Minimum Expectations for Remote Education during Prolonged Disruption

ICEQC Research and Policy Directorate

Publication record

This is the controlled English edition. Evidence and institutional status are stated as at the evidence cut-off date.

Executive summary

Remote arrangements are temporary means of continuing the education entitlement during prolonged disruption. The minimum is not satisfied by naming a platform, broadcasting content or distributing worksheets. Learners need meaningful contact, accessible learning, teacher explanation, feedback, safeguarding and a route back to broad institution-based education.

No single medium reaches every learner. Planning should begin with actual household access to devices, connectivity, electricity, print, broadcast, telephone, language and accessible formats. A device somewhere in a household or national network coverage does not show usable learning access. Coherent low-technology and no-technology alternatives require teacher contact and feedback.

Remote education still requires teaching. Materials should form a purposeful curriculum sequence with explanation, guided practice and follow-up. Teachers need shared resources, manageable expectations and sustained professional support. Caregivers can support routines, but public authorities and institutions retain responsibility for teaching.

Assessment should guide instruction and preserve fair progression. Unequal access makes high-consequence decisions especially risky. Non-response should prompt enquiry into barriers before penalty. Safeguarding, wellbeing, nutrition and school-linked social services are part of continuity because they materially affect whether learners can participate.

Authorities should publish minimum service expectations, institutional duties, reach and correction evidence. Monitoring should distinguish resources offered from contact and teaching received. Remote arrangements should be reviewed for unequal exclusion and should prepare for inclusive return without assuming that all learners had the same exposure.

Key findings

Remote education requires two-way teaching and feedback, not content distribution alone.
Actual household usability should replace assumptions based on theoretical media coverage.
Multiple connected and non-connected routes should form one coherent teaching offer.
Accessibility, language, privacy and data cost are minimum access conditions.
Assessment should avoid irreversible consequences where access and evidence are unequal.
Non-response should trigger barrier enquiry before attendance or conduct penalties.
Safeguarding, wellbeing and linked social services belong within education continuity.
Monitoring should connect population, contact, service received, barrier and correction.

Scope and method

This global standards interpretive study sets minimum expectations for remote education during prolonged disruption as at 15 June 2020. It addresses entitlement, access across media, teaching, professional support, assessment, protection, governance and preparation for return. It does not use later pandemic experience, later guidance or retrospective outcomes.

The evidence base is confined to official international and European institutional material available by the cutoff, including education and rights instruments, statistical and equity guidance, early COVID-19 education response material and the interagency reopening framework.

Part I

The minimum education entitlement during disruption

1

Continuity without pretending equivalence

Continuity without pretending equivalence identifies a minimum requirement within the continuity standard. For continuity without pretending equivalence, the affected learners or institutions are learners unable to attend ordinary institutions, and the immediate evidence concerns meaningful education contact and learning opportunity. In interpreting continuity without pretending equivalence, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on continuity without pretending equivalence, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-10] [REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that remote arrangements are called equivalent regardless of access or teaching. In interpreting continuity without pretending equivalence, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on continuity without pretending equivalence, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-10] [REF-22] [REF-48]

The minimum response is to state the minimum service, limitations and restoration aim. Within remote education on continuity without pretending equivalence, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning continuity without pretending equivalence, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to continuity without pretending equivalence, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Evidence for continuity without pretending equivalence should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning continuity without pretending equivalence, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to continuity without pretending equivalence, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-10] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in continuity without pretending equivalence depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to continuity without pretending equivalence, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of continuity without pretending equivalence, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Equity review for continuity without pretending equivalence should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of continuity without pretending equivalence, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For continuity without pretending equivalence, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-10] [REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to continuity without pretending equivalence. For continuity without pretending equivalence, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting continuity without pretending equivalence, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on continuity without pretending equivalence, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Public accountability for continuity without pretending equivalence should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting continuity without pretending equivalence, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on continuity without pretending equivalence, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-10] [REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

2

A protected common curriculum core

A protected common curriculum core identifies a minimum requirement within the curriculum minimum. For a protected common curriculum core, the affected learners or institutions are learners receiving reduced or altered instructional time, and the immediate evidence concerns essential learning and broad entitlement. In interpreting a protected common curriculum core, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on a protected common curriculum core, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that emergency prioritisation becomes a permanently narrowed curriculum. In interpreting a protected common curriculum core, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on a protected common curriculum core, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-29]

The minimum response is to identify essential continuity while preserving later restoration. Within remote education on a protected common curriculum core, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning a protected common curriculum core, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to a protected common curriculum core, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Evidence for a protected common curriculum core should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning a protected common curriculum core, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to a protected common curriculum core, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-01] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in a protected common curriculum core depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to a protected common curriculum core, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of a protected common curriculum core, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Equity review for a protected common curriculum core should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of a protected common curriculum core, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For a protected common curriculum core, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to a protected common curriculum core. For a protected common curriculum core, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting a protected common curriculum core, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on a protected common curriculum core, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Public accountability for a protected common curriculum core should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting a protected common curriculum core, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on a protected common curriculum core, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

3

Regular teacher-learner contact

Regular teacher-learner contact identifies a minimum requirement within the relationship minimum. For regular teacher-learner contact, the affected learners or institutions are learners studying away from institutions, and the immediate evidence concerns two-way contact, guidance and response. In interpreting regular teacher-learner contact, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on regular teacher-learner contact, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

The principal risk is that one-way content distribution is described as teaching. In interpreting regular teacher-learner contact, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on regular teacher-learner contact, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-49]

The minimum response is to provide scheduled and reachable human contact. Within remote education on regular teacher-learner contact, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning regular teacher-learner contact, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to regular teacher-learner contact, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Evidence for regular teacher-learner contact should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning regular teacher-learner contact, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to regular teacher-learner contact, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-12] [REF-51]

Teaching quality in regular teacher-learner contact depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to regular teacher-learner contact, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of regular teacher-learner contact, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Equity review for regular teacher-learner contact should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of regular teacher-learner contact, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For regular teacher-learner contact, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to regular teacher-learner contact. For regular teacher-learner contact, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting regular teacher-learner contact, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on regular teacher-learner contact, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Public accountability for regular teacher-learner contact should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting regular teacher-learner contact, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on regular teacher-learner contact, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

4

Feedback and evidence of engagement

Feedback and evidence of engagement identifies a minimum requirement within the feedback minimum. For feedback and evidence of engagement, the affected learners or institutions are learners attempting work under varied home conditions, and the immediate evidence concerns work received, response and next step. In interpreting feedback and evidence of engagement, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on feedback and evidence of engagement, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that task completion is demanded without guidance or usable feedback. In interpreting feedback and evidence of engagement, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on feedback and evidence of engagement, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24]

The minimum response is to create low-burden routes for questions, work and response. Within remote education on feedback and evidence of engagement, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning feedback and evidence of engagement, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to feedback and evidence of engagement, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Evidence for feedback and evidence of engagement should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning feedback and evidence of engagement, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to feedback and evidence of engagement, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-01] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in feedback and evidence of engagement depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to feedback and evidence of engagement, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of feedback and evidence of engagement, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Equity review for feedback and evidence of engagement should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of feedback and evidence of engagement, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For feedback and evidence of engagement, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to feedback and evidence of engagement. For feedback and evidence of engagement, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting feedback and evidence of engagement, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on feedback and evidence of engagement, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Public accountability for feedback and evidence of engagement should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting feedback and evidence of engagement, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on feedback and evidence of engagement, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

5

Reasonable workload and household burden

Reasonable workload and household burden identifies a minimum requirement within the burden minimum. For reasonable workload and household burden, the affected learners or institutions are learners and caregivers combining education with disruption pressures, and the immediate evidence concerns time, task volume and adult assistance. In interpreting reasonable workload and household burden, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on reasonable workload and household burden, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that remote education assumes unlimited devices, space and caregiver teaching. In interpreting reasonable workload and household burden, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on reasonable workload and household burden, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-39]

The minimum response is to set feasible schedules and make teaching responsibility institutional. Within remote education on reasonable workload and household burden, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning reasonable workload and household burden, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to reasonable workload and household burden, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

Evidence for reasonable workload and household burden should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning reasonable workload and household burden, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to reasonable workload and household burden, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-03] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in reasonable workload and household burden depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to reasonable workload and household burden, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of reasonable workload and household burden, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

