Competence requirements supporting inclusive and equitable quality education

The Incheon Declaration adopted in May 2015 provides the immediate reference point for consideration of inclusive and equitable quality education in 2015. 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. The unit of review should correspond to the full reach of the decision, including significant differences in provision and population.

The system and institutional dimensions of the applicable requirement should be considered together. For the control, assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result. For decisions concerning inclusive and equitable quality education, the regulatory setting is determined by public authorities, but responsibility for controlled provision remains with the provider.

Meaning in practice

Relevant evidence for inclusive and equitable quality education will normally include appeal and correction records, assessment maps to learning outcomes, authorship and identity controls proportionate to risk, approval and change-control records, and analysis of results and differential outcomes. Currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. An unresolved contradiction is a limitation on the conclusion and should be reported as such.

The Incheon Declaration adopted in May 2015 provides a policy reference for the control. For decisions concerning inclusive and equitable quality education, this distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.

In work concerning inclusive and equitable quality education, the Incheon Declaration, adopted at the World Education Forum in May 2015, sets a vision of inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. It places equity, inclusion, gender equality, learning outcomes and public responsibility within one agenda. Implementation requires attention to groups excluded from aggregate progress and to the teachers, finance, governance and evidence needed to deliver the commitment.

Analysis should make its decision rule explicit. For the matter, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. The assessment should follow authority and information across functional boundaries and verify completion of required action. As regards inclusive and equitable quality education, a stated decision rule enables comparable examination and limits retrospective explanations of adverse evidence.

Risk assessment should give particular attention to tasks that do not assess the stated outcome, uncontrolled changes to assessment, and reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome. A provider should also consider results used beyond the evidence they support and inconsistent judgement between markers or locations.

Responsibilities and material risks

Within the scope under review, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application. For inclusive and equitable quality education, a provider should be able to trace the expectation from approved policy through implementation, monitoring, identified exceptions and corrective action. Criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason.

Accountability for inclusive and equitable quality education should follow decision-making authority. Relevant evidence should reach the body authorised to commit resources, amend policy or accept residual risk, and its judgement should be recorded. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.

The assurance record for the applicable requirement 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 work concerning inclusive and equitable quality education, traceable source and version information allow genuine improvement to be distinguished from administrative revision. The evidential history should preserve conclusions that were operative when a material decision was made.

• Review differential and anomalous results.
• Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes.
• Control changes.
• Retain evidence sufficient for review before it informs a consequential decision.
• Moderate material variation.

Basis for a reliable conclusion

The review method for inclusive and equitable quality education should be reproducible. Review of the applicable expectation should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Recurrence, common cause or wider exposure requires systemic action in addition to correction of individual cases. Within the scope under review, documentation should be sufficient to reconstruct the judgement without relying on unrecorded explanation.

For inclusive and equitable quality education, the final record on the applicable expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established. No complete conclusion should be recorded while a material evidential limitation remains.

For inclusive and equitable quality education, analysis should remain within the limits of the evidence. An isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect. For the applicable expectation, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. Material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.

Any response to the present development should test the evidential connection between the control, its implementation and the outcome claimed. In work concerning inclusive and equitable quality education, public confidence cannot be separated from an institution's ability to identify responsibility and substantiate its conclusions.