserving entitlement and progression. Within evidence on adaptability to learner circumstance, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on adaptability to learner circumstance, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting adaptability to learner circumstance, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence for the adaptability standard should be selected by coverage. For policy on adaptability to learner circumstance, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting adaptability to learner circumstance, for adaptability to learner circumstance, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about adaptability to learner circumstance, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-29] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in adaptability to learner circumstance. In interpreting adaptability to learner circumstance, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about adaptability to learner circumstance, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of adaptability to learner circumstance, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For adaptability to learner circumstance, if part of learners differing by language, disability, age, movement and prior learning cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on reasonable and recognised adaptation should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-38]

Interpretation of reasonable and recognised adaptation should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about adaptability to learner circumstance, for adaptability to learner circumstance, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of adaptability to learner circumstance, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For adaptability to learner circumstance, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining adaptability to learner circumstance, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-38]

Accountability completes adaptability to learner circumstance. Within the annual account of adaptability to learner circumstance, a material shortfall in the adaptability standard should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For adaptability to learner circumstance, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining adaptability to learner circumstance, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on adaptability to learner circumstance, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-38]

Safeguarding and non-retaliation defines an annual-monitoring question for the protection duty. For safeguarding and non-retaliation, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and staff reporting harm or exclusion, and the direct evidence concerns safe reporting and continued access. In examining safeguarding and non-retaliation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on safeguarding and non-retaliation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on safeguarding and non-retaliation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-26] [REF-39]

The main risk in safeguarding and non-retaliation is that complaints expose identity, trigger retaliation or result in withdrawal. In examining safeguarding and non-retaliation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on safeguarding and non-retaliation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the protection duty, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on safeguarding and non-retaliation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-23] [REF-24]

The required policy response for safeguarding and non-retaliation is to provide confidential routes, bounded records, referral, protection and follow-up. Within evidence on safeguarding and non-retaliation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on safeguarding and non-retaliation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting safeguarding and non-retaliation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-24] [REF-26]

Evidence for the protection duty should be selected by coverage. For policy on safeguarding and non-retaliation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting safeguarding and non-retaliation, for safeguarding and non-retaliation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about safeguarding and non-retaliation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in safeguarding and non-retaliation. In interpreting safeguarding and non-retaliation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about safeguarding and non-retaliation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of safeguarding and non-retaliation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For safeguarding and non-retaliation, if part of learners and staff reporting harm or exclusion cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on safe reporting and continued access should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-23] [REF-39]

Interpretation of safe reporting and continued access should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about safeguarding and non-retaliation, for safeguarding and non-retaliation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of safeguarding and non-retaliation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For safeguarding and non-retaliation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining safeguarding and non-retaliation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-24] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Accountability completes safeguarding and non-retaliation. Within the annual account of safeguarding and non-retaliation, a material shortfall in the protection duty should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For safeguarding and non-retaliation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining safeguarding and non-retaliation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on safeguarding and non-retaliation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-26] [REF-39]

Public information and truthful claims defines an annual-monitoring question for the information duty. For public information and truthful claims, the relevant population or responsible units are families and learners choosing or using provision, and the direct evidence concerns fees, hours, curriculum, recognition and support. In examining public information and truthful claims, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on public information and truthful claims, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on public information and truthful claims, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-38]

The main risk in public information and truthful claims is that nominal access or quality claims omit shorter shifts, charges or uncertain credentials. In examining public information and truthful claims, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on public information and truthful claims, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the information duty, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on public information and truthful claims, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-22]

The required policy response for public information and truthful claims is to publish site- and route-specific terms and correct changes visibly. Within evidence on public information and truthful claims, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on public information and truthful claims, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting public information and truthful claims, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-32]

Evidence for the information duty should be selected by coverage. For policy on public information and truthful claims, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting public information and truthful claims, for public information and truthful claims, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about public information and truthful claims, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in public information and truthful claims. In interpreting public information and truthful claims, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about public information and truthful claims, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of public information and truthful claims, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For public information and truthful claims, if part of families and learners choosing or using provision cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on fees, hours, curriculum, recognition and support should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of fees, hours, curriculum, recognition and support should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about public information and truthful claims, for public information and truthful claims, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of public information and truthful claims, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For public information and truthful claims, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining public information and truthful claims, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-38]

Accountability completes public information and truthful claims. Within the annual account of public information and truthful claims, a material shortfall in the information duty should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For public information and truthful claims, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining public information and truthful claims, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on public information and truthful claims, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-38]

Complaint, appeal and practical remedy defines an annual-monitoring question for the remedy standard. For complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the relevant population or responsible units are people denied entry, accommodation, safety or recognition, and the direct evidence concerns decision review and correction. In examining complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-22] [REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-38]

The main risk in complaint, appeal and practical remedy is that complaint channels are distant, feared or unable to preserve education during dispute. In examining complaint, appeal and practical remedy, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the remedy standard, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-22] [REF-23]

The required policy response for complaint, appeal and practical remedy is to provide accessible time-bound appeal, continuity protection and systemic correction. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting complaint, appeal and practical remedy, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-23] [REF-24]

Evidence for the remedy standard should be selected by coverage. For policy on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting complaint, appeal and practical remedy, for complaint, appeal and practical remedy, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about complaint, appeal and practical remedy, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-24] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in complaint, appeal and practical remedy. In interpreting complaint, appeal and practical remedy, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about complaint, appeal and practical remedy, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of complaint, appeal and practical remedy, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For complaint, appeal and practical remedy, if part of people denied entry, accommodation, safety or recognition cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on decision review and correction should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-22] [REF-38]

Interpretation of decision review and correction should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about complaint, appeal and practical remedy, for complaint, appeal and practical remedy, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For complaint, appeal and practical remedy, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining complaint, appeal and practical remedy, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Accountability completes complaint, appeal and practical remedy. Within the annual account of complaint, appeal and practical remedy, a material shortfall in the remedy standard should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For complaint, appeal and practical remedy, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining complaint, appeal and practical remedy, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on complaint, appeal and practical remedy, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-22] [REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-38]

Regulation of all education providers defines an annual-monitoring question for the provider accountability. For regulation of all education providers, the relevant population or responsible units are public, private, community and humanitarian providers, and the direct evidence concerns common duties and enforceability. In examining regulation of all education providers, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on regulation of all education providers, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on regulation of all education providers, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

The main risk in regulation of all education providers is that contract or charity status fragments standards, information and learner remedy. In examining regulation of all education providers, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on regulation of all education providers, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the provider accountability, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on regulation of all education providers, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-07]

The required policy response for regulation of all education providers is to set minimum admission, fee, quality, protection, record and exit duties. Within evidence on regulation of all education providers, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on regulation of all education providers, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting regulation of all education providers, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-26]

Evidence for the provider accountability should be selected by coverage. For policy on regulation of all education providers, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting regulation of all education providers, for regulation of all education providers, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about regulation of all education providers, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-26] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in regulation of all education providers. In interpreting regulation of all education providers, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about regulation of all education providers, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of regulation of all education providers, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For regulation of all education providers, if part of public, private, community and humanitarian providers cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on common duties and enforceability should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of common duties and enforceability should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about regulation of all education providers, for regulation of all education providers, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of regulation of all education providers, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For regulation of all education providers, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining regulation of all education providers, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

