{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-a3c181fb2d2a2b86","slug":"2019-11-13-foundational-learning-improvement-defining-responsibilities-and-exclusions","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2019-11-13","last_modified_date":"2019-11-13","title":"Foundational learning improvement: defining responsibilities and exclusions","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of foundational learning improvement: defining responsibilities and exclusions and the evidence required to support a reliable assurance.","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 present attention to foundational learning improvement follows the global learning poverty measure introduced in 2019 and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. In reviewing the issue under review, the central issue is the meaning of the expectation in practice, including its scope, the evidence needed to demonstrate it and the circumstances in which it may not apply. The decision should address both public impact and the responsibilities attached to entrusted educational resources. In relation to foundational learning improvement, the appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility.","The system and institutional dimensions of the control should be considered together. In reviewing the stated expectation, governing bodies should receive sufficient, reliable and timely information to oversee education quality, learner protection and material institutional risk. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["Assurance of foundational learning improvement should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include risk and assurance plans, public reports reconciled with controlled records, corrective-action verification, defined delegations and reserved decisions, and conflict declarations and controls. Evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases.","The contemporaneous context is established by the global learning poverty measure introduced in 2019. It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of the stated expectation.","A focused examination of the stated expectation requires a clear analytical discipline. In reviewing the assurance question, scope should identify the people, decisions, services, locations and periods to which the arrangement applies. Exclusions require an objective reason and should not be inferred from organisational custom or the absence of an earlier complaint. The decision question, affected scope and measure should align; otherwise the conclusion may be unsupported despite substantial documentation.","Failure in relation to the control may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include material risks omitted from reporting, governing bodies receiving activity data instead of outcome evidence, conflicts not identified, and management assurance accepted without testing. Review should consider whether an exception is prolonged, recurring or capable of affecting learners outside the cases examined."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["A proper review of foundational learning improvement should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. In reviewing the assurance question, the assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions. The record should explain why the approach suits the affected context, how material departures are authorised and when review will occur.","Public reporting on the issue under review should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion. A revised conclusion should distinguish a change in the underlying condition from a change in method, coverage or evidence.","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. In relation to foundational learning improvement, historical decisions should be assessed against the information then available, with later amendments separately dated and explained."],"bullets":["Separate incompatible responsibilities before it informs a consequential decision.","Assign decision authority explicitly before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.","Verify corrective action independently.","Define information required for oversight.","Preserve a traceable decision record."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The review method for foundational learning improvement should be reproducible. In reviewing the assurance question, responsible bodies should begin with the intended public or educational outcome, map every activity capable of affecting that outcome, and record where responsibility passes between functions or organisations. Test boundary cases before confirming the scope. A competent reviewer should be able to follow the record from source selection to conclusion and exception handling.","Assurance concerning the stated expectation should be expressed at the level established by the evidence.","Proportionality in relation to the control does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that governance structures do not provide assurance merely because committees exist. Membership, information quality, challenge, decisions and follow-through determine whether oversight is effective. A decision concerning the relevant requirement should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect. The record for an exception should identify the reason, approving authority, period of operation and date for reconsideration.","The appropriate response to the relevant requirement is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. The objective should be explicit, the evidence proportionate and learner impact visible. Where evidence cannot support assurance, the limitation should be reported and corrective work should remain open."]}],"word_count":798,"content_hash":"sha256-925f843773763f57e5b3d1fd9fa6bd1d6e1900f9f003c411fa32ff16b327c15e","seo_keywords":["foundational learning improvement","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}