ICEQC-R-2019-01 — Education Participation among Migrants and Displaced Persons: Comparability and Missing Data

Migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms defines a specific comparability question within the category distinction. For migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, the population is people moving under different circumstances and legal frameworks, and the immediate evidence concerns category rule, reference date and education relevance. In examining migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-31] [REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

The central risk is that unlike populations are pooled under one label and policy implications become unclear. In examining migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-31] [REF-33] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to publish the operative definition and retain necessary distinctions. Within reporting on migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Comparability for migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-31] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Data governance for migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-31] [REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the category distinction. For migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Later review of migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether people moving under different circumstances and legal frameworks experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-31] [REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Country of birth, citizenship and migration history defines a specific comparability question within the demographic category. For country of birth, citizenship and migration history, the population is learners with varied birthplaces, citizenship and movement histories, and the immediate evidence concerns birthplace, citizenship, arrival and generation. In examining country of birth, citizenship and migration history, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on country of birth, citizenship and migration history, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

The central risk is that one proxy is treated as complete migration experience. In examining country of birth, citizenship and migration history, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on country of birth, citizenship and migration history, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning country of birth, citizenship and migration history, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-34] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to report the available dimension and the material omission. Within reporting on country of birth, citizenship and migration history, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning country of birth, citizenship and migration history, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to country of birth, citizenship and migration history, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Comparability for country of birth, citizenship and migration history depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning country of birth, citizenship and migration history, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to country of birth, citizenship and migration history, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about country of birth, citizenship and migration history, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for country of birth, citizenship and migration history should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to country of birth, citizenship and migration history, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about country of birth, citizenship and migration history, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For country of birth, citizenship and migration history, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Data governance for country of birth, citizenship and migration history should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about country of birth, citizenship and migration history, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For country of birth, citizenship and migration history, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining country of birth, citizenship and migration history, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the demographic category. For country of birth, citizenship and migration history, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining country of birth, citizenship and migration history, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Later review of country of birth, citizenship and migration history should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining country of birth, citizenship and migration history, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on country of birth, citizenship and migration history, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners with varied birthplaces, citizenship and movement histories experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Internal and cross-border displacement defines a specific comparability question within the displacement scope. For internal and cross-border displacement, the population is people displaced inside a country or across a border, and the immediate evidence concerns place of origin, current location and movement. In examining internal and cross-border displacement, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on internal and cross-border displacement, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

The central risk is that cross-border frames omit internally displaced learners or internal records miss border movement. In examining internal and cross-border displacement, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on internal and cross-border displacement, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning internal and cross-border displacement, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to state territorial coverage and connect sources cautiously. Within reporting on internal and cross-border displacement, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning internal and cross-border displacement, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to internal and cross-border displacement, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Comparability for internal and cross-border displacement depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning internal and cross-border displacement, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to internal and cross-border displacement, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about internal and cross-border displacement, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-07] [REF-41]

Equity analysis for internal and cross-border displacement should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to internal and cross-border displacement, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about internal and cross-border displacement, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For internal and cross-border displacement, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Data governance for internal and cross-border displacement should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about internal and cross-border displacement, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For internal and cross-border displacement, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining internal and cross-border displacement, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the displacement scope. For internal and cross-border displacement, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining internal and cross-border displacement, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Later review of internal and cross-border displacement should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining internal and cross-border displacement, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on internal and cross-border displacement, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether people displaced inside a country or across a border experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Legal status and education entitlement defines a specific comparability question within the rights relation. For legal status and education entitlement, the population is learners with refugee, asylum, temporary, irregular or unresolved status, and the immediate evidence concerns admission right and service access. In examining legal status and education entitlement, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on legal status and education entitlement, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

The central risk is that status uncertainty becomes educational ineligibility or missing status means exclusion from statistics. In examining legal status and education entitlement, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on legal status and education entitlement, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning legal status and education entitlement, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-21]

The recommended response is to separate education entitlement from the statistical status field. Within reporting on legal status and education entitlement, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning legal status and education entitlement, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to legal status and education entitlement, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Comparability for legal status and education entitlement depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning legal status and education entitlement, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to legal status and education entitlement, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about legal status and education entitlement, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-13] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for legal status and education entitlement should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to legal status and education entitlement, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about legal status and education entitlement, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For legal status and education entitlement, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Data governance for legal status and education entitlement should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about legal status and education entitlement, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For legal status and education entitlement, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining legal status and education entitlement, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the rights relation. For legal status and education entitlement, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining legal status and education entitlement, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Later review of legal status and education entitlement should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining legal status and education entitlement, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on legal status and education entitlement, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners with refugee, asylum, temporary, irregular or unresolved status experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Duration of residence and changing relevance defines a specific comparability question within the temporal category. For duration of residence and changing relevance, the population is new arrivals and longer-settled learners, and the immediate evidence concerns arrival date, exposure and current support need. In examining duration of residence and changing relevance, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on duration of residence and changing relevance, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-10] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

The central risk is that a permanent migrant-background label substitutes for current educational evidence. In examining duration of residence and changing relevance, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on duration of residence and changing relevance, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning duration of residence and changing relevance, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-10] [REF-34] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to use movement history where relevant and review continuing need. Within reporting on duration of residence and changing relevance, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning duration of residence and changing relevance, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to duration of residence and changing relevance, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Comparability for duration of residence and changing relevance depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning duration of residence and changing relevance, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to duration of residence and changing relevance, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about duration of residence and changing relevance, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-10] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for duration of residence and changing relevance should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to duration of residence and changing relevance, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about duration of residence and changing relevance, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For duration of residence and changing relevance, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Data governance for duration of residence and changing relevance should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about duration of residence and changing relevance, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For duration of residence and changing relevance, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining duration of residence and changing relevance, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-10] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the temporal category. For duration of residence and changing relevance, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining duration of residence and changing relevance, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Later review of duration of residence and changing relevance should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining duration of residence and changing relevance, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on duration of residence and changing relevance, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether new arrivals and longer-settled learners experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-10] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Self-identification, assigned categories and trust defines a specific comparability question within the category governance. For self-identification, assigned categories and trust, the population is learners and families asked to disclose sensitive identity information, and the immediate evidence concerns question wording, respondent and intended use. In examining self-identification, assigned categories and trust, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on self-identification, assigned categories and trust, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

The central risk is that administrative assignment misclassifies people or disclosure fear suppresses response. In examining self-identification, assigned categories and trust, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on self-identification, assigned categories and trust, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning self-identification, assigned categories and trust, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20]

The recommended response is to explain purpose, permit correction and protect confidential use. Within reporting on self-identification, assigned categories and trust, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning self-identification, assigned categories and trust, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to self-identification, assigned categories and trust, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

Comparability for self-identification, assigned categories and trust depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning self-identification, assigned categories and trust, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to self-identification, assigned categories and trust, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about self-identification, assigned categories and trust, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for self-identification, assigned categories and trust should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to self-identification, assigned categories and trust, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about self-identification, assigned categories and trust, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For self-identification, assigned categories and trust, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

Data governance for self-identification, assigned categories and trust should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about self-identification, assigned categories and trust, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For self-identification, assigned categories and trust, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining self-identification, assigned categories and trust, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the category governance. For self-identification, assigned categories and trust, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining self-identification, assigned categories and trust, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

Later review of self-identification, assigned categories and trust should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining self-identification, assigned categories and trust, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on self-identification, assigned categories and trust, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners and families asked to disclose sensitive identity information experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

School registers and recognised provision defines a specific comparability question within the administrative frame. For school registers and recognised provision, the population is learners enrolled in public, private, community and temporary provision, and the immediate evidence concerns registration, attendance and provider coverage. In examining school registers and recognised provision, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on school registers and recognised provision, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The central risk is that national school records omit non-recognised provision or count registration as attendance. In examining school registers and recognised provision, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on school registers and recognised provision, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning school registers and recognised provision, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-26] [REF-32]