Equity review for reasonable workload and household burden should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of reasonable workload and household burden, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For reasonable workload and household burden, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to reasonable workload and household burden. For reasonable workload and household burden, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting reasonable workload and household burden, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on reasonable workload and household burden, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

Public accountability for reasonable workload and household burden should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting reasonable workload and household burden, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on reasonable workload and household burden, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

6

Continuing duty to excluded learners

Continuing duty to excluded learners identifies a minimum requirement within the reach minimum. For continuing duty to excluded learners, the affected learners or institutions are learners not reached by the principal remote arrangement, and the immediate evidence concerns identification, alternative contact and support. In interpreting continuing duty to excluded learners, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on continuing duty to excluded learners, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-04] [REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

The principal risk is that non-participation is attributed to families and disappears from reporting. In interpreting continuing duty to excluded learners, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on continuing duty to excluded learners, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-04] [REF-10] [REF-38]

The minimum response is to actively identify barriers and provide suitable alternatives. Within remote education on continuing duty to excluded learners, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning continuing duty to excluded learners, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to continuing duty to excluded learners, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

Evidence for continuing duty to excluded learners should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning continuing duty to excluded learners, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to continuing duty to excluded learners, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-04] [REF-48]

Teaching quality in continuing duty to excluded learners depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to continuing duty to excluded learners, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of continuing duty to excluded learners, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

Equity review for continuing duty to excluded learners should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of continuing duty to excluded learners, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For continuing duty to excluded learners, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-04] [REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to continuing duty to excluded learners. For continuing duty to excluded learners, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting continuing duty to excluded learners, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on continuing duty to excluded learners, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

Public accountability for continuing duty to excluded learners should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting continuing duty to excluded learners, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on continuing duty to excluded learners, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-04] [REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

Part II

Access across media, places and circumstances

7

Actual access rather than theoretical coverage

Actual access rather than theoretical coverage identifies a minimum requirement within the access evidence. For actual access rather than theoretical coverage, the affected learners or institutions are learners relying on different devices and media, and the immediate evidence concerns device, connection, electricity and usable time. In interpreting actual access rather than theoretical coverage, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on actual access rather than theoretical coverage, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that national network coverage is treated as learner access. In interpreting actual access rather than theoretical coverage, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on actual access rather than theoretical coverage, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-38]

The minimum response is to measure household-level usability and shared-resource constraints. Within remote education on actual access rather than theoretical coverage, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning actual access rather than theoretical coverage, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to actual access rather than theoretical coverage, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Evidence for actual access rather than theoretical coverage should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning actual access rather than theoretical coverage, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to actual access rather than theoretical coverage, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-05] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in actual access rather than theoretical coverage depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to actual access rather than theoretical coverage, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of actual access rather than theoretical coverage, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Equity review for actual access rather than theoretical coverage should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of actual access rather than theoretical coverage, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For actual access rather than theoretical coverage, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to actual access rather than theoretical coverage. For actual access rather than theoretical coverage, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting actual access rather than theoretical coverage, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on actual access rather than theoretical coverage, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Public accountability for actual access rather than theoretical coverage should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting actual access rather than theoretical coverage, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on actual access rather than theoretical coverage, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

8

Low-technology and no-technology alternatives

Low-technology and no-technology alternatives identifies a minimum requirement within the media plurality. For low-technology and no-technology alternatives, the affected learners or institutions are learners without reliable connected access, and the immediate evidence concerns print, telephone, broadcast and safe collection. In interpreting low-technology and no-technology alternatives, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on low-technology and no-technology alternatives, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that online provision becomes the default and excluded learners receive nothing. In interpreting low-technology and no-technology alternatives, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on low-technology and no-technology alternatives, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-48]

The minimum response is to finance coherent alternatives linked to teacher contact. Within remote education on low-technology and no-technology alternatives, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning low-technology and no-technology alternatives, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to low-technology and no-technology alternatives, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Evidence for low-technology and no-technology alternatives should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning low-technology and no-technology alternatives, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to low-technology and no-technology alternatives, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-03] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in low-technology and no-technology alternatives depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to low-technology and no-technology alternatives, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of low-technology and no-technology alternatives, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Equity review for low-technology and no-technology alternatives should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of low-technology and no-technology alternatives, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For low-technology and no-technology alternatives, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to low-technology and no-technology alternatives. For low-technology and no-technology alternatives, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting low-technology and no-technology alternatives, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on low-technology and no-technology alternatives, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Public accountability for low-technology and no-technology alternatives should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting low-technology and no-technology alternatives, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on low-technology and no-technology alternatives, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

9

Device sharing and time allocation

Device sharing and time allocation identifies a minimum requirement within the household access. For device sharing and time allocation, the affected learners or institutions are learners sharing devices, rooms and caregiver time, and the immediate evidence concerns exclusive or scheduled access and task feasibility. In interpreting device sharing and time allocation, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on device sharing and time allocation, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

The principal risk is that a device in the household is counted as continuous education access. In interpreting device sharing and time allocation, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on device sharing and time allocation, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38]

The minimum response is to report sharing and design flexible schedules. Within remote education on device sharing and time allocation, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning device sharing and time allocation, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to device sharing and time allocation, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

Evidence for device sharing and time allocation should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning device sharing and time allocation, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to device sharing and time allocation, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-07] [REF-51]

Teaching quality in device sharing and time allocation depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to device sharing and time allocation, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of device sharing and time allocation, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

Equity review for device sharing and time allocation should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of device sharing and time allocation, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For device sharing and time allocation, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to device sharing and time allocation. For device sharing and time allocation, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting device sharing and time allocation, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on device sharing and time allocation, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

Public accountability for device sharing and time allocation should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting device sharing and time allocation, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on device sharing and time allocation, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

10

Disability accessibility and accommodation

Disability accessibility and accommodation identifies a minimum requirement within the accessible remote education. For disability accessibility and accommodation, the affected learners or institutions are learners with visual, hearing, communication or other functional needs, and the immediate evidence concerns format, assistive support and participation. In interpreting disability accessibility and accommodation, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on disability accessibility and accommodation, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that inaccessible materials and contact routes create complete exclusion. In interpreting disability accessibility and accommodation, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on disability accessibility and accommodation, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15]

The minimum response is to provide accessible formats and reasonable accommodation. Within remote education on disability accessibility and accommodation, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning disability accessibility and accommodation, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to disability accessibility and accommodation, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

Evidence for disability accessibility and accommodation should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning disability accessibility and accommodation, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to disability accessibility and accommodation, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-10] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in disability accessibility and accommodation depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to disability accessibility and accommodation, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of disability accessibility and accommodation, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

Equity review for disability accessibility and accommodation should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of disability accessibility and accommodation, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For disability accessibility and accommodation, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to disability accessibility and accommodation. For disability accessibility and accommodation, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting disability accessibility and accommodation, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on disability accessibility and accommodation, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

Public accountability for disability accessibility and accommodation should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting disability accessibility and accommodation, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on disability accessibility and accommodation, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

11

Language and understandable communication

Language and understandable communication identifies a minimum requirement within the linguistic access. For language and understandable communication, the affected learners or institutions are multilingual learners and families, and the immediate evidence concerns instructional language, guidance and interpretation. In interpreting language and understandable communication, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on language and understandable communication, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that remote instructions depend on unfamiliar language without support. In interpreting language and understandable communication, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on language and understandable communication, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-42]

The minimum response is to use understandable communication and language-responsive teaching. Within remote education on language and understandable communication, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning language and understandable communication, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to language and understandable communication, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

Evidence for language and understandable communication should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning language and understandable communication, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to language and understandable communication, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-13] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in language and understandable communication depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to language and understandable communication, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of language and understandable communication, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

Equity review for language and understandable communication should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of language and understandable communication, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For language and understandable communication, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to language and understandable communication. For language and understandable communication, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting language and understandable communication, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on language and understandable communication, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

Public accountability for language and understandable communication should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting language and understandable communication, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on language and understandable communication, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

12

Privacy, cost and safe participation

Privacy, cost and safe participation identifies a minimum requirement within the safe access. For privacy, cost and safe participation, the affected learners or institutions are learners connecting through personal devices or shared settings, and the immediate evidence concerns data cost, privacy and exposure to harm. In interpreting privacy, cost and safe participation, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on privacy, cost and safe participation, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

The principal risk is that participation requires unaffordable data or unsafe disclosure. In interpreting privacy, cost and safe participation, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on privacy, cost and safe participation, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21]

