{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-c9b96eaf717eb970","slug":"2008-07-10-materiality-in-the-review-of-progress-towards-universal-primary-education","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2008-07-10","last_modified_date":"2008-07-10","title":"Materiality in the review of progress towards universal primary education","summary":"Clarifies the practical requirements relevant to progress towards universal primary education and the evidence needed 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":"2008 Education for All monitoring report","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The 2008 Education for All monitoring report provides the immediate reference point for consideration of materiality in the review of progress towards universal primary education in 2008. Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. Responsibility for the assurance question should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Delegation should identify both the operating role and the body retaining oversight of learner impact.","For progress towards universal primary education, the 2008 Education for All Global Monitoring Report examines whether the six Education for All goals are likely to be achieved by 2015. Its monitoring framework brings together access, completion, literacy, gender and quality indicators. Apparent progress should therefore be tested for distribution and learning effect: higher enrolment does not establish regular participation, completion or achievement of the intended educational outcomes."]},{"heading":"Scope and application","paragraphs":["The reference basis—the 2008 Education for All monitoring report—is evidential rather than self-executing. The material may reveal patterns or evidential gaps, but it neither directs a legal outcome nor establishes causation. In applying it to materiality in the review of progress towards universal primary education, users should review the source definitions, population coverage, reference period and stated limitations before transferring a system-level finding to an individual provider or learner group.","The position on the assurance question should be established through proportionate evidence and should remain open to correction when material new information becomes available. The review method for the control should connect the question under examination to suitable evidence and a conclusion no broader than the tested scope. In the context of progress towards universal primary education, public authorities establish the legal and policy setting; providers remain accountable for the quality and integrity of provision within their control. When examining progress towards universal primary education, each level should be able to demonstrate the decisions and controls for which it is accountable.","A proportionate examination of the control should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings. Data used for the issue under review should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. A revision or break in series should not be reported as a change in performance. A change in policy, coverage or recording practice can create an apparent movement that is not a change the underlying educational condition. For decisions concerning progress towards universal primary education, a stated decision rule enables comparable examination and limits retrospective explanations of adverse evidence.","Responsibility for the stated expectation should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. 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. In work concerning progress towards universal primary education, a decision should not be closed at the operating level where material impact, conflict or a significant evidential gap remains unresolved.","Review of the assurance question should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. A provider should also consider attrition detected too late and financial or geographic barriers.","As regards progress towards universal primary education, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Material differences in population, setting or method should remain explicit in any comparison. Where progress towards universal primary education is under review, currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. The record for progress towards universal primary education should retain disagreement between sources until its cause and effect are understood."]},{"heading":"Evidence required","paragraphs":["The review method for materiality in the review of progress towards universal primary education should be reproducible. Data used for the control should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Material variation and uncertainty should be reported together with any restriction on wider application. Where comparability is interrupted, begin a new series or present the break clearly rather than joining unlike observations. For progress towards universal primary education, the retained analysis should be reproducible from the selected evidence, decision rule and recorded reasons for accepted exceptions.","In the context of progress towards universal primary education, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. The approving record should explain how an alternative approach satisfies the governing requirement. A limitation preventing a complete conclusion should remain visible and unresolved until suitable evidence is obtained.","A conclusion on the relevant requirement should extend no further than the available evidence permits. Missing populations, inconsistent records and unresolved exceptions should be reported with the finding. Reporting on the control should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should retain their reason and effective date. When examining progress towards universal primary education, different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. For decisions concerning progress towards universal primary education, material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.","In work concerning progress towards universal primary education, accountability and effective correction both depend on a record that can be followed from evidence to decision. Responsibility for the issue under review should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Accountability for learner impact should remain explicit when delivery tasks are delegated. As regards progress towards universal primary education, material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly.","The record for the relevant requirement should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Where progress towards universal primary education is under review, where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.","For the relevant requirement, the implementation record should distinguish binding duties, policy expectations and institutional choices, including any transition or jurisdictional limitation. The decision record for progress towards universal primary education should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":1003,"content_hash":"sha256-9d4083bbcb49e5699b98ef9d25536d9c3cac9b862c53cdb67cf206d5c46da04d","seo_keywords":["materiality in the review of progress towards universal primary education","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}