{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-2bdf714fa49f0959","slug":"2014-06-03-disaggregated-education-data-an-interpretation-of-institutional-obligations","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2014-06-03","last_modified_date":"2014-06-03","title":"Disaggregated education data: an interpretation of institutional obligations","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of disaggregated education data: an interpretation of institutional obligations 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":"Equity monitoring and data gaps","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The equity monitoring and data gaps provides the immediate context for disaggregated education data. For the relevant requirement, 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.","The stated reference is Equity monitoring and data gaps. Interpretation should preserve the unit and population represented in the data collection. A national or international pattern may justify closer review of the stated expectation, but provider-level action requires evidence relating to the affected provision. Variation in population coverage, reference period or classification should accompany the reported comparison."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The quality significance of disaggregated education data follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. For the assurance question, education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. Reporting on the stated expectation should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should retain their reason and effective date.","Review of the assurance question should follow a stated and reproducible method, including the decision rule, sampling basis, treatment of exceptions and threshold for escalation. In reviewing the control, an average may improve while a material group experiences no improvement or a worse outcome. Disaggregation should follow a defined public-interest question and should protect confidentiality where small numbers could identify individuals.","Data used for the assurance question should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. Records concerning the stated expectation should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome. In relation to disaggregated education data, a chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control.","Any indicator used in relation to the issue under review should distinguish description from causal explanation. A reported result should state how outcomes are distributed and where transfer beyond the observed setting is not supported. Evidence outside the relevant period or scope should be identified and given no more weight than its limitations permit. In relation to disaggregated education data, conflicting records require reconciliation before a complete assurance conclusion is reached."],"bullets":["Review policies that create avoidable exclusion.","Identify groups not represented in aggregate results.","Monitor progression at useful intervals.","Analyse barriers across the learner journey.","Report limitations in available data."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["Failure in relation to disaggregated education data may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include financial or geographic barriers, support allocated without evidence of need, attrition detected too late, and aggregate gains concealing excluded groups. The principal risks associated with the issue under review should be assessed as connected conditions.","Analysis of the issue under review should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Comparative findings should not conceal differences capable of changing their meaning. The result should be accompanied by distributional information, uncertainty and limits on transfer to another setting. Reuse of existing information is appropriate only where its purpose, scope and reliability correspond to the decision under review.","The final record on the control should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established. The affected scope should remain open where a material limitation prevents assurance.","The assurance record for the stated expectation should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions. For the control, a prescribed method should not be treated as the only acceptable method where another approach establishes the same outcome with equivalent evidence. In reviewing the relevant requirement, 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.","A traceable record enables responsibility to be established and errors to be corrected fairly. For the issue under review, 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. Material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly.","The principal risks associated with the relevant requirement should be assessed as connected conditions. Management should assign each material action to an accountable owner and completion date.","A formal commitment concerning the relevant requirement does not establish effective operation. Review should test how the measure is applied, how exceptions are handled and what remedy is available. The public-interest assessment of the assurance question should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions. The decision record should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":833,"content_hash":"sha256-7f9bc25c5340cb36ce04df0ab070e402ef03402726548275198756cd9480ea8b","seo_keywords":["disaggregated education data","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}