{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-bfe870bd5778c1e9","slug":"2022-09-01-records-required-to-substantiate-foundational-learning-improvement","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2022-09-01","last_modified_date":"2022-09-01","title":"Records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement","summary":"Explains how records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement should be applied in practice.","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":"2022 global learning poverty update","reference_authority":"World Bank","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Current consideration of foundational learning improvement is informed by the 2022 global learning poverty update, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. In reviewing the issue under review, interpretation should begin with the intended outcome, then identify the controls and evidence needed to show that the outcome is achieved across the declared scope.","For the issue under review, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. In reviewing the assurance question, education indicators should support decisions by describing outcomes and variation with definitions and limitations that permit responsible interpretation. Learner protection requires intelligible information and a timely means of reviewing consequential mistakes or unfair decisions."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["Assurance of foundational learning improvement should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include disaggregated results, indicator definitions and metadata, population and sampling information, triangulation with administrative and qualitative evidence, and revision and comparability records.","The contemporaneous context is established by the 2022 global learning poverty update. It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of the control. A reliable record should not merge factual findings with policy intention or institutional judgement.","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.","A focused examination of the control requires a clear analytical discipline. In reviewing the relevant requirement, 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.","A narrow control applied to the relevant process may create false assurance. In the present context, changes in definition presented as changes in performance, small differences overstated and data revisions not carried through to published conclusions may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. The test should deliberately include exceptions and cases in which the expected outcome was not achieved."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["Implementation of foundational learning improvement should be organised around a decision that can be tested. A decision concerning the relevant requirement should recognise that 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 records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement, oversight requires a traceable line from the approved objective through responsible action to evidence of outcome.","For the stated expectation, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. In relation to records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement, the action record should identify who is responsible and when implementation is due. An action may be complete while the underlying condition remains, and the two determinations should be recorded separately.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the relevant requirement, 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. The record should prevent a later amendment from being treated as if it applied when an earlier decision was made."],"bullets":["Disaggregate material results, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.","Define the decision the indicator will inform.","Document numerator and denominator.","Analyse missing information.","Test comparability."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["A proportionate method is available for foundational learning improvement. For the assurance question, the reviewer 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. The review record should preserve exceptions capable of showing a weakness in design, implementation or coverage.","Assurance concerning the relevant requirement should be expressed at the level established by the evidence.","The analysis of the issue under review should remain within the limits of the evidence. For the control, interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law. In reviewing the relevant requirement, measurement can reveal where outcomes differ; it does not by itself establish why they differ or which intervention will work. Decision-makers should not extend assurance beyond the point supported by the available evidence.","Progress on records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement under review is not the amount of policy or documentation produced. The relevant measure is demonstrated public benefit, including detection and correction of material variation."]}],"word_count":778,"content_hash":"sha256-30427bb726262751112942f77070e8a2e8860444aaec6c84be78618faeede364","seo_keywords":["records required to substantiate foundational learning improvement","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}