Accountability completes regulation of all education providers. Within the annual account of regulation of all education providers, a material shortfall in the provider accountability should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For regulation of all education providers, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining regulation of all education providers, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on regulation of all education providers, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-26] [REF-38]

National baseline construction defines an annual-monitoring question for the baseline statement. For national baseline construction, the relevant population or responsible units are target populations and national statistical authorities, and the direct evidence concerns starting level, date and distribution. In examining national baseline construction, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on national baseline construction, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on national baseline construction, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

The main risk in national baseline construction is that the nearest value is selected without conceptual fit or actual observation date. In examining national baseline construction, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on national baseline construction, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the baseline statement, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on national baseline construction, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-15] [REF-16]

The required policy response for national baseline construction is to record target concept, population, source, date, quality, groups, status and owner. Within evidence on national baseline construction, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on national baseline construction, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting national baseline construction, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-16] [REF-17]

Evidence for the baseline statement should be selected by coverage. For policy on national baseline construction, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting national baseline construction, for national baseline construction, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about national baseline construction, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in national baseline construction. In interpreting national baseline construction, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about national baseline construction, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of national baseline construction, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For national baseline construction, if part of target populations and national statistical authorities cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on starting level, date and distribution should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-15] [REF-40]

Interpretation of starting level, date and distribution should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about national baseline construction, for national baseline construction, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of national baseline construction, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For national baseline construction, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining national baseline construction, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

Accountability completes national baseline construction. Within the annual account of national baseline construction, a material shortfall in the baseline statement should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For national baseline construction, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining national baseline construction, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on national baseline construction, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-40]

Global and thematic indicator correspondence defines an annual-monitoring question for the indicator correspondence. For global and thematic indicator correspondence, the relevant population or responsible units are countries mapping national measures to common concepts, and the direct evidence concerns definition and status. In examining global and thematic indicator correspondence, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on global and thematic indicator correspondence, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on global and thematic indicator correspondence, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-18]

The main risk in global and thematic indicator correspondence is that common labels erase national programme or threshold differences. In examining global and thematic indicator correspondence, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on global and thematic indicator correspondence, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the indicator correspondence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on global and thematic indicator correspondence, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-15] [REF-16]

The required policy response for global and thematic indicator correspondence is to publish national-global correspondence and preserve non-equivalence and provisionality. Within evidence on global and thematic indicator correspondence, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on global and thematic indicator correspondence, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting global and thematic indicator correspondence, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-16] [REF-17]

Evidence for the indicator correspondence should be selected by coverage. For policy on global and thematic indicator correspondence, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting global and thematic indicator correspondence, for global and thematic indicator correspondence, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about global and thematic indicator correspondence, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-18]

Equity is embedded in global and thematic indicator correspondence. In interpreting global and thematic indicator correspondence, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about global and thematic indicator correspondence, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of global and thematic indicator correspondence, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For global and thematic indicator correspondence, if part of countries mapping national measures to common concepts cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on definition and status should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-15] [REF-18]

Interpretation of definition and status should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about global and thematic indicator correspondence, for global and thematic indicator correspondence, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of global and thematic indicator correspondence, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For global and thematic indicator correspondence, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining global and thematic indicator correspondence, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-18]

Accountability completes global and thematic indicator correspondence. Within the annual account of global and thematic indicator correspondence, a material shortfall in the indicator correspondence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For global and thematic indicator correspondence, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining global and thematic indicator correspondence, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on global and thematic indicator correspondence, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-15] [REF-16] [REF-17] [REF-18]

Administrative record coverage defines an annual-monitoring question for the administrative evidence. For administrative record coverage, the relevant population or responsible units are recognised institutions, staff and registered learners, and the direct evidence concerns service, enrolment and flow. In examining administrative record coverage, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on administrative record coverage, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on administrative record coverage, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-17] [REF-19] [REF-32] [REF-40]

The main risk in administrative record coverage is that never-enrolled learners and non-reporting providers are absent while duplicates inflate totals. In examining administrative record coverage, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on administrative record coverage, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the administrative evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on administrative record coverage, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-17] [REF-19]

The required policy response for administrative record coverage is to publish unit coverage, unique-person rules, completeness and revisions. Within evidence on administrative record coverage, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on administrative record coverage, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting administrative record coverage, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-19] [REF-32]

Evidence for the administrative evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on administrative record coverage, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting administrative record coverage, for administrative record coverage, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about administrative record coverage, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in administrative record coverage. In interpreting administrative record coverage, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about administrative record coverage, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of administrative record coverage, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For administrative record coverage, if part of recognised institutions, staff and registered learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on service, enrolment and flow should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-17] [REF-40]

Interpretation of service, enrolment and flow should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about administrative record coverage, for administrative record coverage, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of administrative record coverage, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For administrative record coverage, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining administrative record coverage, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-19] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Accountability completes administrative record coverage. Within the annual account of administrative record coverage, a material shortfall in the administrative evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For administrative record coverage, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining administrative record coverage, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on administrative record coverage, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-17] [REF-19] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Household and population evidence defines an annual-monitoring question for the population evidence. For household and population evidence, the relevant population or responsible units are people inside and outside education institutions, and the direct evidence concerns participation, attainment and disadvantage. In examining household and population evidence, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on household and population evidence, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on household and population evidence, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-40]

The main risk in household and population evidence is that sampling, proxy response and residence rules distort small or mobile populations. In examining household and population evidence, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on household and population evidence, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the population evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on household and population evidence, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-10] [REF-14]

The required policy response for household and population evidence is to state frame, questions, response, weights, intervals and excluded populations. Within evidence on household and population evidence, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on household and population evidence, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting household and population evidence, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-14] [REF-22]

Evidence for the population evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on household and population evidence, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting household and population evidence, for household and population evidence, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about household and population evidence, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-22] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in household and population evidence. In interpreting household and population evidence, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about household and population evidence, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of household and population evidence, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For household and population evidence, if part of people inside and outside education institutions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on participation, attainment and disadvantage should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-10] [REF-40]

Interpretation of participation, attainment and disadvantage should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about household and population evidence, for household and population evidence, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of household and population evidence, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For household and population evidence, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining household and population evidence, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-40]

Accountability completes household and population evidence. Within the annual account of household and population evidence, a material shortfall in the population evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For household and population evidence, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining household and population evidence, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on household and population evidence, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-40]

Learning-assessment coverage defines an annual-monitoring question for the assessment evidence. For learning-assessment coverage, the relevant population or responsible units are eligible learners reached under stated conditions, and the direct evidence concerns achievement distribution. In examining learning-assessment coverage, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on learning-assessment coverage, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on learning-assessment coverage, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-31]

The main risk in learning-assessment coverage is that absence, disability, language and school exclusion remove learners at greatest risk. In examining learning-assessment coverage, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on learning-assessment coverage, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the assessment evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on learning-assessment coverage, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-13] [REF-17]

