{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-d791bd1740c01145","slug":"2016-09-26-quality-evidence-for-education-for-sustainable-development","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2016-09-26","last_modified_date":"2016-09-26","title":"Quality evidence for education for sustainable development","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of quality evidence for education for sustainable development and the evidence required to support a reliable assurance conclusion.","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":"2016 Global Education Monitoring Report","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to education for sustainable development follows the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. For the assurance question, the central issue is the meaning of the expectation in practice, including its scope, the evidence needed to demonstrate it and the circumstances in which it may not apply. Proportionality requires controls sufficient to protect learners without imposing measures unrelated to the identified risk."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The reference basis—the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report—is evidential rather than self-executing. The source can frame further questions without supplying either a binding direction or proof of causation. In applying it to education for sustainable development, 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.","For the stated expectation, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. Oversight of the relevant requirement should reflect the principle that quality assurance should connect stated educational purposes with implemented controls, reliable evidence and action where outcomes fall below expectation."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["In practical terms, education for sustainable development should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. Oversight of the relevant requirement should reflect the principle that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Material failure may occur at the transfer of responsibility or information even where separate functions appear adequate.","Implementation of the relevant requirement should be organised around a decision that can be tested. In reviewing the control, conformity should not be inferred from a policy document alone; operating records and outcomes should show that the stated arrangements are in use. In relation to quality evidence for education for sustainable development, resources and activity should be reconciled with the operating evidence and result for which the responsible function is accountable."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The principal risks in relation to education for sustainable development are responsibility distributed without clear ownership, corrective action closed on activity rather than effect, variation across sites or programmes, and evidence selected to confirm a preferred conclusion. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another. In relation to quality evidence for education for sustainable development, documents should be tested against the decision process they record and the outcome that followed.","Assurance of the stated expectation should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include exception and complaint records, implementation and monitoring records, representative outcome information, independent checks of material claims, and approved objectives and responsibilities. Evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["For operational review of education for sustainable development, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. In reviewing the relevant requirement, responsible bodies should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. An isolated incident and a recurring or systemic condition require different findings and responses.","The final record on the relevant requirement should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Equivalent methods should be assessed by demonstrated result, with the basis for acceptance retained. Unresolved limitations should be stated with the conclusion and carried forward for action."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Proportionality in relation to education for sustainable development does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. The analysis of the relevant requirement proceeds on the basis that quality cannot be inferred from reputation, intention or documentation alone. Evidence should demonstrate both operating practice and the result produced. Oversight of the control should reflect the principle that the volume of documentation is not a measure of conformity. Relevance, integrity and coverage are more important than the number of records produced. Each exception should record its basis, authorisation, duration and review date.","Records relating to the stated expectation should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. If further evidence changes the position, the correction should identify its scope and any earlier decision requiring reconsideration. Where reliance has occurred, correction may require review of affected decisions as well as amendment of published information.","Public reporting on the assurance question should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion. Changes to definitions or evidence should be recorded separately from changes in educational performance.","The appropriate response to the control is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. The objective should be explicit, the evidence proportionate and learner impact visible. The decision record should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":779,"content_hash":"sha256-e14b4190da0275c8f8d22682e31357d1612cb3015c40b137a9dceb2935c4e085","seo_keywords":["quality evidence for education for sustainable development","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}