Public-interest oversight of teaching and learning quality

The immediate international context is the global teaching and learning policy debate in 2013. Its significance for teaching and learning quality lies in the quality of implementation rather than in formal acknowledgement alone. The immediate task for education authorities is to distinguish the policy objective from the legal and operational measures needed to give it effect. A proportionate arrangement should protect learners and decision integrity without controls unrelated to the identified risk.

For teaching and learning quality, responsibility should be identifiable at the point where consequential decisions are made. Implementation should be assessed against observable effects on access, learning, safety and fair treatment, rather than against the existence of a policy statement alone.

Policy context for public-interest oversight of teaching and learning quality

The position at publication is informed by the global teaching and learning policy debate in 2013; evidence from the affected setting remains necessary before reaching a conclusion on teaching and learning quality. Decision-makers should state which matters are evidenced, which express policy and which require authorised judgement.

For decisions concerning teaching and learning quality, the 2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All, places teaching quality and equitable learning at the centre of the post-2015 discussion. It links teacher preparation, deployment, support and working conditions with learner outcomes. Workforce indicators should consequently be interpreted alongside evidence of classroom practice, access to qualified teachers and differences between locations and learner groups.

In work concerning teaching and learning quality, education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively. Review should cover the stages at which learners receive information, provision, assessment, support and remedy.

• Forecast workforce need.
• Evaluate professional learning in practice.
• Prioritise support where learner need is greatest.
• Maintain continuity arrangements.
• Verify competence before assignment.

Responsibilities and affected parties

The analysis of teaching and learning quality should make its decision rule explicit. In this case, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. Gaps may emerge when authority, records or action pass between responsible bodies. Within the scope under review, this supports consistent review and reduces the risk of redefining the basis of judgement after an adverse result appears.

Assurance of implementation should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include induction and professional learning participation, observation and learner feedback, retention and continuity indicators, support and supervision records, and qualification and competence records. For teaching and learning quality, system-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event.

Accountability for the measure should follow decision-making authority.

For teaching and learning quality, a policy conclusion on implementation should state who is required or expected to act, the source of that expectation and the consequence of non-implementation. Any conclusion should state where differences in law limit its application. Proposed or recommendatory measures should remain clearly distinguished from obligations already in force.

Implementation risks

Authorities and providers reviewing teaching and learning quality should proceed in a defined sequence. For the measure, the reviewer should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. The record for teaching and learning quality should distinguish a finding that requires action from an observation that supports no formal conclusion.

Risk assessment of the issue should give particular attention to weak evaluation of teaching support, professional learning disconnected from practice, and vacancies or turnover affecting continuity. A provider should also consider use of staff outside their competence and deployment unrelated to learner need. In work concerning teaching and learning quality, stronger controls are required where learners may not detect an error or where later correction cannot restore the lost opportunity.

When examining teaching and learning quality, the evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. For implementation, 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. Material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly.

Proportionality in relation to the issue does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. In work concerning teaching and learning quality, qualifications and participation in training are inputs. Public authorities should avoid imposing administrative activity that cannot be connected to a defined risk, right or educational outcome. Each exception should record its basis, authorisation, duration and review date.

Governance of the issue requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. For teaching and learning quality, the responsible body should receive matters requiring resources, policy change or formal risk acceptance. Improvement of teaching and learning quality should be supported by evidence and an accountable decision record capable of public scrutiny.