Publication record
This is the controlled English edition. Evidence and institutional status are stated as at the evidence cut-off date.
Executive summary
feasibility and disprove, unspecified, doubts in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The relevant question is whether an evidenced difference is substantial for the specific recognition purpose. The competent body should identify the receiving requirement, examine authentic and educational evidence, determine whether a difference prevents the intended progression, and give reasons. The applicant should have access to review and should not be required to disprove unspecified doubts.
uncertainty and documentation, missing, learning in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Applicants should submit records reasonably available to them and respond to clear requests. Recognition bodies should publish criteria, identify the material uncertainty, use authoritative information sources and seek clarification proportionately. Where documents are unavailable because of displacement, closure or other circumstances, alternative assessment or a reconstructed account may be necessary. Missing documentation does not prove missing learning.
remedy and rather, equivalence, conclusion in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Difference in naming, teaching method, calendar or minor content is not substantial merely because it is visible. A difference may matter where the applicant lacks learning essential for safe or academically viable progression, where level or volume falls materially short, or where the status of the award cannot support the recognition sought. Reasons should explain that relation rather than state non-equivalence as a conclusion.
capacity and border, displaced, applicants in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The response should not exceed what the receiving purpose requires. Review should examine whether apparently neutral evidence demands impose unequal burdens on cross-border or displaced applicants.
At the 22 November 2019 cut-off, the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education had not yet been adopted. It is not used, anticipated or quoted. The analysis relies on earlier recognition principles and official materials available by the cutoff. No later ratification, entry-into-force or implementation evidence is implied.
continuity and enough, support, progression in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It does not require automatic equivalence among institutions or systems. A competent body should compare documented learning outcomes, level, volume, assessment and programme requirements, give reasons for any difference that matters, and provide a route to review. The decision should be intelligible to the learner and portable enough to support later progression.
equity and explained, rather, assumed in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Outcomes expressed only through broad verbs can conceal major differences in knowledge, complexity, independence and context. A reliable record should therefore identify the awarding institution, programme, component, dates, credit or workload basis, level, stated outcomes, assessment and result. Where a qualification framework or credit convention applies, its status and limits should be explained rather than assumed.
authority and decision, uncertainty, stated in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The receiving institution is responsible for a fair decision under published criteria. Learners should not bear the full burden of resolving differences in terminology or contacting institutions that no longer operate. Where authentic records are incomplete because of displacement, closure or other circumstances, a competent assessment and reconstructed account may support a provisional or final decision with uncertainty stated.
distribution and material, response, proportionate in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Workload can support comparison, but time alone does not establish learning. A common numeric value can represent different subject matter, level or assessment. Decisions should first identify the receiving programme requirement and then examine whether prior learning can satisfy it. Partial recognition, bridging or additional assessment may be appropriate where the difference is material and the response proportionate.
timing and cannot, register, decision in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The institution should record request, documents, completeness check, academic review, decision, reasons, credit recorded, programme adjustment and any appeal. Waiting time at each point matters. A nominal recognition policy can fail where responsibilities are unclear, academic staff receive no workload, evidence cannot be verified or the student record cannot register the decision.
coverage and administrative, rejection, educational in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authenticity asks whether the record is what it claims to be. Institutional or programme status concerns the authority under which learning was offered. Level concerns complexity and expected independence. Learning concerns the substance demonstrated. Programme fit concerns whether that learning can replace a receiving requirement without undermining essential progression. Conflating these questions can turn an administrative doubt into rejection of educational value.
feasibility and appeal, institutional, learning in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. ” The record should state the receiving requirement, evidence considered, finding, consequence and available remedy. Where only part of the learning is recognised, the institution should explain the boundary. A reasoned decision supports consistency, appeal and later institutional learning.
uncertainty and unable, ordinary, channel in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Records should have stable identifiers, controlled correction, authorised issue and a way to verify origin. Personal information should be limited to the purpose and transferred securely. A digital format can improve speed but does not by itself ensure authenticity, preservation or access. Institutions need a controlled alternative for system interruption and for learners unable to use the ordinary channel.
remedy and duplicate, undermine, learning in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Recognition without timetable access, prerequisite adjustment or fee correction may have little practical value. Advising should identify the earliest feasible completion route and any effect on professional or regulated requirements. The record should avoid both duplicate study and gaps that would undermine later learning.
capacity and evidence, access, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Applicants with cross-border, interrupted or non-standard histories may face greater documentary burdens. A lower recognition rate is not by itself evidence of unfairness, but it should trigger examination of criteria, evidence access and reasons.
comparability and converting, precedent, automatic in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A sample of accepted, partly accepted, refused and abandoned applications can reveal inconsistency, missing reasons and practical barriers. Reviewers should protect personal and academic information while retaining enough evidence to test the decision. Staff should have a route to seek precedent or specialist advice without converting precedent into an automatic rule.
The Global Compact on Refugees is within the evidence period and is relevant to inclusion and responsibility-sharing. The UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education had not yet been adopted by 22 November 2019 and is excluded. This report does not apply its later text or imply later entry into force.
equity and decisions, understood, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Institutions should monitor timeliness, distribution, consistency and realised progression. A policy is functioning only where its decisions can be understood, recorded and used.
Key findings
Scope and method
Part I
Interpreting continuity as a public duty
Improvement proposition
timing and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 1. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.[REF-01]
Mandate
feasibility and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 2. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should therefore define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
uncertainty and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 2. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should state primary and supporting roles. The governing proposition is that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes.
