Strengthening Early-Grade Instruction through Diagnosis and Follow-Up

ICEQC Research and Policy Directorate

Publication record

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

Executive summary

Early-grade diagnosis is an instructional responsibility, not a separate testing event. It should identify what a learner understands, the error or barrier that matters for the next teaching decision, and the evidence that will show whether a response helped. Enrolment, grade placement and a broad score cannot provide that specificity. Teachers need timely evidence from ordinary work, observation, conversation and brief focused tasks.

Literacy evidence should distinguish oral language, print access, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension and writing. Mathematics evidence should examine quantity, number relations, operations, representations and reasoning. Language, disability, prior opportunity and unfamiliar task formats can affect observed performance. Diagnosis must therefore preserve the intended construct and provide accessible participation.

The response should be a specific teaching hypothesis: a defined need, matched explanation or practice, sufficient time and a near-term expectation. Flexible grouping may help, but it should serve a narrow purpose, retain access to the full curriculum and be reviewed frequently. Materials and additional support count only when learners receive and use them.

Follow-up should first verify delivery and then examine learning through related but not identical tasks. Immediate improvement and later retention are different findings. Where progress is limited, authorities should check attendance, dosage, task access and the original interpretation before blaming the learner or repeating the same response.

System conditions shape what teachers can do. Staffing, curriculum coherence, accessible materials, language support, safe classrooms and manageable evidence demands require institutional action. Public reporting should show which learners received support and whether the relevant understanding changed, rather than ranking young children or equating test volume with quality.

Key findings

Diagnosis should begin with a defined teaching decision and evidence close to ordinary instruction.
Incorrect answers should be examined for strategy, language, access and prior opportunity.
Literacy and mathematics require component-level evidence rather than one broad category.
Support should preserve full curriculum access and avoid fixed lower-expectation groups.
Follow-up must confirm learner receipt before interpreting later educational change.
Related new tasks are stronger evidence of understanding than repetition of the original item.
Disability, language, poverty, mobility and interrupted attendance require accessible and contextual interpretation.
Public accountability should connect resources and teacher support to learner reach and bounded learning evidence.

Scope and method

This global quality improvement study addresses diagnosis, instructional response and follow-up in the early grades as at 9 March 2018. It covers early literacy and mathematics, teacher judgement, accessibility, support delivery, short-cycle review, equity and institutional responsibility. It does not apply later 2018 instruments, estimates or outcomes.

The study draws on official education, rights, statistical and institutional evidence available by the cutoff, including child-friendly schooling, assessment guidance, disability and child rights, early Goal 4 reporting, refugee education, school evaluation and the World Development Report 2018.

Part I

Diagnosis as an instructional responsibility

1

Clarifying the decision before gathering evidence

Clarifying the decision before gathering evidence frames a bounded question within the diagnostic purpose. For clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, the relevant population is teachers and early-grade learners, and the evidence concerns the immediate teaching decision. In examining clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The central danger is that a broad assessment is administered without a defined instructional use. In examining clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The recommended action is to state the learner question, decision, evidence and review interval. Within evidence on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning the immediate teaching decision should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to clarifying the decision before gathering evidence. In follow-up on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached teachers and early-grade learners and whether the immediate teaching decision changed in a related setting. For decisions about clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for clarifying the decision before gathering evidence extends beyond the classroom. For clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on clarifying the decision before gathering evidence, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

2

Starting from the taught curriculum

Starting from the taught curriculum frames a bounded question within the curriculum relation. For starting from the taught curriculum, the relevant population is learners exposed to different content and pacing, and the evidence concerns opportunity and demonstrated understanding. In examining starting from the taught curriculum, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on starting from the taught curriculum, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that difficulty is inferred on content not yet taught or taught in another sequence. In examining starting from the taught curriculum, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on starting from the taught curriculum, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning starting from the taught curriculum, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to map the evidence to intended and delivered curriculum. Within evidence on starting from the taught curriculum, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning starting from the taught curriculum, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on starting from the taught curriculum, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning opportunity and demonstrated understanding should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning starting from the taught curriculum, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on starting from the taught curriculum, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about starting from the taught curriculum, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to starting from the taught curriculum. In follow-up on starting from the taught curriculum, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about starting from the taught curriculum, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For starting from the taught curriculum, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners exposed to different content and pacing and whether opportunity and demonstrated understanding changed in a related setting. For decisions about starting from the taught curriculum, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For starting from the taught curriculum, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining starting from the taught curriculum, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for starting from the taught curriculum extends beyond the classroom. For starting from the taught curriculum, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining starting from the taught curriculum, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on starting from the taught curriculum, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

3

Using several brief sources of evidence

Using several brief sources of evidence frames a bounded question within the evidence triangulation. For using several brief sources of evidence, the relevant population is learners whose understanding varies by task and setting, and the evidence concerns work samples, observation, conversation and brief tasks. In examining using several brief sources of evidence, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on using several brief sources of evidence, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The central danger is that one score determines placement or expectation. In examining using several brief sources of evidence, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on using several brief sources of evidence, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning using several brief sources of evidence, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-12]

The recommended action is to seek convergence across ordinary work and focused checks. Within evidence on using several brief sources of evidence, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning using several brief sources of evidence, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on using several brief sources of evidence, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Evidence concerning work samples, observation, conversation and brief tasks should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning using several brief sources of evidence, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on using several brief sources of evidence, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about using several brief sources of evidence, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-05] [REF-17]

Equity is integral to using several brief sources of evidence. In follow-up on using several brief sources of evidence, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about using several brief sources of evidence, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For using several brief sources of evidence, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners whose understanding varies by task and setting and whether work samples, observation, conversation and brief tasks changed in a related setting. For decisions about using several brief sources of evidence, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For using several brief sources of evidence, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining using several brief sources of evidence, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Institutional accountability for using several brief sources of evidence extends beyond the classroom. For using several brief sources of evidence, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining using several brief sources of evidence, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on using several brief sources of evidence, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

4

Separating error, misconception and missing opportunity

Separating error, misconception and missing opportunity frames a bounded question within the diagnostic interpretation. For separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, the relevant population is learners showing an incorrect or absent response, and the evidence concerns error pattern and learning opportunity. In examining separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-29]

The central danger is that every incorrect answer is treated as the same underlying need. In examining separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-13]

The recommended action is to inspect reasoning, language, prior teaching and task access. Within evidence on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning error pattern and learning opportunity should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-02] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to separating error, misconception and missing opportunity. In follow-up on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners showing an incorrect or absent response and whether error pattern and learning opportunity changed in a related setting. For decisions about separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for separating error, misconception and missing opportunity extends beyond the classroom. For separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on separating error, misconception and missing opportunity, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-29]