The recommended response is to map provider coverage and pair status with actual participation. Within reporting on school registers and recognised provision, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning school registers and recognised provision, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to school registers and recognised provision, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Comparability for school registers and recognised provision depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning school registers and recognised provision, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to school registers and recognised provision, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about school registers and recognised provision, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for school registers and recognised provision should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to school registers and recognised provision, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about school registers and recognised provision, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For school registers and recognised provision, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Data governance for school registers and recognised provision should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about school registers and recognised provision, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For school registers and recognised provision, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining school registers and recognised provision, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the administrative frame. For school registers and recognised provision, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining school registers and recognised provision, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Later review of school registers and recognised provision should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining school registers and recognised provision, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on school registers and recognised provision, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners enrolled in public, private, community and temporary provision experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Household surveys and unstable residence defines a specific comparability question within the household frame. For household surveys and unstable residence, the population is people living in sampled households and collective or unstable settings, and the immediate evidence concerns residence rule, household membership and education response. In examining household surveys and unstable residence, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on household surveys and unstable residence, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

The central risk is that camps, shelters, institutions and mobile households fall outside the sample. In examining household surveys and unstable residence, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on household surveys and unstable residence, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning household surveys and unstable residence, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-31]

The recommended response is to publish residence coverage and use complementary evidence. Within reporting on household surveys and unstable residence, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning household surveys and unstable residence, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to household surveys and unstable residence, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Comparability for household surveys and unstable residence depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning household surveys and unstable residence, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to household surveys and unstable residence, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about household surveys and unstable residence, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-07] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for household surveys and unstable residence should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to household surveys and unstable residence, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about household surveys and unstable residence, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For household surveys and unstable residence, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Data governance for household surveys and unstable residence should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about household surveys and unstable residence, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For household surveys and unstable residence, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining household surveys and unstable residence, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the household frame. For household surveys and unstable residence, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining household surveys and unstable residence, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Later review of household surveys and unstable residence should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining household surveys and unstable residence, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on household surveys and unstable residence, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether people living in sampled households and collective or unstable settings experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Population estimates and denominator uncertainty defines a specific comparability question within the population denominator. For population estimates and denominator uncertainty, the population is migrant and displaced groups with rapidly changing size and location, and the immediate evidence concerns stock, flow, age and reference date. In examining population estimates and denominator uncertainty, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on population estimates and denominator uncertainty, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

The central risk is that rates use numerators and denominators from different dates or categories. In examining population estimates and denominator uncertainty, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on population estimates and denominator uncertainty, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning population estimates and denominator uncertainty, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-38]

The recommended response is to align definitions and provide bounded estimates where movement is material. Within reporting on population estimates and denominator uncertainty, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning population estimates and denominator uncertainty, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to population estimates and denominator uncertainty, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Comparability for population estimates and denominator uncertainty depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning population estimates and denominator uncertainty, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to population estimates and denominator uncertainty, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about population estimates and denominator uncertainty, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for population estimates and denominator uncertainty should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to population estimates and denominator uncertainty, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about population estimates and denominator uncertainty, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For population estimates and denominator uncertainty, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Data governance for population estimates and denominator uncertainty should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about population estimates and denominator uncertainty, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For population estimates and denominator uncertainty, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining population estimates and denominator uncertainty, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the population denominator. For population estimates and denominator uncertainty, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining population estimates and denominator uncertainty, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Later review of population estimates and denominator uncertainty should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining population estimates and denominator uncertainty, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on population estimates and denominator uncertainty, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether migrant and displaced groups with rapidly changing size and location experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Protection and assistance records defines a specific comparability question within the service frame. For protection and assistance records, the population is people registered for protection or receiving assistance, and the immediate evidence concerns registration, case status and education contact. In examining protection and assistance records, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on protection and assistance records, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-20] [REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

The central risk is that unregistered people disappear or assistance registration is treated as the whole population. In examining protection and assistance records, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on protection and assistance records, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning protection and assistance records, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-20] [REF-32] [REF-37]

The recommended response is to use protected aggregate linkage and state who is outside the service frame. Within reporting on protection and assistance records, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning protection and assistance records, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to protection and assistance records, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

Comparability for protection and assistance records depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning protection and assistance records, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to protection and assistance records, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about protection and assistance records, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-20] [REF-41]

Equity analysis for protection and assistance records should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to protection and assistance records, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about protection and assistance records, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For protection and assistance records, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

Data governance for protection and assistance records should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about protection and assistance records, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For protection and assistance records, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining protection and assistance records, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-20] [REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the service frame. For protection and assistance records, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining protection and assistance records, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

Later review of protection and assistance records should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining protection and assistance records, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on protection and assistance records, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether people registered for protection or receiving assistance experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-20] [REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

Learner movement between institutions defines a specific comparability question within the mobility record. For learner movement between institutions, the population is learners entering, leaving and returning across schools and jurisdictions, and the immediate evidence concerns entry, exit, destination and exposure. In examining learner movement between institutions, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on learner movement between institutions, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

The central risk is that duplicate enrolment or unexplained disappearance distorts participation. In examining learner movement between institutions, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on learner movement between institutions, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning learner movement between institutions, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to use privacy-protected continuity records and unresolved-exit categories. Within reporting on learner movement between institutions, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning learner movement between institutions, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to learner movement between institutions, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Comparability for learner movement between institutions depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning learner movement between institutions, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to learner movement between institutions, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about learner movement between institutions, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-14] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for learner movement between institutions should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to learner movement between institutions, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about learner movement between institutions, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For learner movement between institutions, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Data governance for learner movement between institutions should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about learner movement between institutions, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For learner movement between institutions, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining learner movement between institutions, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the mobility record. For learner movement between institutions, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining learner movement between institutions, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Later review of learner movement between institutions should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining learner movement between institutions, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on learner movement between institutions, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners entering, leaving and returning across schools and jurisdictions experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Children absent from every accessible source defines a specific comparability question within the coverage gap. For children absent from every accessible source, the population is children outside stable households, schools and registration arrangements, and the immediate evidence concerns presence, age and education contact. In examining children absent from every accessible source, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on children absent from every accessible source, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

The central risk is that lack of records is read as lack of population or need. In examining children absent from every accessible source, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on children absent from every accessible source, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning children absent from every accessible source, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-13]

The recommended response is to combine community and service evidence with cautious estimation and immediate outreach. Within reporting on children absent from every accessible source, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning children absent from every accessible source, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to children absent from every accessible source, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Comparability for children absent from every accessible source depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning children absent from every accessible source, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to children absent from every accessible source, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about children absent from every accessible source, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-04] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for children absent from every accessible source should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to children absent from every accessible source, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about children absent from every accessible source, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For children absent from every accessible source, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Data governance for children absent from every accessible source should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about children absent from every accessible source, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For children absent from every accessible source, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining children absent from every accessible source, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the coverage gap. For children absent from every accessible source, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining children absent from every accessible source, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Later review of children absent from every accessible source should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining children absent from every accessible source, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on children absent from every accessible source, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether children outside stable households, schools and registration arrangements experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

Admission and waiting time defines a specific comparability question within the entry measure. For admission and waiting time, the population is learners seeking a school place after movement, and the immediate evidence concerns request, admission, start date and delay. In examining admission and waiting time, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on admission and waiting time, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

The central risk is that eventual enrolment hides months outside education. In examining admission and waiting time, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on admission and waiting time, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning admission and waiting time, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-40]

The recommended response is to measure time from first contact to actual attendance. Within reporting on admission and waiting time, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning admission and waiting time, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to admission and waiting time, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

Comparability for admission and waiting time depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning admission and waiting time, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to admission and waiting time, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about admission and waiting time, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-14] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for admission and waiting time should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to admission and waiting time, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about admission and waiting time, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For admission and waiting time, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