Minimum service
comparability and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 3. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. The immediate improvement response is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
continuity and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 3. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated.
Pathway
distribution and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 4. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
timing and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 4. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure, subject to the principle that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway.
Equity
uncertainty and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 5. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Participating bodies should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
remedy and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 5. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, because equal procedure does not establish equal access. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative.
Part II
Continuity across institutions and time
Capacity
continuity and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. A competent body should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
equity and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should verify workload, competence and dependency and acknowledge that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
authority and coordination, activity, resolve in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it.
Evidence
timing and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 7. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
coverage and establish, effective, coordination in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 7. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination.
The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In mandate and shared governance, cross-sector coordination should secure the lawful roles of education, health, protection and other bodies in securing learner participation. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should therefore define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8.
capacity and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8. Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should minimise data and retain qualified judgement. The governing proposition is that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Comparability concerning to connect evidence with determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8.
Monitoring
equity and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. The immediate improvement response is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
authority and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Distribution concerning monitoring to connect evidence determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9.
Review
Coverage concerning while no body owns determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in mandate and shared governance concerns the lawful roles of education, health, protection and other bodies in securing learner participation. If coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10.
feasibility and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10. Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should assign correction, deadline and verification, subject to the principle that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Uncertainty concerning and correction should recorded determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10.
Improvement proposition
comparability and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 11. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Authorities should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.[REF-02]
Mandate
equity and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. A competent body should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
authority and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should state primary and supporting roles and acknowledge that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Distribution concerning the burden of evidence determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12.
Minimum service
coverage and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
feasibility and agreement, itself, service in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service.
Uncertainty concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13.
Part IV
Evidence, accountability and correction
Pathway
capacity and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Authorities should therefore combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
comparability and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure. The governing proposition is that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Continuity concerning burden of evidence in determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14.
Equity
authority and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. The immediate improvement response is to combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
distribution and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Timing concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15.
Capacity
feasibility and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
uncertainty and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should verify workload, competence and dependency, subject to the principle that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Remedy concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16.
Evidence
comparability and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Participating bodies should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
continuity and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, because plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
Equity concerning delivery unequal effect and determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Population and access requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the learners and communities requiring connected services and the barriers affecting their use. The risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. A competent body should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18.
timing and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18. Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should minimise data and retain qualified judgement and acknowledge that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Coverage concerning evidence in recognition decisions determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18.
Improvement proposition
timing and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 1. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.[REF-01]
Mandate
feasibility and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 2. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should therefore define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
uncertainty and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 2. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should state primary and supporting roles. The governing proposition is that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes.
Minimum service
comparability and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 3. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. The immediate improvement response is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
continuity and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 3. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated.
Pathway
distribution and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 4. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
timing and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 4. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure, subject to the principle that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway.
Equity
uncertainty and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 5. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Participating bodies should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
remedy and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 5. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, because equal procedure does not establish equal access. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative.
Capacity
continuity and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. A competent body should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
equity and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should verify workload, competence and dependency and acknowledge that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
authority and coordination, activity, resolve in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 6. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it.
Evidence
timing and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 7. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
coverage and establish, effective, coordination in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 7. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination.
The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In mandate and shared governance, cross-sector coordination should secure the lawful roles of education, health, protection and other bodies in securing learner participation. The principal risk is that coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. Authorities should therefore define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8.
capacity and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8. Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should minimise data and retain qualified judgement. The governing proposition is that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Comparability concerning to connect evidence with determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 8.
Monitoring
equity and deputies, escalation, review in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision. The immediate improvement response is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review.
authority and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Distribution concerning monitoring to connect evidence determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 9.
Review
Coverage concerning while no body owns determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in mandate and shared governance concerns the lawful roles of education, health, protection and other bodies in securing learner participation. If coordination can be described broadly while no body owns a consequential decision, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define primary duties, shared tasks, deputies, escalation and review. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10.
feasibility and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10. Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should assign correction, deadline and verification, subject to the principle that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Uncertainty concerning and correction should recorded determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 10.
Part II
Population and access
Improvement proposition
comparability and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 11. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Authorities should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.[REF-02]
Mandate
equity and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. A competent body should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
authority and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should state primary and supporting roles and acknowledge that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Distribution concerning the burden of evidence determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 12.
Minimum service
coverage and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
feasibility and agreement, itself, service in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service.
Uncertainty concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 13.
Pathway
capacity and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Authorities should therefore combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
comparability and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure. The governing proposition is that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Continuity concerning burden of evidence in determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 14.
Equity
authority and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. The immediate improvement response is to combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
distribution and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Timing concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 15.
Capacity
feasibility and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
uncertainty and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should verify workload, competence and dependency, subject to the principle that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Remedy concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 16.
Evidence
comparability and uncertainty, practical, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Participating bodies should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access.
continuity and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, because plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
Equity concerning delivery unequal effect and determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 17.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Population and access requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the learners and communities requiring connected services and the barriers affecting their use. The risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. A competent body should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18.
timing and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18. Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should minimise data and retain qualified judgement and acknowledge that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Coverage concerning evidence in recognition decisions determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 18.
Monitoring
Uncertainty concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The public purpose of population and access is the credible provision of the learners and communities requiring connected services and the barriers affecting their use. Where provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 19.
remedy and volume, establish, benefit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 19. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that referral volume alone does not establish benefit.
