{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-b079d24caea6a64a","slug":"2011-05-11-consistency-in-the-assessment-of-education-in-armed-conflict","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2011-05-11","last_modified_date":"2011-05-11","title":"Consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to education in armed conflict, 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":"2011 Education for All monitoring focus","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict is informed by the 2011 Education for All monitoring focus, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. Consistent application requires a clear distinction between the required result, recommended methods and examples that may assist implementation.","The position at publication is informed by the 2011 Education for All monitoring focus; evidence from the affected setting remains necessary before reaching a conclusion on the stated expectation. For education in armed conflict, that distinction should remain visible in the decision record, public reporting and later review.","In the context of education in armed conflict, the 2011 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, examines the effects of violence, displacement and insecurity on access, finance and learning. It also addresses protection and the role of education in conflict-affected settings. Continuity measures should preserve safe access and records while avoiding arrangements that expose learners, deepen exclusion or weaken the reliability of education outcomes.","For the control, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. Assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The technical issue within consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. For the assurance question, consistency does not require identical decisions regardless of context. It requires comparable matters to be treated on the same principles, with material differences explained by relevant evidence and recorded criteria. The decision record for education in armed conflict should distinguish the scope supported by evidence from any scope that remains unresolved.","A proper review of the assurance question should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. The assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions. For decisions concerning education in armed conflict, a chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["A narrow control over consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict may create false assurance. In the present context, reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome, results used beyond the evidence they support and weak assurance of authorship or performance may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. In work concerning education in armed conflict, the test should deliberately include exceptions and cases in which the expected outcome was not achieved."],"bullets":["Define the decision each assessment must support.","Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes.","Review differential and anomalous results.","Calibrate assessors before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.","Control changes."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The evidential record for consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require appeal and correction records, moderation and exception records, approval and change-control records, and authorship and identity controls proportionate to risk, supported by analysis of results and differential outcomes and marking criteria and calibrated judgement. As regards education in armed conflict, conflicting records, absent populations and uncertain follow-through require additional testing.","Authorities and providers reviewing the stated expectation should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the assurance question should use common definitions and decision criteria, calibrate responsible staff, review outliers and compare outcomes across locations and groups. Where variation is justified, retain the reason and verify that it is applied without arbitrary disadvantage.","Assurance concerning education in armed conflict should be expressed at the level established by the evidence."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Care is required in drawing conclusions about consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict. For the issue under review, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. For the assessment of education in armed conflict, validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. For education in armed conflict, the volume of documentation is not a measure of conformity. In the context of education in armed conflict, relevance, integrity and coverage are more important than the number of records produced. When examining education in armed conflict, a finding should not be separated from limitations capable of changing how it is understood or applied.","For decisions concerning education in armed conflict, records relating to the issue under review should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. In work concerning education in armed conflict, the correction record should state what the new evidence changes and which earlier conclusions or decisions require review. As regards education in armed conflict, this is material where learners, authorities or institutions relied on information that cannot be corrected by replacing the current text alone.","Where education in armed conflict is under review, where the relevant requirement involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Agreements governing education in armed conflict should allocate information exchange, incident escalation, learner communication, record custody and corrective authority. For education in armed conflict, multiple delivery partners do not justify fragmented accountability or remedy.","The objective for education in armed conflict should be explicit, the evidence proportionate and learner impact visible. The decision record for education in armed conflict should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":878,"content_hash":"sha256-9094cec27fe4a72a94dda6b655e8b533be31d4753b921a4d4da127e3f6a00bb9","seo_keywords":["consistency in the assessment of education in armed conflict","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}