The minimum response is to minimise data and cost and provide safe contact choices. Within remote education on privacy, cost and safe participation, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning privacy, cost and safe participation, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to privacy, cost and safe participation, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

Evidence for privacy, cost and safe participation should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning privacy, cost and safe participation, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to privacy, cost and safe participation, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-14] [REF-51]

Teaching quality in privacy, cost and safe participation depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to privacy, cost and safe participation, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of privacy, cost and safe participation, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

Equity review for privacy, cost and safe participation should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of privacy, cost and safe participation, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For privacy, cost and safe participation, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to privacy, cost and safe participation. For privacy, cost and safe participation, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting privacy, cost and safe participation, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on privacy, cost and safe participation, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

Public accountability for privacy, cost and safe participation should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting privacy, cost and safe participation, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on privacy, cost and safe participation, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

Part III

Teaching, materials and professional support

13

Curriculum sequence and learning purpose

Curriculum sequence and learning purpose identifies a minimum requirement within the instructional coherence. For curriculum sequence and learning purpose, the affected learners or institutions are learners receiving materials from several sources, and the immediate evidence concerns learning aim, sequence and relation among tasks. In interpreting curriculum sequence and learning purpose, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on curriculum sequence and learning purpose, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that resource abundance produces disconnected activities. In interpreting curriculum sequence and learning purpose, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on curriculum sequence and learning purpose, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-24]

The minimum response is to select a bounded sequence tied to known curriculum. Within remote education on curriculum sequence and learning purpose, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning curriculum sequence and learning purpose, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to curriculum sequence and learning purpose, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Evidence for curriculum sequence and learning purpose should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning curriculum sequence and learning purpose, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to curriculum sequence and learning purpose, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-01] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in curriculum sequence and learning purpose depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to curriculum sequence and learning purpose, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of curriculum sequence and learning purpose, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Equity review for curriculum sequence and learning purpose should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of curriculum sequence and learning purpose, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For curriculum sequence and learning purpose, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to curriculum sequence and learning purpose. For curriculum sequence and learning purpose, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting curriculum sequence and learning purpose, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on curriculum sequence and learning purpose, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

Public accountability for curriculum sequence and learning purpose should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting curriculum sequence and learning purpose, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on curriculum sequence and learning purpose, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

14

Explanation, modelling and guided practice

Explanation, modelling and guided practice identifies a minimum requirement within the remote teaching. For explanation, modelling and guided practice, the affected learners or institutions are learners encountering new content outside the classroom, and the immediate evidence concerns teacher explanation, example and supported attempt. In interpreting explanation, modelling and guided practice, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on explanation, modelling and guided practice, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that materials assume independent discovery or caregiver instruction. In interpreting explanation, modelling and guided practice, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on explanation, modelling and guided practice, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-29]

The minimum response is to provide concise explanation and reachable guided support. Within remote education on explanation, modelling and guided practice, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning explanation, modelling and guided practice, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to explanation, modelling and guided practice, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Evidence for explanation, modelling and guided practice should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning explanation, modelling and guided practice, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to explanation, modelling and guided practice, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-02] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in explanation, modelling and guided practice depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to explanation, modelling and guided practice, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of explanation, modelling and guided practice, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Equity review for explanation, modelling and guided practice should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of explanation, modelling and guided practice, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For explanation, modelling and guided practice, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to explanation, modelling and guided practice. For explanation, modelling and guided practice, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting explanation, modelling and guided practice, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on explanation, modelling and guided practice, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

Public accountability for explanation, modelling and guided practice should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting explanation, modelling and guided practice, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on explanation, modelling and guided practice, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

15

Print and broadcast as teachable sequences

Print and broadcast as teachable sequences identifies a minimum requirement within the non-connected teaching. For print and broadcast as teachable sequences, the affected learners or institutions are learners using paper, radio or television, and the immediate evidence concerns schedule, explanation, practice and feedback link. In interpreting print and broadcast as teachable sequences, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on print and broadcast as teachable sequences, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-05] [REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that broadcast or packet distribution remains isolated from teacher response. In interpreting print and broadcast as teachable sequences, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on print and broadcast as teachable sequences, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-05] [REF-35] [REF-48]

The minimum response is to connect each medium to contact and follow-up. Within remote education on print and broadcast as teachable sequences, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning print and broadcast as teachable sequences, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to print and broadcast as teachable sequences, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Evidence for print and broadcast as teachable sequences should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning print and broadcast as teachable sequences, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to print and broadcast as teachable sequences, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-05] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in print and broadcast as teachable sequences depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to print and broadcast as teachable sequences, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of print and broadcast as teachable sequences, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Equity review for print and broadcast as teachable sequences should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of print and broadcast as teachable sequences, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For print and broadcast as teachable sequences, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-05] [REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to print and broadcast as teachable sequences. For print and broadcast as teachable sequences, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting print and broadcast as teachable sequences, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on print and broadcast as teachable sequences, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

Public accountability for print and broadcast as teachable sequences should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting print and broadcast as teachable sequences, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on print and broadcast as teachable sequences, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-05] [REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

16

Focused support for current learning needs

Focused support for current learning needs identifies a minimum requirement within the differentiated teaching. For focused support for current learning needs, the affected learners or institutions are learners requiring additional explanation or practice, and the immediate evidence concerns diagnosis, adapted task and review. In interpreting focused support for current learning needs, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on focused support for current learning needs, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

The principal risk is that one standard package ignores starting points and barriers. In interpreting focused support for current learning needs, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on focused support for current learning needs, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29]

The minimum response is to use low-burden evidence to target additional teaching. Within remote education on focused support for current learning needs, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning focused support for current learning needs, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to focused support for current learning needs, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Evidence for focused support for current learning needs should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning focused support for current learning needs, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to focused support for current learning needs, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-01] [REF-30]

Teaching quality in focused support for current learning needs depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to focused support for current learning needs, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of focused support for current learning needs, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Equity review for focused support for current learning needs should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of focused support for current learning needs, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For focused support for current learning needs, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to focused support for current learning needs. For focused support for current learning needs, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting focused support for current learning needs, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on focused support for current learning needs, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

Public accountability for focused support for current learning needs should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting focused support for current learning needs, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on focused support for current learning needs, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

17

Teacher workload and professional collaboration

Teacher workload and professional collaboration identifies a minimum requirement within the professional capacity. For teacher workload and professional collaboration, the affected learners or institutions are teachers redesigning instruction under prolonged disruption, and the immediate evidence concerns planning time, guidance and shared resources. In interpreting teacher workload and professional collaboration, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on teacher workload and professional collaboration, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-18] [REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

The principal risk is that teachers individually duplicate work or remain constantly reachable. In interpreting teacher workload and professional collaboration, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on teacher workload and professional collaboration, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-18] [REF-36] [REF-49]

The minimum response is to provide common materials, collaboration and reasonable availability. Within remote education on teacher workload and professional collaboration, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning teacher workload and professional collaboration, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to teacher workload and professional collaboration, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Evidence for teacher workload and professional collaboration should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning teacher workload and professional collaboration, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to teacher workload and professional collaboration, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-18] [REF-51]

Teaching quality in teacher workload and professional collaboration depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to teacher workload and professional collaboration, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of teacher workload and professional collaboration, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Equity review for teacher workload and professional collaboration should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of teacher workload and professional collaboration, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For teacher workload and professional collaboration, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-18] [REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to teacher workload and professional collaboration. For teacher workload and professional collaboration, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting teacher workload and professional collaboration, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on teacher workload and professional collaboration, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

Public accountability for teacher workload and professional collaboration should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting teacher workload and professional collaboration, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on teacher workload and professional collaboration, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-18] [REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

18

Materials quality and commercial restraint

Materials quality and commercial restraint identifies a minimum requirement within the resource quality. For materials quality and commercial restraint, the affected learners or institutions are authorities and schools selecting external resources, and the immediate evidence concerns curriculum fit, accessibility, privacy and evidence. In interpreting materials quality and commercial restraint, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on materials quality and commercial restraint, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

The principal risk is that urgency removes scrutiny or commercial claims replace educational judgement. In interpreting materials quality and commercial restraint, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on materials quality and commercial restraint, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-27]

The minimum response is to apply proportionate quality and data safeguards. Within remote education on materials quality and commercial restraint, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning materials quality and commercial restraint, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to materials quality and commercial restraint, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