The required policy response for learning-assessment coverage is to report target population, exclusions, participation, accommodations and uncertainty. Within evidence on learning-assessment coverage, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on learning-assessment coverage, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting learning-assessment coverage, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-17] [REF-22]

Evidence for the assessment evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on learning-assessment coverage, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting learning-assessment coverage, for learning-assessment coverage, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about learning-assessment coverage, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-22] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in learning-assessment coverage. In interpreting learning-assessment coverage, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about learning-assessment coverage, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of learning-assessment coverage, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For learning-assessment coverage, if part of eligible learners reached under stated conditions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on achievement distribution should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-13] [REF-31]

Interpretation of achievement distribution should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about learning-assessment coverage, for learning-assessment coverage, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of learning-assessment coverage, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For learning-assessment coverage, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining learning-assessment coverage, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-31]

Accountability completes learning-assessment coverage. Within the annual account of learning-assessment coverage, a material shortfall in the assessment evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For learning-assessment coverage, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining learning-assessment coverage, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on learning-assessment coverage, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-31]

Humanitarian and displacement records defines an annual-monitoring question for the crisis evidence. For humanitarian and displacement records, the relevant population or responsible units are refugee, migrant, internally displaced and host populations, and the direct evidence concerns population, provision and continuity. In examining humanitarian and displacement records, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on humanitarian and displacement records, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on humanitarian and displacement records, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

The main risk in humanitarian and displacement records is that mandate-specific sources count people and education status differently. In examining humanitarian and displacement records, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on humanitarian and displacement records, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the crisis evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on humanitarian and displacement records, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-09]

The required policy response for humanitarian and displacement records is to reconcile bounded definitions without delaying service or exposing legal status. Within evidence on humanitarian and displacement records, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on humanitarian and displacement records, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting humanitarian and displacement records, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-09] [REF-10]

Evidence for the crisis evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on humanitarian and displacement records, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting humanitarian and displacement records, for humanitarian and displacement records, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about humanitarian and displacement records, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-10] [REF-28]

Equity is embedded in humanitarian and displacement records. In interpreting humanitarian and displacement records, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about humanitarian and displacement records, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of humanitarian and displacement records, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For humanitarian and displacement records, if part of refugee, migrant, internally displaced and host populations cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on population, provision and continuity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-28]

Interpretation of population, provision and continuity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about humanitarian and displacement records, for humanitarian and displacement records, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of humanitarian and displacement records, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For humanitarian and displacement records, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining humanitarian and displacement records, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

Accountability completes humanitarian and displacement records. Within the annual account of humanitarian and displacement records, a material shortfall in the crisis evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For humanitarian and displacement records, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining humanitarian and displacement records, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on humanitarian and displacement records, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-10] [REF-28]

Disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility defines an annual-monitoring question for the safe distributional evidence. For disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the relevant population or responsible units are small and sensitive population groups, and the direct evidence concerns group levels and gaps. In examining disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-22] [REF-24] [REF-32] [REF-33]

The main risk in disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility is that greater detail exposes identity or suppression removes excluded groups from public concern. In examining disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the safe distributional evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-22] [REF-24]

The required policy response for disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility is to apply necessity, minimum detail, controlled access and visible gap reporting. Within evidence on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-24] [REF-32]

Evidence for the safe distributional evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, for disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-33]

Equity is embedded in disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility. In interpreting disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, if part of small and sensitive population groups cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on group levels and gaps should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-22] [REF-33]

Interpretation of group levels and gaps should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, for disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-24] [REF-32] [REF-33]

Accountability completes disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility. Within the annual account of disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, a material shortfall in the safe distributional evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on disaggregation, confidentiality and invisibility, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-22] [REF-24] [REF-32] [REF-33]

Release, revision and correction defines an annual-monitoring question for the statistical governance. For release, revision and correction, the relevant population or responsible units are people represented in and using education evidence, and the direct evidence concerns public value, version and remedy. In examining release, revision and correction, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on release, revision and correction, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on release, revision and correction, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-16] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

The main risk in release, revision and correction is that definitions and values change silently or misuse remains uncorrected. In examining release, revision and correction, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on release, revision and correction, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the statistical governance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on release, revision and correction, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-16] [REF-22]

The required policy response for release, revision and correction is to publish calendars, metadata, revisions, preserved versions and correction routes. Within evidence on release, revision and correction, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on release, revision and correction, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting release, revision and correction, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-32]

Evidence for the statistical governance should be selected by coverage. For policy on release, revision and correction, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting release, revision and correction, for release, revision and correction, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about release, revision and correction, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in release, revision and correction. In interpreting release, revision and correction, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about release, revision and correction, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of release, revision and correction, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For release, revision and correction, if part of people represented in and using education evidence cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on public value, version and remedy should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-16] [REF-40]

Interpretation of public value, version and remedy should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about release, revision and correction, for release, revision and correction, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of release, revision and correction, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For release, revision and correction, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining release, revision and correction, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Accountability completes release, revision and correction. Within the annual account of release, revision and correction, a material shortfall in the statistical governance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For release, revision and correction, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining release, revision and correction, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on release, revision and correction, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-16] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Domestic resource mobilisation and execution defines an annual-monitoring question for the domestic finance. For domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the relevant population or responsible units are governments funding recurring education duties, and the direct evidence concerns revenue, budget and execution. In examining domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-11] [REF-31]

The main risk in domestic resource mobilisation and execution is that ambition is stated without teachers, maintenance, support or reliable release. In examining domestic resource mobilisation and execution, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the domestic finance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-04]

The required policy response for domestic resource mobilisation and execution is to cost duties, protect equitable allocations and monitor execution to learner services. Within evidence on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting domestic resource mobilisation and execution, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-04] [REF-11]

Evidence for the domestic finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting domestic resource mobilisation and execution, for domestic resource mobilisation and execution, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about domestic resource mobilisation and execution, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in domestic resource mobilisation and execution. In interpreting domestic resource mobilisation and execution, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about domestic resource mobilisation and execution, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of domestic resource mobilisation and execution, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For domestic resource mobilisation and execution, if part of governments funding recurring education duties cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on revenue, budget and execution should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-31]

Interpretation of revenue, budget and execution should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about domestic resource mobilisation and execution, for domestic resource mobilisation and execution, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For domestic resource mobilisation and execution, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining domestic resource mobilisation and execution, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-04] [REF-11] [REF-31]

Accountability completes domestic resource mobilisation and execution. Within the annual account of domestic resource mobilisation and execution, a material shortfall in the domestic finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For domestic resource mobilisation and execution, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining domestic resource mobilisation and execution, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on domestic resource mobilisation and execution, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-11] [REF-31]

Needs-based and equity-oriented allocation defines an annual-monitoring question for the distributional finance. For needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and localities facing different barriers and costs, and the direct evidence concerns resource incidence. In examining needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-31]

The main risk in needs-based and equity-oriented allocation is that equal nominal allocations preserve unequal service where need and remoteness differ. In examining needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the distributional finance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-12]

