{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-5d92eba2201cf9de","slug":"2016-03-25-risk-based-improvement-planning-for-institutional-implementation-of-the-education-2030-framework-for-action","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2016-03-25","last_modified_date":"2016-03-25","title":"Risk-based improvement planning for the Education 2030 Framework for Action","summary":"Sets out a controlled approach to risk-based improvement planning for the Education 2030 Framework for Action, linking diagnosis, accountable action, outcome measures.","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":["Current consideration of institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action is informed by the framework published in 2016, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. For the practice, a disciplined improvement process separates immediate containment from corrective action directed at the underlying cause. Learner protection and reliable information should remain central when the scale of the response is determined.","The instrument identified by the framework published in 2016 provides a formal policy reference for the improvement objective. In relation to risk-based improvement planning for the Education 2030 Framework for Action, this distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.","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.","The governing expectation for the intervention should be capable of consistent application. In reviewing the issue under review, 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. Terms governing eligibility, support, assessment, reporting or review should prevent materially different treatment without recorded justification."]},{"heading":"Scope of the improvement","paragraphs":["The quality significance of institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. A decision concerning the corrective programme should recognise that quality assurance should connect stated educational purposes with implemented controls, reliable evidence and action where outcomes fall below expectation. Assurance should follow the learner journey and test more than a single access point or aggregate result.","The technical issue within the corrective programme concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. For the improvement objective, materiality should be judged by the possible effect on learning, safety, rights, recognition, public resources and the reliability of a consequential decision. The judgement should state its supporting evidence and any condition limiting application to the declared scope.","Risk assessment of the corrective programme should give particular attention to learner experience omitted from review, responsibility distributed without clear ownership, and corrective action closed on activity rather than effect. A provider should also consider evidence selected to confirm a preferred conclusion and variation across sites or programmes.","Assurance of the corrective programme should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include verified corrective action, implementation and monitoring records, exception and complaint records, independent checks of material claims, and learner and staff evidence. Evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases."]},{"heading":"Implementation responsibilities","paragraphs":["A proportionate method is available for institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action. The method for the issue under review is to define escalation thresholds before reviewing cases, consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, and record the reason for the final classification. Adverse cases and unresolved contradictions should be retained because they may reveal limitations concealed by an average result.","Improvement of the improvement objective should proceed through controlled tests where risk permits.","Decisions concerning the improvement objective should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. In relation to risk-based improvement planning for the Education 2030 Framework for Action, changes in condition, evidence, method and interpretation should be recorded separately when a conclusion is revised."]},{"heading":"Testing effectiveness","paragraphs":["Care is required in drawing conclusions about institutional implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action. In reviewing the practice, quality cannot be inferred from reputation, intention or documentation alone. The record should show how the arrangement operates and what outcome follows in the affected scope. For the practice, a short-term increase in activity may not represent sustained improvement. Measures should remain in place long enough to detect recurrence and unintended effects. Decision-makers and affected users should receive the conclusion together with its material evidential limits.","Where the improvement objective involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Governance between participating bodies should make information duties and corrective authority explicit. Multiple delivery partners do not justify fragmented accountability or remedy.","The measure of progress on the improvement objective is not the amount of policy or documentation produced. The relevant measure is demonstrated public benefit, including detection and correction of material variation."]}],"word_count":733,"content_hash":"sha256-8a87659fbea6373ecac6ba83e27029ac7591d545b696c244443f93ec2a865e20","seo_keywords":["risk-based improvement planning for the Education 2030 Framework for Action","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}