{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-5a092f51ed02bd63","slug":"2010-02-26-the-use-of-proxy-measures-in-analysing-inclusive-access","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2010-02-26","last_modified_date":"2010-02-26","title":"The use of proxy measures in analysing inclusive access","summary":"Assesses evidence on the use of proxy measures in analysing inclusive access, with particular attention to definitions, population coverage, comparability and uncertainty.","category":{"code":"DATA_RESEARCH","label":"Data Research"},"article_type":"Data and research analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"2010 global equity priorities","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of inclusive access is informed by the 2010 global equity priorities, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. For the analysis, comparable indicators can support public decision-making, but they do not remove the need to examine variation within systems and institutions.","The historical reference basis is the 2010 global equity priorities. Its relevance to the analysis should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. In relation to the use of proxy measures in analysing inclusive access, the international development warrants attention, but a consequential conclusion still requires current, attributable and representative evidence for the affected scope.","For the available evidence, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the comparison, education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes."]},{"heading":"Analytical scope","paragraphs":["The 2010 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, Reaching the Marginalized, examines groups left behind by aggregate progress. It gives particular weight to overlapping disadvantage and to the need for disaggregated evidence. Policy assessment should therefore ask which learners remain outside provision, which barriers operate together and whether targeted measures improve participation and learning without creating new forms of exclusion.","A focused examination of inclusive access requires a clear analytical discipline. For the comparison, a proxy is useful only where its relationship with the intended outcome is sufficiently understood. Participation, activity and expenditure may support learning, but none constitutes direct evidence of learning without an explicit and tested connection. A formally complete record is not reliable if its scope or measure does not correspond to the decision being made.","Responsibility for the analysis should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. For the analysis, where an indicator is used as a proxy, the relationship between the proxy and the underlying educational outcome should be stated and tested. Incomplete evidence, unmanaged conflict, absent learner groups or material learner impact require a higher level of review."]},{"heading":"Definitions and data coverage","paragraphs":["The principal risks in relation to inclusive access are attrition detected too late, financial or geographic barriers, support allocated without evidence of need, and admission without adequate support. The control environment should be assessed as a connected system rather than as unrelated individual risks. In relation to the use of proxy measures in analysing inclusive access, review should follow the sequence of decisions and records rather than assess documents in isolation.","Assurance of the measure should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include resource allocation by need, learner feedback and complaints, progression and early-warning information, clearly defined access and completion indicators, and disaggregated participation and outcome data. Documents should be reconciled with observed practice and, where relevant, the experience of affected learners.","A proportionate method is available for the issue. The method for the comparison is to state the construct to be measured, explain why the proxy is expected to represent it, test that relationship against direct evidence and identify circumstances in which the proxy may fail. Do not allow convenience to determine the measure. Averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation."]},{"heading":"Use of the findings","paragraphs":["Decision-makers using evidence on inclusive access should be told what the data cannot establish as clearly as what it can. Reporting should state whether a result describes, compares or evaluates, together with the level at which it is valid. Use in a different context requires an independent judgement that the settings are materially comparable.","The analysis of the available evidence should remain within the limits of the evidence. Oversight of the comparison should reflect the principle that a single indicator rarely provides an adequate account of quality. Quantitative evidence should be considered with implementation records and the experience of affected learners. Oversight of the issue should reflect the principle 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.","The evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. In this case, 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.","Accountability for the comparison should follow decision-making authority. Evidence of material risk should be placed before the body with authority to act, together with a traceable decision. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.","The appropriate response to the comparison is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. A clear objective, proportionate evidential basis and account of affected learners are required. Where evidence cannot support assurance, the limitation should be reported and corrective work should remain open."]}],"word_count":824,"content_hash":"sha256-f0b4c126db8885f8a7495fcaac12ae2fe14881f1572188fda6b7ff7cd91d6755","seo_keywords":["the use of proxy measures in analysing inclusive access","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}