The required policy response for needs-based and equity-oriented allocation is to use transparent need and cost factors and trace receipt and service. Within evidence on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-12] [REF-14]

Evidence for the distributional finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, for needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-14] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in needs-based and equity-oriented allocation. In interpreting needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, if part of learners and localities facing different barriers and costs cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on resource incidence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-31]

Interpretation of resource incidence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, for needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-31]

Accountability completes needs-based and equity-oriented allocation. Within the annual account of needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, a material shortfall in the distributional finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on needs-based and equity-oriented allocation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-31]

International finance and alignment defines an annual-monitoring question for the external education finance. For international finance and alignment, the relevant population or responsible units are countries and systems receiving grants, loans and humanitarian support, and the direct evidence concerns predictability, additionality and alignment. In examining international finance and alignment, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on international finance and alignment, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on international finance and alignment, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

The main risk in international finance and alignment is that parallel projects fragment pay, curriculum, records and recurrent obligations. In examining international finance and alignment, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on international finance and alignment, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the external education finance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on international finance and alignment, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-04]

The required policy response for international finance and alignment is to align to public standards, national information, full cost and transition. Within evidence on international finance and alignment, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on international finance and alignment, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting international finance and alignment, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-04] [REF-07]

Evidence for the external education finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on international finance and alignment, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting international finance and alignment, for international finance and alignment, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about international finance and alignment, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-07] [REF-11]

Equity is embedded in international finance and alignment. In interpreting international finance and alignment, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about international finance and alignment, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of international finance and alignment, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For international finance and alignment, if part of countries and systems receiving grants, loans and humanitarian support cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on predictability, additionality and alignment should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Interpretation of predictability, additionality and alignment should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about international finance and alignment, for international finance and alignment, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of international finance and alignment, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For international finance and alignment, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining international finance and alignment, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

Accountability completes international finance and alignment. Within the annual account of international finance and alignment, a material shortfall in the external education finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For international finance and alignment, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining international finance and alignment, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on international finance and alignment, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-11]

Bridging humanitarian and development finance defines an annual-monitoring question for the risk finance. For bridging humanitarian and development finance, the relevant population or responsible units are crisis-affected learners and host systems, and the direct evidence concerns immediate continuity and sustained capacity. In examining bridging humanitarian and development finance, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on bridging humanitarian and development finance, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on bridging humanitarian and development finance, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-06] [REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-28]

The main risk in bridging humanitarian and development finance is that short grants fund temporary seats but not host teachers, facilities or recognised pathways. In examining bridging humanitarian and development finance, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on bridging humanitarian and development finance, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the risk finance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on bridging humanitarian and development finance, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-06] [REF-07]

The required policy response for bridging humanitarian and development finance is to join rapid response with multi-year system capacity and contingency. Within evidence on bridging humanitarian and development finance, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on bridging humanitarian and development finance, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting bridging humanitarian and development finance, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-08]

Evidence for the risk finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on bridging humanitarian and development finance, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting bridging humanitarian and development finance, for bridging humanitarian and development finance, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about bridging humanitarian and development finance, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-08] [REF-28]

Equity is embedded in bridging humanitarian and development finance. In interpreting bridging humanitarian and development finance, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about bridging humanitarian and development finance, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of bridging humanitarian and development finance, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For bridging humanitarian and development finance, if part of crisis-affected learners and host systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on immediate continuity and sustained capacity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-06] [REF-28]

Interpretation of immediate continuity and sustained capacity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about bridging humanitarian and development finance, for bridging humanitarian and development finance, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of bridging humanitarian and development finance, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For bridging humanitarian and development finance, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining bridging humanitarian and development finance, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-28]

Accountability completes bridging humanitarian and development finance. Within the annual account of bridging humanitarian and development finance, a material shortfall in the risk finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For bridging humanitarian and development finance, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining bridging humanitarian and development finance, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on bridging humanitarian and development finance, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-06] [REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-28]

Financing and sustaining the teaching workforce defines an annual-monitoring question for the teacher finance. For financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the relevant population or responsible units are teachers and institutions requiring stable capability, and the direct evidence concerns positions, pay, support and retention. In examining financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The main risk in financing and sustaining the teaching workforce is that capital expansion proceeds without recurrent staffing and professional support. In examining financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the teacher finance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-13]

The required policy response for financing and sustaining the teaching workforce is to cost workload, fair pay, induction, development, substitutes and difficult-post support. Within evidence on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-17]

Evidence for the teacher finance should be selected by coverage. For policy on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, for financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in financing and sustaining the teaching workforce. In interpreting financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, if part of teachers and institutions requiring stable capability cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on positions, pay, support and retention should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-31]

Interpretation of positions, pay, support and retention should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, for financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Accountability completes financing and sustaining the teaching workforce. Within the annual account of financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, a material shortfall in the teacher finance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on financing and sustaining the teaching workforce, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

National, local and cross-ministry authority defines an annual-monitoring question for the governance allocation. For national, local and cross-ministry authority, the relevant population or responsible units are education, finance, labour, migration and local authorities, and the direct evidence concerns decision rights and escalation. In examining national, local and cross-ministry authority, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on national, local and cross-ministry authority, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on national, local and cross-ministry authority, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-05] [REF-28] [REF-29]

The main risk in national, local and cross-ministry authority is that learner gaps fall between mandates and local bodies lack resources or authority. In examining national, local and cross-ministry authority, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on national, local and cross-ministry authority, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the governance allocation, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on national, local and cross-ministry authority, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-05]

The required policy response for national, local and cross-ministry authority is to map duty, finance, information and escalation with one owner for correction. Within evidence on national, local and cross-ministry authority, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on national, local and cross-ministry authority, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting national, local and cross-ministry authority, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-05] [REF-28]

Evidence for the governance allocation should be selected by coverage. For policy on national, local and cross-ministry authority, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting national, local and cross-ministry authority, for national, local and cross-ministry authority, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about national, local and cross-ministry authority, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-28] [REF-29]

Equity is embedded in national, local and cross-ministry authority. In interpreting national, local and cross-ministry authority, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about national, local and cross-ministry authority, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of national, local and cross-ministry authority, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For national, local and cross-ministry authority, if part of education, finance, labour, migration and local authorities cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on decision rights and escalation should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-29]

Interpretation of decision rights and escalation should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about national, local and cross-ministry authority, for national, local and cross-ministry authority, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of national, local and cross-ministry authority, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For national, local and cross-ministry authority, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining national, local and cross-ministry authority, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-05] [REF-28] [REF-29]

Accountability completes national, local and cross-ministry authority. Within the annual account of national, local and cross-ministry authority, a material shortfall in the governance allocation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For national, local and cross-ministry authority, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining national, local and cross-ministry authority, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on national, local and cross-ministry authority, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-05] [REF-28] [REF-29]

Partnership agreements and public accountability defines an annual-monitoring question for the partnership governance. For partnership agreements and public accountability, the relevant population or responsible units are state bodies, civil society, providers and international agencies, and the direct evidence concerns standards, information and exit. In examining partnership agreements and public accountability, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on partnership agreements and public accountability, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on partnership agreements and public accountability, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-28] [REF-38]

