ICEQC-R-2011-07 — Gendered Effects of Conflict on Participation and Completion

Sex-disaggregated counts are essential but gendered effects concern roles, risk, power, resources and institutional response. This is the measured proposition for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation. The evidence for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The principal distortion risk is that a parity result can be interpreted as equality without evidence on safety, learning, treatment or future opportunity. For sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The recommended specification is to publish female and male values and add contextual evidence on the mechanism producing the difference. For girls and boys included in sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

Validation of sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The interpretive rule is to treat the statistical difference as descriptive until timing, exposure and plausible alternatives are examined. For the indicator on sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

Decision use in sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-56]

A supplementary sensitivity test for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning sex-disaggregated measures and gender interpretation would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Entry, attendance, progression, assessment and completion are distinct events with different gender mechanisms. This is the measured proposition for the participation-to-completion chain. For girls and boys included in the participation-to-completion chain, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for the participation-to-completion chain, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on the participation-to-completion chain, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to construct a linked indicator sequence using consistent cohort, level, location and time definitions. For girls and boys included in the participation-to-completion chain, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for the participation-to-completion chain, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on the participation-to-completion chain, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that one terminal completion rate conceals the stage and period in which conflict-related loss occurred. For the participation-to-completion chain, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on the participation-to-completion chain, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing the participation-to-completion chain, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to locate the first material divergence and test whether later stages amplify or reverse it. For the indicator on the participation-to-completion chain, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing the participation-to-completion chain, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to the participation-to-completion chain, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Validation of the participation-to-completion chain should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing the participation-to-completion chain, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to the participation-to-completion chain, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Decision use in the participation-to-completion chain should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to the participation-to-completion chain, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for the participation-to-completion chain therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in the participation-to-completion chain, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for the participation-to-completion chain should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for the participation-to-completion chain should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning the participation-to-completion chain would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Gender comparison requires an explicit account of the conflict exposure affecting each population and period. This is the measured proposition for conflict exposure as an analytical variable. Within the authority responsible for conflict exposure as an analytical variable, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on conflict exposure as an analytical variable, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing conflict exposure as an analytical variable, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

The principal distortion risk is that country-wide conflict classification assigns the same exposure to learners in very different local conditions. For conflict exposure as an analytical variable, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on conflict exposure as an analytical variable, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing conflict exposure as an analytical variable, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

Validation of conflict exposure as an analytical variable should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For the indicator on conflict exposure as an analytical variable, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. In comparing conflict exposure as an analytical variable, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

The recommended specification is to code the relevant location, duration, displacement, closure, attack and access restriction without exposing individuals. In comparing conflict exposure as an analytical variable, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Applied to conflict exposure as an analytical variable, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. The evidence for conflict exposure as an analytical variable therefore requires that where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

The interpretive rule is to compare like exposure bands and state uncertainty rather than claiming a universal conflict coefficient. Applied to conflict exposure as an analytical variable, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for conflict exposure as an analytical variable therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in conflict exposure as an analytical variable, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

Decision use in conflict exposure as an analytical variable should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for conflict exposure as an analytical variable therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in conflict exposure as an analytical variable, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for conflict exposure as an analytical variable, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-48]

A supplementary sensitivity test for conflict exposure as an analytical variable should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for conflict exposure as an analytical variable should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning conflict exposure as an analytical variable would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Rates depend on population estimates that may change rapidly and differently by sex and age. This is the measured proposition for population denominators under displacement. For the indicator on population denominators under displacement, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing population denominators under displacement, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to population denominators under displacement, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The recommended specification is to reconcile official population, displacement, household and administrative sources and publish the denominator date. For the indicator on population denominators under displacement, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing population denominators under displacement, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to population denominators under displacement, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

Validation of population denominators under displacement should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing population denominators under displacement, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to population denominators under displacement, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The principal distortion risk is that outdated census projections and school-based denominators omit displaced and unregistered adolescents. For population denominators under displacement, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. The evidence for population denominators under displacement therefore requires that the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For girls and boys included in population denominators under displacement, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The interpretive rule is to test how alternative plausible denominators change the gender gap and the policy conclusion. The evidence for population denominators under displacement therefore requires that association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For girls and boys included in population denominators under displacement, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Within the authority responsible for population denominators under displacement, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

Decision use in population denominators under displacement should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in population denominators under displacement, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for population denominators under displacement, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on population denominators under displacement, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-54] [REF-60]