Data governance for admission and waiting time should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about admission and waiting time, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For admission and waiting time, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining admission and waiting time, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the entry measure. For admission and waiting time, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining admission and waiting time, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

Later review of admission and waiting time should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining admission and waiting time, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on admission and waiting time, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners seeking a school place after movement experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

Enrolment and actual attendance defines a specific comparability question within the participation measure. For enrolment and actual attendance, the population is learners formally registered under unstable conditions, and the immediate evidence concerns registration, attendance days and interruption. In examining enrolment and actual attendance, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on enrolment and actual attendance, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The central risk is that registered places stand for sustained education. In examining enrolment and actual attendance, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on enrolment and actual attendance, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning enrolment and actual attendance, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-32]

The recommended response is to report attendance distribution, absence and return. Within reporting on enrolment and actual attendance, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning enrolment and actual attendance, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to enrolment and actual attendance, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Comparability for enrolment and actual attendance depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning enrolment and actual attendance, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to enrolment and actual attendance, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about enrolment and actual attendance, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for enrolment and actual attendance should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to enrolment and actual attendance, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about enrolment and actual attendance, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For enrolment and actual attendance, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Data governance for enrolment and actual attendance should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about enrolment and actual attendance, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For enrolment and actual attendance, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining enrolment and actual attendance, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the participation measure. For enrolment and actual attendance, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining enrolment and actual attendance, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Later review of enrolment and actual attendance should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining enrolment and actual attendance, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on enrolment and actual attendance, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners formally registered under unstable conditions experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Age-grade placement and late entry defines a specific comparability question within the placement measure. For age-grade placement and late entry, the population is learners entering with varied prior education and documentation, and the immediate evidence concerns age, prior learning, grade and support. In examining age-grade placement and late entry, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on age-grade placement and late entry, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

The central risk is that age-only placement or automatic grade reduction produces unsuitable education. In examining age-grade placement and late entry, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on age-grade placement and late entry, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning age-grade placement and late entry, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-31]

The recommended response is to record placement basis and review participation and learning. Within reporting on age-grade placement and late entry, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning age-grade placement and late entry, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to age-grade placement and late entry, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

Comparability for age-grade placement and late entry depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning age-grade placement and late entry, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to age-grade placement and late entry, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about age-grade placement and late entry, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-06] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for age-grade placement and late entry should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to age-grade placement and late entry, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about age-grade placement and late entry, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For age-grade placement and late entry, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

Data governance for age-grade placement and late entry should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about age-grade placement and late entry, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For age-grade placement and late entry, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining age-grade placement and late entry, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the placement measure. For age-grade placement and late entry, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining age-grade placement and late entry, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

Later review of age-grade placement and late entry should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining age-grade placement and late entry, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on age-grade placement and late entry, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners entering with varied prior education and documentation experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

Duration and effective instructional exposure defines a specific comparability question within the exposure measure. For duration and effective instructional exposure, the population is learners present for part of an academic period, and the immediate evidence concerns time enrolled, time attended and teaching received. In examining duration and effective instructional exposure, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on duration and effective instructional exposure, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

The central risk is that annual outcomes are assigned without accounting for partial exposure. In examining duration and effective instructional exposure, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on duration and effective instructional exposure, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning duration and effective instructional exposure, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-29]

The recommended response is to publish exposure intervals and institutional history. Within reporting on duration and effective instructional exposure, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning duration and effective instructional exposure, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to duration and effective instructional exposure, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

Comparability for duration and effective instructional exposure depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning duration and effective instructional exposure, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to duration and effective instructional exposure, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about duration and effective instructional exposure, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-01] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for duration and effective instructional exposure should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to duration and effective instructional exposure, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about duration and effective instructional exposure, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For duration and effective instructional exposure, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

Data governance for duration and effective instructional exposure should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about duration and effective instructional exposure, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For duration and effective instructional exposure, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining duration and effective instructional exposure, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the exposure measure. For duration and effective instructional exposure, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining duration and effective instructional exposure, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

Later review of duration and effective instructional exposure should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining duration and effective instructional exposure, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on duration and effective instructional exposure, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners present for part of an academic period experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

Completion across interrupted pathways defines a specific comparability question within the completion measure. For completion across interrupted pathways, the population is learners completing levels after movement or interruption, and the immediate evidence concerns level mapping, completion rule and delay. In examining completion across interrupted pathways, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on completion across interrupted pathways, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The central risk is that national completion excludes recognised prior study or counts incomparable programmes alike. In examining completion across interrupted pathways, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on completion across interrupted pathways, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning completion across interrupted pathways, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-32]

The recommended response is to map education levels and preserve pathway history. Within reporting on completion across interrupted pathways, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning completion across interrupted pathways, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to completion across interrupted pathways, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Comparability for completion across interrupted pathways depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning completion across interrupted pathways, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to completion across interrupted pathways, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about completion across interrupted pathways, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-06] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for completion across interrupted pathways should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to completion across interrupted pathways, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about completion across interrupted pathways, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For completion across interrupted pathways, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Data governance for completion across interrupted pathways should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about completion across interrupted pathways, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For completion across interrupted pathways, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining completion across interrupted pathways, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the completion measure. For completion across interrupted pathways, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining completion across interrupted pathways, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Later review of completion across interrupted pathways should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining completion across interrupted pathways, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on completion across interrupted pathways, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners completing levels after movement or interruption experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Transition to secondary and further education defines a specific comparability question within the transition measure. For transition to secondary and further education, the population is migrant and displaced learners moving between education levels, and the immediate evidence concerns completion, entry, delay and continued attendance. In examining transition to secondary and further education, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on transition to secondary and further education, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-28] [REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

The central risk is that primary participation success conceals collapse at secondary transition. In examining transition to secondary and further education, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on transition to secondary and further education, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning transition to secondary and further education, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-28] [REF-37] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to follow cohorts across boundaries and identify finance, language and recognition barriers. Within reporting on transition to secondary and further education, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning transition to secondary and further education, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to transition to secondary and further education, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Comparability for transition to secondary and further education depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning transition to secondary and further education, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to transition to secondary and further education, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about transition to secondary and further education, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-28] [REF-41]

Equity analysis for transition to secondary and further education should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to transition to secondary and further education, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about transition to secondary and further education, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For transition to secondary and further education, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Data governance for transition to secondary and further education should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about transition to secondary and further education, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For transition to secondary and further education, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining transition to secondary and further education, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-28] [REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the transition measure. For transition to secondary and further education, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining transition to secondary and further education, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Later review of transition to secondary and further education should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining transition to secondary and further education, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on transition to secondary and further education, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether migrant and displaced learners moving between education levels experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-28] [REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

Language of instruction and learning evidence defines a specific comparability question within the language context. For language of instruction and learning evidence, the population is learners developing proficiency in a new instructional language, and the immediate evidence concerns language exposure and domain learning. In examining language of instruction and learning evidence, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on language of instruction and learning evidence, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

The central risk is that limited language familiarity is called general low ability. In examining language of instruction and learning evidence, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on language of instruction and learning evidence, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning language of instruction and learning evidence, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-34]

The recommended response is to report language support, exposure and construct limitations. Within reporting on language of instruction and learning evidence, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning language of instruction and learning evidence, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to language of instruction and learning evidence, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

Comparability for language of instruction and learning evidence depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning language of instruction and learning evidence, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to language of instruction and learning evidence, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about language of instruction and learning evidence, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-13] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for language of instruction and learning evidence should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to language of instruction and learning evidence, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about language of instruction and learning evidence, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For language of instruction and learning evidence, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

Data governance for language of instruction and learning evidence should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about language of instruction and learning evidence, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For language of instruction and learning evidence, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining language of instruction and learning evidence, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the language context. For language of instruction and learning evidence, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining language of instruction and learning evidence, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

Later review of language of instruction and learning evidence should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining language of instruction and learning evidence, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on language of instruction and learning evidence, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners developing proficiency in a new instructional language experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