5

Timeliness and the short feedback interval

Timeliness and the short feedback interval frames a bounded question within the diagnostic timing. For timeliness and the short feedback interval, the relevant population is learners needing an immediate teaching adjustment, and the evidence concerns time from evidence to changed instruction. In examining timeliness and the short feedback interval, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on timeliness and the short feedback interval, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that results arrive after the relevant unit or school year. In examining timeliness and the short feedback interval, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on timeliness and the short feedback interval, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning timeliness and the short feedback interval, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to use brief evidence that teachers can interpret and revisit promptly. Within evidence on timeliness and the short feedback interval, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning timeliness and the short feedback interval, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on timeliness and the short feedback interval, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning time from evidence to changed instruction should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning timeliness and the short feedback interval, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on timeliness and the short feedback interval, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about timeliness and the short feedback interval, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to timeliness and the short feedback interval. In follow-up on timeliness and the short feedback interval, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about timeliness and the short feedback interval, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For timeliness and the short feedback interval, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners needing an immediate teaching adjustment and whether time from evidence to changed instruction changed in a related setting. For decisions about timeliness and the short feedback interval, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For timeliness and the short feedback interval, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining timeliness and the short feedback interval, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for timeliness and the short feedback interval extends beyond the classroom. For timeliness and the short feedback interval, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining timeliness and the short feedback interval, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on timeliness and the short feedback interval, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

6

Protection from stigma and lowered expectations

Protection from stigma and lowered expectations frames a bounded question within the learner protection. For protection from stigma and lowered expectations, the relevant population is young children assigned instructional support, and the evidence concerns temporary need and common entitlement. In examining protection from stigma and lowered expectations, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

The central danger is that a diagnostic category becomes a fixed identity or reduced curriculum. In examining protection from stigma and lowered expectations, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning protection from stigma and lowered expectations, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15]

The recommended action is to use provisional descriptions, full curriculum access and review. Within evidence on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning protection from stigma and lowered expectations, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Evidence concerning temporary need and common entitlement should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning protection from stigma and lowered expectations, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about protection from stigma and lowered expectations, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-10] [REF-22]

Equity is integral to protection from stigma and lowered expectations. In follow-up on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about protection from stigma and lowered expectations, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For protection from stigma and lowered expectations, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached young children assigned instructional support and whether temporary need and common entitlement changed in a related setting. For decisions about protection from stigma and lowered expectations, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For protection from stigma and lowered expectations, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining protection from stigma and lowered expectations, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Institutional accountability for protection from stigma and lowered expectations extends beyond the classroom. For protection from stigma and lowered expectations, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining protection from stigma and lowered expectations, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on protection from stigma and lowered expectations, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-14] [REF-15] [REF-22]

Part II

Language and early literacy

7

Language of instruction and learner repertoire

Language of instruction and learner repertoire frames a bounded question within the language context. For language of instruction and learner repertoire, the relevant population is multilingual learners beginning literacy, and the evidence concerns oral comprehension and language exposure. In examining language of instruction and learner repertoire, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on language of instruction and learner repertoire, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-04] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The central danger is that limited familiarity with the assessment language is called a general learning weakness. In examining language of instruction and learner repertoire, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on language of instruction and learner repertoire, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning language of instruction and learner repertoire, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-04] [REF-13] [REF-17]

The recommended action is to document languages used, exposure and available support. Within evidence on language of instruction and learner repertoire, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning language of instruction and learner repertoire, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on language of instruction and learner repertoire, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Evidence concerning oral comprehension and language exposure should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning language of instruction and learner repertoire, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on language of instruction and learner repertoire, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about language of instruction and learner repertoire, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-04] [REF-31]

Equity is integral to language of instruction and learner repertoire. In follow-up on language of instruction and learner repertoire, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about language of instruction and learner repertoire, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For language of instruction and learner repertoire, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached multilingual learners beginning literacy and whether oral comprehension and language exposure changed in a related setting. For decisions about language of instruction and learner repertoire, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For language of instruction and learner repertoire, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining language of instruction and learner repertoire, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-04] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Institutional accountability for language of instruction and learner repertoire extends beyond the classroom. For language of instruction and learner repertoire, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining language of instruction and learner repertoire, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on language of instruction and learner repertoire, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

8

Print concepts and access to text

Print concepts and access to text frames a bounded question within the print access. For print concepts and access to text, the relevant population is early readers with varied home and school access to books, and the evidence concerns orientation, symbol awareness and material availability. In examining print concepts and access to text, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on print concepts and access to text, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central danger is that unfamiliarity with print conventions is attributed solely to the child. In examining print concepts and access to text, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on print concepts and access to text, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning print concepts and access to text, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-29]

The recommended action is to examine accessible materials and explicit teaching before attribution. Within evidence on print concepts and access to text, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning print concepts and access to text, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on print concepts and access to text, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning orientation, symbol awareness and material availability should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning print concepts and access to text, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on print concepts and access to text, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about print concepts and access to text, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-03] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to print concepts and access to text. In follow-up on print concepts and access to text, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about print concepts and access to text, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For print concepts and access to text, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached early readers with varied home and school access to books and whether orientation, symbol awareness and material availability changed in a related setting. For decisions about print concepts and access to text, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For print concepts and access to text, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining print concepts and access to text, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for print concepts and access to text extends beyond the classroom. For print concepts and access to text, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining print concepts and access to text, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on print concepts and access to text, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-30]

9

Decoding and sound-symbol knowledge

Decoding and sound-symbol knowledge frames a bounded question within the decoding evidence. For decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, the relevant population is learners beginning to recognise written words, and the evidence concerns accuracy, strategy and error pattern. In examining decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central danger is that a speed total hides how words are approached. In examining decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The recommended action is to use varied items and inspect attempts, not only totals. Within evidence on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning accuracy, strategy and error pattern should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-02] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to decoding and sound-symbol knowledge. In follow-up on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners beginning to recognise written words and whether accuracy, strategy and error pattern changed in a related setting. For decisions about decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for decoding and sound-symbol knowledge extends beyond the classroom. For decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on decoding and sound-symbol knowledge, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

10

Fluency without speed as the sole aim

Fluency without speed as the sole aim frames a bounded question within the reading fluency. For fluency without speed as the sole aim, the relevant population is learners developing accurate and meaningful reading, and the evidence concerns accuracy, phrasing, rate and understanding. In examining fluency without speed as the sole aim, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on fluency without speed as the sole aim, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central danger is that faster oral reading is treated as complete literacy progress. In examining fluency without speed as the sole aim, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on fluency without speed as the sole aim, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning fluency without speed as the sole aim, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-29]

The recommended action is to interpret pace with accuracy, expression and comprehension. Within evidence on fluency without speed as the sole aim, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning fluency without speed as the sole aim, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on fluency without speed as the sole aim, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning accuracy, phrasing, rate and understanding should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning fluency without speed as the sole aim, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on fluency without speed as the sole aim, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about fluency without speed as the sole aim, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to fluency without speed as the sole aim. In follow-up on fluency without speed as the sole aim, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about fluency without speed as the sole aim, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For fluency without speed as the sole aim, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners developing accurate and meaningful reading and whether accuracy, phrasing, rate and understanding changed in a related setting. For decisions about fluency without speed as the sole aim, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For fluency without speed as the sole aim, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining fluency without speed as the sole aim, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for fluency without speed as the sole aim extends beyond the classroom. For fluency without speed as the sole aim, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining fluency without speed as the sole aim, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on fluency without speed as the sole aim, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-29] [REF-30]

11

Vocabulary and comprehension

Vocabulary and comprehension frames a bounded question within the meaning construction. For vocabulary and comprehension, the relevant population is learners understanding spoken and written texts, and the evidence concerns literal, inferential and vocabulary evidence. In examining vocabulary and comprehension, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on vocabulary and comprehension, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-04] [REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-29]

The central danger is that decoding success is treated as understanding or unfamiliar context distorts comprehension. In examining vocabulary and comprehension, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on vocabulary and comprehension, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning vocabulary and comprehension, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-04] [REF-12] [REF-13]