Evidence for materials quality and commercial restraint should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning materials quality and commercial restraint, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to materials quality and commercial restraint, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-09] [REF-51]

Teaching quality in materials quality and commercial restraint depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to materials quality and commercial restraint, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of materials quality and commercial restraint, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

Equity review for materials quality and commercial restraint should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of materials quality and commercial restraint, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For materials quality and commercial restraint, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to materials quality and commercial restraint. For materials quality and commercial restraint, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting materials quality and commercial restraint, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on materials quality and commercial restraint, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

Public accountability for materials quality and commercial restraint should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting materials quality and commercial restraint, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on materials quality and commercial restraint, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

Part IV

Assessment, wellbeing and protection

19

Formative evidence without surveillance

Formative evidence without surveillance identifies a minimum requirement within the learning evidence. For formative evidence without surveillance, the affected learners or institutions are learners completing work under unequal conditions, and the immediate evidence concerns understanding, feedback and next teaching step. In interpreting formative evidence without surveillance, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on formative evidence without surveillance, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that constant monitoring or task counts substitute for learning evidence. In interpreting formative evidence without surveillance, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on formative evidence without surveillance, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-21]

The minimum response is to use proportionate work and conversation for teaching decisions. Within remote education on formative evidence without surveillance, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning formative evidence without surveillance, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to formative evidence without surveillance, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

Evidence for formative evidence without surveillance should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning formative evidence without surveillance, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to formative evidence without surveillance, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-01] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in formative evidence without surveillance depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to formative evidence without surveillance, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of formative evidence without surveillance, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

Equity review for formative evidence without surveillance should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of formative evidence without surveillance, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For formative evidence without surveillance, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to formative evidence without surveillance. For formative evidence without surveillance, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting formative evidence without surveillance, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on formative evidence without surveillance, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

Public accountability for formative evidence without surveillance should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting formative evidence without surveillance, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on formative evidence without surveillance, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

20

High-consequence decisions under unequal access

High-consequence decisions under unequal access identifies a minimum requirement within the assessment fairness. For high-consequence decisions under unequal access, the affected learners or institutions are learners facing grades, progression or certification decisions, and the immediate evidence concerns evidence sufficiency and access conditions. In interpreting high-consequence decisions under unequal access, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on high-consequence decisions under unequal access, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-10] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that remote participation differences create irreversible academic penalties. In interpreting high-consequence decisions under unequal access, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on high-consequence decisions under unequal access, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-10] [REF-17] [REF-22]

The minimum response is to use flexible evidence and reviewable provisional decisions. Within remote education on high-consequence decisions under unequal access, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning high-consequence decisions under unequal access, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to high-consequence decisions under unequal access, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Evidence for high-consequence decisions under unequal access should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning high-consequence decisions under unequal access, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to high-consequence decisions under unequal access, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-10] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in high-consequence decisions under unequal access depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to high-consequence decisions under unequal access, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of high-consequence decisions under unequal access, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Equity review for high-consequence decisions under unequal access should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of high-consequence decisions under unequal access, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For high-consequence decisions under unequal access, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-10] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to high-consequence decisions under unequal access. For high-consequence decisions under unequal access, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting high-consequence decisions under unequal access, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on high-consequence decisions under unequal access, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Public accountability for high-consequence decisions under unequal access should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting high-consequence decisions under unequal access, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on high-consequence decisions under unequal access, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-10] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

21

Attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions

Attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions identifies a minimum requirement within the participation evidence. For attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, the affected learners or institutions are learners intermittently reached through varied media, and the immediate evidence concerns contact, receipt, response and barrier. In interpreting attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-05] [REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that non-response is treated as absence by choice or misconduct. In interpreting attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-05] [REF-14] [REF-38]

The minimum response is to investigate barriers before consequence. Within remote education on attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Evidence for attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-05] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Equity review for attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-05] [REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions. For attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Public accountability for attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-05] [REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

22

Safeguarding through remote contact

Safeguarding through remote contact identifies a minimum requirement within the learner protection. For safeguarding through remote contact, the affected learners or institutions are children contacting staff outside ordinary institutional settings, and the immediate evidence concerns safe channels, boundaries and response. In interpreting safeguarding through remote contact, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on safeguarding through remote contact, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that informal contact exposes children or staff to privacy and safety risks. In interpreting safeguarding through remote contact, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on safeguarding through remote contact, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-20]

The minimum response is to set safe contact routes, reporting and escalation. Within remote education on safeguarding through remote contact, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning safeguarding through remote contact, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to safeguarding through remote contact, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

Evidence for safeguarding through remote contact should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning safeguarding through remote contact, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to safeguarding through remote contact, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-12] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in safeguarding through remote contact depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to safeguarding through remote contact, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of safeguarding through remote contact, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

Equity review for safeguarding through remote contact should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of safeguarding through remote contact, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For safeguarding through remote contact, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to safeguarding through remote contact. For safeguarding through remote contact, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting safeguarding through remote contact, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on safeguarding through remote contact, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

Public accountability for safeguarding through remote contact should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting safeguarding through remote contact, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on safeguarding through remote contact, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

23

Wellbeing, belonging and social connection

Wellbeing, belonging and social connection identifies a minimum requirement within the psychosocial continuity. For wellbeing, belonging and social connection, the affected learners or institutions are learners experiencing isolation, loss or uncertainty, and the immediate evidence concerns regular supportive contact and referral. In interpreting wellbeing, belonging and social connection, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on wellbeing, belonging and social connection, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-12] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that academic task delivery ignores wellbeing that conditions participation. In interpreting wellbeing, belonging and social connection, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on wellbeing, belonging and social connection, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-12] [REF-31] [REF-39]

The minimum response is to include humane contact and accessible support routes. Within remote education on wellbeing, belonging and social connection, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning wellbeing, belonging and social connection, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to wellbeing, belonging and social connection, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

Evidence for wellbeing, belonging and social connection should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning wellbeing, belonging and social connection, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to wellbeing, belonging and social connection, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-12] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in wellbeing, belonging and social connection depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to wellbeing, belonging and social connection, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of wellbeing, belonging and social connection, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

Equity review for wellbeing, belonging and social connection should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of wellbeing, belonging and social connection, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For wellbeing, belonging and social connection, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-12] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to wellbeing, belonging and social connection. For wellbeing, belonging and social connection, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting wellbeing, belonging and social connection, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on wellbeing, belonging and social connection, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

Public accountability for wellbeing, belonging and social connection should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting wellbeing, belonging and social connection, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on wellbeing, belonging and social connection, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-12] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

24

Nutrition and linked social services

Nutrition and linked social services identifies a minimum requirement within the material continuity. For nutrition and linked social services, the affected learners or institutions are learners relying on institutions for meals and support, and the immediate evidence concerns service access and educational participation. In interpreting nutrition and linked social services, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on nutrition and linked social services, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that remote instruction is planned separately from essential school-linked services. In interpreting nutrition and linked social services, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on nutrition and linked social services, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-35]

The minimum response is to coordinate safe alternative delivery and referral. Within remote education on nutrition and linked social services, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning nutrition and linked social services, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to nutrition and linked social services, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

Evidence for nutrition and linked social services should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning nutrition and linked social services, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to nutrition and linked social services, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-03] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in nutrition and linked social services depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to nutrition and linked social services, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of nutrition and linked social services, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

Equity review for nutrition and linked social services should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of nutrition and linked social services, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For nutrition and linked social services, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to nutrition and linked social services. For nutrition and linked social services, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting nutrition and linked social services, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on nutrition and linked social services, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

Public accountability for nutrition and linked social services should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting nutrition and linked social services, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on nutrition and linked social services, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

Part V

Governance, evidence and preparation for return

25

Clear responsibilities across levels

Clear responsibilities across levels identifies a minimum requirement within the governance clarity. For clear responsibilities across levels, the affected learners or institutions are ministries, local bodies, schools and partners, and the immediate evidence concerns authority, finance, teaching and support duties. In interpreting clear responsibilities across levels, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on clear responsibilities across levels, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

The principal risk is that overlapping initiatives leave gaps or transfer public duty to families. In interpreting clear responsibilities across levels, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on clear responsibilities across levels, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-40]

The minimum response is to publish roles and referral routes. Within remote education on clear responsibilities across levels, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning clear responsibilities across levels, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to clear responsibilities across levels, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