Assessment eligibility and exclusions defines a specific comparability question within the assessment coverage. For assessment eligibility and exclusions, the population is migrant and displaced learners in target grades or ages, and the immediate evidence concerns eligibility, participation, accommodation and absence. In examining assessment eligibility and exclusions, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on assessment eligibility and exclusions, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

The central risk is that learners are excluded from tests and then disappear from learning statistics. In examining assessment eligibility and exclusions, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on assessment eligibility and exclusions, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning assessment eligibility and exclusions, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-15] [REF-17]

The recommended response is to publish population steps and provide accessible participation. Within reporting on assessment eligibility and exclusions, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning assessment eligibility and exclusions, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to assessment eligibility and exclusions, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

Comparability for assessment eligibility and exclusions depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning assessment eligibility and exclusions, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to assessment eligibility and exclusions, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about assessment eligibility and exclusions, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for assessment eligibility and exclusions should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to assessment eligibility and exclusions, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about assessment eligibility and exclusions, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For assessment eligibility and exclusions, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

Data governance for assessment eligibility and exclusions should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about assessment eligibility and exclusions, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For assessment eligibility and exclusions, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining assessment eligibility and exclusions, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the assessment coverage. For assessment eligibility and exclusions, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining assessment eligibility and exclusions, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

Later review of assessment eligibility and exclusions should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining assessment eligibility and exclusions, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on assessment eligibility and exclusions, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether migrant and displaced learners in target grades or ages experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

Prior curriculum and opportunity to learn defines a specific comparability question within the curriculum context. For prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, the population is learners moving between education systems or after interruption, and the immediate evidence concerns content exposure, sequence and instructional time. In examining prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-01] [REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

The central risk is that assessment results are attributed without examining what was taught. In examining prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-01] [REF-29] [REF-31]

The recommended response is to map prior and current curriculum exposure before assigning need. Within reporting on prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Comparability for prior curriculum and opportunity to learn depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-01] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for prior curriculum and opportunity to learn should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Data governance for prior curriculum and opportunity to learn should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-01] [REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the curriculum context. For prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Later review of prior curriculum and opportunity to learn should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners moving between education systems or after interruption experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-01] [REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Progress from a documented starting point defines a specific comparability question within the learning progress. For progress from a documented starting point, the population is learners beginning at different levels and dates, and the immediate evidence concerns initial evidence, later level and comparable interval. In examining progress from a documented starting point, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on progress from a documented starting point, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The central risk is that raw later outcomes ignore progress or progress estimates hide low absolute levels. In examining progress from a documented starting point, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on progress from a documented starting point, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning progress from a documented starting point, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-29]

The recommended response is to report both change and common entitlement levels. Within reporting on progress from a documented starting point, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning progress from a documented starting point, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to progress from a documented starting point, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Comparability for progress from a documented starting point depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning progress from a documented starting point, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to progress from a documented starting point, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about progress from a documented starting point, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-02] [REF-30]

Equity analysis for progress from a documented starting point should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to progress from a documented starting point, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about progress from a documented starting point, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For progress from a documented starting point, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Data governance for progress from a documented starting point should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about progress from a documented starting point, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For progress from a documented starting point, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining progress from a documented starting point, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the learning progress. For progress from a documented starting point, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining progress from a documented starting point, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Later review of progress from a documented starting point should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining progress from a documented starting point, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on progress from a documented starting point, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners beginning at different levels and dates experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Recognition of prior study and partial records defines a specific comparability question within the study recognition. For recognition of prior study and partial records, the population is learners with incomplete documentation of education, and the immediate evidence concerns credible evidence, placement and preserved credit. In examining recognition of prior study and partial records, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on recognition of prior study and partial records, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

The central risk is that missing papers erase learning or delay education indefinitely. In examining recognition of prior study and partial records, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on recognition of prior study and partial records, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning recognition of prior study and partial records, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-31]

The recommended response is to use fair alternative evidence and provisional recognition with review. Within reporting on recognition of prior study and partial records, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning recognition of prior study and partial records, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to recognition of prior study and partial records, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

Comparability for recognition of prior study and partial records depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning recognition of prior study and partial records, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to recognition of prior study and partial records, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about recognition of prior study and partial records, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-14] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for recognition of prior study and partial records should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to recognition of prior study and partial records, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about recognition of prior study and partial records, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For recognition of prior study and partial records, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

Data governance for recognition of prior study and partial records should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about recognition of prior study and partial records, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For recognition of prior study and partial records, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining recognition of prior study and partial records, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the study recognition. For recognition of prior study and partial records, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining recognition of prior study and partial records, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

Later review of recognition of prior study and partial records should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining recognition of prior study and partial records, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on recognition of prior study and partial records, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners with incomplete documentation of education experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

Qualifications and access to further pathways defines a specific comparability question within the qualification recognition. For qualifications and access to further pathways, the population is youth and adults seeking further education or work, and the immediate evidence concerns qualification level, authenticity and receiving decision. In examining qualifications and access to further pathways, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on qualifications and access to further pathways, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

The central risk is that unrecognised credentials block participation despite demonstrated learning. In examining qualifications and access to further pathways, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on qualifications and access to further pathways, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning qualifications and access to further pathways, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to publish fair assessment routes using instruments available by the cutoff. Within reporting on qualifications and access to further pathways, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning qualifications and access to further pathways, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to qualifications and access to further pathways, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Comparability for qualifications and access to further pathways depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning qualifications and access to further pathways, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to qualifications and access to further pathways, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about qualifications and access to further pathways, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-06] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for qualifications and access to further pathways should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to qualifications and access to further pathways, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about qualifications and access to further pathways, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For qualifications and access to further pathways, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Data governance for qualifications and access to further pathways should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about qualifications and access to further pathways, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For qualifications and access to further pathways, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining qualifications and access to further pathways, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the qualification recognition. For qualifications and access to further pathways, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining qualifications and access to further pathways, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Later review of qualifications and access to further pathways should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining qualifications and access to further pathways, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on qualifications and access to further pathways, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether youth and adults seeking further education or work experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Sex, gender and changing participation barriers defines a specific comparability question within the gender disaggregation. For sex, gender and changing participation barriers, the population is girls, boys and learners facing gendered safety or care expectations, and the immediate evidence concerns entry, attendance, transition and learning. In examining sex, gender and changing participation barriers, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on sex, gender and changing participation barriers, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

The central risk is that aggregate migrant averages conceal opposing barriers or universally low levels. In examining sex, gender and changing participation barriers, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on sex, gender and changing participation barriers, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning sex, gender and changing participation barriers, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-35]

The recommended response is to publish group levels and material conditions. Within reporting on sex, gender and changing participation barriers, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning sex, gender and changing participation barriers, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to sex, gender and changing participation barriers, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Comparability for sex, gender and changing participation barriers depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning sex, gender and changing participation barriers, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to sex, gender and changing participation barriers, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about sex, gender and changing participation barriers, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-03] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for sex, gender and changing participation barriers should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to sex, gender and changing participation barriers, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about sex, gender and changing participation barriers, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For sex, gender and changing participation barriers, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Data governance for sex, gender and changing participation barriers should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about sex, gender and changing participation barriers, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For sex, gender and changing participation barriers, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining sex, gender and changing participation barriers, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the gender disaggregation. For sex, gender and changing participation barriers, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining sex, gender and changing participation barriers, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Later review of sex, gender and changing participation barriers should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining sex, gender and changing participation barriers, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on sex, gender and changing participation barriers, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether girls, boys and learners facing gendered safety or care expectations experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

Age and education-stage differences defines a specific comparability question within the age disaggregation. For age and education-stage differences, the population is children, adolescents, youth and adults at different transitions, and the immediate evidence concerns age, level and participation status. In examining age and education-stage differences, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on age and education-stage differences, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