Capacity concerning access participation and continuity determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 19.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In population and access, cross-sector coordination should secure the learners and communities requiring connected services and the barriers affecting their use. The principal risk is that provider and school lists can omit displaced, disabled, remote and previously excluded learners. Authorities should therefore combine sources and state coverage, uncertainty and practical access. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 20.
equity and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 20. Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should assign correction, deadline and verification. The governing proposition is that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
authority and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 20. Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body.
Improvement proposition
coverage and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 21. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. Authorities should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.[REF-03]
Mandate
uncertainty and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 22. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
remedy and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 22. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should state primary and supporting roles, subject to the principle that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Capacity concerning should not be required determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. capacity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 22.
Minimum service
continuity and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 23. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. Participating bodies should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
equity and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 23. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should define standard, scope and competent verifier, because a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
Authority concerning pathway dependent on one determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 23.
Pathway
timing and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 24. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. A competent body should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
coverage and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 24. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure and acknowledge that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Feasibility concerning actual failure identification handover determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 24.
Equity
remedy and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 25. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
capacity and procedure, establish, access in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 25. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Any conclusion must respect that equal procedure does not establish equal access.
Comparability concerning body comparability and material determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 25.
Capacity
equity and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 26. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. Authorities should therefore state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
authority and service, authority, status in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 26. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participating bodies should verify workload, competence and dependency. The governing proposition is that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date.
Distribution concerning the burden of evidence determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 26.
Evidence
coverage and decision, rights, limits in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 27. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. The immediate improvement response is to state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits.
feasibility and account, service, availability in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 27. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability.
Uncertainty concerning delivery unequal effect and determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 27.
Protection
Capacity concerning correction should recorded in determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in shared outcomes and service boundaries concerns the education, health and protection conditions each body is expected to influence. If a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 28.
comparability and proportionate, consequence, competence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 28. Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Authorities should minimise data and retain qualified judgement, subject to the principle that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body.
Continuity concerning learners and families should determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 28.
Monitoring
Authority concerning of evidence in recognition determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Planning for shared outcomes and service boundaries should begin with the education, health and protection conditions each body is expected to influence. A foreseeable failure arises where a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. Participating bodies should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 29.
distribution and specialists, should, explicit in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 29. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Decision-makers should track the complete pathway and complaints, because referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit.
Timing concerning person or system requires determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 29.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Shared outcomes and service boundaries requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the education, health and protection conditions each body is expected to influence. The risk is that a common goal can blur professional competence or make every result a joint responsibility. A competent body should state outcomes, contribution, decision rights and limits. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 30.
uncertainty and remain, lawfully, controlled in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 30. Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should assign correction, deadline and verification and acknowledge that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled.
Remedy concerning of evidence in recognition determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 30.
Part IV
Identification and referral
Improvement proposition
continuity and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 31. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. Authorities should define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.[REF-04]
Mandate
authority and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 32. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. Authorities should therefore define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The mandate test asks which body has authority and duty for the decision. Participating bodies should state primary and supporting roles. The governing proposition is that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 32.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 32.
Minimum service
feasibility and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 33. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. The immediate improvement response is to define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier, recognising that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 33.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 33.
Pathway
comparability and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 34. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under pathway, review concerns how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Authorities should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure, subject to the principle that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 34.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. equity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 34.
Equity
distribution and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 35. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. Participating bodies should define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The equity standard requires consideration of which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway. Decision-makers should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, because equal procedure does not establish equal access. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 35.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 35.
Capacity
uncertainty and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 36. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. A competent body should define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of capacity should determine which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. It should verify workload, competence and dependency and acknowledge that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 36.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 36.
Evidence
continuity and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 37. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For evidence, bodies should identify which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence. Any conclusion must respect that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 37.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 37.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In identification and referral, cross-sector coordination should secure timely recognition of need and a safe route to competent assessment or service. The principal risk is that referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. Authorities should therefore define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 38.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The protection test asks which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Participating bodies should minimise data and retain qualified judgement. The governing proposition is that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 38.
Feasibility concerning effect and correction coordination determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 38.
Monitoring
remedy and follow, interim, protection in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 39. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received. The immediate improvement response is to define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints, recognising that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 39.
Comparability concerning departure should be justified determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 39.
Review
Equity concerning interest in identification and determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in identification and referral concerns timely recognition of need and a safe route to competent assessment or service. If referral can become a transfer of responsibility without confirmation that help was received, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define trigger, consent, receiving capacity, follow-up and interim protection. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 40.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under review, review concerns how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Authorities should assign correction, deadline and verification, subject to the principle that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 40.
Distribution concerning retain the material limitation determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. distribution and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 40.
Part V
Health and readiness to learn
Improvement proposition
feasibility and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 41. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. Authorities should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.[REF-05]
Mandate
remedy and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 42. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. A competent body should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of mandate should determine which body has authority and duty for the decision. It should state primary and supporting roles and acknowledge that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 42.
Comparability concerning mandate to connect evidence determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 42.
Minimum service
equity and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 43. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For minimum service, bodies should identify which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier. Any conclusion must respect that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 43.
Distribution concerning access participation and continuity determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. distribution and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 43.
Pathway
coverage and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 44. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. Authorities should therefore connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The pathway test asks how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Participating bodies should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure. The governing proposition is that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 44.
Uncertainty concerning recorded in substantial difference determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 44.
Equity
capacity and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 45. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. The immediate improvement response is to connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, recognising that equal procedure does not establish equal access. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 45.
Continuity concerning material limitation and responsible determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 45.