The recommended action is to use culturally accessible texts and varied questions. Within evidence on vocabulary and comprehension, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning vocabulary and comprehension, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on vocabulary and comprehension, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning literal, inferential and vocabulary evidence should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning vocabulary and comprehension, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on vocabulary and comprehension, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about vocabulary and comprehension, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-04] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to vocabulary and comprehension. In follow-up on vocabulary and comprehension, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about vocabulary and comprehension, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For vocabulary and comprehension, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners understanding spoken and written texts and whether literal, inferential and vocabulary evidence changed in a related setting. For decisions about vocabulary and comprehension, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For vocabulary and comprehension, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining vocabulary and comprehension, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-04] [REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for vocabulary and comprehension extends beyond the classroom. For vocabulary and comprehension, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining vocabulary and comprehension, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on vocabulary and comprehension, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-13] [REF-29]

12

Writing as complementary literacy evidence

Writing as complementary literacy evidence frames a bounded question within the written expression. For writing as complementary literacy evidence, the relevant population is learners representing language in marks, words and sentences, and the evidence concerns message, transcription and composition. In examining writing as complementary literacy evidence, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on writing as complementary literacy evidence, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that reading-only evidence hides important language and transcription needs. In examining writing as complementary literacy evidence, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on writing as complementary literacy evidence, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning writing as complementary literacy evidence, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to review authentic writing and provide focused teaching. Within evidence on writing as complementary literacy evidence, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning writing as complementary literacy evidence, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on writing as complementary literacy evidence, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning message, transcription and composition should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning writing as complementary literacy evidence, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on writing as complementary literacy evidence, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about writing as complementary literacy evidence, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to writing as complementary literacy evidence. In follow-up on writing as complementary literacy evidence, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about writing as complementary literacy evidence, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For writing as complementary literacy evidence, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners representing language in marks, words and sentences and whether message, transcription and composition changed in a related setting. For decisions about writing as complementary literacy evidence, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For writing as complementary literacy evidence, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining writing as complementary literacy evidence, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for writing as complementary literacy evidence extends beyond the classroom. For writing as complementary literacy evidence, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining writing as complementary literacy evidence, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on writing as complementary literacy evidence, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Part III

Early mathematical understanding

13

Counting and cardinal understanding

Counting and cardinal understanding frames a bounded question within the number foundation. For counting and cardinal understanding, the relevant population is learners connecting number words, objects and symbols, and the evidence concerns stable count and quantity meaning. In examining counting and cardinal understanding, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on counting and cardinal understanding, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The central danger is that recitation is treated as understanding quantity. In examining counting and cardinal understanding, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on counting and cardinal understanding, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning counting and cardinal understanding, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The recommended action is to use objects, varied arrangements and explanation. Within evidence on counting and cardinal understanding, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning counting and cardinal understanding, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on counting and cardinal understanding, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning stable count and quantity meaning should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning counting and cardinal understanding, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on counting and cardinal understanding, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about counting and cardinal understanding, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to counting and cardinal understanding. In follow-up on counting and cardinal understanding, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about counting and cardinal understanding, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For counting and cardinal understanding, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners connecting number words, objects and symbols and whether stable count and quantity meaning changed in a related setting. For decisions about counting and cardinal understanding, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For counting and cardinal understanding, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining counting and cardinal understanding, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for counting and cardinal understanding extends beyond the classroom. For counting and cardinal understanding, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining counting and cardinal understanding, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on counting and cardinal understanding, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

14

Magnitude and number relations

Magnitude and number relations frames a bounded question within the number comparison. For magnitude and number relations, the relevant population is learners ordering and decomposing quantities, and the evidence concerns relative size, composition and representation. In examining magnitude and number relations, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on magnitude and number relations, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central danger is that memorised symbols hide weak quantity relations. In examining magnitude and number relations, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on magnitude and number relations, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning magnitude and number relations, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The recommended action is to ask for comparison, representation and justification. Within evidence on magnitude and number relations, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning magnitude and number relations, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on magnitude and number relations, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning relative size, composition and representation should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning magnitude and number relations, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on magnitude and number relations, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about magnitude and number relations, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-02] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to magnitude and number relations. In follow-up on magnitude and number relations, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about magnitude and number relations, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For magnitude and number relations, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners ordering and decomposing quantities and whether relative size, composition and representation changed in a related setting. For decisions about magnitude and number relations, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For magnitude and number relations, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining magnitude and number relations, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for magnitude and number relations extends beyond the classroom. For magnitude and number relations, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining magnitude and number relations, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on magnitude and number relations, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

15

Addition and subtraction strategies

Addition and subtraction strategies frames a bounded question within the operation strategy. For addition and subtraction strategies, the relevant population is learners solving early additive situations, and the evidence concerns method, efficiency and conceptual relation. In examining addition and subtraction strategies, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on addition and subtraction strategies, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that answer totals conceal counting dependence or misunderstood operation. In examining addition and subtraction strategies, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on addition and subtraction strategies, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning addition and subtraction strategies, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to observe strategy across contextual and symbolic tasks. Within evidence on addition and subtraction strategies, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning addition and subtraction strategies, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on addition and subtraction strategies, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning method, efficiency and conceptual relation should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning addition and subtraction strategies, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on addition and subtraction strategies, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about addition and subtraction strategies, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to addition and subtraction strategies. In follow-up on addition and subtraction strategies, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about addition and subtraction strategies, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For addition and subtraction strategies, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners solving early additive situations and whether method, efficiency and conceptual relation changed in a related setting. For decisions about addition and subtraction strategies, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For addition and subtraction strategies, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining addition and subtraction strategies, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for addition and subtraction strategies extends beyond the classroom. For addition and subtraction strategies, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining addition and subtraction strategies, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on addition and subtraction strategies, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

16

Place value and base-ten representation

Place value and base-ten representation frames a bounded question within the place-value understanding. For place value and base-ten representation, the relevant population is learners working with multi-digit numbers, and the evidence concerns grouping, exchange and notation. In examining place value and base-ten representation, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on place value and base-ten representation, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The central danger is that procedural success masks misunderstanding of digit value. In examining place value and base-ten representation, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on place value and base-ten representation, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning place value and base-ten representation, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The recommended action is to use manipulatives, drawings and explanation with notation. Within evidence on place value and base-ten representation, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning place value and base-ten representation, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on place value and base-ten representation, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning grouping, exchange and notation should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning place value and base-ten representation, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on place value and base-ten representation, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about place value and base-ten representation, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to place value and base-ten representation. In follow-up on place value and base-ten representation, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about place value and base-ten representation, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For place value and base-ten representation, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners working with multi-digit numbers and whether grouping, exchange and notation changed in a related setting. For decisions about place value and base-ten representation, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For place value and base-ten representation, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining place value and base-ten representation, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for place value and base-ten representation extends beyond the classroom. For place value and base-ten representation, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining place value and base-ten representation, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on place value and base-ten representation, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-17] [REF-29]

17

Mathematical language and task access

Mathematical language and task access frames a bounded question within the mathematics language. For mathematical language and task access, the relevant population is multilingual learners interpreting mathematical questions, and the evidence concerns concept knowledge and linguistic demand. In examining mathematical language and task access, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on mathematical language and task access, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The central danger is that wording difficulty is attributed to mathematical weakness. In examining mathematical language and task access, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on mathematical language and task access, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning mathematical language and task access, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-17]