The central risk is that a broad age group conceals secondary exclusion or adult education need. In examining age and education-stage differences, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on age and education-stage differences, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning age and education-stage differences, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-37]

The recommended response is to align age bands to education questions and show over-age participation. Within reporting on age and education-stage differences, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning age and education-stage differences, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to age and education-stage differences, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

Comparability for age and education-stage differences depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning age and education-stage differences, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to age and education-stage differences, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about age and education-stage differences, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for age and education-stage differences should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to age and education-stage differences, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about age and education-stage differences, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For age and education-stage differences, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

Data governance for age and education-stage differences should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about age and education-stage differences, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For age and education-stage differences, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining age and education-stage differences, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the age disaggregation. For age and education-stage differences, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining age and education-stage differences, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

Later review of age and education-stage differences should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining age and education-stage differences, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on age and education-stage differences, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether children, adolescents, youth and adults at different transitions experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

Disability and accessible participation defines a specific comparability question within the disability disaggregation. For disability and accessible participation, the population is migrants and displaced persons with functional difficulties, and the immediate evidence concerns functional evidence, accommodation and service receipt. In examining disability and accessible participation, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on disability and accessible participation, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

The central risk is that disability is absent from records or inaccessible provision appears as non-participation choice. In examining disability and accessible participation, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on disability and accessible participation, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning disability and accessible participation, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15]

The recommended response is to use respectful functional measures and verify accommodation. Within reporting on disability and accessible participation, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning disability and accessible participation, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to disability and accessible participation, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

Comparability for disability and accessible participation depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning disability and accessible participation, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to disability and accessible participation, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about disability and accessible participation, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-10] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for disability and accessible participation should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to disability and accessible participation, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about disability and accessible participation, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For disability and accessible participation, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

Data governance for disability and accessible participation should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about disability and accessible participation, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For disability and accessible participation, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining disability and accessible participation, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the disability disaggregation. For disability and accessible participation, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining disability and accessible participation, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

Later review of disability and accessible participation should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining disability and accessible participation, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on disability and accessible participation, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether migrants and displaced persons with functional difficulties experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

Location, settlement and territorial access defines a specific comparability question within the geographic disaggregation. For location, settlement and territorial access, the population is learners in camps, cities, remote areas and informal settlements, and the immediate evidence concerns distance, provider, transport and service capacity. In examining location, settlement and territorial access, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on location, settlement and territorial access, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

The central risk is that national categories hide local concentration and travel barriers. In examining location, settlement and territorial access, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on location, settlement and territorial access, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning location, settlement and territorial access, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-32]

The recommended response is to link participation to territorial service evidence. Within reporting on location, settlement and territorial access, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning location, settlement and territorial access, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to location, settlement and territorial access, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Comparability for location, settlement and territorial access depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning location, settlement and territorial access, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to location, settlement and territorial access, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about location, settlement and territorial access, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-03] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for location, settlement and territorial access should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to location, settlement and territorial access, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about location, settlement and territorial access, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For location, settlement and territorial access, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Data governance for location, settlement and territorial access should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about location, settlement and territorial access, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For location, settlement and territorial access, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining location, settlement and territorial access, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the geographic disaggregation. For location, settlement and territorial access, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining location, settlement and territorial access, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Later review of location, settlement and territorial access should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining location, settlement and territorial access, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on location, settlement and territorial access, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners in camps, cities, remote areas and informal settlements experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

Wealth, employment and household constraint defines a specific comparability question within the socioeconomic disaggregation. For wealth, employment and household constraint, the population is households facing varied resources and opportunity costs, and the immediate evidence concerns wealth grouping, fees, work and attendance. In examining wealth, employment and household constraint, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on wealth, employment and household constraint, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-04] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

The central risk is that relative wealth measures are compared as identical living conditions. In examining wealth, employment and household constraint, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on wealth, employment and household constraint, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning wealth, employment and household constraint, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-04] [REF-08] [REF-38]

The recommended response is to retain construction and examine education costs and work demands. Within reporting on wealth, employment and household constraint, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning wealth, employment and household constraint, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to wealth, employment and household constraint, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Comparability for wealth, employment and household constraint depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning wealth, employment and household constraint, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to wealth, employment and household constraint, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about wealth, employment and household constraint, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-04] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for wealth, employment and household constraint should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to wealth, employment and household constraint, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about wealth, employment and household constraint, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For wealth, employment and household constraint, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Data governance for wealth, employment and household constraint should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about wealth, employment and household constraint, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For wealth, employment and household constraint, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining wealth, employment and household constraint, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-04] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the socioeconomic disaggregation. For wealth, employment and household constraint, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining wealth, employment and household constraint, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Later review of wealth, employment and household constraint should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining wealth, employment and household constraint, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on wealth, employment and household constraint, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether households facing varied resources and opportunity costs experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-04] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

Intersecting categories and small populations defines a specific comparability question within the intersectional comparison. For intersecting categories and small populations, the population is small groups affected by several material characteristics, and the immediate evidence concerns joint level, count and uncertainty. In examining intersecting categories and small populations, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on intersecting categories and small populations, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

The central risk is that single-axis reports hide compounded exclusion or detailed cells expose people. In examining intersecting categories and small populations, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on intersecting categories and small populations, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning intersecting categories and small populations, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20]

The recommended response is to select decision-relevant intersections with counts and disclosure protection. Within reporting on intersecting categories and small populations, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning intersecting categories and small populations, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to intersecting categories and small populations, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Comparability for intersecting categories and small populations depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning intersecting categories and small populations, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to intersecting categories and small populations, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about intersecting categories and small populations, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for intersecting categories and small populations should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to intersecting categories and small populations, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about intersecting categories and small populations, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For intersecting categories and small populations, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Data governance for intersecting categories and small populations should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about intersecting categories and small populations, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For intersecting categories and small populations, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining intersecting categories and small populations, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the intersectional comparison. For intersecting categories and small populations, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining intersecting categories and small populations, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Later review of intersecting categories and small populations should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining intersecting categories and small populations, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on intersecting categories and small populations, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether small groups affected by several material characteristics experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Purpose limitation and safe collection defines a specific comparability question within the data purpose. For purpose limitation and safe collection, the population is learners asked for migration, status or protection information, and the immediate evidence concerns stated education use and minimum necessary fields. In examining purpose limitation and safe collection, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on purpose limitation and safe collection, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

The central risk is that data gathered for support is reused for unrelated enforcement or control. In examining purpose limitation and safe collection, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on purpose limitation and safe collection, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning purpose limitation and safe collection, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The recommended response is to define lawful educational purpose and restrict access. Within reporting on purpose limitation and safe collection, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning purpose limitation and safe collection, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to purpose limitation and safe collection, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Comparability for purpose limitation and safe collection depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning purpose limitation and safe collection, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to purpose limitation and safe collection, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about purpose limitation and safe collection, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for purpose limitation and safe collection should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to purpose limitation and safe collection, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about purpose limitation and safe collection, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For purpose limitation and safe collection, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Data governance for purpose limitation and safe collection should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about purpose limitation and safe collection, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For purpose limitation and safe collection, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining purpose limitation and safe collection, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the data purpose. For purpose limitation and safe collection, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining purpose limitation and safe collection, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Later review of purpose limitation and safe collection should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining purpose limitation and safe collection, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on purpose limitation and safe collection, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners asked for migration, status or protection information experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

Consent, notice and correction defines a specific comparability question within the information rights. For consent, notice and correction, the population is learners and families represented in administrative records, and the immediate evidence concerns notice, respondent understanding and correction route. In examining consent, notice and correction, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on consent, notice and correction, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The central risk is that people cannot see or correct categories affecting education decisions. In examining consent, notice and correction, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on consent, notice and correction, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning consent, notice and correction, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-20]

The recommended response is to provide understandable notice and practical correction. Within reporting on consent, notice and correction, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning consent, notice and correction, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to consent, notice and correction, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Comparability for consent, notice and correction depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning consent, notice and correction, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to consent, notice and correction, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about consent, notice and correction, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-10] [REF-21]