A supplementary sensitivity test for population denominators under displacement should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for population denominators under displacement should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning population denominators under displacement would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Levels, grades, school years, completion rules and data coverage differ across countries. This is the measured proposition for comparability across education systems. In comparing comparability across education systems, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to comparability across education systems, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for comparability across education systems therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that standard labels can create false equivalence between programmes of different duration and recognition. For comparability across education systems, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to comparability across education systems, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for comparability across education systems therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to use internationally documented classifications and preserve national definitions near the comparison. Applied to comparability across education systems, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for comparability across education systems therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in comparability across education systems, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Validation of comparability across education systems should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for comparability across education systems therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in comparability across education systems, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to limit rankings where definition, coverage or reference period cannot be aligned. For girls and boys included in comparability across education systems, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for comparability across education systems, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on comparability across education systems, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Decision use in comparability across education systems should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for comparability across education systems, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on comparability across education systems, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing comparability across education systems, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for comparability across education systems should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for comparability across education systems should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning comparability across education systems would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Observed gender differences during conflict warrant investigation but do not by themselves establish a single cause. This is the measured proposition for association, attribution and causal restraint. Applied to association, attribution and causal restraint, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for association, attribution and causal restraint therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in association, attribution and causal restraint, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The recommended specification is to state a causal pathway and test timing, exposure, competing explanations and consistency across sources. Applied to association, attribution and causal restraint, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for association, attribution and causal restraint therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in association, attribution and causal restraint, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The principal distortion risk is that poverty, prior inequality, displacement, service collapse and household decisions may change together. For association, attribution and causal restraint, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in association, attribution and causal restraint, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for association, attribution and causal restraint, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

The interpretive rule is to use cautious inference and identify the evidence that would strengthen or disconfirm the explanation. For girls and boys included in association, attribution and causal restraint, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for association, attribution and causal restraint, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on association, attribution and causal restraint, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

Validation of association, attribution and causal restraint should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for association, attribution and causal restraint, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on association, attribution and causal restraint, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

Decision use in association, attribution and causal restraint should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on association, attribution and causal restraint, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing association, attribution and causal restraint, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to association, attribution and causal restraint, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-56]

A supplementary sensitivity test for association, attribution and causal restraint should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for association, attribution and causal restraint should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning association, attribution and causal restraint would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Entry at the expected age protects cumulative learning time and later progression. This is the measured proposition for timely entry into primary education. The evidence for timely entry into primary education therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in timely entry into primary education, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for timely entry into primary education, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that conflict can delay girls and boys differently through displacement, cost, safety concerns and missing documentation. For timely entry into primary education, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in timely entry into primary education, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for timely entry into primary education, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Validation of timely entry into primary education should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For girls and boys included in timely entry into primary education, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Within the authority responsible for timely entry into primary education, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to report new entrants by age and sex against the relevant entry-age population and identify late-entry reasons. Within the authority responsible for timely entry into primary education, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For the indicator on timely entry into primary education, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. In comparing timely entry into primary education, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to distinguish delayed entry from permanent exclusion and from inaccurate age records. For the indicator on timely entry into primary education, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing timely entry into primary education, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to timely entry into primary education, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Decision use in timely entry into primary education should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing timely entry into primary education, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to timely entry into primary education, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for timely entry into primary education therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for timely entry into primary education should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for timely entry into primary education should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning timely entry into primary education would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Registration establishes administrative affiliation but not daily participation. This is the measured proposition for enrolment and actual attendance. For girls and boys included in enrolment and actual attendance, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for enrolment and actual attendance, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on enrolment and actual attendance, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to pair enrolment rates with sex-disaggregated attendance frequency and duration using compatible periods. For girls and boys included in enrolment and actual attendance, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for enrolment and actual attendance, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on enrolment and actual attendance, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

Validation of enrolment and actual attendance should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for enrolment and actual attendance, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on enrolment and actual attendance, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that schools may retain absent learners on lists while insecurity, work, care or movement prevents attendance. For enrolment and actual attendance, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. In comparing enrolment and actual attendance, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Applied to enrolment and actual attendance, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to investigate divergence between register and presence before claiming protected participation. In comparing enrolment and actual attendance, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Applied to enrolment and actual attendance, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. The evidence for enrolment and actual attendance therefore requires that the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

Decision use in enrolment and actual attendance should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to enrolment and actual attendance, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for enrolment and actual attendance therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in enrolment and actual attendance, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-55]

A supplementary sensitivity test for enrolment and actual attendance should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for enrolment and actual attendance should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning enrolment and actual attendance would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Conflict affects participation through repeated short interruption as well as prolonged closure. This is the measured proposition for interruption and days of teaching lost. Within the authority responsible for interruption and days of teaching lost, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on interruption and days of teaching lost, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing interruption and days of teaching lost, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

The principal distortion risk is that annual attendance averages conceal episodes that break learning sequence at critical points. For interruption and days of teaching lost, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on interruption and days of teaching lost, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing interruption and days of teaching lost, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

The recommended specification is to measure learner-days and teaching-days lost by sex, location, cause and education stage. For the indicator on interruption and days of teaching lost, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing interruption and days of teaching lost, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to interruption and days of teaching lost, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

Validation of interruption and days of teaching lost should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing interruption and days of teaching lost, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to interruption and days of teaching lost, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

The interpretive rule is to relate interruption to progression and learning and identify whether substitute teaching was usable. Applied to interruption and days of teaching lost, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for interruption and days of teaching lost therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in interruption and days of teaching lost, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

Decision use in interruption and days of teaching lost should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for interruption and days of teaching lost therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in interruption and days of teaching lost, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for interruption and days of teaching lost, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-29] [REF-41] [REF-47] [REF-52]