The main risk in partnership agreements and public accountability is that informal partnership relies on goodwill and leaves recurrent liabilities unowned. In examining partnership agreements and public accountability, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on partnership agreements and public accountability, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the partnership governance, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on partnership agreements and public accountability, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-07]

The required policy response for partnership agreements and public accountability is to state duties, funds, data, safeguarding, duration, transition and remedy in agreements. Within evidence on partnership agreements and public accountability, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on partnership agreements and public accountability, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting partnership agreements and public accountability, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-28]

Evidence for the partnership governance should be selected by coverage. For policy on partnership agreements and public accountability, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting partnership agreements and public accountability, for partnership agreements and public accountability, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about partnership agreements and public accountability, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-28] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in partnership agreements and public accountability. In interpreting partnership agreements and public accountability, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about partnership agreements and public accountability, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of partnership agreements and public accountability, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For partnership agreements and public accountability, if part of state bodies, civil society, providers and international agencies cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on standards, information and exit should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of standards, information and exit should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about partnership agreements and public accountability, for partnership agreements and public accountability, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of partnership agreements and public accountability, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For partnership agreements and public accountability, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining partnership agreements and public accountability, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-28] [REF-38]

Accountability completes partnership agreements and public accountability. Within the annual account of partnership agreements and public accountability, a material shortfall in the partnership governance should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For partnership agreements and public accountability, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining partnership agreements and public accountability, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on partnership agreements and public accountability, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-28] [REF-38]

Integrity, procurement and resource receipt defines an annual-monitoring question for the resource integrity. For integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the relevant population or responsible units are institutions and learners expecting funded goods and services, and the direct evidence concerns allocation, purchase, delivery and use. In examining integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-04] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

The main risk in integrity, procurement and resource receipt is that budget or contract totals are treated as delivered education inputs. In examining integrity, procurement and resource receipt, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the resource integrity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-04] [REF-22]

The required policy response for integrity, procurement and resource receipt is to trace sampled resources to timely usable receipt and correct leakage and delay. Within evidence on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting integrity, procurement and resource receipt, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-32]

Evidence for the resource integrity should be selected by coverage. For policy on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting integrity, procurement and resource receipt, for integrity, procurement and resource receipt, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about integrity, procurement and resource receipt, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in integrity, procurement and resource receipt. In interpreting integrity, procurement and resource receipt, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about integrity, procurement and resource receipt, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of integrity, procurement and resource receipt, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For integrity, procurement and resource receipt, if part of institutions and learners expecting funded goods and services cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on allocation, purchase, delivery and use should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-04] [REF-40]

Interpretation of allocation, purchase, delivery and use should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about integrity, procurement and resource receipt, for integrity, procurement and resource receipt, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For integrity, procurement and resource receipt, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining integrity, procurement and resource receipt, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Accountability completes integrity, procurement and resource receipt. Within the annual account of integrity, procurement and resource receipt, a material shortfall in the resource integrity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For integrity, procurement and resource receipt, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining integrity, procurement and resource receipt, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on integrity, procurement and resource receipt, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-04] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Selecting material improvement questions defines an annual-monitoring question for the review focus. For selecting material improvement questions, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and staff affected by institutional conditions, and the direct evidence concerns rights risk and decision value. In examining selecting material improvement questions, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on selecting material improvement questions, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on selecting material improvement questions, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

The main risk in selecting material improvement questions is that review expands into routine description and obscures urgent learner-facing gaps. In examining selecting material improvement questions, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on selecting material improvement questions, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the review focus, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on selecting material improvement questions, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-22]

The required policy response for selecting material improvement questions is to prioritise population affected, educational consequence and authority to respond. Within evidence on selecting material improvement questions, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on selecting material improvement questions, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting selecting material improvement questions, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-34]

Evidence for the review focus should be selected by coverage. For policy on selecting material improvement questions, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting selecting material improvement questions, for selecting material improvement questions, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about selecting material improvement questions, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-34] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in selecting material improvement questions. In interpreting selecting material improvement questions, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about selecting material improvement questions, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of selecting material improvement questions, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For selecting material improvement questions, if part of learners and staff affected by institutional conditions cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on rights risk and decision value should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-38]

Interpretation of rights risk and decision value should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about selecting material improvement questions, for selecting material improvement questions, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of selecting material improvement questions, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For selecting material improvement questions, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining selecting material improvement questions, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

Accountability completes selecting material improvement questions. Within the annual account of selecting material improvement questions, a material shortfall in the review focus should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For selecting material improvement questions, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining selecting material improvement questions, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on selecting material improvement questions, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

Triangulating records, observation and voice defines an annual-monitoring question for the review evidence. For triangulating records, observation and voice, the relevant population or responsible units are learners, staff, records and observed practice, and the direct evidence concerns convergence and divergence. In examining triangulating records, observation and voice, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on triangulating records, observation and voice, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on triangulating records, observation and voice, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-13] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The main risk in triangulating records, observation and voice is that only evidence supporting the initial institutional account is retained. In examining triangulating records, observation and voice, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on triangulating records, observation and voice, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the review evidence, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on triangulating records, observation and voice, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-13] [REF-22]

The required policy response for triangulating records, observation and voice is to map source coverage and investigate disagreement as a finding. Within evidence on triangulating records, observation and voice, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on triangulating records, observation and voice, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting triangulating records, observation and voice, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-32]

Evidence for the review evidence should be selected by coverage. For policy on triangulating records, observation and voice, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting triangulating records, observation and voice, for triangulating records, observation and voice, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about triangulating records, observation and voice, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in triangulating records, observation and voice. In interpreting triangulating records, observation and voice, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about triangulating records, observation and voice, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of triangulating records, observation and voice, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For triangulating records, observation and voice, if part of learners, staff, records and observed practice cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on convergence and divergence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-13] [REF-39]

Interpretation of convergence and divergence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about triangulating records, observation and voice, for triangulating records, observation and voice, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of triangulating records, observation and voice, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For triangulating records, observation and voice, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining triangulating records, observation and voice, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Accountability completes triangulating records, observation and voice. Within the annual account of triangulating records, observation and voice, a material shortfall in the review evidence should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For triangulating records, observation and voice, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining triangulating records, observation and voice, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on triangulating records, observation and voice, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-13] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Diagnosing causes without blaming learners defines an annual-monitoring question for the institutional diagnosis. For diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the relevant population or responsible units are groups experiencing an observed gap, and the direct evidence concerns plausible explanation. In examining diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

The main risk in diagnosing causes without blaming learners is that disparity is attributed to motivation or culture without testing service conditions. In examining diagnosing causes without blaming learners, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the institutional diagnosis, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-13] [REF-14]

The required policy response for diagnosing causes without blaming learners is to compare teaching, timing, cost, language, safety, support and evidence limitations. Within evidence on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting diagnosing causes without blaming learners, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-14] [REF-22]