The recommended action is to vary representation and separate language from concept evidence. Within evidence on mathematical language and task access, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning mathematical language and task access, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on mathematical language and task access, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Evidence concerning concept knowledge and linguistic demand should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning mathematical language and task access, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on mathematical language and task access, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about mathematical language and task access, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-10] [REF-31]

Equity is integral to mathematical language and task access. In follow-up on mathematical language and task access, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about mathematical language and task access, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For mathematical language and task access, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached multilingual learners interpreting mathematical questions and whether concept knowledge and linguistic demand changed in a related setting. For decisions about mathematical language and task access, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For mathematical language and task access, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining mathematical language and task access, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-10] [REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

Institutional accountability for mathematical language and task access extends beyond the classroom. For mathematical language and task access, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining mathematical language and task access, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on mathematical language and task access, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-31]

18

Reasoning, explanation and productive error

Reasoning, explanation and productive error frames a bounded question within the mathematical reasoning. For reasoning, explanation and productive error, the relevant population is learners communicating how they reached an answer, and the evidence concerns strategy, justification and revision. In examining reasoning, explanation and productive error, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on reasoning, explanation and productive error, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that only correct final responses count as evidence. In examining reasoning, explanation and productive error, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on reasoning, explanation and productive error, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning reasoning, explanation and productive error, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to treat explanation and revised thinking as instructional information. Within evidence on reasoning, explanation and productive error, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning reasoning, explanation and productive error, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on reasoning, explanation and productive error, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning strategy, justification and revision should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning reasoning, explanation and productive error, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on reasoning, explanation and productive error, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about reasoning, explanation and productive error, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-02] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to reasoning, explanation and productive error. In follow-up on reasoning, explanation and productive error, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about reasoning, explanation and productive error, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For reasoning, explanation and productive error, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners communicating how they reached an answer and whether strategy, justification and revision changed in a related setting. For decisions about reasoning, explanation and productive error, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For reasoning, explanation and productive error, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining reasoning, explanation and productive error, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for reasoning, explanation and productive error extends beyond the classroom. For reasoning, explanation and productive error, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining reasoning, explanation and productive error, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on reasoning, explanation and productive error, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Part IV

Turning evidence into changed teaching

19

A specific instructional hypothesis

A specific instructional hypothesis frames a bounded question within the teaching hypothesis. For a specific instructional hypothesis, the relevant population is teachers selecting a response to observed difficulty, and the evidence concerns need, response and expected near-term change. In examining a specific instructional hypothesis, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on a specific instructional hypothesis, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that a vague low-performance label leads to generic repetition. In examining a specific instructional hypothesis, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on a specific instructional hypothesis, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning a specific instructional hypothesis, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to state the likely barrier and a focused teaching response. Within evidence on a specific instructional hypothesis, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning a specific instructional hypothesis, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on a specific instructional hypothesis, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning need, response and expected near-term change should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning a specific instructional hypothesis, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on a specific instructional hypothesis, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about a specific instructional hypothesis, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to a specific instructional hypothesis. In follow-up on a specific instructional hypothesis, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about a specific instructional hypothesis, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For a specific instructional hypothesis, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached teachers selecting a response to observed difficulty and whether need, response and expected near-term change changed in a related setting. For decisions about a specific instructional hypothesis, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For a specific instructional hypothesis, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining a specific instructional hypothesis, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for a specific instructional hypothesis extends beyond the classroom. For a specific instructional hypothesis, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining a specific instructional hypothesis, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on a specific instructional hypothesis, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

20

Flexible grouping without fixed tracks

Flexible grouping without fixed tracks frames a bounded question within the instructional grouping. For flexible grouping without fixed tracks, the relevant population is learners needing different support at different times, and the evidence concerns current need and movement between groups. In examining flexible grouping without fixed tracks, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-16] [REF-22]

The central danger is that temporary groups harden into permanent lower-expectation tracks. In examining flexible grouping without fixed tracks, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning flexible grouping without fixed tracks, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-16]

The recommended action is to use narrow purposes, frequent review and common curriculum access. Within evidence on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning flexible grouping without fixed tracks, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-10] [REF-16] [REF-22]

Evidence concerning current need and movement between groups should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning flexible grouping without fixed tracks, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about flexible grouping without fixed tracks, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-03] [REF-22]

Equity is integral to flexible grouping without fixed tracks. In follow-up on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about flexible grouping without fixed tracks, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For flexible grouping without fixed tracks, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-10] [REF-16] [REF-22]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners needing different support at different times and whether current need and movement between groups changed in a related setting. For decisions about flexible grouping without fixed tracks, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For flexible grouping without fixed tracks, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining flexible grouping without fixed tracks, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-16] [REF-22]

Institutional accountability for flexible grouping without fixed tracks extends beyond the classroom. For flexible grouping without fixed tracks, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining flexible grouping without fixed tracks, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on flexible grouping without fixed tracks, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-10] [REF-16] [REF-22]

21

Additional time and teaching dosage

Additional time and teaching dosage frames a bounded question within the supplementary support. For additional time and teaching dosage, the relevant population is learners requiring more guided practice, and the evidence concerns frequency, duration and learner receipt. In examining additional time and teaching dosage, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on additional time and teaching dosage, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-23] [REF-29]

The central danger is that a support programme is counted although learners receive little time. In examining additional time and teaching dosage, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on additional time and teaching dosage, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning additional time and teaching dosage, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-23]

The recommended action is to record actual attendance, teaching and missed sessions. Within evidence on additional time and teaching dosage, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning additional time and teaching dosage, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on additional time and teaching dosage, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-23] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning frequency, duration and learner receipt should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning additional time and teaching dosage, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on additional time and teaching dosage, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about additional time and teaching dosage, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-05] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to additional time and teaching dosage. In follow-up on additional time and teaching dosage, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about additional time and teaching dosage, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For additional time and teaching dosage, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-23] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners requiring more guided practice and whether frequency, duration and learner receipt changed in a related setting. For decisions about additional time and teaching dosage, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For additional time and teaching dosage, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining additional time and teaching dosage, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-23] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for additional time and teaching dosage extends beyond the classroom. For additional time and teaching dosage, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining additional time and teaching dosage, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on additional time and teaching dosage, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-23] [REF-29]

22

Accessible and language-responsive materials

Accessible and language-responsive materials frames a bounded question within the instructional materials. For accessible and language-responsive materials, the relevant population is learners requiring suitable language or format, and the evidence concerns availability, accessibility and actual use. In examining accessible and language-responsive materials, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on accessible and language-responsive materials, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-31]

The central danger is that procurement stands for learner access or materials mismatch instruction. In examining accessible and language-responsive materials, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on accessible and language-responsive materials, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning accessible and language-responsive materials, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-15]

The recommended action is to verify timely receipt, suitability and use in lessons. Within evidence on accessible and language-responsive materials, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning accessible and language-responsive materials, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on accessible and language-responsive materials, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-31]

Evidence concerning availability, accessibility and actual use should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning accessible and language-responsive materials, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on accessible and language-responsive materials, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about accessible and language-responsive materials, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-11] [REF-31]

