{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-9f26cb1451d2a54f","slug":"2014-01-31-teaching-and-learning-quality-evidence-that-extends-beyond-staff-qualifications","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2014-01-31","last_modified_date":"2014-01-31","title":"Teaching and learning quality: evidence that extends beyond staff qualifications","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of teaching and learning quality: evidence that extends beyond staff qualifications and the evidence required to support a reliable assurance.","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":"2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of teaching and learning quality is informed by the 2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. In reviewing the control, the requirement should be read as an assurance obligation: the provider must be able to explain the control, show its operation and account for material exceptions."]},{"heading":"Scope and application of teaching and learning quality","paragraphs":["The reference basis—the 2013/4 Education for All Global 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 teaching and learning quality, 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 2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All, places teaching quality and equitable learning at the centre of the post-2015 discussion. It links teacher preparation, deployment, support and working conditions with learner outcomes. Workforce indicators should consequently be interpreted alongside evidence of classroom practice, access to qualified teachers and differences between locations and learner groups."]},{"heading":"Evidence required","paragraphs":["For teaching and learning quality, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the relevant requirement, learners should receive accurate information about the status, level, content and recognition of learning before committing time or money across jurisdictions.","The technical issue within the stated expectation concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. The analysis of the control proceeds on the basis that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Handovers between responsible functions require examination because material control gaps may otherwise remain concealed. In relation to teaching and learning quality, the decision record should distinguish the scope supported by evidence from any scope that remains unresolved."],"bullets":["What outcome is intended?","What action is required by the finding?","Where do exceptions occur?","Who controls each stage?","Which evidence establishes operation?"]},{"heading":"Decision criteria and exceptions","paragraphs":["Implementation of teaching and learning quality should be organised around a decision that can be tested. A decision concerning the relevant requirement should recognise that a provider should be able to trace the expectation from approved policy through implementation, monitoring, identified exceptions and corrective action. The implementation record should link purpose, authority, resources, operation and reported result.","The principal risks in relation to the control are jurisdictional uncertainty in complaints, unclear awarding responsibility, loss of records across borders, and different treatment of comparable learning. The risks are connected, and failure of one safeguard may disable or conceal another."]},{"heading":"Continuing assurance","paragraphs":["Each source should have a stated purpose in supporting or limiting the conclusion. For teaching and learning quality, the most relevant material is likely to include complaint and appeal routes, clear identification of providers and awarding bodies, documented credit and recognition decisions, and cross-border agreements and responsibility maps. In relation to teaching and learning quality, independent records should be reconciled, with disagreement and uncertainty reported alongside the finding.","The review method for the issue under review should be reproducible. In reviewing the issue under review, responsible bodies should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Recurrence, common cause or wider exposure requires systemic action in addition to correction of individual cases. A competent reviewer should be able to follow the record from source selection to conclusion and exception handling.","Interpretation of the control should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence."]},{"heading":"Continuing assurance","paragraphs":["Interpretation of teaching and learning quality should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. For the relevant requirement, 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 relevant requirement should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the relevant requirement, 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.","Public reporting on the control should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should be traceable to their reason and effective date.","The measure of progress on the assurance question is not the amount of policy or documentation produced."]}],"word_count":784,"content_hash":"sha256-604cdd33e1e7e44980ded6e5ece4626689afc21ba7611bbb18372e34e70c2061","seo_keywords":["teaching and learning quality","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}