Capacity
authority and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 46. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under capacity, review concerns which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Authorities should verify workload, competence and dependency, subject to the principle that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 46.
Timing concerning for referral and correction determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 46.
Evidence
feasibility and health, response, continuity in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 47. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. Participating bodies should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The evidence standard requires consideration of which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation. Decision-makers should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, because plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 47.
Remedy concerning tested under ordinary and determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 47.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Health and readiness to learn requires explicit improvement control because it concerns health conditions, services and information affecting attendance and learning. The risk is that schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. A competent body should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 48.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of protection should determine which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. It should minimise data and retain qualified judgement and acknowledge that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 48.
Equity concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 48.
Monitoring
Distribution concerning connect evidence with delivery determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The public purpose of health and readiness to learn is the credible provision of health conditions, services and information affecting attendance and learning. Where schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 49.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For monitoring, bodies should identify which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints. Any conclusion must respect that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 49.
Coverage concerning participation and continuity were determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 49.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In health and readiness to learn, cross-sector coordination should secure health conditions, services and information affecting attendance and learning. The principal risk is that schools may be expected to diagnose or treat beyond competence, while health barriers remain unaddressed. Authorities should therefore connect education observation with qualified health response and continuity. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 50.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The review test asks how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Participating bodies should assign correction, deadline and verification. The governing proposition is that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 50.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 50.
Part VI
Safeguarding and protection
Improvement proposition
equity and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 51. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. Authorities should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.[REF-06]
Mandate
distribution and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 52. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under mandate, review concerns which body has authority and duty for the decision. Authorities should state primary and supporting roles, subject to the principle that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 52.
Coverage concerning and evidence coverage and determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 52.
Minimum service
uncertainty and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 53. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. Participating bodies should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Remedy concerning delivery unequal effect and determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The minimum service standard requires consideration of which learner-facing condition should be present. Decision-makers should define standard, scope and competent verifier, because a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 53.
Capacity concerning a pathway dependent on determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. capacity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 53.
Pathway
continuity and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 54. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. A competent body should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of pathway should determine how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. It should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure and acknowledge that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 54.
Authority concerning justified competence evidence in determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 54.
Equity
timing and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 55. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For equity, bodies should identify which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost. Any conclusion must respect that equal procedure does not establish equal access. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 55.
Feasibility concerning learner received a timely determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 55.
Capacity
remedy and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 56. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. Authorities should therefore retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The capacity test asks which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Participating bodies should verify workload, competence and dependency. The governing proposition is that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 56.
Comparability concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 56.
Evidence
equity and confidentiality, education, support in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 57. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. The immediate improvement response is to retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, recognising that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 57.
Distribution concerning close the case administratively determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 57.
Protection
Coverage concerning the protected public interest determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in safeguarding and protection concerns prevention, reporting, referral and response to abuse, exploitation, violence and harmful practice. If shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 58.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under protection, review concerns which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Authorities should minimise data and retain qualified judgement, subject to the principle that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 58.
Uncertainty concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 58.
Monitoring
Capacity concerning reporting confidentiality and education determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Planning for safeguarding and protection should begin with prevention, reporting, referral and response to abuse, exploitation, violence and harmful practice. A foreseeable failure arises where shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. Participating bodies should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 59.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The monitoring standard requires consideration of which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence. Decision-makers should track the complete pathway and complaints, because referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 59.
Continuity concerning conditions a pathway dependent determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 59.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Safeguarding and protection requires explicit improvement control because it concerns prevention, reporting, referral and response to abuse, exploitation, violence and harmful practice. The risk is that shared protocols can expose sensitive information or delay urgent protection. A competent body should retain trained response, lawful reporting, confidentiality and education support. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 60.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of review should determine how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. It should assign correction, deadline and verification and acknowledge that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 60.
Timing concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 60.
Part VII
Nutrition, water and sanitation
Improvement proposition
uncertainty and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 61. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. Authorities should set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.[REF-07]
Mandate
capacity and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 62. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. Authorities should therefore set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The mandate test asks which body has authority and duty for the decision. Participating bodies should state primary and supporting roles. The governing proposition is that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 62.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 62.
Minimum service
authority and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 63. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. The immediate improvement response is to set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier, recognising that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. distribution and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 63.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 63.
Pathway
feasibility and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 64. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under pathway, review concerns how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Authorities should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure, subject to the principle that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. uncertainty and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 64.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 64.
Equity
comparability and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 65. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. Participating bodies should set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The equity standard requires consideration of which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway. Decision-makers should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, because equal procedure does not establish equal access. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 65.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. equity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 65.
Capacity
distribution and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 66. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. A competent body should set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of capacity should determine which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. It should verify workload, competence and dependency and acknowledge that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 66.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 66.
Evidence
uncertainty and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 67. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For evidence, bodies should identify which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence. Any conclusion must respect that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 67.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 67.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In nutrition, water and sanitation, cross-sector coordination should secure services supporting health, dignity, attendance and sustained education. The principal risk is that separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. Authorities should therefore set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 68.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The protection test asks which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Participating bodies should minimise data and retain qualified judgement. The governing proposition is that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. equity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 68.
Authority concerning justified competence evidence in determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 68.
Monitoring
timing and service, corrective, thresholds in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 69. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance. The immediate improvement response is to set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints, recognising that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 69.
Feasibility concerning service is unavailable the determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 69.
