{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-1355add40a754a7a","slug":"2018-06-07-the-revised-key-competences-framework-implications-for-curriculum-design-and-assessment-evidence","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2018-06-07","last_modified_date":"2018-06-07","title":"The revised key competences framework: implications for curriculum design and assessment evidence","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to the revised key competences framework: implications for curriculum design and assessment evidence.","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":"Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to the revised key competences framework follows the council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. In reviewing the control, consistent application requires a clear distinction between the required result, recommended methods and examples that may assist implementation. Suitability should be judged within the relevant system rather than against a presumed universal administrative model.","The instrument identified by the council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 provides a formal policy reference for the issue under review. In relation to the revised key competences framework, this distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The quality significance of the revised key competences framework follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. A decision concerning the stated expectation should recognise that assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result. Assurance should follow the learner journey and test more than a single access point or aggregate result.","A focused examination of the assurance question requires a clear analytical discipline. A decision concerning the relevant requirement should recognise that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Individually sound controls may not operate effectively when decisions, records or responsibility pass between functions.","A narrow control over the issue under review may create false assurance. In the present context, inconsistent judgement between markers or locations, reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome and weak assurance of authorship or performance may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. Adverse cases should form part of the sample wherever they may reveal a material control weakness."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["Collection should follow a stated evidential need, not the accidental availability of particular records. For the revised key competences framework, the most relevant material is likely to include authorship and identity controls proportionate to risk, marking criteria and calibrated judgement, moderation and exception records, and analysis of results and differential outcomes. In relation to the revised key competences framework, confidence is strengthened by corroboration, not by the volume of records drawn from the same underlying source.","A traceable record enables responsibility to be established and errors to be corrected fairly. For the assurance question, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. A material amendment should record its reason and effective date, preserving the information basis of earlier decisions."],"bullets":["Moderate material variation.","Retain evidence sufficient for review.","Review differential and anomalous results before it informs a consequential decision.","Define the decision each assessment must support before it informs a consequential decision.","Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes before it is relied on for a decision with material effect."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["Responsibility for the revised key competences framework should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. A decision concerning the stated expectation should recognise that the assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions.","The review method for the control should be reproducible. In reviewing the assurance question, 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. Working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.","Interpretation of the assurance question should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence.","Where the assurance question involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Contractual or inter-agency arrangements should identify who holds records, informs learners and acts on incidents. Learner safeguards should remain continuous where provision is delivered by several bodies."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Interpretation of the revised key competences framework should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. For the issue under review, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. A decision concerning the control should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect.","Responsibility for the issue under review should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Delegation should identify both the operating role and the body retaining oversight of learner impact."]}],"word_count":780,"content_hash":"sha256-1ac782ee82f2b848d425ca00c3a6bc5f9590057575ac6b0f1bccc3694e34f9a6","seo_keywords":["the revised key competences framework","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}