Equity analysis for consent, notice and correction should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to consent, notice and correction, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about consent, notice and correction, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For consent, notice and correction, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Data governance for consent, notice and correction should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about consent, notice and correction, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For consent, notice and correction, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining consent, notice and correction, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the information rights. For consent, notice and correction, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining consent, notice and correction, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Later review of consent, notice and correction should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining consent, notice and correction, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on consent, notice and correction, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners and families represented in administrative records experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

Privacy-preserving record linkage defines a specific comparability question within the source linkage. For privacy-preserving record linkage, the population is institutions reconciling education and population evidence, and the immediate evidence concerns matching quality, separation and aggregate result. In examining privacy-preserving record linkage, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on privacy-preserving record linkage, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

The central risk is that identifiable records circulate widely or false matches distort status. In examining privacy-preserving record linkage, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on privacy-preserving record linkage, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning privacy-preserving record linkage, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20]

The recommended response is to use limited authorised linkage, match-quality review and protected outputs. Within reporting on privacy-preserving record linkage, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning privacy-preserving record linkage, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to privacy-preserving record linkage, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

Comparability for privacy-preserving record linkage depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning privacy-preserving record linkage, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to privacy-preserving record linkage, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about privacy-preserving record linkage, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for privacy-preserving record linkage should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to privacy-preserving record linkage, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about privacy-preserving record linkage, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For privacy-preserving record linkage, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

Data governance for privacy-preserving record linkage should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about privacy-preserving record linkage, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For privacy-preserving record linkage, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining privacy-preserving record linkage, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the source linkage. For privacy-preserving record linkage, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining privacy-preserving record linkage, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

Later review of privacy-preserving record linkage should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining privacy-preserving record linkage, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on privacy-preserving record linkage, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether institutions reconciling education and population evidence experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-39]

National, local and international roles defines a specific comparability question within the institutional governance. For national, local and international roles, the population is education authorities, statistical offices, municipalities and international bodies, and the immediate evidence concerns collection, validation, publication and correction authority. In examining national, local and international roles, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on national, local and international roles, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

The central risk is that several bodies publish conflicting figures without responsibility for reconciliation. In examining national, local and international roles, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on national, local and international roles, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning national, local and international roles, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-33]

The recommended response is to publish roles, definitions and unresolved differences. Within reporting on national, local and international roles, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning national, local and international roles, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to national, local and international roles, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

Comparability for national, local and international roles depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning national, local and international roles, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to national, local and international roles, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about national, local and international roles, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-25] [REF-41]

Equity analysis for national, local and international roles should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to national, local and international roles, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about national, local and international roles, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For national, local and international roles, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

Data governance for national, local and international roles should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about national, local and international roles, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For national, local and international roles, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining national, local and international roles, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the institutional governance. For national, local and international roles, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining national, local and international roles, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

Later review of national, local and international roles should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining national, local and international roles, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on national, local and international roles, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether education authorities, statistical offices, municipalities and international bodies experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-25] [REF-26] [REF-33] [REF-41]

Community evidence and accountable participation defines a specific comparability question within the participatory evidence. For community evidence and accountable participation, the population is migrant and displaced communities interpreting barriers and missing groups, and the immediate evidence concerns experience, service access and proposed correction. In examining community evidence and accountable participation, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on community evidence and accountable participation, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-13] [REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

The central risk is that consultation is symbolic or community reports are treated as statistically representative without limits. In examining community evidence and accountable participation, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on community evidence and accountable participation, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning community evidence and accountable participation, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-13] [REF-27] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to use community evidence for diagnosis and document its coverage. Within reporting on community evidence and accountable participation, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning community evidence and accountable participation, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to community evidence and accountable participation, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Comparability for community evidence and accountable participation depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning community evidence and accountable participation, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to community evidence and accountable participation, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about community evidence and accountable participation, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-13] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for community evidence and accountable participation should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to community evidence and accountable participation, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about community evidence and accountable participation, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For community evidence and accountable participation, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Data governance for community evidence and accountable participation should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about community evidence and accountable participation, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For community evidence and accountable participation, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining community evidence and accountable participation, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-13] [REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the participatory evidence. For community evidence and accountable participation, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining community evidence and accountable participation, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Later review of community evidence and accountable participation should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining community evidence and accountable participation, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on community evidence and accountable participation, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether migrant and displaced communities interpreting barriers and missing groups experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-13] [REF-27] [REF-39] [REF-42]

Statistical independence and public trust defines a specific comparability question within the publication integrity. For statistical independence and public trust, the population is institutions and communities relying on official education evidence, and the immediate evidence concerns method, revision and protection from improper influence. In examining statistical independence and public trust, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on statistical independence and public trust, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

The central risk is that political pressure suppresses unfavourable counts or changes definitions silently. In examining statistical independence and public trust, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on statistical independence and public trust, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning statistical independence and public trust, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20]

The recommended response is to apply statistical principles and publish dated revisions. Within reporting on statistical independence and public trust, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning statistical independence and public trust, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to statistical independence and public trust, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Comparability for statistical independence and public trust depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning statistical independence and public trust, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to statistical independence and public trust, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about statistical independence and public trust, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-09] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for statistical independence and public trust should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to statistical independence and public trust, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about statistical independence and public trust, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For statistical independence and public trust, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Data governance for statistical independence and public trust should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about statistical independence and public trust, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For statistical independence and public trust, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining statistical independence and public trust, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the publication integrity. For statistical independence and public trust, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining statistical independence and public trust, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Later review of statistical independence and public trust should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining statistical independence and public trust, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on statistical independence and public trust, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether institutions and communities relying on official education evidence experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

Classifying the missing evidence defines a specific comparability question within the gap taxonomy. For classifying the missing evidence, the population is authorities planning improvements to migration and displacement statistics, and the immediate evidence concerns missing concept, population, period or quality condition. In examining classifying the missing evidence, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on classifying the missing evidence, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

The central risk is that all absent values are listed alike and remedies remain vague. In examining classifying the missing evidence, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on classifying the missing evidence, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning classifying the missing evidence, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-39]

The recommended response is to name the gap type, affected decision and responsible body. Within reporting on classifying the missing evidence, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning classifying the missing evidence, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to classifying the missing evidence, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Comparability for classifying the missing evidence depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning classifying the missing evidence, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to classifying the missing evidence, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about classifying the missing evidence, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-40]

Equity analysis for classifying the missing evidence should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to classifying the missing evidence, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about classifying the missing evidence, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For classifying the missing evidence, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Data governance for classifying the missing evidence should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about classifying the missing evidence, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For classifying the missing evidence, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining classifying the missing evidence, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the gap taxonomy. For classifying the missing evidence, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining classifying the missing evidence, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Later review of classifying the missing evidence should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining classifying the missing evidence, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on classifying the missing evidence, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether authorities planning improvements to migration and displacement statistics experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-39] [REF-40]

Prioritising by rights and likely harm defines a specific comparability question within the gap priority. For prioritising by rights and likely harm, the population is learners whose exclusion is least visible, and the immediate evidence concerns entitlement, population, consequence and urgency. In examining prioritising by rights and likely harm, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on prioritising by rights and likely harm, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

The central risk is that easy indicators receive investment while severe hidden exclusion persists. In examining prioritising by rights and likely harm, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on prioritising by rights and likely harm, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning prioritising by rights and likely harm, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22]