Review
Remedy concerning learner facing minima responsible determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in nutrition, water and sanitation concerns services supporting health, dignity, attendance and sustained education. If separate provision can leave operating gaps, inaccessible facilities or unclear maintenance, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to set learner-facing minima, responsible service and corrective thresholds. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 70.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under review, review concerns how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Authorities should assign correction, deadline and verification, subject to the principle that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 70.
Comparability concerning not be required to determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 70.
Part VIII
Teachers and frontline personnel
Improvement proposition
authority and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 71. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. Authorities should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.[REF-08]
Mandate
timing and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 72. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. A competent body should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of mandate should determine which body has authority and duty for the decision. It should state primary and supporting roles and acknowledge that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 72.
Feasibility concerning competence and evidence feasibility determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. feasibility and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 72.
Minimum service
remedy and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 73. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For minimum service, bodies should identify which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier. Any conclusion must respect that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 73.
Comparability concerning evidence with delivery unequal determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 73.
Pathway
equity and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 74. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. Authorities should therefore define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The pathway test asks how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Participating bodies should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure. The governing proposition is that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 74.
Distribution concerning should retain the material determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. distribution and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 74.
Equity
coverage and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 75. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. The immediate improvement response is to define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, recognising that equal procedure does not establish equal access. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. feasibility and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 75.
Uncertainty concerning effect and correction where determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 75.
Capacity
capacity and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 76. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under capacity, review concerns which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Authorities should verify workload, competence and dependency, subject to the principle that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 76.
Continuity concerning unequal effect and correction determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 76.
Evidence
authority and limits, support, replacement in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 77. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. Participating bodies should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The evidence standard requires consideration of which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation. Decision-makers should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, because plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. distribution and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 77.
Timing concerning tested under ordinary and determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 77.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Teachers and frontline personnel requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the preparation, workload, support and conduct of staff implementing connected arrangements. The risk is that frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. A competent body should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 78.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of protection should determine which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. It should minimise data and retain qualified judgement and acknowledge that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. uncertainty and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 78.
Remedy concerning should retain the material determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. remedy and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 78.
Monitoring
Comparability concerning without time competence supervision determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The public purpose of teachers and frontline personnel is the credible provision of the preparation, workload, support and conduct of staff implementing connected arrangements. Where frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 79.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For monitoring, bodies should identify which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints. Any conclusion must respect that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 79.
Equity concerning whether the learner received determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 79.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In teachers and frontline personnel, cross-sector coordination should secure the preparation, workload, support and conduct of staff implementing connected arrangements. The principal risk is that frontline staff can receive added duties without time, competence, supervision or protection. Authorities should therefore define role, training, referral limits, support and replacement. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. distribution and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 80.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The review test asks how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Participating bodies should assign correction, deadline and verification. The governing proposition is that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 80.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 80.
Part IX
Information and privacy
Improvement proposition
remedy and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 81. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. Authorities should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.[REF-09]
Mandate
comparability and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 82. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under mandate, review concerns which body has authority and duty for the decision. Authorities should state primary and supporting roles, subject to the principle that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 82.
Equity concerning can resolve through an determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 82.
Minimum service
distribution and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 83. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. Participating bodies should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Timing concerning on temporary finance personal determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The minimum service standard requires consideration of which learner-facing condition should be present. Decision-makers should define standard, scope and competent verifier, because a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 83.
Coverage concerning correction the arrangement should determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 83.
Pathway
uncertainty and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 84. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. A competent body should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of pathway should determine how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. It should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure and acknowledge that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 84.
Capacity concerning correction should be recorded determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 84.
Equity
continuity and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 85. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For equity, bodies should identify which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost. Any conclusion must respect that equal procedure does not establish equal access. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. equity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 85.
Authority concerning final account should show determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 85.
Capacity
timing and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 86. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. Authorities should therefore use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The capacity test asks which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Participating bodies should verify workload, competence and dependency. The governing proposition is that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. coverage and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 86.
Feasibility concerning competence and evidence feasibility determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. feasibility and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 86.
Evidence
remedy and control, accountable, exception in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 87. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. The immediate improvement response is to use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, recognising that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. capacity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 87.
Comparability concerning evidence to connect evidence determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 87.
Protection
Equity concerning difference and the burden determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in information and privacy concerns the minimum data needed for coordination and the controls governing collection, access and disclosure. If broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 88.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under protection, review concerns which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Authorities should minimise data and retain qualified judgement, subject to the principle that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. authority and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 88.
Distribution concerning competence and evidence distribution determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. distribution and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 88.
Monitoring
Coverage concerning for coordination and the determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Planning for information and privacy should begin with the minimum data needed for coordination and the controls governing collection, access and disclosure. A foreseeable failure arises where broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. Participating bodies should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 89.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The monitoring standard requires consideration of which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence. Decision-makers should track the complete pathway and complaints, because referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. feasibility and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 89.
Uncertainty concerning requires a controlled alternative determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. uncertainty and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 89.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Information and privacy requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the minimum data needed for coordination and the controls governing collection, access and disclosure. The risk is that broad sharing can create harm while excessive restriction prevents necessary service. A competent body should use purpose limitation, consent, access control and accountable exception. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 90.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of review should determine how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. It should assign correction, deadline and verification and acknowledge that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 90.
Continuity concerning evidence continuity and justified determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. continuity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 90.
