{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-f77aaa0d5566b4f5","slug":"2018-01-08-governance-evidence-relating-to-institutional-responses-to-the-global-learning-crisis","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2018-01-08","last_modified_date":"2018-01-08","title":"Governance evidence relating to institutional responses to the global learning crisis","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to institutional responses to the global learning crisis, including the treatment of material limitations.","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":"World Development Report 2018","reference_authority":"World Bank","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The World Development Report 2018 provides the immediate context for institutional responses to the global learning crisis. The applicable expectation should be stated precisely enough to support consistent decisions without displacing applicable law or justified professional judgement. The public-interest question is whether access, learning, fair treatment and reliable information are protected in proportion the identified risk.","For institutional responses to the global learning crisis, the World Development Report 2018, Learning to Realize Education’s Promise, distinguishes schooling from learning and describes poor outcomes, immediate barriers within teaching and learning, and deeper system-level causes. It proposes three connected directions: assess learning, act on evidence and align actors around learning. Attendance and completion remain important, but they do not provide direct evidence that learners have acquired the intended knowledge and skills."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The reference basis—the World Development Report 2018—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 institutional responses to the global learning crisis, 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.","In the context of institutional responses to the global learning crisis, the intended substantive result should remain the starting point for review. Data used for the relevant requirement should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. When examining institutional responses to the global learning crisis, changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. For decisions concerning institutional responses to the global learning crisis, the existence of an approved measure or completed activity is not evidence of educational effect. In work concerning institutional responses to the global learning crisis, implementation evidence should be sufficient to identify unequal consequences and assign corrective responsibility.","The review method for the relevant requirement should connect the question under examination to suitable evidence and a conclusion no broader than the tested scope. The evidential basis for the control should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations. Corroboration is required where a single record cannot support the decision. Individually sound controls may not operate effectively when decisions, records or responsibility pass between functions.","The record for the control should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Risk assessment for the relevant requirement should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. As regards institutional responses to the global learning crisis, escalation should follow whenever the available record cannot support a safe conclusion for the affected learners.","Where institutional responses to the global learning crisis is under review, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Reliability depends on preserving the material distinctions between the matters compared. Risk assessment should account for dependencies between controls and the possibility that one failure masks the next.","Data used for the assurance question should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. For the assessment of institutional responses to the global learning crisis, contradictory evidence should be investigated and resolved, not omitted from the record."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["The review method for institutional responses to the global learning crisis should be reproducible. Review of the relevant requirement should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. The conclusion should identify whether further sampling or system-level action is required. For institutional responses to the global learning crisis, working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.","Data used for the control should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.","Assurance concerning the issue under review should state the scope examined, evidence relied upon and any condition preventing a complete conclusion. Unsupported elements should remain open. In the context of institutional responses to the global learning crisis, analysis 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. A reported result should state how outcomes are distributed and where transfer beyond the observed setting is not supported. Evidence concerning the assurance question should be current, attributable and representative of the affected scope. Material gaps or contradictions should remain visible in the conclusion. When examining institutional responses to the global learning crisis, a finding should not be separated from limitations capable of changing how it is understood or applied.","Records concerning the relevant requirement should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome. For decisions concerning institutional responses to the global learning crisis, a revision should state whether the change concerns the underlying condition, the evidence, the method or the interpretation.","Review of the control should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. In work concerning institutional responses to the global learning crisis, the action record should identify who is responsible and when implementation is due. As regards institutional responses to the global learning crisis, an action may be complete while the underlying condition remains, and the two determinations should be recorded separately.","Where institutional responses to the global learning crisis is under review, the relevant measure is demonstrated public benefit, including detection and correction of material variation."]}],"word_count":910,"content_hash":"sha256-3928ff571a4fdd528003dcb43bb4b154541cae221a35dae5a33f7256e59e41e2","seo_keywords":["governance evidence relating to institutional responses to the global learning crisis","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}