Equity is integral to accessible and language-responsive materials. In follow-up on accessible and language-responsive materials, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about accessible and language-responsive materials, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For accessible and language-responsive materials, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-31]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners requiring suitable language or format and whether availability, accessibility and actual use changed in a related setting. For decisions about accessible and language-responsive materials, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For accessible and language-responsive materials, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining accessible and language-responsive materials, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-11] [REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-31]

Institutional accountability for accessible and language-responsive materials extends beyond the classroom. For accessible and language-responsive materials, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining accessible and language-responsive materials, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on accessible and language-responsive materials, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-13] [REF-15] [REF-31]

23

Feedback that guides the next attempt

Feedback that guides the next attempt frames a bounded question within the learner feedback. For feedback that guides the next attempt, the relevant population is young learners revising work and strategies, and the evidence concerns specific information and opportunity to act. In examining feedback that guides the next attempt, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on feedback that guides the next attempt, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

The central danger is that marks or praise replace guidance about the task. In examining feedback that guides the next attempt, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on feedback that guides the next attempt, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning feedback that guides the next attempt, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-12]

The recommended action is to give understandable feedback and time for a changed attempt. Within evidence on feedback that guides the next attempt, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning feedback that guides the next attempt, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on feedback that guides the next attempt, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

Evidence concerning specific information and opportunity to act should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning feedback that guides the next attempt, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on feedback that guides the next attempt, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about feedback that guides the next attempt, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to feedback that guides the next attempt. In follow-up on feedback that guides the next attempt, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about feedback that guides the next attempt, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For feedback that guides the next attempt, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached young learners revising work and strategies and whether specific information and opportunity to act changed in a related setting. For decisions about feedback that guides the next attempt, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For feedback that guides the next attempt, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining feedback that guides the next attempt, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

Institutional accountability for feedback that guides the next attempt extends beyond the classroom. For feedback that guides the next attempt, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining feedback that guides the next attempt, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on feedback that guides the next attempt, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-24]

24

Teacher collaboration and sustained support

Teacher collaboration and sustained support frames a bounded question within the professional support. For teacher collaboration and sustained support, the relevant population is teachers interpreting evidence and adapting lessons, and the evidence concerns shared judgement, planning and classroom follow-through. In examining teacher collaboration and sustained support, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on teacher collaboration and sustained support, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-16] [REF-18] [REF-24] [REF-28]

The central danger is that one-off training or compliance paperwork substitutes for teaching support. In examining teacher collaboration and sustained support, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on teacher collaboration and sustained support, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning teacher collaboration and sustained support, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-16] [REF-18] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to provide coaching, shared examples and protected collaborative time. Within evidence on teacher collaboration and sustained support, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning teacher collaboration and sustained support, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on teacher collaboration and sustained support, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-18] [REF-24] [REF-28]

Evidence concerning shared judgement, planning and classroom follow-through should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning teacher collaboration and sustained support, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on teacher collaboration and sustained support, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about teacher collaboration and sustained support, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-16] [REF-28]

Equity is integral to teacher collaboration and sustained support. In follow-up on teacher collaboration and sustained support, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about teacher collaboration and sustained support, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For teacher collaboration and sustained support, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-18] [REF-24] [REF-28]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached teachers interpreting evidence and adapting lessons and whether shared judgement, planning and classroom follow-through changed in a related setting. For decisions about teacher collaboration and sustained support, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For teacher collaboration and sustained support, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining teacher collaboration and sustained support, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-16] [REF-18] [REF-24] [REF-28]

Institutional accountability for teacher collaboration and sustained support extends beyond the classroom. For teacher collaboration and sustained support, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining teacher collaboration and sustained support, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on teacher collaboration and sustained support, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-18] [REF-24] [REF-28]

Part V

Follow-up and evidence of improvement

25

Confirming learner receipt of support

Confirming learner receipt of support frames a bounded question within the delivery evidence. For confirming learner receipt of support, the relevant population is learners assigned additional or adapted teaching, and the evidence concerns attendance, dosage and content received. In examining confirming learner receipt of support, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on confirming learner receipt of support, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that an intervention is judged despite non-delivery or irregular attendance. In examining confirming learner receipt of support, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on confirming learner receipt of support, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning confirming learner receipt of support, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to verify receipt before interpreting later learning evidence. Within evidence on confirming learner receipt of support, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning confirming learner receipt of support, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on confirming learner receipt of support, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning attendance, dosage and content received should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning confirming learner receipt of support, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on confirming learner receipt of support, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about confirming learner receipt of support, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-05] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to confirming learner receipt of support. In follow-up on confirming learner receipt of support, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about confirming learner receipt of support, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For confirming learner receipt of support, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners assigned additional or adapted teaching and whether attendance, dosage and content received changed in a related setting. For decisions about confirming learner receipt of support, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For confirming learner receipt of support, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining confirming learner receipt of support, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for confirming learner receipt of support extends beyond the classroom. For confirming learner receipt of support, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining confirming learner receipt of support, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on confirming learner receipt of support, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-29]

26

Using a related but not identical task

Using a related but not identical task frames a bounded question within the near transfer. For using a related but not identical task, the relevant population is learners demonstrating understanding beyond rehearsal, and the evidence concerns application to a new item or context. In examining using a related but not identical task, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on using a related but not identical task, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central danger is that memory of the diagnostic item is called learning. In examining using a related but not identical task, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on using a related but not identical task, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning using a related but not identical task, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29]

The recommended action is to vary surface features while preserving the intended construct. Within evidence on using a related but not identical task, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning using a related but not identical task, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on using a related but not identical task, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning application to a new item or context should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning using a related but not identical task, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on using a related but not identical task, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about using a related but not identical task, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-02] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to using a related but not identical task. In follow-up on using a related but not identical task, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about using a related but not identical task, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For using a related but not identical task, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners demonstrating understanding beyond rehearsal and whether application to a new item or context changed in a related setting. For decisions about using a related but not identical task, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For using a related but not identical task, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining using a related but not identical task, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-02] [REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for using a related but not identical task extends beyond the classroom. For using a related but not identical task, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining using a related but not identical task, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on using a related but not identical task, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-17] [REF-29] [REF-30]

27

Short-cycle review and longer retention

Short-cycle review and longer retention frames a bounded question within the temporal follow-up. For short-cycle review and longer retention, the relevant population is learners showing an immediate and durable change, and the evidence concerns near-term response and later retention. In examining short-cycle review and longer retention, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on short-cycle review and longer retention, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The central danger is that a single immediate gain stands for secure learning. In examining short-cycle review and longer retention, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on short-cycle review and longer retention, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning short-cycle review and longer retention, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The recommended action is to review promptly and revisit after further teaching. Within evidence on short-cycle review and longer retention, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning short-cycle review and longer retention, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on short-cycle review and longer retention, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning near-term response and later retention should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning short-cycle review and longer retention, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on short-cycle review and longer retention, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about short-cycle review and longer retention, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to short-cycle review and longer retention. In follow-up on short-cycle review and longer retention, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about short-cycle review and longer retention, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For short-cycle review and longer retention, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners showing an immediate and durable change and whether near-term response and later retention changed in a related setting. For decisions about short-cycle review and longer retention, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For short-cycle review and longer retention, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining short-cycle review and longer retention, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for short-cycle review and longer retention extends beyond the classroom. For short-cycle review and longer retention, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining short-cycle review and longer retention, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on short-cycle review and longer retention, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-29]