A supplementary sensitivity test for interruption and days of teaching lost should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for interruption and days of teaching lost should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning interruption and days of teaching lost would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

The route to education is part of the service and can carry gender-specific threat. This is the measured proposition for safe journey and geographic access. For the indicator on safe journey and geographic access, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing safe journey and geographic access, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to safe journey and geographic access, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

The recommended specification is to measure actual journey time, cancellation, incident and non-use by sex and age under protected reporting. For the indicator on safe journey and geographic access, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing safe journey and geographic access, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to safe journey and geographic access, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

The principal distortion risk is that distance indicators ignore checkpoints, harassment, transport scarcity, escort expectations and time of travel. For safe journey and geographic access, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to safe journey and geographic access, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for safe journey and geographic access therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

The interpretive rule is to interpret lower attendance with route evidence and avoid requiring disclosure that increases risk. Applied to safe journey and geographic access, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for safe journey and geographic access therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in safe journey and geographic access, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

Validation of safe journey and geographic access should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for safe journey and geographic access therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in safe journey and geographic access, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

Decision use in safe journey and geographic access should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in safe journey and geographic access, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for safe journey and geographic access, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on safe journey and geographic access, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-58]

A supplementary sensitivity test for safe journey and geographic access should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for safe journey and geographic access should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning safe journey and geographic access would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Displaced girls and boys need rapid entry despite incomplete records and uncertain residence. This is the measured proposition for displacement and provisional admission. In comparing displacement and provisional admission, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to displacement and provisional admission, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for displacement and provisional admission therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The principal distortion risk is that admission delays can be recorded as household non-demand rather than an administrative barrier. For displacement and provisional admission, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to displacement and provisional admission, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for displacement and provisional admission therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

Validation of displacement and provisional admission should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Applied to displacement and provisional admission, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. The evidence for displacement and provisional admission therefore requires that contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The recommended specification is to report request, decision, first attendance and early retention by sex, age, status and receiving location. The evidence for displacement and provisional admission therefore requires that the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For girls and boys included in displacement and provisional admission, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Within the authority responsible for displacement and provisional admission, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The interpretive rule is to separate host-capacity delay, documentation refusal, language placement and voluntary onward movement. For girls and boys included in displacement and provisional admission, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for displacement and provisional admission, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on displacement and provisional admission, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

Decision use in displacement and provisional admission should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for displacement and provisional admission, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on displacement and provisional admission, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing displacement and provisional admission, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

A supplementary sensitivity test for displacement and provisional admission should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for displacement and provisional admission should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning displacement and provisional admission would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Reopening totals do not show which learners return, when they return or whether they remain. This is the measured proposition for return after closure or movement. Applied to return after closure or movement, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for return after closure or movement therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in return after closure or movement, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to construct sex-disaggregated return cohorts from the last reliable pre-interruption register with lawful outreach. Applied to return after closure or movement, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for return after closure or movement therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in return after closure or movement, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

Validation of return after closure or movement should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for return after closure or movement therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in return after closure or movement, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that gendered work, care, marriage, recruitment and safety conditions can prevent return after a common interruption. For return after closure or movement, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Within the authority responsible for return after closure or movement, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For the indicator on return after closure or movement, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to report unmatched learners, return time and sustained participation and avoid assuming absence is a household choice. Within the authority responsible for return after closure or movement, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For the indicator on return after closure or movement, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. In comparing return after closure or movement, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

Decision use in return after closure or movement should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on return after closure or movement, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing return after closure or movement, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to return after closure or movement, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-43] [REF-45] [REF-55]

A supplementary sensitivity test for return after closure or movement should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for return after closure or movement should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning return after closure or movement would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Progression shows whether learners advance through the programme on time and under fair decisions. This is the measured proposition for grade progression. The evidence for grade progression therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in grade progression, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for grade progression, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that interruption and weak assessment can produce gender-differentiated stagnation without formal dropout. For grade progression, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in grade progression, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for grade progression, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to report promotion, repetition and non-classification by sex, grade, location and conflict exposure. For girls and boys included in grade progression, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for grade progression, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on grade progression, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Validation of grade progression should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for grade progression, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on grade progression, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to examine the teaching and assessment preceding each decision and the learner’s status in the following year. For the indicator on grade progression, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing grade progression, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to grade progression, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Decision use in grade progression should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing grade progression, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to grade progression, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for grade progression therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for grade progression should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for grade progression should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning grade progression would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Repetition may reflect learning need, interrupted teaching or rigid decision rules and can raise withdrawal risk. This is the measured proposition for repetition and over-age status. For girls and boys included in repetition and over-age status, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for repetition and over-age status, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on repetition and over-age status, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The recommended specification is to measure first and repeated repetition, accumulated age-grade gap and subsequent participation by sex. For girls and boys included in repetition and over-age status, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for repetition and over-age status, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on repetition and over-age status, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The principal distortion risk is that older girls and boys face different work, marriage, recruitment and safety pressures. For repetition and over-age status, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on repetition and over-age status, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing repetition and over-age status, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The interpretive rule is to do not interpret repetition as learner failure without examining service time, language and assessment validity. For the indicator on repetition and over-age status, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing repetition and over-age status, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to repetition and over-age status, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Validation of repetition and over-age status should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing repetition and over-age status, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to repetition and over-age status, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Decision use in repetition and over-age status should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to repetition and over-age status, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for repetition and over-age status therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in repetition and over-age status, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-55] [REF-60]

