{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-f736254ee9c739d6","slug":"2008-06-26-completion-and-retention-from-policy-commitment-to-demonstrated-practice","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2008-06-26","last_modified_date":"2008-06-26","title":"Completion and retention: from policy commitment to demonstrated practice","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of completion and retention: from policy commitment to demonstrated practice and the evidence required to support a reliable assurance conclusion.","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":["The policy and evidence context for completion and retention has been materially shaped by the 2015 education target monitoring. Oversight of the control should reflect the principle that a standard is effective only when its terms lead to consistent decisions without displacing professional judgement or applicable law. Attention is directed to decisions with material consequences for learners, institutional responsibility and educational resources.","The historical reference basis is the 2015 education target monitoring. Its relevance to the relevant requirement should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.","The system and institutional dimensions of the issue under review should be considered together. A decision concerning the assurance question should recognise that education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. In relation to completion and retention, public authorities establish the legal and policy setting; providers remain accountable for the quality and integrity of provision within their control."]},{"heading":"Scope and application of completion and retention","paragraphs":["The analysis of completion and retention should make its decision rule explicit. In reviewing the control, evidence should be relevant to the stated requirement, sufficiently complete for the affected scope, current for the decision period and attributable to a source with knowledge or control of the matter. Volume does not cure a gap in relevance. Comparable evidence should be assessed against criteria settled before the result is known.","The governing expectation for the issue under review should be capable of consistent application. A decision concerning the issue under review should recognise that a provider should be able to trace the expectation from approved policy through implementation, monitoring, identified exceptions and corrective action. Definitions should provide a stable basis for decisions while allowing relevant differences to be identified and justified."]},{"heading":"Evidence required","paragraphs":["Risk assessment of completion and retention should give particular attention to support allocated without evidence of need, attrition detected too late, and admission without adequate support. A provider should also consider completion measures detached from learning and aggregate gains concealing excluded groups.","Evidence should be selected against a clearly defined question. For the issue under review, the most relevant material is likely to include progression and early-warning information, evaluation of interventions, resource allocation by need, and disaggregated participation and outcome data. In relation to completion and retention, each source has limitations; confidence depends on corroboration between independent records and transparent treatment of uncertainty.","For operational review of the relevant requirement, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. A competent review of the assurance question should define the proposition to be established, identify the minimum combination of records, test authenticity and reconcile contradictions. Expand the sample where an exception, complaint or material unexplained variation indicates that the initial evidence may not be representative. The record should distinguish a finding that requires action from an observation that supports no formal conclusion."]},{"heading":"Decision criteria and exceptions","paragraphs":["The final record on completion and retention should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. If an alternative method is accepted, the record should demonstrate that it achieves the same required outcome. No complete conclusion should be recorded while a material evidential limitation remains.","The analysis of the relevant requirement should remain within the limits of the evidence. For the stated expectation, interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law. A decision concerning the stated expectation should recognise that equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. Different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. Decision-makers should not extend assurance beyond the point supported by the available evidence.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the control, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. A material amendment should record its reason and effective date, preserving the information basis of earlier decisions.","Where the issue under review involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Governance between participating bodies should make information duties and corrective authority explicit. Division of delivery responsibilities must not create gaps in learner protection.","The appropriate response to the stated expectation is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. The decision record should connect the stated objective to suitable evidence and the position of those affected. The decision record should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":759,"content_hash":"sha256-5c6a527e9628d6f4158617ec6f30c3ed77cd6dc7f43b9d3dac7c9d6285ec3b5c","seo_keywords":["completion and retention","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}