Defining the scope of an international school certification application

Evidence is meaningful in relation to an activity and a responsible organisation. A policy covering several campuses may be relevant to only part of a proposed application. A programme agreement may establish rights for a particular operator and location, while a brochure describes a wider brand.

Without a shared scope description, different teams can contribute individually valid information that refers to different activities. The resulting file becomes difficult to interpret because the question it is intended to answer changes from one document to the next.

Begin with a short working brief. It can be revised as facts are clarified, but it should identify its owner, date and status. Do not circulate a working assumption as a formally approved scope.

Record the legal organisation responsible for the education activity and the public institution name used by learners and families. Explain any difference between them.

Useful questions include:

• Which entity operates the provision?
• Which entity employs or appoints the people responsible for delivery?
• Who holds the relevant operating or programme permissions?
• Who enters into the education agreement and handles material complaints?
• Who can make declarations about the provision?

The answers may involve more than one organisation. The purpose is to make the arrangement understandable, not to force a complex structure into a single convenient name.

A whole-school activity and a defined international programme hosted within another school can have different boundaries. Identify which institution controls the programme, what the host provides and which responsibilities are shared.

A curriculum label does not, by itself, explain those arrangements. The preparation team should be able to describe the educational activity, learner group, responsible entity and delivery relationship in ordinary terms.

For ICEQC, consult the official certification-object information and applicable standards. The formal determination belongs to the scheme process; a consultant's working description does not replace it.

List the locations proposed for inclusion and explain what happens at each. Distinguish teaching sites, administrative addresses and other premises that do not deliver the provision under discussion.

Where online activity or another delivery method is material, describe its role. An online service supporting a programme may have different responsibilities from the institution delivering that programme.

Record material partner dependencies. A school should be able to explain what it controls directly, what another party supplies and how that relationship is governed.

Consider an illustrative arrangement in which one brand is used for two school sites and an international programme operated with another institution. This is a hypothetical example, not an account of an IESG client.

A weak brief might say only “the international school group”. A more useful preparation record would identify the legal operator of each site, the activity proposed, the programme relationship and any part expressly outside the discussion.

It would then record unresolved questions: whether both sites are proposed, who controls the programme and what evidence establishes the allocation of responsibility. Those questions remain open until the appropriate people confirm the facts.

The brief should be short enough to use. Detailed evidence can be referenced separately rather than copied into every field.

Institutional preparation, a support-provider mandate and an official scope decision are different events. Identify each in the record and use the language appropriate to its status.

If the proposal changes, review the affected evidence and public description. Adding a site or changing an operating entity is not merely an editorial correction when it alters the activity for which responsibility is being claimed.

Ask the institution's coordinator to confirm that:

1. The legal entity and school name are linked accurately.
2. The provision and intended scope are understandable to the contributing teams.
3. Sites and material delivery relationships are identified.
4. Significant uncertainty has an owner and a resolution route.
5. The working record is distinguished from any official determination.

Once these points are understood, an evidence index can be built around a coherent activity rather than a collection of unrelated documents.

The working method above is IESG guidance. For formal ICEQC requirements, consult Certification Objects and the Standards Register.

Scope and eligibility support · Discuss the proposed scope