Evidence for clear responsibilities across levels should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning clear responsibilities across levels, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to clear responsibilities across levels, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-18] [REF-48]

Teaching quality in clear responsibilities across levels depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to clear responsibilities across levels, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of clear responsibilities across levels, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

Equity review for clear responsibilities across levels should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of clear responsibilities across levels, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For clear responsibilities across levels, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to clear responsibilities across levels. For clear responsibilities across levels, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting clear responsibilities across levels, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on clear responsibilities across levels, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

Public accountability for clear responsibilities across levels should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting clear responsibilities across levels, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on clear responsibilities across levels, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

26

Minimum monitoring fields

Minimum monitoring fields identifies a minimum requirement within the continuity monitoring. For minimum monitoring fields, the affected learners or institutions are authorities assessing who receives remote education, and the immediate evidence concerns population, contact, medium, support and barrier. In interpreting minimum monitoring fields, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on minimum monitoring fields, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

The principal risk is that activity totals conceal who is unreached or unsupported. In interpreting minimum monitoring fields, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on minimum monitoring fields, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-38]

The minimum response is to collect a small decision-relevant set with definitions. Within remote education on minimum monitoring fields, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning minimum monitoring fields, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to minimum monitoring fields, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Evidence for minimum monitoring fields should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning minimum monitoring fields, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to minimum monitoring fields, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-05] [REF-49]

Teaching quality in minimum monitoring fields depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to minimum monitoring fields, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of minimum monitoring fields, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Equity review for minimum monitoring fields should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of minimum monitoring fields, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For minimum monitoring fields, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to minimum monitoring fields. For minimum monitoring fields, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting minimum monitoring fields, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on minimum monitoring fields, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

Public accountability for minimum monitoring fields should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting minimum monitoring fields, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on minimum monitoring fields, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

27

Equity review and targeted correction

Equity review and targeted correction identifies a minimum requirement within the distributional review. For equity review and targeted correction, the affected learners or institutions are groups differently affected by remote arrangements, and the immediate evidence concerns reach, service receipt and learning opportunity. In interpreting equity review and targeted correction, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on equity review and targeted correction, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

The principal risk is that average contact hides exclusion by poverty, disability or location. In interpreting equity review and targeted correction, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on equity review and targeted correction, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-44]

The minimum response is to publish group levels and fund barrier correction. Within remote education on equity review and targeted correction, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning equity review and targeted correction, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to equity review and targeted correction, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

Evidence for equity review and targeted correction should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning equity review and targeted correction, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to equity review and targeted correction, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-03] [REF-46]

Teaching quality in equity review and targeted correction depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to equity review and targeted correction, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of equity review and targeted correction, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

Equity review for equity review and targeted correction should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of equity review and targeted correction, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For equity review and targeted correction, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to equity review and targeted correction. For equity review and targeted correction, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting equity review and targeted correction, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on equity review and targeted correction, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

Public accountability for equity review and targeted correction should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting equity review and targeted correction, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on equity review and targeted correction, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

28

Complaints and rapid practical remedy

Complaints and rapid practical remedy identifies a minimum requirement within the remote remedy. For complaints and rapid practical remedy, the affected learners or institutions are learners and families denied or harmed by arrangements, and the immediate evidence concerns safe complaint, response and continuity. In interpreting complaints and rapid practical remedy, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on complaints and rapid practical remedy, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that complaints require connected access or receive no timely response. In interpreting complaints and rapid practical remedy, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on complaints and rapid practical remedy, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-22]

The minimum response is to offer multiple accessible routes and rapid educational correction. Within remote education on complaints and rapid practical remedy, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning complaints and rapid practical remedy, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to complaints and rapid practical remedy, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Evidence for complaints and rapid practical remedy should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning complaints and rapid practical remedy, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to complaints and rapid practical remedy, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-14] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in complaints and rapid practical remedy depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to complaints and rapid practical remedy, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of complaints and rapid practical remedy, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Equity review for complaints and rapid practical remedy should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of complaints and rapid practical remedy, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For complaints and rapid practical remedy, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to complaints and rapid practical remedy. For complaints and rapid practical remedy, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting complaints and rapid practical remedy, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on complaints and rapid practical remedy, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

Public accountability for complaints and rapid practical remedy should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting complaints and rapid practical remedy, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on complaints and rapid practical remedy, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

29

Transition back to institution-based education

Transition back to institution-based education identifies a minimum requirement within the return continuity. For transition back to institution-based education, the affected learners or institutions are learners returning with varied exposure and loss, and the immediate evidence concerns safe access, re-engagement and learning support. In interpreting transition back to institution-based education, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on transition back to institution-based education, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-29] [REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that return assumes common progress or uses punitive catch-up decisions. In interpreting transition back to institution-based education, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on transition back to institution-based education, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-29] [REF-48] [REF-49]

The minimum response is to diagnose needs, restore breadth and provide additional support. Within remote education on transition back to institution-based education, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning transition back to institution-based education, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to transition back to institution-based education, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

Evidence for transition back to institution-based education should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning transition back to institution-based education, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to transition back to institution-based education, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-29] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in transition back to institution-based education depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to transition back to institution-based education, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of transition back to institution-based education, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

Equity review for transition back to institution-based education should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of transition back to institution-based education, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For transition back to institution-based education, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-29] [REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to transition back to institution-based education. For transition back to institution-based education, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting transition back to institution-based education, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on transition back to institution-based education, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

Public accountability for transition back to institution-based education should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting transition back to institution-based education, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on transition back to institution-based education, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-29] [REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

30

Temporal discipline at 15 June 2020

Temporal discipline at 15 June 2020 identifies a minimum requirement within the cutoff integrity. For temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, the affected learners or institutions are institutions using this early-disruption interpretation, and the immediate evidence concerns evidence and institutional status by cutoff. In interpreting temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, the duty should be stated in learner-facing terms: contact, accessible teaching, feedback, protection or continuity actually received. Within remote education on temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, a medium, resource or institutional announcement is not itself the education condition.[REF-45] [REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

The principal risk is that later pandemic experience or outcomes are read backwards into early guidance. In interpreting temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, this can transfer institutional responsibility to households and make excluded learners invisible. Within remote education on temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, review should identify who can reach the arrangement, who can use it safely and repeatedly, and who remains outside because of cost, language, disability, location, care responsibilities or disruption.[REF-45] [REF-47] [REF-48]

The minimum response is to confine conclusions to then-available instruments and uncertainty. Within remote education on temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, it should specify the intended learners, responsible staff, frequency, accessible route, expected learning activity and follow-up. For decisions concerning temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, alternatives should form a coherent offer rather than a lower-expectation residual service. In evidence related to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, authorities should finance necessary media, materials and staff time instead of presuming household capacity.[REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

Evidence for temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 should distinguish availability, learner access, actual receipt and educational use. For decisions concerning temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, a resource may exist without being reachable; contact may occur without teaching; completed tasks may reflect unequal adult assistance. In evidence related to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, monitoring should therefore retain population counts, contact frequency, barriers and the learner-facing service while limiting personal data.[REF-45] [REF-50]

Teaching quality in temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 depends on a purposeful sequence, explanation, guided attempt, response and later use. In evidence related to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, teachers should adapt tasks from concise evidence and should not be required to recreate every resource alone. For review of temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, professional collaboration and common guidance can protect instructional time, but rigid scripts should not override learner evidence or accessible adaptation.[REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

Equity review for temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 should show which groups receive contact, materials, feedback and support. For review of temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, poverty, territory, disability, language, migration, gender and household circumstances may affect each stage. For temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, the common entitlement remains constant, while the route, medium and additional support may differ to remove practical barriers.[REF-45] [REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

Protection and wellbeing are integral to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020. For temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, remote contact should follow safe boundaries, confidential reporting and non-retaliation. In interpreting temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, workload and schedules should recognise disruption without withdrawing education. Within remote education on temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, learners relying on meals, counselling or other school-linked services need coordinated alternatives and clear referral routes.[REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

Public accountability for temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 should identify the standard, competent owner, finance, actual reach, barrier correction and review date. In interpreting temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, complaints should be possible through more than the main medium. Within remote education on temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, later review should distinguish improved measurement from improved education and should connect remote evidence to safe, inclusive return and focused additional teaching.[REF-45] [REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

