{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-09688e1952683368","slug":"2006-08-04-governance-evidence-relating-to-recognition-of-prior-learning","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2006-08-04","last_modified_date":"2006-08-04","title":"Governance evidence relating to recognition of prior learning","summary":"Explains how governance evidence relating to recognition of prior learning should be applied in practice.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Contemporary lifelong-learning and mobility policy","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Governance of recognition of prior learning requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. Escalation should place material evidence before the authority capable of an effective response. The governing expectation for the issue under review should be stated precisely enough to support consistent decisions without displacing applicable law or justified professional judgement."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["Verified fact, policy expectation and discretionary institutional choice should remain distinct in the record. In relation to governance evidence relating to recognition of prior learning, later review should not obscure whether the earlier position rested on fact, policy or judgement.","A decision concerning the relevant requirement should identify its basis, affected scope and responsible authority, together with any limitation requiring further review. The public-interest assessment of recognition of prior learning should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions. Governance of the stated expectation requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. Material matters should be referred to the body authorised to act or accept residual risk.","A proportionate examination of the control should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings. The assurance record for the relevant requirement should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions. Handovers between responsible functions require examination because material control gaps may otherwise remain concealed. Analysis of the stated expectation should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Reliability depends on preserving the material distinctions between the matters compared.","A reasoned conclusion on the relevant requirement should reconcile the governing expectation, evidence of operation, learner outcomes and unresolved risk. A selected successful case is not sufficient. Risk assessment for the issue under review should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. The record for the relevant requirement should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.","Interpretation of the control should identify the required outcome, the scope to which it applies and the evidence capable of demonstrating effective operation. Data used for the control should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Reporting should identify a break in comparability before describing movement over time. Risk assessment for the control should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material.","Relevant evidence for the assurance question will normally include documented credit and recognition decisions, secure and verifiable learner records, complaint and appeal routes, outcomes for mobile and non-mobile learners, and published admission and recognition criteria. Evidence outside the relevant period or scope should be identified and given no more weight than its limitations permit. In relation to governance evidence relating to recognition of prior learning, the record should retain disagreement between sources until its cause and effect are understood."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["The review method for recognition of prior learning should be reproducible. For the control, the reviewer should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Application of the assurance question should distinguish mandatory conditions, recommendations and illustrative methods. An alternative method may be accepted where it demonstrates the same outcome. Review of the control should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.","Data used for the assurance question should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. Interpretation of the stated expectation should identify the required outcome, the scope to which it applies and the evidence capable of demonstrating effective operation.","Particular care is required when interpreting evidence about the assurance question. For the control, transparency supports fair decision-making but does not make qualifications automatically equivalent. Recognition should remain a reasoned decision based on stated criteria and the purpose for which it is sought. In reviewing the issue under review, an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect. Limitations should be prominent wherever the finding may influence a consequential decision.","Records concerning the issue under review should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome. Without this distinction, a reporting change may be mistaken for improvement or deterioration in educational practice.","Risk assessment for the relevant requirement should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Material action requires a named responsible function and a defined completion point. Intervention in the relevant requirement should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits. Wider implementation should follow evidence of benefit and acceptable unintended effects.","A formal commitment concerning the assurance question does not establish effective operation. Review should test how the measure is applied, how exceptions are handled and what remedy is available."]}],"word_count":834,"content_hash":"sha256-4ef8c00fd8d5f8d5d12d781414ed3c7e652599c879e484141c6d4ff435cb3553","seo_keywords":["governance evidence relating to recognition of prior learning","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}