The recommended response is to rank gaps by educational harm and action value. Within reporting on prioritising by rights and likely harm, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning prioritising by rights and likely harm, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to prioritising by rights and likely harm, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Comparability for prioritising by rights and likely harm depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning prioritising by rights and likely harm, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to prioritising by rights and likely harm, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about prioritising by rights and likely harm, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-10] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for prioritising by rights and likely harm should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to prioritising by rights and likely harm, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about prioritising by rights and likely harm, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For prioritising by rights and likely harm, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Data governance for prioritising by rights and likely harm should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about prioritising by rights and likely harm, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For prioritising by rights and likely harm, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining prioritising by rights and likely harm, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the gap priority. For prioritising by rights and likely harm, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining prioritising by rights and likely harm, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Later review of prioritising by rights and likely harm should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining prioritising by rights and likely harm, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on prioritising by rights and likely harm, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether learners whose exclusion is least visible experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-22] [REF-38]

Strengthening administrative coverage defines a specific comparability question within the record improvement. For strengthening administrative coverage, the population is schools and authorities recording entry, attendance and movement, and the immediate evidence concerns common fields, coverage and timely correction. In examining strengthening administrative coverage, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on strengthening administrative coverage, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

The central risk is that more fields increase burden without improving learner continuity. In examining strengthening administrative coverage, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on strengthening administrative coverage, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning strengthening administrative coverage, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-31]

The recommended response is to focus on minimum continuity and service fields with staff support. Within reporting on strengthening administrative coverage, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning strengthening administrative coverage, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to strengthening administrative coverage, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Comparability for strengthening administrative coverage depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning strengthening administrative coverage, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to strengthening administrative coverage, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about strengthening administrative coverage, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-05] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for strengthening administrative coverage should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to strengthening administrative coverage, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about strengthening administrative coverage, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For strengthening administrative coverage, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Data governance for strengthening administrative coverage should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about strengthening administrative coverage, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For strengthening administrative coverage, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining strengthening administrative coverage, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the record improvement. For strengthening administrative coverage, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining strengthening administrative coverage, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Later review of strengthening administrative coverage should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining strengthening administrative coverage, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on strengthening administrative coverage, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether schools and authorities recording entry, attendance and movement experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-05] [REF-18] [REF-31] [REF-39]

Improving surveys and denominator evidence defines a specific comparability question within the survey improvement. For improving surveys and denominator evidence, the population is mobile and displaced populations poorly represented in household evidence, and the immediate evidence concerns frame, sample, residence rule and uncertainty. In examining improving surveys and denominator evidence, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on improving surveys and denominator evidence, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

The central risk is that standard designs repeat systematic omission or publish unstable detail. In examining improving surveys and denominator evidence, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on improving surveys and denominator evidence, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning improving surveys and denominator evidence, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-09]

The recommended response is to adapt frames and publish uncertainty and excluded settings. Within reporting on improving surveys and denominator evidence, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning improving surveys and denominator evidence, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to improving surveys and denominator evidence, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

Comparability for improving surveys and denominator evidence depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning improving surveys and denominator evidence, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to improving surveys and denominator evidence, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about improving surveys and denominator evidence, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-07] [REF-38]

Equity analysis for improving surveys and denominator evidence should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to improving surveys and denominator evidence, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about improving surveys and denominator evidence, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For improving surveys and denominator evidence, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

Data governance for improving surveys and denominator evidence should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about improving surveys and denominator evidence, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For improving surveys and denominator evidence, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining improving surveys and denominator evidence, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the survey improvement. For improving surveys and denominator evidence, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining improving surveys and denominator evidence, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

Later review of improving surveys and denominator evidence should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining improving surveys and denominator evidence, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on improving surveys and denominator evidence, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether mobile and displaced populations poorly represented in household evidence experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-09] [REF-38]

Reporting progress without false trends defines a specific comparability question within the temporal comparison. For reporting progress without false trends, the population is users comparing changing populations and evidence systems, and the immediate evidence concerns level, population change, method change and interval. In examining reporting progress without false trends, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on reporting progress without false trends, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-19] [REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

The central risk is that improved coverage appears as deteriorating participation or unlike years imply a trend. In examining reporting progress without false trends, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on reporting progress without false trends, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning reporting progress without false trends, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-19] [REF-25] [REF-35]

The recommended response is to separate educational change from population and measurement change. Within reporting on reporting progress without false trends, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning reporting progress without false trends, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to reporting progress without false trends, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

Comparability for reporting progress without false trends depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning reporting progress without false trends, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to reporting progress without false trends, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about reporting progress without false trends, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-19] [REF-39]

Equity analysis for reporting progress without false trends should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to reporting progress without false trends, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about reporting progress without false trends, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For reporting progress without false trends, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

Data governance for reporting progress without false trends should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about reporting progress without false trends, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For reporting progress without false trends, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining reporting progress without false trends, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-19] [REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the temporal comparison. For reporting progress without false trends, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining reporting progress without false trends, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

Later review of reporting progress without false trends should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining reporting progress without false trends, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on reporting progress without false trends, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether users comparing changing populations and evidence systems experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-19] [REF-25] [REF-35] [REF-39]

From evidence to funded educational action defines a specific comparability question within the finding-to-action link. For from evidence to funded educational action, the population is institutions able to correct access and continuity barriers, and the immediate evidence concerns finding, owner, finance, delivery and learner condition. In examining from evidence to funded educational action, a credible account states the category rule, reference date, territorial scope and source authority. Within reporting on from evidence to funded educational action, it should explain why the category is relevant to education and avoid extending it beyond the people the source can observe.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

The central risk is that reports describe disparities without a competent corrective response. In examining from evidence to funded educational action, this can hide exclusion, create a false rate or direct policy towards the wrong population. Within reporting on from evidence to funded educational action, review should reconstruct who could enter the source, who actually appeared and which mobile, unregistered or institutionally housed people remained outside it. For comparison concerning from evidence to funded educational action, absence from a frame should never be confused with absence of educational entitlement.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-36]

The recommended response is to assign and finance action with a later learner-facing test. Within reporting on from evidence to funded educational action, publication should retain the numerator and denominator definitions, age range, period and material omissions. For comparison concerning from evidence to funded educational action, when sources disagree, authorities should compare coverage and timing before selecting or combining values. In evidence related to from evidence to funded educational action, a bounded estimate with an explicit limitation is preferable to a precise figure built from unlike populations.[REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

Comparability for from evidence to funded educational action depends on more than a shared label. For comparison concerning from evidence to funded educational action, movement can change population composition, institutional exposure and source coverage between observations. In evidence related to from evidence to funded educational action, education systems may also classify level, attendance or completion differently. For decisions about from evidence to funded educational action, a comparison should preserve these distinctions, state any mapping and identify which differences remain unresolved.[REF-18] [REF-42]

Equity analysis for from evidence to funded educational action should show levels and counts for material groups rather than parity alone. In evidence related to from evidence to funded educational action, sex, age, disability, location, wealth, language, arrival and legal conditions may interact. For decisions about from evidence to funded educational action, small estimates need uncertainty and disclosure protection. For from evidence to funded educational action, context should locate barriers and responsibility without predicting away the common standard or treating migrant status as a cause by itself.[REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

Data governance for from evidence to funded educational action should begin with a stated educational purpose. For decisions about from evidence to funded educational action, sensitive status and movement information should be limited to fields needed for admission, continuity, support or aggregate evidence. For from evidence to funded educational action, learners and families need understandable notice and correction. In examining from evidence to funded educational action, linkage should occur under authorised safeguards, and public outputs should prevent identification or harmful reuse.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

Institutional responsibility should follow authority over the finding-to-action link. For from evidence to funded educational action, schools record some participation evidence; statistical bodies protect definitions and revisions; local and national authorities control access and finance; protection institutions may observe populations outside education registers. In examining from evidence to funded educational action, responsibilities for reconciliation, publication and correction should be public, including unresolved disagreements.[REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

Later review of from evidence to funded educational action should distinguish improved coverage from improved education. In examining from evidence to funded educational action, a larger recorded population may lower a participation rate because previously excluded people became visible, while stable rates may conceal changing composition. Within reporting on from evidence to funded educational action, the next account should preserve bridges between definitions and separately test whether institutions able to correct access and continuity barriers experienced better access, continuity and recognised progression.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-36] [REF-42]