Evidence for the institutional diagnosis should be selected by coverage. For policy on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting diagnosing causes without blaming learners, for diagnosing causes without blaming learners, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about diagnosing causes without blaming learners, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-22] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in diagnosing causes without blaming learners. In interpreting diagnosing causes without blaming learners, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about diagnosing causes without blaming learners, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of diagnosing causes without blaming learners, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For diagnosing causes without blaming learners, if part of groups experiencing an observed gap cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on plausible explanation should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-13] [REF-38]

Interpretation of plausible explanation should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about diagnosing causes without blaming learners, for diagnosing causes without blaming learners, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For diagnosing causes without blaming learners, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining diagnosing causes without blaming learners, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Accountability completes diagnosing causes without blaming learners. Within the annual account of diagnosing causes without blaming learners, a material shortfall in the institutional diagnosis should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For diagnosing causes without blaming learners, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining diagnosing causes without blaming learners, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on diagnosing causes without blaming learners, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Choosing a bounded improvement measure defines an annual-monitoring question for the improvement choice. For choosing a bounded improvement measure, the relevant population or responsible units are learners intended to benefit from institutional change, and the direct evidence concerns fit, reach and dosage. In examining choosing a bounded improvement measure, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on choosing a bounded improvement measure, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on choosing a bounded improvement measure, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-34] [REF-39]

The main risk in choosing a bounded improvement measure is that a fashionable activity is selected without connection to the diagnosed barrier. In examining choosing a bounded improvement measure, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on choosing a bounded improvement measure, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the improvement choice, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on choosing a bounded improvement measure, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-13]

The required policy response for choosing a bounded improvement measure is to state causal expectation, beneficiary, delivery, risk and later evidence. Within evidence on choosing a bounded improvement measure, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on choosing a bounded improvement measure, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting choosing a bounded improvement measure, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-34]

Evidence for the improvement choice should be selected by coverage. For policy on choosing a bounded improvement measure, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting choosing a bounded improvement measure, for choosing a bounded improvement measure, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about choosing a bounded improvement measure, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-34] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in choosing a bounded improvement measure. In interpreting choosing a bounded improvement measure, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about choosing a bounded improvement measure, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of choosing a bounded improvement measure, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For choosing a bounded improvement measure, if part of learners intended to benefit from institutional change cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on fit, reach and dosage should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-39]

Interpretation of fit, reach and dosage should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about choosing a bounded improvement measure, for choosing a bounded improvement measure, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of choosing a bounded improvement measure, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For choosing a bounded improvement measure, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining choosing a bounded improvement measure, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-34] [REF-39]

Accountability completes choosing a bounded improvement measure. Within the annual account of choosing a bounded improvement measure, a material shortfall in the improvement choice should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For choosing a bounded improvement measure, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining choosing a bounded improvement measure, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on choosing a bounded improvement measure, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-34] [REF-39]

Assigning ownership, finance and milestones defines an annual-monitoring question for the improvement ownership. For assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the relevant population or responsible units are bodies controlling staff, timetable, materials and support, and the direct evidence concerns authority and delivery. In examining assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

The main risk in assigning ownership, finance and milestones is that recommendations lack an owner, recurrent resources or a learner-facing date. In examining assigning ownership, finance and milestones, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the improvement ownership, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-03] [REF-22]

The required policy response for assigning ownership, finance and milestones is to name one owner, supporting duties, budget, milestone and escalation. Within evidence on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting assigning ownership, finance and milestones, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-34]

Evidence for the improvement ownership should be selected by coverage. For policy on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting assigning ownership, finance and milestones, for assigning ownership, finance and milestones, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about assigning ownership, finance and milestones, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-34] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in assigning ownership, finance and milestones. In interpreting assigning ownership, finance and milestones, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about assigning ownership, finance and milestones, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of assigning ownership, finance and milestones, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For assigning ownership, finance and milestones, if part of bodies controlling staff, timetable, materials and support cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on authority and delivery should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Interpretation of authority and delivery should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about assigning ownership, finance and milestones, for assigning ownership, finance and milestones, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For assigning ownership, finance and milestones, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining assigning ownership, finance and milestones, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

Accountability completes assigning ownership, finance and milestones. Within the annual account of assigning ownership, finance and milestones, a material shortfall in the improvement ownership should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For assigning ownership, finance and milestones, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining assigning ownership, finance and milestones, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on assigning ownership, finance and milestones, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-03] [REF-22] [REF-34] [REF-38]

Verifying delivery and necessary adaptation defines an annual-monitoring question for the delivery fidelity. For verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the relevant population or responsible units are learners and staff experiencing the changed measure, and the direct evidence concerns reach, quality and burden. In examining verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-22] [REF-39]

The main risk in verifying delivery and necessary adaptation is that completion of activities is reported although intended learners did not receive them. In examining verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the delivery fidelity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-13]

The required policy response for verifying delivery and necessary adaptation is to verify actual reach and quality and adapt when conditions differ from diagnosis. Within evidence on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-13] [REF-22]

Evidence for the delivery fidelity should be selected by coverage. For policy on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, for verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-22] [REF-39]

Equity is embedded in verifying delivery and necessary adaptation. In interpreting verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, if part of learners and staff experiencing the changed measure cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on reach, quality and burden should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-39]

Interpretation of reach, quality and burden should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, for verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-13] [REF-22] [REF-39]

Accountability completes verifying delivery and necessary adaptation. Within the annual account of verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, a material shortfall in the delivery fidelity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on verifying delivery and necessary adaptation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-22] [REF-39]

Learner, family and educator participation defines an annual-monitoring question for the improvement participation. For learner, family and educator participation, the relevant population or responsible units are people experiencing provision and proposed change, and the direct evidence concerns influence and safe voice. In examining learner, family and educator participation, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on learner, family and educator participation, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on learner, family and educator participation, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-35] [REF-38]

The main risk in learner, family and educator participation is that consultation occurs after decisions or represents only confident current users. In examining learner, family and educator participation, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on learner, family and educator participation, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the improvement participation, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on learner, family and educator participation, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-23] [REF-24]

The required policy response for learner, family and educator participation is to include least-heard groups early and record how evidence changed action. Within evidence on learner, family and educator participation, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on learner, family and educator participation, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting learner, family and educator participation, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-24] [REF-35]

Evidence for the improvement participation should be selected by coverage. For policy on learner, family and educator participation, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting learner, family and educator participation, for learner, family and educator participation, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about learner, family and educator participation, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-35] [REF-38]

Equity is embedded in learner, family and educator participation. In interpreting learner, family and educator participation, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about learner, family and educator participation, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of learner, family and educator participation, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For learner, family and educator participation, if part of people experiencing provision and proposed change cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on influence and safe voice should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-23] [REF-38]

Interpretation of influence and safe voice should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about learner, family and educator participation, for learner, family and educator participation, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of learner, family and educator participation, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For learner, family and educator participation, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining learner, family and educator participation, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-24] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Accountability completes learner, family and educator participation. Within the annual account of learner, family and educator participation, a material shortfall in the improvement participation should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For learner, family and educator participation, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining learner, family and educator participation, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on learner, family and educator participation, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-23] [REF-24] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Retesting outcomes and unintended effects defines an annual-monitoring question for the improvement review. For retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the relevant population or responsible units are beneficiary and other affected groups, and the direct evidence concerns later condition and distribution. In examining retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