A supplementary sensitivity test for repetition and over-age status should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for repetition and over-age status should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning repetition and over-age status would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Completion can depend on reaching and sitting an examination as well as on demonstrated learning. This is the measured proposition for examination access and performance. Within the authority responsible for examination access and performance, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on examination access and performance, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing examination access and performance, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that insecurity, displacement, fees and missing documents can exclude candidates before scores are recorded. For examination access and performance, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on examination access and performance, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing examination access and performance, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

Validation of examination access and performance should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For the indicator on examination access and performance, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. In comparing examination access and performance, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to publish eligible, registered, present, assessed and certified counts by sex and affected location. In comparing examination access and performance, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Applied to examination access and performance, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. The evidence for examination access and performance therefore requires that where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to separate access to the examination from score distribution and examine accommodation and alternative sittings. Applied to examination access and performance, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for examination access and performance therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in examination access and performance, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

Decision use in examination access and performance should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for examination access and performance therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in examination access and performance, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for examination access and performance, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for examination access and performance should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for examination access and performance should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning examination access and performance would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Completion should represent sustained passage through the programme rather than a single year’s certificate total. This is the measured proposition for completion rate and cohort survival. For the indicator on completion rate and cohort survival, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing completion rate and cohort survival, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to completion rate and cohort survival, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to use reconstructed or longitudinal cohorts where feasible and state treatment of transfers, deaths and unknown status. For the indicator on completion rate and cohort survival, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing completion rate and cohort survival, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to completion rate and cohort survival, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Validation of completion rate and cohort survival should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing completion rate and cohort survival, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to completion rate and cohort survival, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that cross-sectional rates mix cohorts with different conflict exposure and can be distorted by repetition and migration. For completion rate and cohort survival, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. The evidence for completion rate and cohort survival therefore requires that the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For girls and boys included in completion rate and cohort survival, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to compare cohort survival with cross-sectional completion and explain material divergence. The evidence for completion rate and cohort survival therefore requires that association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For girls and boys included in completion rate and cohort survival, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Within the authority responsible for completion rate and cohort survival, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Decision use in completion rate and cohort survival should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in completion rate and cohort survival, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for completion rate and cohort survival, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on completion rate and cohort survival, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-54]

A supplementary sensitivity test for completion rate and cohort survival should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for completion rate and cohort survival should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning completion rate and cohort survival would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

The move between primary and secondary concentrates cost, distance, selection and gender norms. This is the measured proposition for transition to secondary education. In comparing transition to secondary education, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to transition to secondary education, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for transition to secondary education therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that conflict-related contraction of places or safe transport can widen a gap after nominal primary completion. For transition to secondary education, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to transition to secondary education, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for transition to secondary education therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to report eligible completers, applications, offers, enrolment and sustained attendance by sex and location. Applied to transition to secondary education, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for transition to secondary education therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in transition to secondary education, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

Validation of transition to secondary education should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for transition to secondary education therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in transition to secondary education, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to identify whether the loss arises from supply, selection, household constraint, safety or data discontinuity. For girls and boys included in transition to secondary education, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for transition to secondary education, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on transition to secondary education, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

Decision use in transition to secondary education should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for transition to secondary education, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on transition to secondary education, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing transition to secondary education, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-55]

A supplementary sensitivity test for transition to secondary education should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for transition to secondary education should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning transition to secondary education would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Learners whose education was interrupted need recognised routes back that fit age and responsibility. This is the measured proposition for second-chance completion. Applied to second-chance completion, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for second-chance completion therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in second-chance completion, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

The recommended specification is to report entry, delivered learning, assessment, recognition and later transition by sex and prior interruption. Applied to second-chance completion, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for second-chance completion therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in second-chance completion, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

The principal distortion risk is that accelerated or non-formal programmes may enrol one sex disproportionately while offering uncertain certification. For second-chance completion, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in second-chance completion, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for second-chance completion, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

The interpretive rule is to judge success by sustained recognised progression rather than seats or short-course attendance. For girls and boys included in second-chance completion, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for second-chance completion, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on second-chance completion, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

Validation of second-chance completion should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for second-chance completion, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on second-chance completion, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

Decision use in second-chance completion should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on second-chance completion, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing second-chance completion, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to second-chance completion, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-46] [REF-52]