A source register for migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-31] [REF-33] [REF-39] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning migrant, refugee and displaced are not synonyms, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-31] [REF-33]

A source register for country of birth, citizenship and migration history should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning country of birth, citizenship and migration history, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to country of birth, citizenship and migration history, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-05] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

A gap-closing commitment for country of birth, citizenship and migration history should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning country of birth, citizenship and migration history, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-05] [REF-34]

A source register for internal and cross-border displacement should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning internal and cross-border displacement, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to internal and cross-border displacement, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39] [REF-41]

A gap-closing commitment for internal and cross-border displacement should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning internal and cross-border displacement, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-07] [REF-32]

A source register for legal status and education entitlement should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning legal status and education entitlement, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to legal status and education entitlement, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-13] [REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for legal status and education entitlement should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning legal status and education entitlement, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-13] [REF-14]

A source register for duration of residence and changing relevance should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning duration of residence and changing relevance, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to duration of residence and changing relevance, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-10] [REF-34] [REF-39] [REF-42]

A gap-closing commitment for duration of residence and changing relevance should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning duration of residence and changing relevance, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-10] [REF-34]

A source register for self-identification, assigned categories and trust should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning self-identification, assigned categories and trust, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to self-identification, assigned categories and trust, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for self-identification, assigned categories and trust should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning self-identification, assigned categories and trust, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-09] [REF-19]

A source register for school registers and recognised provision should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning school registers and recognised provision, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to school registers and recognised provision, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-05] [REF-26] [REF-32] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for school registers and recognised provision should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning school registers and recognised provision, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-05] [REF-26]

A source register for household surveys and unstable residence should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning household surveys and unstable residence, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to household surveys and unstable residence, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-31] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for household surveys and unstable residence should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning household surveys and unstable residence, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-07] [REF-08]

A source register for population estimates and denominator uncertainty should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning population estimates and denominator uncertainty, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to population estimates and denominator uncertainty, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-05] [REF-09] [REF-38] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for population estimates and denominator uncertainty should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning population estimates and denominator uncertainty, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-05] [REF-09]

A source register for protection and assistance records should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning protection and assistance records, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to protection and assistance records, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-20] [REF-32] [REF-37] [REF-41]

A gap-closing commitment for protection and assistance records should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning protection and assistance records, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-20] [REF-32]

A source register for learner movement between institutions should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning learner movement between institutions, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to learner movement between institutions, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for learner movement between institutions should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning learner movement between institutions, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-14] [REF-31]

A source register for children absent from every accessible source should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning children absent from every accessible source, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to children absent from every accessible source, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-04] [REF-07] [REF-13] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for children absent from every accessible source should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning children absent from every accessible source, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-04] [REF-07]

A source register for admission and waiting time should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning admission and waiting time, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to admission and waiting time, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-14] [REF-31] [REF-40] [REF-42]

A gap-closing commitment for admission and waiting time should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning admission and waiting time, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-14] [REF-31]

A source register for enrolment and actual attendance should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning enrolment and actual attendance, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to enrolment and actual attendance, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-05] [REF-12] [REF-32] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for enrolment and actual attendance should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning enrolment and actual attendance, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-05] [REF-12]

A source register for age-grade placement and late entry should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning age-grade placement and late entry, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to age-grade placement and late entry, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-06] [REF-17] [REF-31] [REF-42]

A gap-closing commitment for age-grade placement and late entry should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning age-grade placement and late entry, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-06] [REF-17]

A source register for duration and effective instructional exposure should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning duration and effective instructional exposure, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to duration and effective instructional exposure, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-01] [REF-05] [REF-29] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for duration and effective instructional exposure should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning duration and effective instructional exposure, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-01] [REF-05]

A source register for completion across interrupted pathways should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning completion across interrupted pathways, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to completion across interrupted pathways, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-32] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for completion across interrupted pathways should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning completion across interrupted pathways, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-06] [REF-23]

A source register for transition to secondary and further education should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning transition to secondary and further education, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to transition to secondary and further education, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-28] [REF-37] [REF-39] [REF-41]

A gap-closing commitment for transition to secondary and further education should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning transition to secondary and further education, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-28] [REF-37]

A source register for language of instruction and learning evidence should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning language of instruction and learning evidence, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to language of instruction and learning evidence, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-13] [REF-17] [REF-34] [REF-42]

A gap-closing commitment for language of instruction and learning evidence should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning language of instruction and learning evidence, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-13] [REF-17]

A source register for assessment eligibility and exclusions should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning assessment eligibility and exclusions, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to assessment eligibility and exclusions, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-09] [REF-15] [REF-17] [REF-38]

A gap-closing commitment for assessment eligibility and exclusions should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning assessment eligibility and exclusions, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-09] [REF-15]

A source register for prior curriculum and opportunity to learn should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-01] [REF-29] [REF-31] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for prior curriculum and opportunity to learn should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning prior curriculum and opportunity to learn, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-01] [REF-29]

A source register for progress from a documented starting point should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning progress from a documented starting point, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to progress from a documented starting point, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-02] [REF-10] [REF-29] [REF-30]

A gap-closing commitment for progress from a documented starting point should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning progress from a documented starting point, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-02] [REF-10]

A source register for recognition of prior study and partial records should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning recognition of prior study and partial records, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to recognition of prior study and partial records, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-31] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for recognition of prior study and partial records should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning recognition of prior study and partial records, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-14] [REF-21]

A source register for qualifications and access to further pathways should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning qualifications and access to further pathways, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to qualifications and access to further pathways, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-06] [REF-23] [REF-39] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for qualifications and access to further pathways should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning qualifications and access to further pathways, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-06] [REF-23]

A source register for sex, gender and changing participation barriers should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning sex, gender and changing participation barriers, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to sex, gender and changing participation barriers, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-03] [REF-14] [REF-35] [REF-38]

A gap-closing commitment for sex, gender and changing participation barriers should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning sex, gender and changing participation barriers, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-03] [REF-14]

A source register for age and education-stage differences should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning age and education-stage differences, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to age and education-stage differences, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-05] [REF-06] [REF-37] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for age and education-stage differences should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning age and education-stage differences, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-05] [REF-06]

A source register for disability and accessible participation should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning disability and accessible participation, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to disability and accessible participation, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-38]

A gap-closing commitment for disability and accessible participation should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning disability and accessible participation, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-10] [REF-11]

A source register for location, settlement and territorial access should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning location, settlement and territorial access, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to location, settlement and territorial access, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-03] [REF-07] [REF-32] [REF-39]

A gap-closing commitment for location, settlement and territorial access should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning location, settlement and territorial access, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-03] [REF-07]

A source register for wealth, employment and household constraint should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning wealth, employment and household constraint, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to wealth, employment and household constraint, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-04] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for wealth, employment and household constraint should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning wealth, employment and household constraint, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-04] [REF-08]

A source register for intersecting categories and small populations should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning intersecting categories and small populations, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to intersecting categories and small populations, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-09] [REF-19] [REF-20] [REF-38]

A gap-closing commitment for intersecting categories and small populations should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning intersecting categories and small populations, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-09] [REF-19]

A source register for purpose limitation and safe collection should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning purpose limitation and safe collection, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to purpose limitation and safe collection, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-40]

A gap-closing commitment for purpose limitation and safe collection should name the affected population, missing evidence, competent institution, finance, protection requirement and decision to be improved. For comparison concerning purpose limitation and safe collection, success should be judged by safer and more complete visibility and by a better educational response, not by the number of new fields collected.[REF-09] [REF-20]

A source register for consent, notice and correction should preserve the originating body, collection purpose, population rule, observation date, revision status and principal gap. For comparison concerning consent, notice and correction, it should distinguish direct observation, matched records and estimation. In evidence related to consent, notice and correction, this permits users to reproduce the bounded claim and prevents later definitions from being read backwards into the 1 February 2019 baseline.[REF-10] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]