{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-3d67ad494372ce40","slug":"2008-01-09-monitoring-evidence-for-completion-and-retention","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2008-01-09","last_modified_date":"2008-01-09","title":"Monitoring evidence for completion and retention","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to completion and retention, including the treatment of material limitations.","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":"2015 education target monitoring","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Against the background of the 2015 education target monitoring, education authorities and providers should review how evidence for completion and retention is defined, implemented and evidenced. The requirement should be read as an assurance obligation: the provider must be able to explain the control, show its operation and account for material exceptions.","This analysis is informed by 2015 education target monitoring. Its relevance to the stated expectation should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. For completion and retention, any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone.","A proper review of the relevant requirement should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. In the context of completion and retention, conformity should not be inferred from a policy document alone; operating records and outcomes should show that the stated arrangements are in use. When examining completion and retention, a chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of evidence for completion and retention should be considered together. Education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. For decisions concerning completion and retention, authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably. In work concerning completion and retention, neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","Review of the relevant requirement should be based on a stated method rather than general assurance. As regards completion and retention, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Handovers between responsible functions require examination because material control gaps may otherwise remain concealed.","The principal risks in relation to the relevant requirement are admission without adequate support, attrition detected too late, financial or geographic barriers, and support allocated without evidence of need. Where completion and retention is under review, a weakness in one part of the control environment may obscure a related failure elsewhere.","The evidential record for the issue under review should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require progression and early-warning information, disaggregated participation and outcome data, learner feedback and complaints, and records of barriers and support, supported by resource allocation by need and evaluation of interventions. For the assessment of completion and retention, conflicting records, absent populations and uncertain follow-through require additional testing."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["Review of the relevant requirement should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. For completion and retention, the review record should preserve exceptions capable of showing a weakness in design, implementation or coverage.","Interpretation of completion and retention should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence.","The assurance record for the stated expectation should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. When examining completion and retention, traceable source and version information allow genuine improvement to be distinguished from administrative revision. For decisions concerning completion and retention, the evidential history should preserve conclusions that were operative when a material decision was made."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["Care is required in drawing conclusions about evidence for completion and retention. For the assurance question, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. In work concerning completion and retention, different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. As regards completion and retention, the volume of documentation is not a measure of conformity. Where completion and retention is under review, relevance, integrity and coverage are more important than the number of records produced. For the assessment of completion and retention, decision-makers and affected users should receive the conclusion together with its material evidential limits.","Where the assurance question involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Agreements governing completion and retention should allocate information exchange, incident escalation, learner communication, record custody and corrective authority. Learner safeguards associated with completion and retention should remain continuous where provision is delivered by several bodies.","The decision record for completion and retention should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":738,"content_hash":"sha256-b204259f51b7032210e0c9b3038b1a54f7baddc0ccd7bcdbcf35ee531ce7fe24","seo_keywords":["monitoring evidence for completion and retention","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}