A supplementary sensitivity test for second-chance completion should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for second-chance completion should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning second-chance completion would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Conflict-related income loss and adult absence redistribute paid work, domestic work and care among adolescents. This is the measured proposition for household income, work and care. The evidence for household income, work and care therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in household income, work and care, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for household income, work and care, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The principal distortion risk is that school withdrawal may rise for boys through income work and for girls through care without either pattern being universal. For household income, work and care, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in household income, work and care, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for household income, work and care, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Validation of household income, work and care should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For girls and boys included in household income, work and care, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Within the authority responsible for household income, work and care, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The recommended specification is to combine participation data with protected time-use and household-shock evidence by sex and age. Within the authority responsible for household income, work and care, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For the indicator on household income, work and care, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. In comparing household income, work and care, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The interpretive rule is to test whether fee relief, food, transport or care support changes attendance and completion. For the indicator on household income, work and care, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing household income, work and care, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to household income, work and care, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Decision use in household income, work and care should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing household income, work and care, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to household income, work and care, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for household income, work and care therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-53] [REF-55] [REF-60]

A supplementary sensitivity test for household income, work and care should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for household income, work and care should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning household income, work and care would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Conflict and insecurity can alter marriage and household strategies and restrict continued education. This is the measured proposition for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood. For girls and boys included in early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The recommended specification is to use lawful, confidential demographic and service evidence and state re-entry and support rules. For girls and boys included in early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Validation of early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The principal distortion risk is that administrative data often record withdrawal without the sensitive reason and policies may block re-entry. For early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. In comparing early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Applied to early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

The interpretive rule is to measure continued or renewed participation without exposing individual learners to stigma or harm. In comparing early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Applied to early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. The evidence for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood therefore requires that the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

Decision use in early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-41] [REF-55] [REF-60]

A supplementary sensitivity test for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood should recalculate the conclusion after plausible changes to unknown status, transfer treatment and the population denominator. The comparison for early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood should record whether direction, magnitude or priority changes. If action concerning early marriage, pregnancy and parenthood would be different under a credible alternative, the authority should use a protective interim measure and obtain better evidence before presenting a definitive gender explanation.

Grave violations and security responses can remove children from education in gender-differentiated ways. This is the measured proposition for recruitment, detention and association with armed actors. Within the authority responsible for recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

The principal distortion risk is that boys may be more visible in some recruitment records while girls’ roles and sexual violence remain under-recorded. For recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

The recommended specification is to keep protection information separate from public education files while producing safe aggregate measures. For the indicator on recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

Validation of recruitment, detention and association with armed actors should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

The interpretive rule is to interpret missing learners with multiple sources and preserve education on release or return. Applied to recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for recruitment, detention and association with armed actors therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

Decision use in recruitment, detention and association with armed actors should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for recruitment, detention and association with armed actors therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for recruitment, detention and association with armed actors, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-42] [REF-43] [REF-47] [REF-58]

Threat and experience of sexual violence affect route choice, attendance, concentration and family decisions. This is the measured proposition for conflict-related sexual violence and harassment. For the indicator on conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The recommended specification is to combine confidential protection expertise with education participation patterns under strict disclosure limits. For the indicator on conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The principal distortion risk is that incident counts understate prevalence and cannot be used as a direct denominator of educational risk. For conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for conflict-related sexual violence and harassment therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The interpretive rule is to avoid causal claims from reported incidents alone and assess whether reporting and referral are usable. Applied to conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for conflict-related sexual violence and harassment therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Validation of conflict-related sexual violence and harassment should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for conflict-related sexual violence and harassment therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

Decision use in conflict-related sexual violence and harassment should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on conflict-related sexual violence and harassment, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-43] [REF-56] [REF-58] [REF-59]

The presence of competent women and men teachers can affect safety perceptions, role expectations and service continuity. This is the measured proposition for teacher sex, availability and learner participation. In comparing teacher sex, availability and learner participation, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to teacher sex, availability and learner participation, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for teacher sex, availability and learner participation therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that conflict may alter workforce composition through displacement, threat, recruitment and mobility constraints. For teacher sex, availability and learner participation, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to teacher sex, availability and learner participation, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for teacher sex, availability and learner participation therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

Validation of teacher sex, availability and learner participation should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Applied to teacher sex, availability and learner participation, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. The evidence for teacher sex, availability and learner participation therefore requires that contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to report teacher presence, qualification, subject, location and turnover by sex alongside learner indicators. The evidence for teacher sex, availability and learner participation therefore requires that the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For girls and boys included in teacher sex, availability and learner participation, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Within the authority responsible for teacher sex, availability and learner participation, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to test association at comparable sites and avoid treating teacher sex as a substitute for competence or safeguarding. For girls and boys included in teacher sex, availability and learner participation, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for teacher sex, availability and learner participation, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on teacher sex, availability and learner participation, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

Decision use in teacher sex, availability and learner participation should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for teacher sex, availability and learner participation, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on teacher sex, availability and learner participation, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing teacher sex, availability and learner participation, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-45] [REF-52] [REF-55]

Water, sanitation, menstrual needs, privacy and safe residence affect participation and completion. This is the measured proposition for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements. Applied to sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to include sex- and age-appropriate facility and protection measures in site monitoring. Applied to sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

Validation of sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that a school counted as open may be unusable for adolescent girls or unsafe for boys and girls living away from home. For sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Within the authority responsible for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For the indicator on sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to relate service usability to attendance and obtain confidential learner evidence before attributing absence. Within the authority responsible for sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For the indicator on sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. In comparing sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

