{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-b2554f62adeddeef","slug":"2019-10-28-record-integrity-in-relation-to-foundational-learning-improvement","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2019-10-28","last_modified_date":"2019-10-28","title":"Record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement.","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":"Global learning poverty measure introduced in 2019","reference_authority":"World Bank","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The global learning poverty measure introduced in 2019 provides the immediate reference point for consideration of record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement in 2019. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that a standard is effective only when its terms lead to consistent decisions without displacing professional judgement or applicable law.","Responsibility for the control should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. In reviewing the stated expectation, 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 record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement, escalation should follow whenever the available record cannot support a safe conclusion for the affected learners."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["The historical reference basis is the global learning poverty measure introduced in 2019. Its relevance to record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. Any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone.","The analysis of the assurance question should make its decision rule explicit. In reviewing the assurance question, a reliable record should identify what occurred, when it occurred, who was responsible, the authority for the action and any later correction. Records should remain protected against unauthorised alteration while legitimate amendments remain visible. The method should prevent an unfavourable result from being dismissed through an unrecorded change in interpretation.","The principal risks in relation to the relevant requirement are uncontrolled supplier access or transfer, inaccurate data affecting decisions, collection without a defined educational or legal purpose, and excessive access to learner information. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another.","The evidential record for the assurance question should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require incident response and notification records, role-based access and access reviews, retention and secure disposal evidence, and supplier and transfer arrangements, supported by lawful authority and consent records where relevant and data-quality and correction controls."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["Implementation of record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. A competent review of the stated expectation should specify mandatory fields, source ownership, access rights, retention and correction procedures. Test a sample from creation through use, amendment, reporting and disposal, including records created during disruption or by a delivery partner. In relation to record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement, the assurance record may draw on existing sources, provided their limitations and fitness for the current purpose are examined.","Records relating to the relevant requirement 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."],"bullets":["Is the record attributable?","Can an amendment be distinguished from the original?","Are partner records subject to equivalent controls?","Can records be retrieved throughout the required period?","Are access rights proportionate?"]},{"heading":"Basis for a reliable conclusion","paragraphs":["Accountability for record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement 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.","Interpretation of the stated expectation should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence."],"bullets":["Control third-party processing.","Minimise collection before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome.","Assign accountable data owners.","Limit and review access before it informs a consequential decision.","Provide accessible correction and complaint routes, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded."]},{"heading":"Maintaining effective oversight","paragraphs":["The intended substantive result should remain the starting point for review. For record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement, education information should be collected for a defined purpose, protected in proportion to its sensitivity and retained only for an authorised period. Formal adoption, expenditure and activity do not in themselves establish the intended result. Authorities and providers require evidence of operation and effect, with a route to identify and correct unequal or unintended consequences.","The analysis of the stated expectation should remain within the limits of the evidence. A decision concerning the issue under review should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect. In reviewing the stated expectation, security, privacy and data quality are related but distinct. A secure record may still be inaccurate or used without adequate authority, and a lawful use may still be poorly governed.","The present development should inform review of the assurance question, with attention to the relationship between commitment, implementation and demonstrated outcome. Improvement should be supported by evidence and an accountable decision record capable of public scrutiny."]}],"word_count":801,"content_hash":"sha256-685073156711e783ab47623bcacada17ffc9746bbf3f1bfa1b04a230bbf86081","seo_keywords":["record integrity in relation to foundational learning improvement","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}