{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-213695029ca978d5","slug":"2016-01-07-quality-controls-for-institutional-implementation-of-the-education-2030-framework-for-action","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2016-01-07","last_modified_date":"2016-01-07","title":"Quality controls for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action","summary":"Provides an evidence-led method for improving quality controls for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action, from definition of the problem.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Framework published in 2016","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action follows the framework published in 2016 and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. In reviewing the improvement objective, the method set out here treats improvement as a controlled cycle of diagnosis, action, measurement and review.","The Education 2030 Framework for Action sets out implementation approaches for Sustainable Development Goal 4. It emphasises inclusion and equity, quality and learning outcomes, lifelong learning, coordinated governance, finance and monitoring. National and provider-level use should identify the particular target being addressed, the responsible authority and the evidence of effect; broad alignment statements are not sufficient for accountability.","A proper review of the improvement objective should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that the intervention should be tested on a scale proportionate to the risk before wider implementation, unless immediate system-wide action is necessary to protect learners. In relation to quality controls for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action, a chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control."]},{"heading":"Defining the problem","paragraphs":["The instrument identified by the framework published in 2016 provides a formal policy reference for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action. This distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.","The system and institutional dimensions of the intervention should be considered together. Oversight of the intervention should reflect the principle that quality assurance should connect stated educational purposes with implemented controls, reliable evidence and action where outcomes fall below expectation."],"bullets":["Collect proportionate evidence.","Assign accountable ownership.","Act on adverse findings.","Identify the affected scope.","Define the intended outcome."]},{"heading":"Improvement method","paragraphs":["A focused examination of institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action requires a clear analytical discipline. Oversight of the corrective programme should reflect the principle that an improvement plan should connect a verified problem with a specific intervention, accountable ownership, resources, milestones and a measure of effect. Broad intentions should be converted into decisions capable of review. An imprecise scope or measure may produce a credible-looking record that does not answer the relevant decision question.","The principal risks in relation to the issue under review are evidence selected to confirm a preferred conclusion, variation across sites or programmes, corrective action closed on activity rather than effect, and policy detached from practice. In relation to quality controls for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action, the relationship between the risks is material: one failed safeguard may remove the evidence needed to activate another.","The evidential record for the practice should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require exception and complaint records, learner and staff evidence, representative outcome information, and implementation and monitoring records, supported by verified corrective action and approved objectives and responsibilities. Further cases should be examined when the initial sample does not represent the affected scope or confirm sustained correction."],"bullets":["Are dependencies and resources identified?","Who confirms sustained effectiveness?","What measure will establish success?","Does each action address a stated cause?","Is the problem defined by evidence?"]},{"heading":"Measures and review","paragraphs":["A proportionate method is available for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action. The intervention, the reviewer should prioritise actions by learner impact and control weakness, establish dependencies, test implementation at suitable intervals and retain unresolved items until effectiveness is verified. Amend the plan where evidence does not support the original causal assumption. Averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.","Improvement of the intervention should proceed through controlled tests where risk permits.","The analysis of the intervention should remain within the limits of the evidence. In reviewing the improvement objective, a short-term increase in activity may not represent sustained improvement. Measures should remain in place long enough to detect recurrence and unintended effects. A decision concerning the corrective programme should recognise that quality cannot be inferred from reputation, intention or documentation alone. Assurance requires evidence of actual operation together with its material effects.","A traceable record enables responsibility to be established and errors to be corrected fairly. The corrective programme, 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. Historical decisions should be assessed against the information then available, with later amendments separately dated and explained.","The corrective programme, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. Management should assign each material action to an accountable owner and completion date. Closure requires evidence that the condition has changed; completion of planned activity is not sufficient.","The appropriate response to the intervention is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. A clear objective, proportionate evidential basis and account of affected learners are required. Assurance should be withheld for the affected scope until the limitation is resolved."]}],"word_count":839,"content_hash":"sha256-e77fc94205486c5e5b20fb819b80dfd82a7b9d06b5826b5bcb8fe801bb0ae5ce","seo_keywords":["quality controls for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}