{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-1cdfd058766e59ad","slug":"2013-01-25-records-required-to-substantiate-higher-education-mobility","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2013-01-25","last_modified_date":"2013-01-25","title":"Records required to substantiate higher education mobility","summary":"Explains how records required to substantiate higher education mobility should be applied in practice, including scope, evidential sufficiency, accountable decisions.","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":"Ongoing regional mobility reforms","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of higher education mobility is informed by the ongoing regional mobility reforms, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. Interpretation of the control should identify the required outcome, the scope to which it applies and the evidence capable of demonstrating effective operation.","The stated reference is the ongoing regional mobility reforms. Application to the assurance question depends on evidence from the relevant jurisdiction or institution."]},{"heading":"Scope and application of records required to substantiate higher education mobility","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of higher education mobility should be considered together. A decision concerning the relevant requirement should recognise that learners should receive accurate information about the status, level, content and recognition of learning before committing time or money across jurisdictions. The record for the issue under review should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Governance of the assurance question requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. A material issue should not remain with a function lacking authority to resolve it.","The technical issue within the issue under review concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. A decision concerning the issue under review should recognise that a reliable record should identify what occurred, when it occurred, who was responsible, the authority for the action and any later correction. The control should remain protected against unauthorised alteration while legitimate amendments remain visible. The public-interest assessment of the issue under review should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions.","A proper review of the stated expectation should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. The analysis of the stated expectation proceeds on the basis that the assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions. In relation to records required to substantiate higher education mobility, a chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control.","Records concerning the issue under review should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome. The record for the relevant requirement should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Any indicator used in relation to the relevant requirement should distinguish description from causal explanation. Interpretation should retain uncertainty, distributional differences and limits on generalisation."],"bullets":["State the legal and academic status of the offer.","Monitor partner and jurisdictional risks.","Preserve verifiable records before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.","Provide support suited to mobile learners.","Identify the authority responsible for each decision."]},{"heading":"Evidence required","paragraphs":["Any indicator used in relation to higher education mobility should distinguish description from causal explanation. The result should be accompanied by distributional information, uncertainty and limits on transfer to another setting. The control environment should be assessed as a connected system rather than as unrelated individual risks.","Implementation of the assurance question can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. For the relevant requirement, the reviewer should specify mandatory fields, source ownership, access rights, retention and correction procedures. Public information on the control should state the applicable scope and limitations in terms that affected users can understand, including the basis for any later correction. A reasoned conclusion on the control should reconcile the governing expectation, evidence of operation, learner outcomes and unresolved risk. A selected successful case is not sufficient.","Assurance concerning the assurance question should be expressed at the level established by the evidence. The principal risks associated with the relevant requirement should be assessed as connected conditions.","Risk assessment for the control to the issue under review should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that transparency supports fair decision-making but does not make qualifications automatically equivalent. Recognition should remain a reasoned decision based on stated criteria and the purpose for which it is sought. A decision concerning the assurance question should recognise that interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law. In relation to records required to substantiate higher education mobility, each exception should record its basis, authorisation, duration and review date.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. A material amendment should record its reason and effective date, preserving the information basis of earlier decisions.","Public reporting on the relevant requirement should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion. If definitions, coverage or evidence alter an earlier conclusion, the reason should be stated so that revision is not mistaken for changed performance.","A formal commitment concerning the control does not establish effective operation. Review should test how the measure is applied, how exceptions are handled and what remedy is available."]}],"word_count":806,"content_hash":"sha256-56786919597c7bcaf756c8f8e60a4256c3fe932804ffa14b96c29aa89a070000","seo_keywords":["records required to substantiate higher education mobility","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}