{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-2f22668bedfaa0f0","slug":"2017-07-06-risk-based-improvement-planning-for-oversight-of-non-state-provision","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2017-07-06","last_modified_date":"2017-07-06","title":"Risk-based improvement planning for oversight of non-state provision","summary":"Describes how improvement in risk-based improvement planning for oversight of non-state provision can be planned, measured and maintained through clear responsibility.","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":"Public accountability for diverse provision","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The contemporaneous reference point for oversight of non-state provision is Public accountability for diverse provision. Its status should be distinguished from the jurisdiction-specific evidence required for implementation. Improvement work on the practice should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome. Completion should depend on evidence of effect rather than completion of planned activity. The record for the intervention should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Governance of the improvement objective requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. A material issue should not remain with a function lacking authority to resolve it."]},{"heading":"Improvement objective and baseline","paragraphs":["The historical reference basis is the public accountability for diverse provision. Data used for oversight of non-state provision 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. Improvement work on the intervention should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome.","Corrective action concerning the corrective programme should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated. Risk assessment for the improvement objective should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Corrective action concerning the intervention should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.","The technical issue within the intervention concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. Review of the practice should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. In relation to risk-based improvement planning for oversight of non-state provision, the judgement should state its supporting evidence and any condition limiting application to the declared scope.","Analysis of the issue under review should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Material differences in population, setting or method should remain explicit in any comparison. In reviewing the corrective programme, 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. Improvement work on the corrective programme should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome.","A narrow control over the practice may create false assurance. In the present context, authority assigned without accountability, material risks omitted from reporting and management assurance accepted without testing may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.","Corrective action concerning the improvement objective should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Useful records include public reports reconciled with controlled records, risk and assurance plans, corrective-action verification, governing-body papers and decisions, and independent review records. Intervention in the intervention should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits. Wider implementation should follow evidence of benefit and acceptable unintended effects. Review of the improvement objective should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event."]},{"heading":"Controls and accountable action","paragraphs":["Risk assessment for oversight of non-state provision should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Corrective action concerning the practice should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.","Intervention in the corrective programme should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits.","Measures should remain in place long enough to detect recurrence and unintended effects. Governance of the intervention requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. The responsible body should receive matters requiring resources, policy change or formal risk acceptance. In relation to risk-based improvement planning for oversight of non-state provision, membership, information quality, challenge, decisions and follow-through determine whether oversight is effective. Material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.","Records relating to the corrective programme 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.","Public reporting on the practice should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action.","Analysis of the practice should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. The relevant measure is demonstrated public benefit, including detection and correction of material variation."]}],"word_count":723,"content_hash":"sha256-5bfff9c5c28f2eb354fd2d4d2b2ce700f81ec7e6dd592fc626d7c7b6fa0ba07e","seo_keywords":["risk-based improvement planning for oversight of non-state provision","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}