A continuity record for continuity without pretending equivalence should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning continuity without pretending equivalence, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to continuity without pretending equivalence, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-10] [REF-22] [REF-48] [REF-49]

A restoration check for continuity without pretending equivalence should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning continuity without pretending equivalence, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to continuity without pretending equivalence, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-10] [REF-22]

A continuity record for a protected common curriculum core should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning a protected common curriculum core, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to a protected common curriculum core, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-01] [REF-13] [REF-29] [REF-49]

A restoration check for a protected common curriculum core should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning a protected common curriculum core, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to a protected common curriculum core, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-01] [REF-13]

A continuity record for regular teacher-learner contact should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning regular teacher-learner contact, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to regular teacher-learner contact, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-12] [REF-24] [REF-49] [REF-51]

A restoration check for regular teacher-learner contact should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning regular teacher-learner contact, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to regular teacher-learner contact, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-12] [REF-24]

A continuity record for feedback and evidence of engagement should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning feedback and evidence of engagement, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to feedback and evidence of engagement, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-01] [REF-02] [REF-24] [REF-49]

A restoration check for feedback and evidence of engagement should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning feedback and evidence of engagement, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to feedback and evidence of engagement, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-01] [REF-02]

A continuity record for reasonable workload and household burden should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning reasonable workload and household burden, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to reasonable workload and household burden, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-03] [REF-12] [REF-39] [REF-49]

A restoration check for reasonable workload and household burden should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning reasonable workload and household burden, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to reasonable workload and household burden, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-03] [REF-12]

A continuity record for continuing duty to excluded learners should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning continuing duty to excluded learners, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to continuing duty to excluded learners, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-04] [REF-10] [REF-38] [REF-48]

A restoration check for continuing duty to excluded learners should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning continuing duty to excluded learners, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to continuing duty to excluded learners, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-04] [REF-10]

A continuity record for actual access rather than theoretical coverage should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning actual access rather than theoretical coverage, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to actual access rather than theoretical coverage, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-05] [REF-07] [REF-38] [REF-49]

A restoration check for actual access rather than theoretical coverage should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning actual access rather than theoretical coverage, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to actual access rather than theoretical coverage, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-05] [REF-07]

A continuity record for low-technology and no-technology alternatives should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning low-technology and no-technology alternatives, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to low-technology and no-technology alternatives, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-48] [REF-49]

A restoration check for low-technology and no-technology alternatives should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning low-technology and no-technology alternatives, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to low-technology and no-technology alternatives, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-03] [REF-11]

A continuity record for device sharing and time allocation should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning device sharing and time allocation, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to device sharing and time allocation, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-07] [REF-08] [REF-38] [REF-51]

A restoration check for device sharing and time allocation should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning device sharing and time allocation, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to device sharing and time allocation, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-07] [REF-08]

A continuity record for disability accessibility and accommodation should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning disability accessibility and accommodation, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to disability accessibility and accommodation, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-10] [REF-11] [REF-15] [REF-49]

A restoration check for disability accessibility and accommodation should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning disability accessibility and accommodation, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to disability accessibility and accommodation, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-10] [REF-11]

A continuity record for language and understandable communication should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning language and understandable communication, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to language and understandable communication, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-13] [REF-31] [REF-42] [REF-49]

A restoration check for language and understandable communication should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning language and understandable communication, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to language and understandable communication, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-13] [REF-31]

A continuity record for privacy, cost and safe participation should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning privacy, cost and safe participation, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to privacy, cost and safe participation, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-21] [REF-51]

A restoration check for privacy, cost and safe participation should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning privacy, cost and safe participation, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to privacy, cost and safe participation, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-14] [REF-20]

A continuity record for curriculum sequence and learning purpose should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning curriculum sequence and learning purpose, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to curriculum sequence and learning purpose, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-01] [REF-17] [REF-24] [REF-49]

A restoration check for curriculum sequence and learning purpose should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning curriculum sequence and learning purpose, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to curriculum sequence and learning purpose, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-01] [REF-17]

A continuity record for explanation, modelling and guided practice should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning explanation, modelling and guided practice, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to explanation, modelling and guided practice, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-02] [REF-12] [REF-29] [REF-49]

A restoration check for explanation, modelling and guided practice should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning explanation, modelling and guided practice, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to explanation, modelling and guided practice, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-02] [REF-12]

A continuity record for print and broadcast as teachable sequences should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning print and broadcast as teachable sequences, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to print and broadcast as teachable sequences, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-05] [REF-35] [REF-48] [REF-49]

A restoration check for print and broadcast as teachable sequences should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning print and broadcast as teachable sequences, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to print and broadcast as teachable sequences, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-05] [REF-35]

A continuity record for focused support for current learning needs should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning focused support for current learning needs, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to focused support for current learning needs, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-01] [REF-24] [REF-29] [REF-30]

A restoration check for focused support for current learning needs should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning focused support for current learning needs, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to focused support for current learning needs, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-01] [REF-24]

A continuity record for teacher workload and professional collaboration should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning teacher workload and professional collaboration, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to teacher workload and professional collaboration, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-18] [REF-36] [REF-49] [REF-51]

A restoration check for teacher workload and professional collaboration should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning teacher workload and professional collaboration, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to teacher workload and professional collaboration, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-18] [REF-36]

A continuity record for materials quality and commercial restraint should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning materials quality and commercial restraint, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to materials quality and commercial restraint, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-09] [REF-20] [REF-27] [REF-51]

A restoration check for materials quality and commercial restraint should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning materials quality and commercial restraint, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to materials quality and commercial restraint, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-09] [REF-20]

A continuity record for formative evidence without surveillance should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning formative evidence without surveillance, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to formative evidence without surveillance, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-01] [REF-09] [REF-21] [REF-49]

A restoration check for formative evidence without surveillance should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning formative evidence without surveillance, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to formative evidence without surveillance, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-01] [REF-09]

A continuity record for high-consequence decisions under unequal access should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning high-consequence decisions under unequal access, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to high-consequence decisions under unequal access, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-10] [REF-17] [REF-22] [REF-50]

A restoration check for high-consequence decisions under unequal access should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning high-consequence decisions under unequal access, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to high-consequence decisions under unequal access, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-10] [REF-17]

A continuity record for attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-05] [REF-14] [REF-38] [REF-49]

A restoration check for attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to attendance and engagement without punitive assumptions, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-05] [REF-14]

A continuity record for safeguarding through remote contact should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning safeguarding through remote contact, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to safeguarding through remote contact, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-12] [REF-14] [REF-20] [REF-50]

A restoration check for safeguarding through remote contact should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning safeguarding through remote contact, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to safeguarding through remote contact, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-12] [REF-14]

A continuity record for wellbeing, belonging and social connection should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning wellbeing, belonging and social connection, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to wellbeing, belonging and social connection, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-12] [REF-31] [REF-39] [REF-50]

A restoration check for wellbeing, belonging and social connection should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning wellbeing, belonging and social connection, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to wellbeing, belonging and social connection, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-12] [REF-31]

A continuity record for nutrition and linked social services should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning nutrition and linked social services, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to nutrition and linked social services, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-03] [REF-11] [REF-35] [REF-50]

A restoration check for nutrition and linked social services should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning nutrition and linked social services, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to nutrition and linked social services, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-03] [REF-11]

A continuity record for clear responsibilities across levels should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning clear responsibilities across levels, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to clear responsibilities across levels, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-18] [REF-27] [REF-40] [REF-48]

A restoration check for clear responsibilities across levels should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning clear responsibilities across levels, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to clear responsibilities across levels, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-18] [REF-27]

A continuity record for minimum monitoring fields should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning minimum monitoring fields, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to minimum monitoring fields, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-05] [REF-25] [REF-38] [REF-49]

A restoration check for minimum monitoring fields should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning minimum monitoring fields, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to minimum monitoring fields, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-05] [REF-25]

A continuity record for equity review and targeted correction should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning equity review and targeted correction, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to equity review and targeted correction, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-03] [REF-10] [REF-44] [REF-46]

A restoration check for equity review and targeted correction should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning equity review and targeted correction, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to equity review and targeted correction, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-03] [REF-10]

A continuity record for complaints and rapid practical remedy should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning complaints and rapid practical remedy, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to complaints and rapid practical remedy, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-14] [REF-21] [REF-22] [REF-50]

A restoration check for complaints and rapid practical remedy should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning complaints and rapid practical remedy, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to complaints and rapid practical remedy, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-14] [REF-21]

