{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-daebcaeb73926dbc","slug":"2022-10-24-digital-transformation-legal-and-governance-considerations","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2022-10-24","last_modified_date":"2022-10-24","title":"Digital transformation: legal and governance considerations","summary":"Considers digital transformation: legal and governance considerations in its applicable policy context, including institutional accountability and consequences for affected.","category":{"code":"POLICY_AND_REGULATORY_INTERPRETATION","label":"Industry Policy and Regional Regulatory Interpretation"},"article_type":"Policy and regulatory analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Transforming Education Summit action track","reference_authority":"United Nations","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Against the background of the transforming Education Summit action track, education authorities and providers should review how digital transformation is defined, implemented and evidenced. A decision concerning the policy matter should recognise that the significance of the present development lies in implementation: public commitments require an identifiable allocation of authority, resources and accountability. Administrative form may differ between systems, provided the required outcome and accountability are maintained.","The historical reference basis is the transforming Education Summit action track. Its relevance to the affected arrangements should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.","The Transforming Education Summit in September 2022 brings together commitments on inclusive and equitable education, teachers, digital learning, finance and recovery. The action tracks are connected: technology or curriculum measures cannot compensate for insufficient teachers, unsafe provision or exclusion. Commitments should be translated into costed responsibilities, implementation milestones and evidence capable of showing effects on learning and participation.","A proper review of the affected arrangements should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. A decision concerning the affected arrangements should recognise that a credible response should identify the applicable jurisdiction, the affected learners and providers, the authority responsible for implementation, and the evidence by which performance will be judged. In relation to digital transformation, the record should explain why the approach suits the affected context, how material departures are authorised and when review will occur."]},{"heading":"Regulatory context","paragraphs":["The required public outcome should be stated in operational terms. A decision concerning digital transformation should recognise that a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment. The existence of an approved measure or completed activity is not evidence of educational effect.","A focused examination of the affected arrangements requires a clear analytical discipline. In reviewing the issue, cross-jurisdiction interpretation should distinguish international commitment, regional instrument, national law, regulatory direction and provider policy. Each has a different source of authority and may apply to a different object or person.","The principal risks in relation to the affected arrangements are inaccessible content or interaction, unclear identity and participation records, technology access determining educational access, and supplier dependency without continuity controls. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another.","Relevant evidence for the relevant measure will normally include accessibility and usability testing, learner access and participation information, supplier performance and exit arrangements, assessment validity and integrity reviews, and service availability and incident records. Currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. In relation to digital transformation, conflicting records require reconciliation before a complete assurance conclusion is reached."]},{"heading":"Operational effect","paragraphs":["The review method for digital transformation should be reproducible. The method for the policy matter is to prepare a jurisdictional register identifying the service, learner location, provider location, responsible authority, applicable instrument and conflict rule. Obtain competent interpretation where the legal position is uncertain and do not resolve uncertainty through promotional wording. Documentation should be sufficient to reconstruct the judgement without relying on unrecorded explanation.","Oversight of the implementation question should be based on an implementation map linking the public objective to domestic measures, provider controls and learner remedies.","Records relating to the relevant measure should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. If further evidence changes the position, the correction should identify its scope and any earlier decision requiring reconsideration. This is material where learners, authorities or institutions relied on information that cannot be corrected by replacing the current text alone."]},{"heading":"Required governance attention","paragraphs":["Care is required in drawing conclusions about digital transformation. The analysis of the relevant measure proceeds on the basis that digital participation data should not be treated as a direct measure of learning. Log-ins, connection time and activity counts require interpretation alongside assessment and learner experience. Oversight of the issue should reflect the principle that a policy direction should not be presented as a uniform legal obligation where national implementation differs. Providers remain responsible for identifying the requirements that apply to their own activities. Limitations should be prominent wherever the finding may influence a consequential decision.","Accountability for the implementation question should follow decision-making authority. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.","The measure of progress on the relevant measure is not the amount of policy or documentation produced. Performance should be judged by outcomes and timely response to shortfalls, not by the volume of administrative activity."]}],"word_count":738,"content_hash":"sha256-911ac6d15c0fd747ba769a232b0bd64af2ad8dcf08a403dd49e2fced2a4fe763","seo_keywords":["digital transformation","education policy and regulation","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}