28

Documenting changed strategy as well as score

Documenting changed strategy as well as score frames a bounded question within the qualitative progress. For documenting changed strategy as well as score, the relevant population is learners adopting more secure or efficient approaches, and the evidence concerns reasoning, independence and accuracy. In examining documenting changed strategy as well as score, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on documenting changed strategy as well as score, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

The central danger is that score change alone obscures how understanding developed. In examining documenting changed strategy as well as score, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on documenting changed strategy as well as score, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning documenting changed strategy as well as score, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-12]

The recommended action is to retain concise work samples and teacher observations. Within evidence on documenting changed strategy as well as score, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning documenting changed strategy as well as score, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on documenting changed strategy as well as score, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Evidence concerning reasoning, independence and accuracy should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning documenting changed strategy as well as score, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on documenting changed strategy as well as score, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about documenting changed strategy as well as score, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-17]

Equity is integral to documenting changed strategy as well as score. In follow-up on documenting changed strategy as well as score, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about documenting changed strategy as well as score, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For documenting changed strategy as well as score, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners adopting more secure or efficient approaches and whether reasoning, independence and accuracy changed in a related setting. For decisions about documenting changed strategy as well as score, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For documenting changed strategy as well as score, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining documenting changed strategy as well as score, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

Institutional accountability for documenting changed strategy as well as score extends beyond the classroom. For documenting changed strategy as well as score, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining documenting changed strategy as well as score, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on documenting changed strategy as well as score, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-09] [REF-12] [REF-17]

29

Escalating support when improvement is limited

Escalating support when improvement is limited frames a bounded question within the graduated response. For escalating support when improvement is limited, the relevant population is learners not benefiting from the first adjustment, and the evidence concerns delivery, fit and remaining barrier. In examining escalating support when improvement is limited, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on escalating support when improvement is limited, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-22] [REF-29]

The central danger is that the learner is blamed or repeatedly given the same ineffective activity. In examining escalating support when improvement is limited, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on escalating support when improvement is limited, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning escalating support when improvement is limited, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-22]

The recommended action is to verify delivery, reconsider the hypothesis and obtain specialist support where needed. Within evidence on escalating support when improvement is limited, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning escalating support when improvement is limited, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on escalating support when improvement is limited, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-15] [REF-22] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning delivery, fit and remaining barrier should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning escalating support when improvement is limited, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on escalating support when improvement is limited, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about escalating support when improvement is limited, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-10] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to escalating support when improvement is limited. In follow-up on escalating support when improvement is limited, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about escalating support when improvement is limited, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For escalating support when improvement is limited, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-15] [REF-22] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners not benefiting from the first adjustment and whether delivery, fit and remaining barrier changed in a related setting. For decisions about escalating support when improvement is limited, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For escalating support when improvement is limited, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining escalating support when improvement is limited, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-10] [REF-15] [REF-22] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for escalating support when improvement is limited extends beyond the classroom. For escalating support when improvement is limited, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining escalating support when improvement is limited, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on escalating support when improvement is limited, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-15] [REF-22] [REF-29]

30

Ending support without withdrawing vigilance

Ending support without withdrawing vigilance frames a bounded question within the support exit. For ending support without withdrawing vigilance, the relevant population is learners meeting the defined instructional condition, and the evidence concerns sustained independent performance. In examining ending support without withdrawing vigilance, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-16] [REF-24]

The central danger is that support continues as stigma or ends after one successful task. In examining ending support without withdrawing vigilance, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning ending support without withdrawing vigilance, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-16]

The recommended action is to use explicit exit evidence and ordinary classroom monitoring. Within evidence on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning ending support without withdrawing vigilance, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-12] [REF-16] [REF-24]

Evidence concerning sustained independent performance should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning ending support without withdrawing vigilance, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about ending support without withdrawing vigilance, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-01] [REF-24]

Equity is integral to ending support without withdrawing vigilance. In follow-up on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about ending support without withdrawing vigilance, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For ending support without withdrawing vigilance, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-12] [REF-16] [REF-24]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners meeting the defined instructional condition and whether sustained independent performance changed in a related setting. For decisions about ending support without withdrawing vigilance, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For ending support without withdrawing vigilance, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining ending support without withdrawing vigilance, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-01] [REF-12] [REF-16] [REF-24]

Institutional accountability for ending support without withdrawing vigilance extends beyond the classroom. For ending support without withdrawing vigilance, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining ending support without withdrawing vigilance, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on ending support without withdrawing vigilance, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-12] [REF-16] [REF-24]

Part VI

Equity, institutional capacity and public accountability

31

Prioritising learners least visible in evidence

Prioritising learners least visible in evidence frames a bounded question within the equity priority. For prioritising learners least visible in evidence, the relevant population is children outside stable registers or assessment participation, and the evidence concerns visibility, need and service contact. In examining prioritising learners least visible in evidence, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-30]

The central danger is that improvement resources follow the easiest measured learners. In examining prioritising learners least visible in evidence, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning prioritising learners least visible in evidence, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-08]

The recommended action is to use community, household and school evidence to find omitted children. Within evidence on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning prioritising learners least visible in evidence, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-30]

Evidence concerning visibility, need and service contact should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning prioritising learners least visible in evidence, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about prioritising learners least visible in evidence, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-04] [REF-30]

Equity is integral to prioritising learners least visible in evidence. In follow-up on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about prioritising learners least visible in evidence, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For prioritising learners least visible in evidence, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-30]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached children outside stable registers or assessment participation and whether visibility, need and service contact changed in a related setting. For decisions about prioritising learners least visible in evidence, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For prioritising learners least visible in evidence, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining prioritising learners least visible in evidence, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-30]

Institutional accountability for prioritising learners least visible in evidence extends beyond the classroom. For prioritising learners least visible in evidence, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining prioritising learners least visible in evidence, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on prioritising learners least visible in evidence, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-30]

32

Disability and reasonable accommodation

Disability and reasonable accommodation frames a bounded question within the inclusive diagnosis. For disability and reasonable accommodation, the relevant population is learners with functional difficulties and diverse communication, and the evidence concerns accessible participation and support need. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-21]

The central danger is that inaccessible tasks create apparent learning deficits. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning disability and reasonable accommodation, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15]

The recommended action is to provide accommodations and interpret evidence with functional context. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning disability and reasonable accommodation, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on disability and reasonable accommodation, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-21]

Evidence concerning accessible participation and support need should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning disability and reasonable accommodation, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on disability and reasonable accommodation, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-10] [REF-21]

Equity is integral to disability and reasonable accommodation. In follow-up on disability and reasonable accommodation, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For disability and reasonable accommodation, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-21]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners with functional difficulties and diverse communication and whether accessible participation and support need changed in a related setting. For decisions about disability and reasonable accommodation, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For disability and reasonable accommodation, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-21]

Institutional accountability for disability and reasonable accommodation extends beyond the classroom. For disability and reasonable accommodation, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining disability and reasonable accommodation, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on disability and reasonable accommodation, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-21]

33

Poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance

Poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance frames a bounded question within the contextual barrier. For poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, the relevant population is learners facing material, geographic and attendance barriers, and the evidence concerns opportunity, continuity and current understanding. In examining poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-28] [REF-29]

The central danger is that context is ignored or used to lower the learning expectation. In examining poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-28]

