{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-64f8c8d8853360e0","slug":"2015-10-13-assessing-the-effectiveness-of-institutional-implementation-of-sustainable-development-goal-4","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2015-10-13","last_modified_date":"2015-10-13","title":"Assessing the effectiveness of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4","summary":"Clarifies the practical requirements relevant to institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 and the evidence needed 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":"2030 Agenda adopted in September 2015","reference_authority":"United Nations","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of the effectiveness of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 is informed by the 2030 Agenda adopted in September 2015, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. The principal risks associated with assessing the stated expectation should be assessed as connected conditions.","The formal status of the 2030 Agenda adopted in September 2015 should be preserved in any public account. Data used for the relevant requirement should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. For institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["In the context of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, the 2030 Agenda, adopted on 25 September 2015, includes Sustainable Development Goal 4: ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. The goal combines access, completion, learning, skills, equality, facilities, scholarships and teachers. Monitoring should preserve the distinction between each target and indicator and should not treat progress on one dimension as evidence that the complete goal has been achieved.","Corrective action concerning assessing the effectiveness of institutional implementation of the stated expectation should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated. The assurance record for the relevant requirement should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions. When examining institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably. For decisions concerning institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, the allocation of responsibility should prevent gaps between system oversight and institutional operation.","A reasoned conclusion on the relevant requirement should reconcile the governing expectation, evidence of operation, learner outcomes and unresolved risk. A selected successful case is not sufficient. Corrective action concerning the relevant requirement should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. In work concerning institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence. As regards institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, the method, assumptions and limitations should be stated in terms suitable for responsible decision-making.","The record for the control should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Records concerning the relevant requirement should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome. Where institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 is under review, a decision should not be closed at the operating level where material impact, conflict or a significant evidential gap remains unresolved.","Review of the relevant requirement should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. For the assessment of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, evidence outside the relevant period or scope should be identified and given no more weight than its limitations permit. For institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, an unresolved contradiction is a limitation on the conclusion and should be reported as such."],"bullets":["Review whether improvement is sustained.","Act on adverse findings.","Identify the affected scope.","Collect proportionate evidence.","Test material variation."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["A narrow control over the effectiveness of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 may create false assurance. In the present context, evidence selected to confirm a preferred conclusion, responsibility distributed without clear ownership and variation across sites or programmes may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.","A proportionate examination of assessing the issue under review should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings. Analysis of assessing the effectiveness of the relevant requirement should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Reliability depends on preserving the material distinctions between the matters compared. A reported result should state how outcomes are distributed and where transfer beyond the observed setting is not supported. In the context of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained. When examining institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, a competent reviewer should be able to follow the record from source selection to conclusion and exception handling.","Data used for the issue under review should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. A revision or break in series should not be reported as a change in performance.","Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. The evidential basis for the control should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations. Corroboration is required where a single record cannot support the decision. Documented intention should be tested against practice and observable result. The evidential basis for the stated expectation should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations.","Public information on the assurance question should state the applicable scope and limitations in terms that affected users can understand, including the basis for any later correction. For decisions concerning institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, a changed evidential position should be applied to the affected scope, including prior decisions that may no longer be reliable. In work concerning institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, this is material where learners, authorities or institutions relied on information that cannot be corrected by replacing the current text alone.","As regards institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, material action requires a named responsible function and a defined completion point.","Where institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 is under review, a reasoned conclusion should reconcile the governing requirement, evidence of operation, learner outcomes and residual risk, and remain open to better evidence."]}],"word_count":997,"content_hash":"sha256-fd587fe8c0cb2a71154a1c4b4e5c7cc629abb910b7627bd475a2f07007f19391","seo_keywords":["assessing the effectiveness of institutional implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}