Decision use in sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to sanitation, privacy and residential arrangements, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-03] [REF-15] [REF-45] [REF-55]

The parity index provides a concise female-to-male comparison for the same defined measure. This is the measured proposition for gender parity index. The evidence for gender parity index therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in gender parity index, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for gender parity index, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

The principal distortion risk is that a value near one can conceal low participation for both sexes and large subgroup inequalities. For gender parity index, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in gender parity index, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for gender parity index, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

The recommended specification is to publish the female value, male value and ratio with confidence and denominator information. For girls and boys included in gender parity index, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for gender parity index, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on gender parity index, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

Validation of gender parity index should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for gender parity index, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on gender parity index, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

The interpretive rule is to never report parity without the underlying level and an adverse distribution check. For the indicator on gender parity index, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing gender parity index, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to gender parity index, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

Decision use in gender parity index should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing gender parity index, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to gender parity index, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for gender parity index therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-57]

Gross rates show system volume while net rates focus the official age group and each answers a different question. This is the measured proposition for gross and net participation rates. For girls and boys included in gross and net participation rates, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for gross and net participation rates, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on gross and net participation rates, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The recommended specification is to state age range, level mapping, population source and treatment of unknown age for each sex. For girls and boys included in gross and net participation rates, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for gross and net participation rates, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on gross and net participation rates, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The principal distortion risk is that repetition, late entry and uncertain ages can make gross rates exceed one hundred and obscure age-specific exclusion. For gross and net participation rates, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on gross and net participation rates, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing gross and net participation rates, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

The interpretive rule is to compare gross, net and age-specific attendance before concluding that one sex is overrepresented. For the indicator on gross and net participation rates, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing gross and net participation rates, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to gross and net participation rates, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

Validation of gross and net participation rates should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing gross and net participation rates, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to gross and net participation rates, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

Decision use in gross and net participation rates should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to gross and net participation rates, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for gross and net participation rates therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in gross and net participation rates, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-53] [REF-54] [REF-60]

Attendance measures actual presence during a defined open period and chronic absence reveals concentration. This is the measured proposition for attendance rate and chronic absence. Within the authority responsible for attendance rate and chronic absence, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on attendance rate and chronic absence, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing attendance rate and chronic absence, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that closure days, incomplete registers and different observation windows can create false sex differences. For attendance rate and chronic absence, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on attendance rate and chronic absence, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing attendance rate and chronic absence, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

Validation of attendance rate and chronic absence should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For the indicator on attendance rate and chronic absence, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. In comparing attendance rate and chronic absence, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to define eligible days, open days, absence threshold, transfer and temporary-site treatment. In comparing attendance rate and chronic absence, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Applied to attendance rate and chronic absence, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. The evidence for attendance rate and chronic absence therefore requires that where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to validate registers against timetables, site operation and learner histories for a sampled period. Applied to attendance rate and chronic absence, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for attendance rate and chronic absence therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in attendance rate and chronic absence, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

Decision use in attendance rate and chronic absence should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for attendance rate and chronic absence therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in attendance rate and chronic absence, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for attendance rate and chronic absence, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-15] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-54]

Cohort indicators describe accumulated progression more directly than one-year flows. This is the measured proposition for survival and completion cohorts. For the indicator on survival and completion cohorts, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing survival and completion cohorts, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to survival and completion cohorts, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to state cohort entry, follow-up period, censoring, transfer and re-entry rules. For the indicator on survival and completion cohorts, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing survival and completion cohorts, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to survival and completion cohorts, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Validation of survival and completion cohorts should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing survival and completion cohorts, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to survival and completion cohorts, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that migration and unknown status can be misclassified as dropout and affect girls and boys differently. For survival and completion cohorts, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. The evidence for survival and completion cohorts therefore requires that the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For girls and boys included in survival and completion cohorts, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to publish sensitivity to alternative treatment of unknown outcomes and corroborate with receiving institutions. The evidence for survival and completion cohorts therefore requires that association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For girls and boys included in survival and completion cohorts, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Within the authority responsible for survival and completion cohorts, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Decision use in survival and completion cohorts should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in survival and completion cohorts, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for survival and completion cohorts, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on survival and completion cohorts, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-44] [REF-48] [REF-54]

Sex should be analysed with age, location, poverty, disability, displacement and other lawful categories material to the context. This is the measured proposition for intersectional disaggregation. In comparing intersectional disaggregation, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to intersectional disaggregation, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for intersectional disaggregation therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

The principal distortion risk is that many cells become small, uncertain or disclosure-sensitive during conflict. For intersectional disaggregation, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to intersectional disaggregation, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for intersectional disaggregation therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

The recommended specification is to predefine priority combinations, pool periods only where justified and suppress unsafe detail. Applied to intersectional disaggregation, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for intersectional disaggregation therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in intersectional disaggregation, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

Validation of intersectional disaggregation should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for intersectional disaggregation therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in intersectional disaggregation, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

The interpretive rule is to use qualitative inquiry to interpret small groups rather than removing them from the judgement. For girls and boys included in intersectional disaggregation, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for intersectional disaggregation, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on intersectional disaggregation, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