A continuity record for transition back to institution-based education should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning transition back to institution-based education, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to transition back to institution-based education, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-29] [REF-48] [REF-49] [REF-50]

A restoration check for transition back to institution-based education should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning transition back to institution-based education, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to transition back to institution-based education, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-29] [REF-48]

A continuity record for temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 should preserve the learner population, access route, contact schedule, service actually received, barrier and next review. For decisions concerning temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, it should be concise enough for staff to use and protected against unrelated use. In evidence related to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, this makes an unreached learner a responsibility for correction rather than an absent data point.[REF-45] [REF-47] [REF-48] [REF-50]

A restoration check for temporal discipline at 15 june 2020 should identify learning and support that could not be provided adequately at a distance. For decisions concerning temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, it should prepare accessible re-engagement, broad curriculum restoration and additional teaching without punitive assumptions about families. In evidence related to temporal discipline at 15 june 2020, the check should be updated as disruption conditions change.[REF-45] [REF-47]

References

REF-01
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. General Education Quality Analysis and Diagnosis Framework. 2012.
Systemic analysis of education quality, inputs, teaching, learning and outcomes.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217520
REF-02
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4. 2014.
Evidence on teaching, learning, inequality and education quality.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660
REF-03
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. 2008.
Evidence on governance, inequality, finance and public accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683
REF-04
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. 2010.
Evidence on intersecting disadvantage and educational marginalisation.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606
REF-05
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines. 2009.
Definitions, numerators, denominators and limitations for education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf
REF-06
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. 2012.
Common definitions for education programmes and attainment.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
REF-07
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Guide to the Analysis and Use of Household Survey and Census Education Data. 2004.
Methods and limits for household and census education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/guide-to-the-analysis-and-use-of-household-survey-and-census-education-data-en_0.pdf
REF-08
United Nations Statistics Division. Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries. 2005.
Guidance on sampling, response, weighting and statistical error.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/sectiona_new.htm
REF-09
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Relevance, professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261
REF-10
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive measurement, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf
REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child Counts — Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights. 2014.
Evidence on disaggregation, unequal outcomes and statistical visibility.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2014
REF-12
United Nations Children’s Fund. Child Friendly Schools Manual. 2009.
Guidance on inclusive, effective, protective and participatory schools.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/child-friendly-schools-manual
REF-13
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861
REF-14
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, participation and protection obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
REF-15
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
REF-16
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. 2015.
Comparative European evidence on external and internal school evaluation.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4a244ff8-7bac-11e5-9fae-01aa75ed71a1
REF-17
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results. 2009.
European evidence on test purposes, coverage and uses.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/df628df4-4e5b-4014-adbd-2ed54a274fd9
REF-18
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1
REF-19
European Statistical System Committee. European Statistics Code of Practice. 2011.
Institutional and statistical principles for trustworthy public evidence.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/european-statistics-code-of-practice
REF-20
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European Statistics. 2009.
European requirements for independence, quality, confidentiality and dissemination.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0223
REF-21
European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000.
Rights concerning education, equality, good administration and effective remedy.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT
REF-22
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 in education.
https://undocs.org/E/C.12/1999/10
REF-23
Council of the European Union. Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving. 2011.
European framework for prevention, intervention and compensation concerning early school leaving.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0701(01)
REF-24
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation on the Establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training. 2009.
European reference points for planning, implementation, evaluation and review in vocational education.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)
REF-25
United Nations General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — Resolution 71/313. 2017.
Adopted global indicator framework and provisions for refinement, disaggregation and national ownership.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313
REF-26
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. 2017.
Contemporaneous global account of early Sustainable Development Goal baselines and data limitations.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/
REF-27
UNESCO. Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments — Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8. 2017.
Evidence on accountability relationships, responsibility, reporting and risks of narrow performance pressure.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338
REF-28
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2017. 2017.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, inequality and national conditions available at cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38e7f778-bac1-11e7-a7f8-01aa75ed71a1
REF-29
World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. 2018.
Contemporaneous synthesis distinguishing schooling expansion from learning and examining assessment, incentives and system coherence.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018
REF-30
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. More Than One-Half of Children and Adolescents Are Not Learning Worldwide — Fact Sheet No. 46. 2017.
Contemporaneous estimates and cautions concerning minimum proficiency among children inside and outside school.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs46-more-than-half-children-not-learning-en-2017.pdf
REF-31
UNICEF. Education Uprooted: For Every Migrant, Refugee and Displaced Child, Education. 2017.
Evidence on education access, continuity and recognition for migrant, refugee and displaced children.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/education-uprooted
REF-32
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Left Behind: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2017.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee participation, transition and secondary education barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/left-behind-refugee-education-crisis
REF-33
United Nations General Assembly. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants — Resolution 71/1. 2016.
International commitment concerning shared responsibility, refugee inclusion and access to education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1
REF-34
European Commission. Action Plan on the Integration of Third-Country Nationals — COM(2016) 377 final. 2016.
European policy evidence on early integration, education, skills and coordination for third-country nationals.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0377
REF-35
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. 2018.
Contemporaneous global evidence on participation, learning and persistent education inequalities.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/
REF-36
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2018. 2018.
European comparative evidence on education outcomes, equity, investment and teacher conditions available by cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9f8f6e21-dc78-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1
REF-37
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Turn the Tide: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2018.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee education participation, transition and barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/turn-tide-refugee-education-crisis
REF-38
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Handbook on Measuring Equity in Education. 2018.
Guidance on concepts, measures, data sources and interpretation for education equity.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/handbook-measuring-equity-education-2018-en.pdf
REF-39
UNESCO. Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, Not Walls — Global Education Monitoring Report 2019. 2019.
Contemporaneous global evidence on migrant and displaced learners, data limitations, inclusion and education policy.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265866
REF-40
United Nations General Assembly. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration — Resolution 73/195. 2018.
Adopted international cooperation framework concerning migrants, data, inclusion and access to services including education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/195
REF-41
United Nations General Assembly. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Resolution 73/151, Affirming the Global Compact on Refugees. 2018.
Contemporaneous affirmation of the Global Compact on Refugees and shared responsibility including education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/151
REF-42
European Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice. Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds into Schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures. 2019.
European comparative evidence on language, learning, psychosocial and whole-school support for migrant-background students.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/39c05fd6-2446-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1
REF-43
UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Global Education Monitoring Report. Meeting Commitments: Are Countries on Track to Achieve SDG 4?. 2019.
Contemporaneous evidence on national education benchmarks, feasible progress and comparative monitoring.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000369009
REF-44
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. 2019.
Global account of Sustainable Development Goal progress and data limitations available by cutoff.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/
REF-45
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2019. 2019.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, equity, investment and national conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/15d70dc3-e00e-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1
REF-46
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. SDG 4 Data Digest 2018: Data to Nurture Learning. 2018.
Guidance on learning data, reporting architecture, coverage and use for Goal 4 monitoring.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg4-data-digest-data-nurture-learning-2018-en.pdf
REF-47
UNESCO General Conference. Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education. 2019.
Adopted global normative basis for fair, transparent and non-discriminatory recognition of higher-education qualifications and partial studies.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373602
REF-48
UNESCO. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. 2020.
Contemporaneous institutional evidence on worldwide education disruption and response.
https://www.unesco.org/en/covid-19/education-response
REF-49
UNESCO. Distance Learning Strategies in Response to COVID-19 School Closures — UNESCO COVID-19 Education Response Education Sector Issue Note No. 2.1. 2020.
Contemporaneous guidance on technology choices, planning, teacher support, inclusion and monitoring for distance education.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373305
REF-50
UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank and World Food Programme. Framework for Reopening Schools. 2020.
Contemporaneous framework connecting continuity, equity, safety, learning and preparation for reopening.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373348
REF-51
European Commission. Online Learning Resources for Schools during the Coronavirus Outbreak. 2020.
European institutional guidance on remote learning resources and educator support available by cutoff.
https://education.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/coronavirus-online-learning-resources

[reference-ref-01] REF-01
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. General Education Quality Analysis and Diagnosis Framework. 2012.
Systemic analysis of education quality, inputs, teaching, learning and outcomes.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217520

[reference-ref-02] REF-02
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4. 2014.
Evidence on teaching, learning, inequality and education quality.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660

[reference-ref-03] REF-03
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. 2008.
Evidence on governance, inequality, finance and public accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177683

