These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
As we stated in Chapters and , a major component of this new paradigm NAEP is a core NAEP, consisting of large-scale survey instruments. Core NAEP would continue to track trends in achievement for both national NAEP and state NAEP in core subjects. Core subjects would include reading, mathematics, science, and writing, and any other subjects, such as U.S. history or geography, in which assessments are administered frequently enough to establish trend lines. However, core NAEP alone cannot assess all important aspects of student achievement. The second major component in our proposed design is multiple-methods NAEP, consisting of alternative surveys and assessments. These components should be used to assess (1) components of core subject area frameworks that are not well suited for assessment via large-scale surveys, (2) nontrend subject areas, (3) achievements of members of special populations who cannot participate in the large-scale surveys, and (4) achievements of students with specific instructional experiences (e.g., fine arts, advanced mathematics).
We contend that implementing a multiple-methods NAEP will be required in order to appropriately assess all aspects of the current frameworks as well as the broader conceptualizations of achievement discussed earlier in this chapter. Specifically, alternative methods will be required to assess aspects of student achievement not well assessed by large-scale surveys (e.g., performing investigations in science, solving problems in a group setting). In addition, multiple-methods NAEP is appropriate for assessing targeted samples of students with specific instructional experiences (e.g., advanced mathematics, fine arts, economics). An overview of the measures of student achievement in new paradigm NAEP is presented in .
Although we contend that a wider range of methodologies must have a place in new paradigm NAEP to appropriately assess all aspects of the current frameworks and to be able to assess broader dimensions of achievement, we simultaneously recognize that this would simply not be feasible, financially or logistically, if it were assumed that all assessment methods were administered to a sample of students as large as those to whom the current large-scale survey assessment instruments are administered. Smaller samples of students, and samples less fully representative of the nation should be used, as one moves along the assessment continuum. These issues, including costs associated with a multiple-methods NAEP, are considered in the next section.
Features of a Multiple-Methods Assessment SystemIf a multiple-methods approach were implemented, each core subject-area assessment would consist of a combination of the large-scale survey instruments and multiple alternative assessments. Insofar as possible, data from multiple-methods NAEP and core NAEP's large-scale surveys should be linked, and data from all methods administered across a subject area should be used to represent student achievement in NAEP's reports (i.e., summary scale score results from
The COSO Framework is a system used to establish internal controls to be integrated into business processes. Collectively, these controls provide reasonable assurance that the organization is operating ethically, transparently and in accordance with established industry standards.
COSO is an acronym for the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations. The committee created the framework in 1992, led by Executive Vice President and General Counsel, James Treadway, Jr. along with several private sector organizations, including the following:
- American Accounting Association
- Financial Executives International
- The Institute of Internal Auditors
- American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
- The Institute of Management Accountants (formerly the National Association of Cost Accountants)
The COSO framework was updated in 2013 to include the COSO cube, a 3-D diagram that demonstrates how all elements of an internal control system are related. In 2017, the committee introduced their COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework. The COSO ERM Framework aims to help organizations understand and prioritize risks and create a strong link between risk, strategy and how a business performs.
What are the five components of the COSO Framework?
Here are the five components of the COSO framework:
- Control environment. The control environment seeks to make sure that all business processes are based on the use of industry-standard practices. This can help ensure that the business is run in a responsible way. It may also reduce an organization's legal exposure if the organization is able to prove that its business processes are all based around industry standard practices. Additionally, the control environment can help with making sure that an organization is adhering to regulatory compliance requirements.
- Risk assessment and management. Risk assessment and management -- which is sometimes referred to as enterprise risk management -- is based on the idea that risk is an inherent part of doing business. However, those same risks can sometimes cause a business to suffer adverse consequences. As such, organizations commonly adopt risk management plans that help them to identify risks and either reduce or eliminate risks deemed to pose a threat to the organization's well-being.
- Control activities. Control activities are also tied to the concept of risk management. They are essentially internal controls that are put into place to make sure that business processes are performed in a way that helps an organization to meet its business objectives without introducing unnecessary risks into the process.
- Information and communications. Communications rules are put in place to make sure that both internal and external communications adhere to legal requirements, ethical values and standard industry practices. For example, private sector organizations commonly adopt privacy policies establishing how customer data can be used.
- Monitoring. At a minimum, monitoring is performed by an internal auditor who makes sure that employees are adhering to established internal controls. However, in the case of public companies, it is relatively common for an outside auditor to evaluate the organization's regulatory compliance. In either case, the audit results are usually reported to the board of directors.
How is the COSO Framework used?
The COSO Framework is heavily used by publicly traded companies and accounting and financial firms. The framework seeks to put internal controls in place that formalize the way in which key business processes are performed. This helps organizations to adhere to legal and ethical requirements, while also focusing on risk assessment and management. In addition to integrating such controls into key business processes, the framework places a heavy emphasis on monitoring and reporting, especially as it relates to using internal auditors to monitor adherence to established controls.
This article is part of
What is risk management and why is it important?
- Which also includes:
- governance, risk management and compliance (GRC)
- risk avoidance
- risk map (risk heat map)
Download1
Download this entire guide for FREE now!
What are the benefits and limitations of the COSO Framework?
One of the primary benefits to implementing the COSO Framework is that it helps business processes to be performed in a uniform manner according to a set of internal controls. Depending on how these controls are designed, they can improve efficiency while also reducing risks.
Another benefit is that an organization that fully employs the COSO Framework is often in a better position to detect fraudulent activity, whether that activity is perpetrated by cyber criminals, customers or trusted employees. Because the framework focuses on risk mitigation and adherence to established best practices, vulnerabilities can be significantly reduced.
Finally, some organizations find that when they implement carefully crafted internal controls, it helps them to make existing business processes more efficient. This can help reduce costs and make the organization more profitable.
More on risk management
7 risk mitigation strategies to protect business operations
Risk appetite vs. risk tolerance: How are they different?
Despite the benefits associated with implementing the COSO Framework, it is not without its limitations. The most significant of these limitations is that the framework can be difficult to implement for two main reasons. First, the framework is relatively broad in scope, which means that it can be applied to a wide variety of organizations and processes. But this broad scope also means that the framework lacks a significant amount of prescriptive guidance.
The second limitation that can make the framework difficult to apply is its organizational structure. The COSO Framework is broken into a series of rigid categories. Organizations often find that there are certain processes that could conceivably fall into multiple categories, or that do not align well with any of the categories. As such, organizations will often have to make some tough decisions when implementing the framework.