Decision use in intersectional disaggregation should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for intersectional disaggregation, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on intersectional disaggregation, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing intersectional disaggregation, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-05] [REF-10] [REF-12] [REF-41]

Conflict-affected indicators require comparison among sources and transparent later correction. This is the measured proposition for triangulation and revision. Applied to triangulation and revision, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for triangulation and revision therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in triangulation and revision, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

The recommended specification is to maintain a source dictionary, reconciliation record and version date for each principal indicator. Applied to triangulation and revision, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for triangulation and revision therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in triangulation and revision, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

The principal distortion risk is that administrative, household, humanitarian and population sources use different concepts and coverage. For triangulation and revision, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in triangulation and revision, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for triangulation and revision, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

The interpretive rule is to investigate divergence and publish revisions without erasing the earlier value or decision context. For girls and boys included in triangulation and revision, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for triangulation and revision, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on triangulation and revision, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

Validation of triangulation and revision should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for triangulation and revision, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on triangulation and revision, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

Decision use in triangulation and revision should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on triangulation and revision, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing triangulation and revision, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to triangulation and revision, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-44] [REF-48]

Conflict can reduce female or male participation and completion through different mechanisms and at different stages. This is the measured proposition for no universal direction of gender effect. The evidence for no universal direction of gender effect therefore requires that the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For girls and boys included in no universal direction of gender effect, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Within the authority responsible for no universal direction of gender effect, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

The principal distortion risk is that global averages encourage a single story that can misdirect country and local action. For no universal direction of gender effect, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For girls and boys included in no universal direction of gender effect, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Within the authority responsible for no universal direction of gender effect, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

Validation of no universal direction of gender effect should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. For girls and boys included in no universal direction of gender effect, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Within the authority responsible for no universal direction of gender effect, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

The recommended specification is to report direction, magnitude, education stage, exposure and context before selecting a response. Within the authority responsible for no universal direction of gender effect, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For the indicator on no universal direction of gender effect, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. In comparing no universal direction of gender effect, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

The interpretive rule is to compare multiple settings without treating regional identity as a causal explanation. For the indicator on no universal direction of gender effect, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. In comparing no universal direction of gender effect, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. Applied to no universal direction of gender effect, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

Decision use in no universal direction of gender effect should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. In comparing no universal direction of gender effect, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Applied to no universal direction of gender effect, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. The evidence for no universal direction of gender effect therefore requires that closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-55]

Conflict and displacement across parts of the region require timely subnational and cross-border evidence. This is the measured proposition for middle east and north africa disruption. For girls and boys included in middle east and north africa disruption, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Within the authority responsible for middle east and north africa disruption, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For the indicator on middle east and north africa disruption, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

The recommended specification is to combine host, displacement and education records with explicit dates and coverage. For girls and boys included in middle east and north africa disruption, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. Within the authority responsible for middle east and north africa disruption, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For the indicator on middle east and north africa disruption, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

Validation of middle east and north africa disruption should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Within the authority responsible for middle east and north africa disruption, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For the indicator on middle east and north africa disruption, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

The principal distortion risk is that national gender indicators can remain anchored to earlier periods and exclude displaced populations. For middle east and north africa disruption, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. In comparing middle east and north africa disruption, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. Applied to middle east and north africa disruption, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

The interpretive rule is to state gaps and avoid extending evidence from one affected country or population to the whole region. In comparing middle east and north africa disruption, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Applied to middle east and north africa disruption, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. The evidence for middle east and north africa disruption therefore requires that the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

Decision use in middle east and north africa disruption should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Applied to middle east and north africa disruption, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. The evidence for middle east and north africa disruption therefore requires that monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For girls and boys included in middle east and north africa disruption, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-44] [REF-50] [REF-51] [REF-59]

Armed conflict interacts with pre-existing poverty, teacher shortage, distance and gender inequality in varied ways. This is the measured proposition for sub-saharan african conflict settings. Within the authority responsible for sub-saharan african conflict settings, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. For the indicator on sub-saharan african conflict settings, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. In comparing sub-saharan african conflict settings, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The principal distortion risk is that regional totals combine countries and locations with sharply different exposure and education capacity. For sub-saharan african conflict settings, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. For the indicator on sub-saharan african conflict settings, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. In comparing sub-saharan african conflict settings, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The recommended specification is to compare conflict-affected and suitable non-affected populations within documented national contexts. For the indicator on sub-saharan african conflict settings, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing sub-saharan african conflict settings, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to sub-saharan african conflict settings, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Validation of sub-saharan african conflict settings should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. In comparing sub-saharan african conflict settings, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. Applied to sub-saharan african conflict settings, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

The interpretive rule is to use the comparison to identify service and protection measures rather than to rank suffering. Applied to sub-saharan african conflict settings, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for sub-saharan african conflict settings therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in sub-saharan african conflict settings, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Decision use in sub-saharan african conflict settings should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. The evidence for sub-saharan african conflict settings therefore requires that the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For girls and boys included in sub-saharan african conflict settings, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Within the authority responsible for sub-saharan african conflict settings, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-41] [REF-48] [REF-53] [REF-54]

