{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-5c749802d7106990","slug":"2017-01-30-monitoring-evidence-for-teacher-professional-practice","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2017-01-30","last_modified_date":"2017-01-30","title":"Monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice","summary":"Explains how monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice should be applied in practice, including scope, evidential sufficiency, accountable decisions and justified.","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":"Quality and accountability expectations","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The quality and accountability expectations provides the immediate reference point for consideration of evidence for teacher professional practice in 2017. The analysis of the control proceeds on the basis that 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."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The stated reference—the quality and accountability expectations—establishes the contemporaneous context. Any conclusion about evidence for teacher professional practice still requires evidence from the setting concerned. Decision-makers should state which matters are evidenced, which express policy and which require authorised judgement. In relation to monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice, later review should not obscure whether the earlier position rested on fact, policy or judgement."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of evidence for teacher professional practice should be considered together. A decision concerning the issue under review should recognise that education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","In practical terms, the assurance question should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. Oversight of monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice should reflect the principle that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process. Decision-makers should receive an intelligible account of how the result was reached and where it should not be applied."],"bullets":["What action is required by the finding?","Where do exceptions occur?","Which evidence establishes operation?","What outcome is intended?","Who controls each stage?"]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The governing expectation for evidence for teacher professional practice should be capable of consistent application. Oversight of monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice should reflect the principle that a provider should be able to trace the expectation from approved policy through implementation, monitoring, identified exceptions and corrective action. Criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason.","The principal risks in relation to the control are weak evaluation of teaching support, deployment unrelated to learner need, use of staff outside their competence, and workload that limits preparation and feedback. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another. In relation to monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice, review should follow the sequence of decisions and records rather than assess documents in isolation."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Assurance of evidence for teacher professional practice should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include qualification and competence records, support and supervision records, workload and allocation data, retention and continuity indicators, and induction and professional learning participation. A positive example may illustrate operation, but it cannot demonstrate coverage or consistency.","For operational review of the assurance question, 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. A case-by-case response is insufficient when evidence shows recurrence or a population beyond the cases already identified.","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. The approving record should explain how an alternative approach satisfies the governing requirement. No complete conclusion should be recorded while a material evidential limitation remains."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Proportionality in relation to evidence for teacher professional practice does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that qualifications and participation in training are inputs. The analysis of the relevant requirement proceeds on the basis that interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law. No exception should continue without a documented basis, accountable approval and scheduled review.","Records relating to the control should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. The correction record should state what the new evidence changes and which earlier conclusions or decisions require review. Where reliance has occurred, correction may require review of affected decisions as well as amendment of published information.","Accountability for the assurance question should follow decision-making authority. Evidence of material risk should be placed before the body with authority to act, together with a traceable decision. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.","No individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the relevant requirement across the affected scope."]}],"word_count":779,"content_hash":"sha256-95c5d1f12c6413930b2da84d51fa66a1b54e3819fef12390d720e146fa887933","seo_keywords":["monitoring evidence for teacher professional practice","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}