Part X
Finance and service capacity
Improvement proposition
distribution and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 91. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. Authorities should cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.[REF-10]
Mandate
coverage and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 92. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. Authorities should therefore cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The mandate test asks which body has authority and duty for the decision. Participating bodies should state primary and supporting roles. The governing proposition is that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 92.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 92.
Minimum service
capacity and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 93. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. The immediate improvement response is to cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier, recognising that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 93.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 93.
Pathway
authority and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 94. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under pathway, review concerns how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Authorities should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure, subject to the principle that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. distribution and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 94.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 94.
Equity
feasibility and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 95. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. Participating bodies should cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The equity standard requires consideration of which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway. Decision-makers should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, because equal procedure does not establish equal access. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 95.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. remedy and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 95.
Capacity
comparability and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 96. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. A competent body should cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of capacity should determine which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. It should verify workload, competence and dependency and acknowledge that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 96.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. equity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 96.
Evidence
distribution and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 97. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For evidence, bodies should identify which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence. Any conclusion must respect that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 97.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 97.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In finance and service capacity, cross-sector coordination should secure the resources and recurrent commitments required across participating bodies. The principal risk is that joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. Authorities should therefore cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 98.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The protection test asks which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Participating bodies should minimise data and retain qualified judgement. The governing proposition is that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. remedy and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 98.
Capacity concerning correction should be recorded determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. capacity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 98.
Monitoring
continuity and transition, learner, burden in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 99. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity. The immediate improvement response is to cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints, recognising that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. equity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 99.
Authority concerning substantial difference and the determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 99.
Review
Timing concerning action can produce a determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in finance and service capacity concerns the resources and recurrent commitments required across participating bodies. If joint plans can rely on unfunded services or temporary projects with no receiving capacity, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to cost each function, dependency, transition and learner burden. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. timing and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 100.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under review, review concerns how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Authorities should assign correction, deadline and verification, subject to the principle that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 100.
Feasibility concerning to connect evidence with determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 100.
Part XI
Participation and communication
Improvement proposition
capacity and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 101. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. Authorities should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.[REF-11]
Mandate
continuity and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 102. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. A competent body should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of mandate should determine which body has authority and duty for the decision. It should state primary and supporting roles and acknowledge that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. equity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 102.
Authority concerning the implication for referral determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 102.
Minimum service
timing and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 103. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For minimum service, bodies should identify which learner-facing condition should be present and should define standard, scope and competent verifier. Any conclusion must respect that a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 103.
Feasibility concerning recorded feasibility and correction determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 103.
Pathway
remedy and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 104. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. Authorities should therefore provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The pathway test asks how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. Participating bodies should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure. The governing proposition is that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. capacity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 104.
Comparability concerning departure should be justified determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. comparability and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 104.
Equity
equity and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 105. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. The immediate improvement response is to provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
authority and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 105. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost, recognising that equal procedure does not establish equal access. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body.
Distribution concerning evidence distribution and justified determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. distribution and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 105.
Capacity
coverage and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 106. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under capacity, review concerns which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Authorities should verify workload, competence and dependency, subject to the principle that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 106.
Uncertainty concerning unequal effect and correction determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. uncertainty and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 106.
Evidence
capacity and formats, feedback, reasons in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 107. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. Participating bodies should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The evidence standard requires consideration of which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation. Decision-makers should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, because plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. comparability and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 107.
Continuity concerning the implication for referral determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. continuity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 107.
Protection
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Participation and communication requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the involvement and information needed for learners, families, staff and communities to use services. The risk is that technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. A competent body should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 108.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of protection should determine which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. It should minimise data and retain qualified judgement and acknowledge that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. distribution and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 108.
Timing concerning be justified by competence determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. timing and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 108.
Monitoring
Feasibility concerning learners families staff and determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The public purpose of participation and communication is the credible provision of the involvement and information needed for learners, families, staff and communities to use services. Where technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. feasibility and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 109.
Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For monitoring, bodies should identify which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence and should track the complete pathway and complaints. Any conclusion must respect that referral volume alone does not establish benefit. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 109.
Remedy concerning correction the final account determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. remedy and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 109.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In participation and communication, cross-sector coordination should secure the involvement and information needed for learners, families, staff and communities to use services. The principal risk is that technical coordination can proceed without accessible information or meaningful affected-person evidence. Authorities should therefore provide languages, formats, safe feedback and reasons. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 110.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The review test asks how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. Participating bodies should assign correction, deadline and verification. The governing proposition is that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 110.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. equity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 110.
Part XII
Continuity, emergency and improvement
Improvement proposition
timing and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 111. Improvement proposition to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. Authorities should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.[REF-12]
Mandate
feasibility and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 112. Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. If arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Mandate to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under mandate, review concerns which body has authority and duty for the decision. Authorities should state primary and supporting roles, subject to the principle that coordination supplements rather than erases sector responsibility. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. uncertainty and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 112.
Remedy concerning should retain the material determines whether Mandate supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. remedy and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 112.
Minimum service
comparability and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 113. Minimum service to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A foreseeable failure arises where arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. Participating bodies should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Continuity concerning define standard scope and determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The minimum service standard requires consideration of which learner-facing condition should be present. Decision-makers should define standard, scope and competent verifier, because a meeting or agreement is not itself a service. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. continuity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 113.
Equity concerning evidence with delivery unequal determines whether Minimum service supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. Any departure should be justified by competence and evidence. equity and justified, competence, evidence in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 113.