The recommended action is to correct service barriers and maintain the common entitlement. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-04] [REF-28] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning opportunity, continuity and current understanding should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-03] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance. In follow-up on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-04] [REF-28] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached learners facing material, geographic and attendance barriers and whether opportunity, continuity and current understanding changed in a related setting. For decisions about poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-03] [REF-04] [REF-28] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance extends beyond the classroom. For poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on poverty, remoteness and interrupted attendance, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-04] [REF-28] [REF-29]

34

Refugee and displaced learners

Refugee and displaced learners frames a bounded question within the continuity support. For refugee and displaced learners, the relevant population is children entering with interrupted or undocumented prior education, and the evidence concerns language, prior learning and current placement. In examining refugee and displaced learners, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on refugee and displaced learners, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-32] [REF-29]

The central danger is that age-based placement alone overlooks learning and exposure history. In examining refugee and displaced learners, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on refugee and displaced learners, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning refugee and displaced learners, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-32]

The recommended action is to use respectful diagnosis, recognition and flexible additional support. Within evidence on refugee and displaced learners, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning refugee and displaced learners, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on refugee and displaced learners, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-31] [REF-32] [REF-29]

Evidence concerning language, prior learning and current placement should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning refugee and displaced learners, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on refugee and displaced learners, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about refugee and displaced learners, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-13] [REF-29]

Equity is integral to refugee and displaced learners. In follow-up on refugee and displaced learners, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about refugee and displaced learners, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For refugee and displaced learners, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-31] [REF-32] [REF-29]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached children entering with interrupted or undocumented prior education and whether language, prior learning and current placement changed in a related setting. For decisions about refugee and displaced learners, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For refugee and displaced learners, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining refugee and displaced learners, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-32] [REF-29]

Institutional accountability for refugee and displaced learners extends beyond the classroom. For refugee and displaced learners, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining refugee and displaced learners, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on refugee and displaced learners, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-31] [REF-32] [REF-29]

35

Proportionate records and confidentiality

Proportionate records and confidentiality frames a bounded question within the information protection. For proportionate records and confidentiality, the relevant population is young learners whose diagnostic evidence is recorded, and the evidence concerns instructional usefulness, access and retention. In examining proportionate records and confidentiality, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on proportionate records and confidentiality, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The central danger is that detailed personal evidence circulates beyond its educational purpose. In examining proportionate records and confidentiality, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on proportionate records and confidentiality, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning proportionate records and confidentiality, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20]

The recommended action is to limit access, retain only useful records and protect correction rights. Within evidence on proportionate records and confidentiality, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning proportionate records and confidentiality, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on proportionate records and confidentiality, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Evidence concerning instructional usefulness, access and retention should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning proportionate records and confidentiality, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on proportionate records and confidentiality, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about proportionate records and confidentiality, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-09] [REF-21]

Equity is integral to proportionate records and confidentiality. In follow-up on proportionate records and confidentiality, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about proportionate records and confidentiality, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For proportionate records and confidentiality, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached young learners whose diagnostic evidence is recorded and whether instructional usefulness, access and retention changed in a related setting. For decisions about proportionate records and confidentiality, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For proportionate records and confidentiality, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining proportionate records and confidentiality, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Institutional accountability for proportionate records and confidentiality extends beyond the classroom. For proportionate records and confidentiality, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining proportionate records and confidentiality, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on proportionate records and confidentiality, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-21]

36

Reporting system support and learner benefit

Reporting system support and learner benefit frames a bounded question within the public accountability. For reporting system support and learner benefit, the relevant population is authorities funding early-grade improvement, and the evidence concerns resources, teacher support, learner reach and educational change. In examining reporting system support and learner benefit, teachers should identify the immediate instructional decision before selecting a task or record. Within evidence on reporting system support and learner benefit, the evidence should be close enough to the taught content to guide the next lesson and broad enough to distinguish a chance response from an emerging pattern.[REF-18] [REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-27]

The central danger is that test counts or training totals are reported as improved learning. In examining reporting system support and learner benefit, that interpretation can waste teaching time, lower expectations or conceal a barrier controlled by the institution. Within evidence on reporting system support and learner benefit, review should ask what was taught, in which language and format, under what attendance and support conditions, and how the learner approached the task. For teaching concerning reporting system support and learner benefit, an error is information only when its context and likely meaning are examined.[REF-18] [REF-25] [REF-26]

The recommended action is to publish delivery and distribution with bounded learning evidence. Within evidence on reporting system support and learner benefit, it should name the intended learner, the teaching change, frequency, duration, responsible person and near-term evidence. For teaching concerning reporting system support and learner benefit, additional activity should not remove access to the common curriculum. In follow-up on reporting system support and learner benefit, where several explanations remain plausible, the least harmful response should be tried and reviewed before a fixed category is assigned.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Evidence concerning resources, teacher support, learner reach and educational change should come from more than one occasion or form where the consequence is material. For teaching concerning reporting system support and learner benefit, a work sample, learner explanation, observation or related task can confirm or qualify a brief check. In follow-up on reporting system support and learner benefit, disagreement is useful: it may show task unfamiliarity, language demand, uneven knowledge or fluctuating attendance. For decisions about reporting system support and learner benefit, teachers need concise records that preserve this instructional meaning.[REF-18] [REF-27]

Equity is integral to reporting system support and learner benefit. In follow-up on reporting system support and learner benefit, learners experiencing poverty, remoteness, disability, migration or interrupted education may have different opportunities to demonstrate the same understanding. For decisions about reporting system support and learner benefit, accessible tasks and contextual evidence should remove irrelevant barriers without lowering the intended learning expectation. For reporting system support and learner benefit, counts and learner receipt should remain visible so support does not concentrate only on children easiest to observe.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Follow-up should ask whether the selected teaching reached authorities funding early-grade improvement and whether resources, teacher support, learner reach and educational change changed in a related setting. For decisions about reporting system support and learner benefit, delivery, immediate response and retained learning are separate findings. For reporting system support and learner benefit, a later score should not be attributed to the intervention without evidence of exposure and plausible relation. In examining reporting system support and learner benefit, when the first response does not help, the hypothesis, dosage, accessibility and system conditions should be reconsidered.[REF-18] [REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-27]

Institutional accountability for reporting system support and learner benefit extends beyond the classroom. For reporting system support and learner benefit, leaders and authorities may control time, staffing, materials, specialist support and professional learning. In examining reporting system support and learner benefit, they should remove barriers, protect teacher time and review unequal reach. Within evidence on reporting system support and learner benefit, public claims should concern learner benefit and service conditions rather than the number of tests, meetings or purchased materials.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-27]