Host-country and origin-country statistics often do not fully represent refugee and internally displaced learners. This is the measured proposition for displacement settings as a separate reporting domain. For the indicator on displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. In comparing displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. Applied to displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The recommended specification is to publish a bounded displacement education account by sex, age, status, host location and programme recognition. For the indicator on displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. In comparing displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Applied to displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The principal distortion risk is that displaced adolescents can disappear between humanitarian registration and education administration. For displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for displacement settings as a separate reporting domain therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

The interpretive rule is to reconcile agencies and protect individuals while assigning ownership for unresolved denominator gaps. Applied to displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. The evidence for displacement settings as a separate reporting domain therefore requires that national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For girls and boys included in displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

Validation of displacement settings as a separate reporting domain should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for displacement settings as a separate reporting domain therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

Decision use in displacement settings as a separate reporting domain should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For girls and boys included in displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. Within the authority responsible for displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. For the indicator on displacement settings as a separate reporting domain, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-14] [REF-44] [REF-46] [REF-50]

Indicator differences should trigger inquiry and action according to consequence, evidence strength and reversibility. This is the measured proposition for decision thresholds and proportionate response. In comparing decision thresholds and proportionate response, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. Applied to decision thresholds and proportionate response, female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. The evidence for decision thresholds and proportionate response therefore requires that the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

The principal distortion risk is that fixed numerical thresholds can overlook a small group facing severe harm or overreact to unstable estimates. For decision thresholds and proportionate response, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Applied to decision thresholds and proportionate response, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. The evidence for decision thresholds and proportionate response therefore requires that a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

Validation of decision thresholds and proportionate response should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. Applied to decision thresholds and proportionate response, reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. The evidence for decision thresholds and proportionate response therefore requires that contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

The recommended specification is to combine statistical change, adverse condition, rights consequence and corroboration in the decision rule. The evidence for decision thresholds and proportionate response therefore requires that the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. For girls and boys included in decision thresholds and proportionate response, results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. Within the authority responsible for decision thresholds and proportionate response, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

The interpretive rule is to record why action began, expanded, changed or ended and test the learner-facing result. For girls and boys included in decision thresholds and proportionate response, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. Within the authority responsible for decision thresholds and proportionate response, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. For the indicator on decision thresholds and proportionate response, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

Decision use in decision thresholds and proportionate response should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. Within the authority responsible for decision thresholds and proportionate response, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. For the indicator on decision thresholds and proportionate response, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. In comparing decision thresholds and proportionate response, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-05] [REF-41] [REF-52] [REF-56]

Annual monitoring should join a small measure set to named corrective responsibility. This is the measured proposition for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact. Applied to a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the indicator should name the education stage, learner population, location and reference period rather than relying on a broad label. The evidence for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact therefore requires that female and male values should be visible before any ratio is calculated. For girls and boys included in a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the public conclusion should distinguish the observed difference from the gender mechanism proposed to explain it.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]

The recommended specification is to adopt measures for entry, attendance, interruption, progression, completion, transition and selected mechanisms. Applied to a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the record should define numerator, denominator, unit, age, level, period, transfer treatment, displacement coverage and conflict exposure. The evidence for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact therefore requires that results should show underlying counts or rates, not only a gender gap. For girls and boys included in a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, where public disaggregation would create disclosure risk, the analysis should use protected aggregation or qualitative verification and still assign corrective responsibility.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]

Validation of a gender-and-conflict reporting compact should compare administrative data with institution operation, learner history and another suitable source. The evidence for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact therefore requires that reviewers should test whether girls and boys had the same opportunity to enter the numerator and denominator and whether the measure changed when a site closed or a learner moved. For girls and boys included in a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, contradictions should be investigated at source and material revisions should preserve the date and basis of the earlier value.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]

The principal distortion risk is that large unowned indicator catalogues delay reporting and detach evidence from service decisions. For a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, missingness and misclassification are not automatically neutral between girls and boys. Within the authority responsible for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the authority should document collection coverage, unknown status, late return and any rule used to impute or exclude cases. For the indicator on a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, a precise result from an unstable denominator should be presented as uncertain rather than used for a strong ranking or causal claim.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]

The interpretive rule is to review quarterly in affected areas and publish annual definitions, limitations, revisions, actions and unresolved loss. Within the authority responsible for a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, association should be examined against timing, exposure, pre-conflict baseline and plausible alternatives. For the indicator on a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, national or regional averages should be challenged through poverty, age, location, disability and displacement where lawful and material. In comparing a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the final statement should identify what is established, what remains uncertain and which additional evidence or service action follows.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]

Decision use in a gender-and-conflict reporting compact should connect the finding to an authority able to alter the relevant barrier. For the indicator on a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, the action should state affected scope, resource, timetable, expected indicator change and a protection against unintended exclusion. In comparing a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, monitoring should test the learner-facing result and should look for displacement of harm from one sex, stage or group to another. Applied to a gender-and-conflict reporting compact, closure requires sustained evidence and an account of opportunity already lost.[REF-21] [REF-41] [REF-54] [REF-59]