The main risk in retesting outcomes and unintended effects is that a short-term average gain hides displacement, burden or group deterioration. In examining retesting outcomes and unintended effects, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the improvement review, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-22]

The required policy response for retesting outcomes and unintended effects is to retest the baseline, service conditions and group levels and publish correction. Within evidence on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting retesting outcomes and unintended effects, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-22] [REF-32]

Evidence for the improvement review should be selected by coverage. For policy on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting retesting outcomes and unintended effects, for retesting outcomes and unintended effects, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about retesting outcomes and unintended effects, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-32] [REF-40]

Equity is embedded in retesting outcomes and unintended effects. In interpreting retesting outcomes and unintended effects, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about retesting outcomes and unintended effects, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of retesting outcomes and unintended effects, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For retesting outcomes and unintended effects, if part of beneficiary and other affected groups cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on later condition and distribution should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-40]

Interpretation of later condition and distribution should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about retesting outcomes and unintended effects, for retesting outcomes and unintended effects, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For retesting outcomes and unintended effects, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining retesting outcomes and unintended effects, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Accountability completes retesting outcomes and unintended effects. Within the annual account of retesting outcomes and unintended effects, a material shortfall in the improvement review should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For retesting outcomes and unintended effects, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining retesting outcomes and unintended effects, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on retesting outcomes and unintended effects, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-22] [REF-32] [REF-40]

Sub-Saharan Africa: expansion with teaching capacity defines an annual-monitoring question for the sub-Saharan capacity. For sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the relevant population or responsible units are countries and communities expanding school-age participation, and the direct evidence concerns teachers, classrooms, learning and completion. In examining sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-17]

The main risk in sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity is that enrolment expansion outpaces qualified teachers, time and progression. In examining sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the sub-Saharan capacity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-12]

The required policy response for sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity is to prioritise workforce, early learning, foundational achievement and rural equity. Within evidence on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-12] [REF-13]

Evidence for the sub-Saharan capacity should be selected by coverage. For policy on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, for sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-13] [REF-17]

Equity is embedded in sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity. In interpreting sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, if part of countries and communities expanding school-age participation cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on teachers, classrooms, learning and completion should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-17]

Interpretation of teachers, classrooms, learning and completion should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, for sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-17]

Accountability completes sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity. Within the annual account of sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, a material shortfall in the sub-Saharan capacity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on sub-saharan africa: expansion with teaching capacity, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-17]

South Asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion defines an annual-monitoring question for the South Asian equity. For south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the relevant population or responsible units are learners differentiated by sex, wealth, location and social exclusion, and the direct evidence concerns participation, learning and completion. In examining south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-22]

The main risk in south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion is that national progress conceals large intersecting group and subnational gaps. In examining south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the South Asian equity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-12]

The required policy response for south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion is to combine disaggregated household, service and cohort evidence with targeted support. Within evidence on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-12] [REF-14]

Evidence for the South Asian equity should be selected by coverage. For policy on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, for south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-14] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion. In interpreting south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, if part of learners differentiated by sex, wealth, location and social exclusion cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on participation, learning and completion should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-22]

Interpretation of participation, learning and completion should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, for south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-22]

Accountability completes south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion. Within the annual account of south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, a material shortfall in the South Asian equity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on south asia: intersecting disadvantage and completion, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-22]

Arab and West Asian crisis settings defines an annual-monitoring question for the Arab and West Asian continuity. For arab and west asian crisis settings, the relevant population or responsible units are displaced, refugee, host and conflict-affected learners, and the direct evidence concerns admission, safe time, recognition and system capacity. In examining arab and west asian crisis settings, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on arab and west asian crisis settings, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on arab and west asian crisis settings, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-28]

The main risk in arab and west asian crisis settings is that temporary shifts and parallel routes persist without quality or transition. In examining arab and west asian crisis settings, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on arab and west asian crisis settings, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the Arab and West Asian continuity, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on arab and west asian crisis settings, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-05] [REF-07]

The required policy response for arab and west asian crisis settings is to finance recognised pathways, teachers, host capacity and portable records. Within evidence on arab and west asian crisis settings, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on arab and west asian crisis settings, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting arab and west asian crisis settings, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-07] [REF-09]

Evidence for the Arab and West Asian continuity should be selected by coverage. For policy on arab and west asian crisis settings, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting arab and west asian crisis settings, for arab and west asian crisis settings, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about arab and west asian crisis settings, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-09] [REF-28]

Equity is embedded in arab and west asian crisis settings. In interpreting arab and west asian crisis settings, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about arab and west asian crisis settings, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of arab and west asian crisis settings, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For arab and west asian crisis settings, if part of displaced, refugee, host and conflict-affected learners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on admission, safe time, recognition and system capacity should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-05] [REF-28]

Interpretation of admission, safe time, recognition and system capacity should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about arab and west asian crisis settings, for arab and west asian crisis settings, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of arab and west asian crisis settings, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For arab and west asian crisis settings, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining arab and west asian crisis settings, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-28]

Accountability completes arab and west asian crisis settings. Within the annual account of arab and west asian crisis settings, a material shortfall in the Arab and West Asian continuity should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For arab and west asian crisis settings, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining arab and west asian crisis settings, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on arab and west asian crisis settings, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-09] [REF-28]

Europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition defines an annual-monitoring question for the European inclusion. For europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the relevant population or responsible units are newly arrived, minority and host populations, and the direct evidence concerns education entry, language, skills and participation. In examining europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-31]

The main risk in europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition is that migration is treated as a short integration issue detached from school and adult-learning pathways. In examining europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the European inclusion, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-10] [REF-29]

The required policy response for europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition is to join prompt admission, language support, recognition, civic inclusion and progression. Within evidence on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence for the European inclusion should be selected by coverage. For policy on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, for europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-30] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition. In interpreting europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, if part of newly arrived, minority and host populations cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on education entry, language, skills and participation should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-10] [REF-31]

Interpretation of education entry, language, skills and participation should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, for europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-31]

Accountability completes europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition. Within the annual account of europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, a material shortfall in the European inclusion should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on europe: migration, inclusion and skills recognition, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30] [REF-31]

Latin America and the Caribbean: learning and inequality defines an annual-monitoring question for the Latin American and Caribbean quality. For latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the relevant population or responsible units are learners across income, territory and education stage, and the direct evidence concerns learning distribution and pathway. In examining latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-22]

The main risk in latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality is that high participation averages obscure learning, completion and rural or minority gaps. In examining latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the Latin American and Caribbean quality, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-12]

The required policy response for latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality is to link learning evidence, teaching conditions, secondary completion and youth routes. Within evidence on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-12] [REF-17]

Evidence for the Latin American and Caribbean quality should be selected by coverage. For policy on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, for latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-17] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality. In interpreting latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, if part of learners across income, territory and education stage cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on learning distribution and pathway should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-22]