References

REF-01
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. General Education Quality Analysis and Diagnosis Framework. 2012.
Systemic analysis of education quality, inputs, teaching, learning and outcomes.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217520
REF-02
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4. 2014.
Evidence on teaching, learning, inequality and education quality.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660
REF-03
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. 2008.
Evidence on governance, inequality, finance and public accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683
REF-04
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. 2010.
Evidence on intersecting disadvantage and educational marginalisation.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606
REF-05
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines. 2009.
Definitions, numerators, denominators and limitations for education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf
REF-06
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. 2012.
Common definitions for education programmes and attainment.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
REF-07
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Guide to the Analysis and Use of Household Survey and Census Education Data. 2004.
Methods and limits for household and census education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/guide-to-the-analysis-and-use-of-household-survey-and-census-education-data-en_0.pdf
REF-08
United Nations Statistics Division. Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries. 2005.
Guidance on sampling, response, weighting and statistical error.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/sectiona_new.htm
REF-09
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Relevance, professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261
REF-10
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive measurement, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf
REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child Counts — Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights. 2014.
Evidence on disaggregation, unequal outcomes and statistical visibility.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2014
REF-12
United Nations Children’s Fund. Child Friendly Schools Manual. 2009.
Guidance on inclusive, effective, protective and participatory schools.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/child-friendly-schools-manual
REF-13
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861
REF-14
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, participation and protection obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
REF-15
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
REF-16
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. 2015.
Comparative European evidence on external and internal school evaluation.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4a244ff8-7bac-11e5-9fae-01aa75ed71a1
REF-17
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results. 2009.
European evidence on test purposes, coverage and uses.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/df628df4-4e5b-4014-adbd-2ed54a274fd9
REF-18
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1
REF-19
European Statistical System Committee. European Statistics Code of Practice. 2011.
Institutional and statistical principles for trustworthy public evidence.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/european-statistics-code-of-practice
REF-20
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European Statistics. 2009.
European requirements for independence, quality, confidentiality and dissemination.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0223
REF-21
European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000.
Rights concerning education, equality, good administration and effective remedy.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT
REF-22
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education. 1999.
Interpretation of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability in education.
https://undocs.org/E/C.12/1999/10
REF-23
Council of the European Union. Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving. 2011.
European framework for prevention, intervention and compensation concerning early school leaving.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0701(01)
REF-24
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation on the Establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training. 2009.
European reference points for planning, implementation, evaluation and review in vocational education.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)
REF-25
United Nations General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — Resolution 71/313. 2017.
Adopted global indicator framework and provisions for refinement, disaggregation and national ownership.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313
REF-26
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. 2017.
Contemporaneous global account of early Sustainable Development Goal baselines and data limitations.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/
REF-27
UNESCO. Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments — Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8. 2017.
Evidence on accountability relationships, responsibility, reporting and risks of narrow performance pressure.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338
REF-28
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2017. 2017.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, inequality and national conditions available at cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38e7f778-bac1-11e7-a7f8-01aa75ed71a1
REF-29
World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. 2018.
Contemporaneous synthesis distinguishing schooling expansion from learning and examining assessment, incentives and system coherence.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018
REF-30
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. More Than One-Half of Children and Adolescents Are Not Learning Worldwide — Fact Sheet No. 46. 2017.
Contemporaneous estimates and cautions concerning minimum proficiency among children inside and outside school.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs46-more-than-half-children-not-learning-en-2017.pdf
REF-31
UNICEF. Education Uprooted: For Every Migrant, Refugee and Displaced Child, Education. 2017.
Evidence on education access, continuity and recognition for migrant, refugee and displaced children.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/education-uprooted
REF-32
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Left Behind: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2017.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee participation, transition and secondary education barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/left-behind-refugee-education-crisis

[reference-ref-01] REF-01
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. General Education Quality Analysis and Diagnosis Framework. 2012.
Systemic analysis of education quality, inputs, teaching, learning and outcomes.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217520

[reference-ref-02] REF-02
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4. 2014.
Evidence on teaching, learning, inequality and education quality.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660

[reference-ref-03] REF-03
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. 2008.
Evidence on governance, inequality, finance and public accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683

[reference-ref-04] REF-04
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. 2010.
Evidence on intersecting disadvantage and educational marginalisation.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606

[reference-ref-05] REF-05
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines. 2009.
Definitions, numerators, denominators and limitations for education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf

[reference-ref-06] REF-06
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. 2012.
Common definitions for education programmes and attainment.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

[reference-ref-07] REF-07
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Guide to the Analysis and Use of Household Survey and Census Education Data. 2004.
Methods and limits for household and census education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/guide-to-the-analysis-and-use-of-household-survey-and-census-education-data-en_0.pdf

[reference-ref-08] REF-08
United Nations Statistics Division. Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries. 2005.
Guidance on sampling, response, weighting and statistical error.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/sectiona_new.htm

[reference-ref-09] REF-09
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Relevance, professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261

[reference-ref-10] REF-10
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive measurement, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf

[reference-ref-11] REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child Counts — Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights. 2014.
Evidence on disaggregation, unequal outcomes and statistical visibility.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2014

[reference-ref-12] REF-12
United Nations Children’s Fund. Child Friendly Schools Manual. 2009.
Guidance on inclusive, effective, protective and participatory schools.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/child-friendly-schools-manual

[reference-ref-13] REF-13
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861

[reference-ref-14] REF-14
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, participation and protection obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

[reference-ref-15] REF-15
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

[reference-ref-16] REF-16
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. 2015.
Comparative European evidence on external and internal school evaluation.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4a244ff8-7bac-11e5-9fae-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-17] REF-17
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results. 2009.
European evidence on test purposes, coverage and uses.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/df628df4-4e5b-4014-adbd-2ed54a274fd9

[reference-ref-18] REF-18
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-19] REF-19
European Statistical System Committee. European Statistics Code of Practice. 2011.
Institutional and statistical principles for trustworthy public evidence.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/european-statistics-code-of-practice

[reference-ref-20] REF-20
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European Statistics. 2009.
European requirements for independence, quality, confidentiality and dissemination.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0223

[reference-ref-21] REF-21
European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000.
Rights concerning education, equality, good administration and effective remedy.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

[reference-ref-22] REF-22
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education. 1999.
Interpretation of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability in education.
https://undocs.org/E/C.12/1999/10

[reference-ref-23] REF-23
Council of the European Union. Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving. 2011.
European framework for prevention, intervention and compensation concerning early school leaving.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0701(01)

[reference-ref-24] REF-24
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation on the Establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training. 2009.
European reference points for planning, implementation, evaluation and review in vocational education.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)

[reference-ref-25] REF-25
United Nations General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — Resolution 71/313. 2017.
Adopted global indicator framework and provisions for refinement, disaggregation and national ownership.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313

[reference-ref-26] REF-26
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. 2017.
Contemporaneous global account of early Sustainable Development Goal baselines and data limitations.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/

[reference-ref-27] REF-27
UNESCO. Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments — Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8. 2017.
Evidence on accountability relationships, responsibility, reporting and risks of narrow performance pressure.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338

[reference-ref-28] REF-28
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2017. 2017.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, inequality and national conditions available at cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38e7f778-bac1-11e7-a7f8-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-29] REF-29
World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. 2018.
Contemporaneous synthesis distinguishing schooling expansion from learning and examining assessment, incentives and system coherence.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018

[reference-ref-30] REF-30
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. More Than One-Half of Children and Adolescents Are Not Learning Worldwide — Fact Sheet No. 46. 2017.
Contemporaneous estimates and cautions concerning minimum proficiency among children inside and outside school.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs46-more-than-half-children-not-learning-en-2017.pdf

[reference-ref-31] REF-31
UNICEF. Education Uprooted: For Every Migrant, Refugee and Displaced Child, Education. 2017.
Evidence on education access, continuity and recognition for migrant, refugee and displaced children.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/education-uprooted

[reference-ref-32] REF-32
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Left Behind: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2017.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee participation, transition and secondary education barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/left-behind-refugee-education-crisis

ICEQC-R-2018-04 — Strengthening Early-Grade Instruction through Diagnosis and Follow-Up