Pathway
distribution and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 114. Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The risk is that arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. A competent body should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of pathway should determine how a learner moves from identification through response and follow-up. It should map trigger, handover, receipt and closure and acknowledge that referral is incomplete when receiving capacity is unknown. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. timing and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 114.
Coverage concerning effect and correction correction determines whether Pathway supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 114.
Equity
uncertainty and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 115. Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Where arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable, institutional reporting can overstate both reach and protection. Authorities should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Equity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. For equity, bodies should identify which learners cannot use the ordinary pathway and should test disability, language, status, geography and cost. Any conclusion must respect that equal procedure does not establish equal access. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. remedy and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 115.
Capacity concerning should retain the material determines whether Equity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The final account should show whether the learner received a timely and appropriate service and whether education access, participation and continuity were protected. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. capacity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 115.
Capacity
continuity and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 116. Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The principal risk is that arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. Authorities should therefore prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Capacity to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The capacity test asks which staff, time, finance and facilities make delivery feasible. Participating bodies should verify workload, competence and dependency. The governing proposition is that an unfunded shared task should remain visible as a risk. The record should identify population, service, authority, status and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. equity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 116.
Authority concerning the implication for referral determines whether Capacity supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Coordination is valuable when it changes the learner-facing service. Institutional contact, meetings and referral counts are intermediate evidence rather than final outcomes. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. authority and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 116.
Evidence
timing and pathways, revise, responsibilities in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 117. Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. In this domain, arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. The immediate improvement response is to prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities.
Evidence to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. A credible arrangement should establish which dated record demonstrates operation and limitation and should use service, institution and affected-person evidence, recognising that plans and aggregate activity do not establish effective coordination. Local evidence should be capable of changing a central account of service availability. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. coverage and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 117.
Feasibility concerning a receiving service is determines whether Evidence supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Where a receiving service is unavailable, the referring body should not close the case administratively. Interim protection, escalation and education continuity should be stated. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 117.
Protection
Remedy concerning when ordinary contacts sites determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The protected public interest in continuity, emergency and improvement concerns the operation, monitoring and correction of coordination during disruption and recovery. If arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable, shared action can produce a gap rather than an integrated response. The required course is to prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. remedy and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 118.
Protection to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Under protection, review concerns which safety, privacy and professional boundaries govern action. Authorities should minimise data and retain qualified judgement, subject to the principle that information sharing should not create avoidable harm. Reasons should remain proportionate to the consequence and competence of each body. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. capacity and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 118.
Comparability concerning bodies can resolve through determines whether Protection supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Learners and families should not be required to navigate institutional boundaries that public bodies can resolve through an authorised pathway. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. comparability and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 118.
Monitoring
Equity concerning the burden of evidence determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Planning for continuity, emergency and improvement should begin with the operation, monitoring and correction of coordination during disruption and recovery. A foreseeable failure arises where arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. Participating bodies should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. equity and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 119.
authority and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 119. Monitoring to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. The monitoring standard requires consideration of which indicators show receipt, delay, unmet need and education consequence. Decision-makers should track the complete pathway and complaints, because referral volume alone does not establish benefit. Dependencies on temporary finance, personal contacts or unavailable specialists should be explicit. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body.
Distribution concerning effect and correction the determines whether Monitoring supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. The arrangement should be tested under ordinary and disrupted conditions. A pathway dependent on one person or system requires a controlled alternative. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. distribution and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 119.
Review
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Continuity, emergency and improvement requires explicit improvement control because it concerns the operation, monitoring and correction of coordination during disruption and recovery. The risk is that arrangements can fail when ordinary contacts, sites or services are unavailable. A competent body should prepare alternatives, test pathways, track unmet need and revise responsibilities. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. coverage and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 120.
Review to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Review of review should determine how failure changes protocol, resource and responsibility. It should assign correction, deadline and verification and acknowledge that repeated coordination language should not substitute for accountable improvement. Personal and protection information should remain lawfully controlled. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and responsible body. feasibility and material, limitation, responsible in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 120.
Uncertainty concerning for referral and correction determines whether Review supports a bounded finding and corrective responsibility. Correction should address the actual failure: identification, handover, capacity, delay, communication, service quality or follow-up. Additional coordination activity may not resolve it. The implication for referral and correction should be recorded. uncertainty and correction, should, recorded in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 120.
Part XIII
Conclusions
A complete pathway
comparability and usable, during, disruption in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 121. A complete pathway to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. It should remain usable during disruption.
Evidence for improvement
equity and should, assigned, correction in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 122. Evidence for improvement to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Delay, refusal, inaccessible procedure and unmet need should lead to assigned correction.
Final conclusion
distribution and learner, public, interest in Substantial Difference and the Burden of Evidence in Recognition Decisions require ### 123. Final conclusion to connect evidence with delivery, unequal effect and correction. Shared action should strengthen rather than diffuse responsibility and should remain answerable to the learner and the public interest.
References
- REF-01
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. 2010.
Principal contemporaneous analysis of intersecting disadvantage and education marginalisation.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606 - REF-02
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Global Education Digest 2010: Comparing Education Statistics Across the World. 2010.
Comparative education statistics, definitions and limitations.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/global-education-digest-2010-comparing-education-statistics-across-the-world-en.pdf - REF-03
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines. 2009.
Definitions and interpretation of participation, progression, completion and resource indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf - REF-04
United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010. 2010.
Global and regional monitoring of primary education, gender, poverty and related development conditions.
https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf - REF-05
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations — Pathways to Human Development. 2010.