Interpretation of learning distribution and pathway should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, for latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-22]

Accountability completes latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality. Within the annual account of latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, a material shortfall in the Latin American and Caribbean quality should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on latin america and the caribbean: learning and inequality, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-22]

East Asia and the Pacific: quality under diverse systems defines an annual-monitoring question for the East Asian and Pacific quality. For east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the relevant population or responsible units are learners across high-performing, expanding and remote systems, and the direct evidence concerns distribution, pressure and relevance. In examining east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-11] [REF-17] [REF-20] [REF-31]

The main risk in east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems is that regional averages conceal remote access, unequal learning and narrow high-stakes incentives. In examining east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the East Asian and Pacific quality, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-11] [REF-17]

The required policy response for east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems is to report distributions and strengthen breadth, wellbeing, teacher support and inclusion. Within evidence on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-17] [REF-20]

Evidence for the East Asian and Pacific quality should be selected by coverage. For policy on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, for east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-20] [REF-31]

Equity is embedded in east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems. In interpreting east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, if part of learners across high-performing, expanding and remote systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on distribution, pressure and relevance should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-11] [REF-31]

Interpretation of distribution, pressure and relevance should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, for east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-17] [REF-20] [REF-31]

Accountability completes east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems. Within the annual account of east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, a material shortfall in the East Asian and Pacific quality should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on east asia and the pacific: quality under diverse systems, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-11] [REF-17] [REF-20] [REF-31]

Small island and remote systems defines an annual-monitoring question for the small-island and remote resilience. For small island and remote systems, the relevant population or responsible units are learners in dispersed, climate-exposed and small systems, and the direct evidence concerns continuity, staffing, connectivity and recognition. In examining small island and remote systems, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on small island and remote systems, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on small island and remote systems, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-21]

The main risk in small island and remote systems is that small populations and high unit costs lead to unstable provision or invisible data. In examining small island and remote systems, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on small island and remote systems, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the small-island and remote resilience, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on small island and remote systems, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-06]

The required policy response for small island and remote systems is to pool support where useful while protecting local access, culture and portable pathways. Within evidence on small island and remote systems, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on small island and remote systems, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting small island and remote systems, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-06] [REF-11]

Evidence for the small-island and remote resilience should be selected by coverage. For policy on small island and remote systems, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting small island and remote systems, for small island and remote systems, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about small island and remote systems, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-21]

Equity is embedded in small island and remote systems. In interpreting small island and remote systems, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about small island and remote systems, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of small island and remote systems, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For small island and remote systems, if part of learners in dispersed, climate-exposed and small systems cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on continuity, staffing, connectivity and recognition should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-21]

Interpretation of continuity, staffing, connectivity and recognition should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about small island and remote systems, for small island and remote systems, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of small island and remote systems, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For small island and remote systems, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining small island and remote systems, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-21]

Accountability completes small island and remote systems. Within the annual account of small island and remote systems, a material shortfall in the small-island and remote resilience should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For small island and remote systems, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining small island and remote systems, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on small island and remote systems, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-06] [REF-11] [REF-21]

An immediate 2017 public action compact defines an annual-monitoring question for the next-year compact. For an immediate 2017 public action compact, the relevant population or responsible units are national authorities, educators, learners and partners, and the direct evidence concerns owned priorities and evidence. In examining an immediate 2017 public action compact, the report should begin with the public entitlement or policy purpose, then identify who can act and what learner-facing condition is expected to change. Within evidence on an immediate 2017 public action compact, a broad commitment needs a national and local chain of responsibility. For policy on an immediate 2017 public action compact, the evidence should make clear whether it describes a law, financed measure, delivered service, learner participation, learning or later progression.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]

The main risk in an immediate 2017 public action compact is that the annual agenda disperses into uncoordinated aspirations and later hindsight. In examining an immediate 2017 public action compact, this can produce a favourable headline while concealing an inferior route, excluded group or unfulfilled responsibility. Within evidence on an immediate 2017 public action compact, authorities should identify how people enter, use and leave the next-year compact, whether omission is concentrated and which institution controls the barrier. For policy on an immediate 2017 public action compact, absence from a register or complaint file should not be treated as a successful outcome where mobility, fear, inaccessibility or fragmented mandates suppress reporting.[REF-01] [REF-03]

The required policy response for an immediate 2017 public action compact is to publish five or fewer material priorities with owners, finance, milestones, group baselines and remedy. Within evidence on an immediate 2017 public action compact, the response should state authority, beneficiary population, institutional owner, supporting duties, recurrent finance, delivery date and practical remedy. For policy on an immediate 2017 public action compact, where provision is delegated or temporary, the same substantive entitlement and information duties should apply. In interpreting an immediate 2017 public action compact, if equivalence cannot be reached immediately, the limitation, protective minimum, restorative action and review date should be public.[REF-03] [REF-11]

Evidence for the next-year compact should be selected by coverage. For policy on an immediate 2017 public action compact, administrative records can describe registered learners, institutions and services; household evidence can reveal people outside provision and living barriers; assessment can describe learning for a stated target population; participatory evidence can explain use and harm; and humanitarian sources can identify mobile populations. In interpreting an immediate 2017 public action compact, for an immediate 2017 public action compact, each source needs a definition, date, coverage, group detail and principal limitation. For decisions about an immediate 2017 public action compact, divergence should be investigated before figures are combined.[REF-11] [REF-22]

Equity is embedded in an immediate 2017 public action compact. In interpreting an immediate 2017 public action compact, relevant comparisons may concern sex, poverty, location, disability, language, migration, displacement, age or education route. For decisions about an immediate 2017 public action compact, every reported gap should retain component levels and population shares. Within the annual account of an immediate 2017 public action compact, intersections require sufficient precision and safe disclosure. For an immediate 2017 public action compact, if part of national authorities, educators, learners and partners cannot be observed reliably, the missing population and likely effect on owned priorities and evidence should remain visible rather than being absorbed into a national or regional average.[REF-01] [REF-22]

Interpretation of owned priorities and evidence should separate commitment, implementation and outcome. For decisions about an immediate 2017 public action compact, for an immediate 2017 public action compact, an announced policy or budget does not establish delivery, and concurrent improvement does not establish attribution. Within the annual account of an immediate 2017 public action compact, the annual account should trace authority and resources to institutional receipt, service use, learning and progression while testing alternative explanations. For an immediate 2017 public action compact, regional comparison should retain country and subnational context. In examining an immediate 2017 public action compact, all claims should be dated so that evidence or institutional changes after 14 November 2016 are not read backwards.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]

Accountability completes an immediate 2017 public action compact. Within the annual account of an immediate 2017 public action compact, a material shortfall in the next-year compact should lead to an owned decision with finance, a milestone and a later learner-facing test. For an immediate 2017 public action compact, people affected need accessible information, safe participation, confidential complaint and visible correction. In examining an immediate 2017 public action compact, if no immediate measure is selected, the reason and next evidence duty should be published. Within evidence on an immediate 2017 public action compact, the annual finding should finish as a chain of responsibility, delivery, evidence and remedy rather than an activity list with no required institutional response.[REF-01] [REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-22]