[reference-ref-04] REF-04
Education for All Global Monitoring Report Team. Reaching the Marginalized — EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. 2010.
Evidence on intersecting disadvantage and educational marginalisation.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606

[reference-ref-05] REF-05
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Education Indicators: Technical Guidelines. 2009.
Definitions, numerators, denominators and limitations for education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-indicators-technical-guidelines-en_0.pdf

[reference-ref-06] REF-06
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. 2012.
Common definitions for education programmes and attainment.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

[reference-ref-07] REF-07
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Guide to the Analysis and Use of Household Survey and Census Education Data. 2004.
Methods and limits for household and census education indicators.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/guide-to-the-analysis-and-use-of-household-survey-and-census-education-data-en_0.pdf

[reference-ref-08] REF-08
United Nations Statistics Division. Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries. 2005.
Guidance on sampling, response, weighting and statistical error.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/sectiona_new.htm

[reference-ref-09] REF-09
United Nations General Assembly. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 2014.
Relevance, professional methods, transparency, correction and confidentiality.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/261

[reference-ref-10] REF-10
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. 2012.
Rights-sensitive measurement, disaggregation and interpretation.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf

[reference-ref-11] REF-11
United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child Counts — Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights. 2014.
Evidence on disaggregation, unequal outcomes and statistical visibility.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2014

[reference-ref-12] REF-12
United Nations Children’s Fund. Child Friendly Schools Manual. 2009.
Guidance on inclusive, effective, protective and participatory schools.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/child-friendly-schools-manual

[reference-ref-13] REF-13
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. 2007.
Rights-based public duties for access, quality, participation and accountability.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154861

[reference-ref-14] REF-14
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
Education, non-discrimination, development, participation and protection obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

[reference-ref-15] REF-15
United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.
Inclusive education, accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

[reference-ref-16] REF-16
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. 2015.
Comparative European evidence on external and internal school evaluation.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4a244ff8-7bac-11e5-9fae-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-17] REF-17
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results. 2009.
European evidence on test purposes, coverage and uses.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/df628df4-4e5b-4014-adbd-2ed54a274fd9

[reference-ref-18] REF-18
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. 2016.
European evidence on attainment, early leaving, inequality and education conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7fd37b9-b130-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-19] REF-19
European Statistical System Committee. European Statistics Code of Practice. 2011.
Institutional and statistical principles for trustworthy public evidence.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/european-statistics-code-of-practice

[reference-ref-20] REF-20
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European Statistics. 2009.
European requirements for independence, quality, confidentiality and dissemination.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0223

[reference-ref-21] REF-21
European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000.
Rights concerning education, equality, good administration and effective remedy.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

[reference-ref-22] REF-22
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 in education.
https://undocs.org/E/C.12/1999/10

[reference-ref-23] REF-23
Council of the European Union. Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving. 2011.
European framework for prevention, intervention and compensation concerning early school leaving.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0701(01)

[reference-ref-24] REF-24
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation on the Establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training. 2009.
European reference points for planning, implementation, evaluation and review in vocational education.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)

[reference-ref-25] REF-25
United Nations General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — Resolution 71/313. 2017.
Adopted global indicator framework and provisions for refinement, disaggregation and national ownership.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313

[reference-ref-26] REF-26
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. 2017.
Contemporaneous global account of early Sustainable Development Goal baselines and data limitations.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/

[reference-ref-27] REF-27
UNESCO. Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments — Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8. 2017.
Evidence on accountability relationships, responsibility, reporting and risks of narrow performance pressure.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338

[reference-ref-28] REF-28
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2017. 2017.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, inequality and national conditions available at cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38e7f778-bac1-11e7-a7f8-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-29] REF-29
World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. 2018.
Contemporaneous synthesis distinguishing schooling expansion from learning and examining assessment, incentives and system coherence.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018

[reference-ref-30] REF-30
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. More Than One-Half of Children and Adolescents Are Not Learning Worldwide — Fact Sheet No. 46. 2017.
Contemporaneous estimates and cautions concerning minimum proficiency among children inside and outside school.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs46-more-than-half-children-not-learning-en-2017.pdf

[reference-ref-31] REF-31
UNICEF. Education Uprooted: For Every Migrant, Refugee and Displaced Child, Education. 2017.
Evidence on education access, continuity and recognition for migrant, refugee and displaced children.
https://www.unicef.org/reports/education-uprooted

[reference-ref-32] REF-32
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Left Behind: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2017.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee participation, transition and secondary education barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/left-behind-refugee-education-crisis

[reference-ref-33] REF-33
United Nations General Assembly. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants — Resolution 71/1. 2016.
International commitment concerning shared responsibility, refugee inclusion and access to education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1

[reference-ref-34] REF-34
European Commission. Action Plan on the Integration of Third-Country Nationals — COM(2016) 377 final. 2016.
European policy evidence on early integration, education, skills and coordination for third-country nationals.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0377

[reference-ref-35] REF-35
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. 2018.
Contemporaneous global evidence on participation, learning and persistent education inequalities.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/

[reference-ref-36] REF-36
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2018. 2018.
European comparative evidence on education outcomes, equity, investment and teacher conditions available by cutoff.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9f8f6e21-dc78-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-37] REF-37
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Turn the Tide: Refugee Education in Crisis. 2018.
Contemporaneous evidence on refugee education participation, transition and barriers.
https://www.unhcr.org/media/turn-tide-refugee-education-crisis

[reference-ref-38] REF-38
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Handbook on Measuring Equity in Education. 2018.
Guidance on concepts, measures, data sources and interpretation for education equity.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/handbook-measuring-equity-education-2018-en.pdf

[reference-ref-39] REF-39
UNESCO. Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, Not Walls — Global Education Monitoring Report 2019. 2019.
Contemporaneous global evidence on migrant and displaced learners, data limitations, inclusion and education policy.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265866

[reference-ref-40] REF-40
United Nations General Assembly. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration — Resolution 73/195. 2018.
Adopted international cooperation framework concerning migrants, data, inclusion and access to services including education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/195

[reference-ref-41] REF-41
United Nations General Assembly. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Resolution 73/151, Affirming the Global Compact on Refugees. 2018.
Contemporaneous affirmation of the Global Compact on Refugees and shared responsibility including education.
https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/151

[reference-ref-42] REF-42
European Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice. Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds into Schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures. 2019.
European comparative evidence on language, learning, psychosocial and whole-school support for migrant-background students.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/39c05fd6-2446-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-43] REF-43
UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Global Education Monitoring Report. Meeting Commitments: Are Countries on Track to Achieve SDG 4?. 2019.
Contemporaneous evidence on national education benchmarks, feasible progress and comparative monitoring.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000369009

[reference-ref-44] REF-44
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. 2019.
Global account of Sustainable Development Goal progress and data limitations available by cutoff.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/

[reference-ref-45] REF-45
European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2019. 2019.
European comparative evidence on education benchmarks, equity, investment and national conditions.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/15d70dc3-e00e-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1

[reference-ref-46] REF-46
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. SDG 4 Data Digest 2018: Data to Nurture Learning. 2018.
Guidance on learning data, reporting architecture, coverage and use for Goal 4 monitoring.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg4-data-digest-data-nurture-learning-2018-en.pdf

[reference-ref-47] REF-47
UNESCO General Conference. Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education. 2019.
Adopted global normative basis for fair, transparent and non-discriminatory recognition of higher-education qualifications and partial studies.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373602

[reference-ref-48] REF-48
UNESCO. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. 2020.
Contemporaneous institutional evidence on worldwide education disruption and response.
https://www.unesco.org/en/covid-19/education-response

[reference-ref-49] REF-49
UNESCO. Distance Learning Strategies in Response to COVID-19 School Closures — UNESCO COVID-19 Education Response Education Sector Issue Note No. 2.1. 2020.
Contemporaneous guidance on technology choices, planning, teacher support, inclusion and monitoring for distance education.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373305

[reference-ref-50] REF-50
UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank and World Food Programme. Framework for Reopening Schools. 2020.
Contemporaneous framework connecting continuity, equity, safety, learning and preparation for reopening.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373348

[reference-ref-51] REF-51
European Commission. Online Learning Resources for Schools during the Coronavirus Outbreak. 2020.
European institutional guidance on remote learning resources and educator support available by cutoff.
https://education.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/coronavirus-online-learning-resources

ICEQC-R-2020-02 — Minimum Expectations for Remote Education during Prolonged Disruption