Distribution-sensitive human development concepts and evidence available before the cut-off.
https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2010 - REF-06
UNICEF. Progress for Children: Achieving the MDGs with Equity, Number 9. 2010.
Equity-focused child indicators and comparison between population groups.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/progress-children-no-9 - REF-07
World Education Forum. The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All — Meeting Our Collective Commitments. 2000.
Commitments to equitable access, quality, measurable outcomes and accountable national planning.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000121147 - REF-08
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Rights concerning non-discrimination, identity, education and development.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child - REF-09
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education. 1999.
Interpretation of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability.
https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cescr/1999/en/37937 - REF-10
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Non-discrimination, accessibility, inclusive education and disability data safeguards.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities - REF-11
United Nations. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 1998.
Principles relevant to protection, documentation, education and non-discrimination of displaced persons.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-internally-displaced-persons/international-standards - REF-12
UNESCO and UNICEF. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based planning, equality, participation, accountability and education quality.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861 - REF-13
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. 2008.
Governance, finance and unequal educational opportunity.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683 - REF-14
World Bank. World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. 2005.
Concepts of unequal opportunity, institutions and equitable public action.
https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/435331468127174418/pdf/322040World0Development0Report02006.pdf - REF-15
World Bank. Safeguarding Education During Economic Crisis. 2009.
Risks to budgets, households, participation and long-term human development during economic crisis.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/489131468340200911/pdf/485120WP0Avert10Box338912B01PUBLIC1.pdf - REF-16
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. 2010.
Comparative participation, progression, expenditure and outcomes evidence with system-level metadata.
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2010-en - REF-17
European Commission. Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. 2010.
Contemporaneous European policy context for education, inclusion, employment and headline indicators.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020 - REF-18
European Commission. Youth on the Move: An Initiative to Unleash the Potential of Young People to Achieve Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in the European Union. 2010.
European education, mobility, attainment and youth inclusion policy context.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0477 - REF-19
European Commission. A Renewed Commitment to Social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. 2008.
Social inclusion monitoring, common objectives and context-sensitive indicators.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0418 - REF-20
United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 64/250: Assistance to Haiti in the Aftermath of the Recent Earthquake. 2010.
Contemporaneous recognition of humanitarian and reconstruction needs and national leadership.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/64/250 - REF-21
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Haiti Revised Humanitarian Appeal. 2010.
Displacement, service disruption and humanitarian education context.
https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/haiti-revised-humanitarian-appeal-2010 - REF-22
European Commission. European Union Response to the Earthquake in Haiti. 2010.
European humanitarian and recovery support, coordination and Haitian ownership.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0056 - REF-23
United Nations Economic and Social Council. Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 2. 2008.
Official principles for population coverage, definitions, classifications and data quality.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/Standards-and-Methods/files/Principles_and_Recommendations/Population-and-Housing-Censuses/Series_M67Rev2-E.pdf - REF-24
United Nations Statistics Division. Designing Household Survey Samples: Practical Guidelines. 2005.
Sample design, estimation, precision and non-response guidance.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/surveys/Handbook23June05.pdf - REF-25
World Education Forum 2015. Incheon Declaration: Education 2030 — Towards Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All. 2015.
Education commitments adopted at Incheon and their contemporaneous institutional status.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233137 - REF-26
United Nations General Assembly. Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development. 2015.
Adopted global financing framework and relevant principles for domestic public finance and international cooperation.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/69/313 - REF-27
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015.
Agenda adopted on 25 September 2015, including Goal 4 and its education targets, as available at the evidence cut-off.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1 - REF-28
UNESCO. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. 2015.
Framework for Action available before the cut-off and relevant to institutional planning, coordination, equity and review.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656 - REF-29
United Nations Secretary-General. One Humanity: Shared Responsibility — Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit. 2016. A/70/709.
Secretary-General’s pre-Summit Agenda for Humanity and proposals for humanitarian responsibility.
https://docs.un.org/A/70/709 - REF-30
Chair of the World Humanitarian Summit. Chair’s Summary: Standing Up for Humanity — Committing to Action. 2016.
Official Chair’s account of the May 2016 Summit discussions and commitments, used with its status as a summary.
https://agendaforhumanity.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017/Jul/chairs_summary.pdf - REF-31
United Nations. New Fund Launched at UN Humanitarian Summit to Address Education in Crisis Zones. 2016.
Contemporaneous official account of the Education Cannot Wait launch and stated aims; not evidence of later finance or results.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/05/new-fund-launched-at-un-humanitarian-summit-to-address-education-in-crisis-zones/ - REF-32
United Nations General Assembly. The Right to Education in Emergency Situations. 2010. A/RES/64/290.
Recognition of education as an integral element of humanitarian response and calls for access, continuity, protection and support.
https://docs.un.org/A/RES/64/290 - REF-33
United Nations General Assembly. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, Resolution 71/1. 2016.
Contemporaneous commitment relevant to shared responsibility, refugee and migrant education, and the reporting boundary between commitment and result.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1 - REF-34
Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments — Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8. 2017.
Principal contemporaneous analysis of accountability relations, responsibility, transparency, participation and unintended effects in education.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338 - REF-35
World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education's Promise. 2018.
Principal contemporaneous analysis of learning, measurement, evidence-led action and alignment of education actors.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018 - REF-36
United Nations General Assembly. Global Compact on Refugees, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Part II, affirmed by Resolution 73/151. 2018.
Controlling contemporaneous compact on predictable and equitable responsibility-sharing, national arrangements and refugee inclusion, including education.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/global-compact-refugees-booklet