Explains what constitutes adequate evidence in relation to higher education access and support arrangements, with attention to decision authority.
Current consideration of higher education access and support arrangements is informed by the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, with consequences for governance, evidence and the treatment of affected learners. Consistent application requires a clear distinction between the required result, recommended methods and examples that may assist implementation.
Scope and application of higher education access and support arrangements
2009 World Conference on Higher Education provides the reference point for this analysis. Its relevance to higher education access and support arrangements should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.
For higher education access and support arrangements, the relevant outcome should be capable of direct and consistent explanation. Education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. Formal adoption, expenditure and activity do not in themselves establish the intended result.
Evidence required
The analysis of higher education access and support arrangements should make its decision rule explicit. Evidence concerning higher education access and support arrangements should be relevant to the stated requirement, sufficiently complete for the affected scope, current for the decision period and attributable to a source with knowledge or control of the matter. Volume does not cure a gap in relevance. A stated decision rule enables comparable examination and limits retrospective explanations of adverse evidence.
For decisions concerning higher education access and support arrangements, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application. Evidence is sufficient when it is current, attributable, representative of the relevant scope and capable of being reconciled with other available records. Criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason.
Decision criteria and exceptions
Failure in relation to higher education access and support arrangements may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include aggregate gains concealing excluded groups, attrition detected too late, financial or geographic barriers, and admission without adequate support. Review should consider whether an exception is prolonged, recurring or capable of affecting learners outside the cases examined.
Relevant evidence for the assurance conclusion will normally include progression and early-warning information, disaggregated participation and outcome data, records of barriers and support, evaluation of interventions, and resource allocation by need. Within the scope under review, currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. For higher education access and support arrangements, contradictory evidence should be investigated and resolved, not omitted from the record.
Continuing assurance
Review of the control should define the proposition to be established, identify the minimum combination of records, test authenticity and reconcile contradictions. In the context of higher education access and support arrangements, expand the sample where an exception, complaint or material unexplained variation indicates that the initial evidence may not be representative. Averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.
Assurance concerning higher education access and support arrangements should be expressed at the level established by the evidence.
Continuing assurance
The analysis of higher education access and support arrangements should remain within the limits of the evidence. For the assurance conclusion, the volume of documentation is not a measure of conformity. Relevance, integrity and coverage are more important than the number of records produced. Equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. Different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. Material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.
As regards higher education access and support arrangements, decisions concerning the matter should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. Within the scope under review, changes in condition, evidence, method and interpretation should be recorded separately when a conclusion is revised.
Accountability for higher education access and support arrangements should follow decision-making authority. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.
No individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the applicable expectation across the affected scope.