{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-a205e511907a13e9","slug":"2022-07-28-setting-effective-measures-for-foundational-learning","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2022-07-28","last_modified_date":"2022-07-28","title":"Setting effective measures for foundational learning","summary":"Describes how improvement in setting effective measures for foundational learning can be planned, measured and maintained through clear responsibility and follow-up evidence.","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":"2022 learning poverty evidence","reference_authority":"World Bank","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The immediate international context is the 2022 learning poverty evidence. Its significance for foundational learning lies in the quality of implementation rather than in formal acknowledgement alone. For the intervention, the purpose of an improvement method is not to produce an action plan; it is to change a material condition and verify that the change is sustained."]},{"heading":"Scope of the improvement","paragraphs":["The stated reference is 2022 learning poverty evidence. Interpretation should preserve the unit and population represented in the data collection. A national or international pattern may justify closer review of foundational learning, but provider-level action requires evidence relating to the affected provision. The comparability record should identify material variation in coverage, period and classification.","The 2022 learning poverty update examines the proportion of children unable to read and understand a simple text by the end of primary-school age and the additional effects of pandemic disruption. The measure combines schooling and learning information to indicate a serious system-level problem. It is not a complete measure of education quality and should be interpreted alongside access, grade progression, language, assessment coverage and distributional evidence.","Responsibility for the improvement objective should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. In reviewing the improvement objective, 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.","In practical terms, the intervention should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process. Those required to act should be able to understand the method and its material limitations.","Assurance of the issue under review should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include population and sampling information, indicator definitions and metadata, coverage and missingness analysis, triangulation with administrative and qualitative evidence, and disaggregated results. A positive example may illustrate operation, but it cannot demonstrate coverage or consistency."]},{"heading":"Implementation responsibilities","paragraphs":["For foundational learning, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the improvement objective, education indicators should support decisions by describing outcomes and variation with definitions and limitations that permit responsible interpretation.","Risk assessment of the issue under review should give particular attention to data revisions not carried through to published conclusions, small differences overstated, and changes in definition presented as changes in performance. A provider should also consider proxy measures treated as direct outcomes and averages concealing distribution."],"bullets":["Disaggregate material results.","Avoid causal claims unsupported by the design, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.","Analyse missing information.","Test comparability.","Report uncertainty and revisions before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome."]},{"heading":"Testing effectiveness","paragraphs":["The review method for foundational learning should be reproducible. Review of the intervention should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Results should distinguish a single case from evidence of a wider control weakness. The retained analysis should be reproducible from the selected evidence, decision rule and recorded reasons for accepted exceptions.","Improvement of the intervention should proceed through controlled tests where risk permits.","The analysis of the intervention should remain within the limits of the evidence. Oversight of the intervention should reflect the principle that correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected. For the corrective programme, measurement can reveal where outcomes differ; it does not by itself establish why they differ or which intervention will work. If uncertainty could change a consequential decision, additional evidence or a narrower conclusion is required.","The assurance record for the practice should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. In relation to setting effective measures for foundational learning, the evidential history should preserve conclusions that were operative when a material decision was made."]},{"heading":"Maintaining the result","paragraphs":["Accountability for foundational learning should follow decision-making authority.","The measure of progress on the practice is not the amount of policy or documentation produced."]}],"word_count":700,"content_hash":"sha256-ad341b910c128f4907d75433b2c1625d877c99db773c5a00b1cc3be91552fb7f","seo_keywords":["setting effective measures for foundational learning","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}