Highly Effective
Almost all representative stakeholders were involved in data and evidence collection and identification of school’s strengths and areas of growth.
Official QNSA standard
1.1.2
Stakeholders’ involvement in preparing the self-study.
Quality of the Self-Study · Accuracy of the Self-Study and Students’ Achievements
ONE CLEAR STEP AT A TIME
How do I work on this standard?
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
Jump to any part of this standard
Strengths and growth areas use reviewed findings and professional judgement. Action, impact and review notes here are drafts saved in this browser. Use the Improvement pages to manage and review school records. Open improvement review →
School judgementNot assessed
School evidence0 real evidence mapped · Triangulation 0/3
Review & challengeDraft
Improvement0 growth areas
FROM THE OFFICIAL HANDBOOK
Read-onlyOfficial QNSA requirement
Official standard1.1.2
Stakeholders’ involvement in preparing the self-study.
Focus areas
- Ways and levels of involvement of stakeholders in preparing the self-study.
- Stakeholders involvement, and follow-up of identifying strengths and growth areas in the self-study, school priorities and the schoolwide action plan goals.
Suggested evidence
- Meetings
- Correspondence
- Surveys & Questionnaires
- School Report Card
- Interviews
Self-reflection
- To what extent were representative stakeholders involved in the self-study preparation process and identifying strength and growth areas? How? What is the evidence?
Official rubric
Effective
Most representative stakeholders were involved in data and evidence collection and identification of school’s strengths and areas of growth.
Somewhat Effective
Some stakeholders were involved in data and evidence collection and identification of school’s strengths and areas of growth.
Ineffective
Minimal stakeholder involvement in preparation of the Self-Study was evident.
Focus source: 41Rubric source: 43
OUR SCHOOL’S WORK
Human-owned judgementSchool response
01
School evidence
Choose evidence that shows what the school does. The same evidence can support more than one standard without uploading the file again.
Loading real KCD evidence…
Reading existing governed sources; no second evidence database is created.
02
What the evidence shows
What does the evidence tell us? Record each finding clearly, connect it to supporting evidence, then submit it for review.
Loading governed reflection and findings…
This layer interprets evidence; it never changes official QNSA text.
03
School judgement
Compare the reviewed findings with the QNSA rubric. A responsible person chooses the judgement and explains why; the system does not choose it automatically.
Loading professional judgement…
Judgement is human-owned and grounded in governed findings plus the official QNSA rubric.
04
Strengths · Growth areas
What should we keep doing? What needs to improve? Use the findings and judgement, then ask for each point to be reviewed.
Loading strengths and growth areas…
This layer is grounded in professional judgement and governed findings.
05
Improvement action · Impact
Convert standard gaps into trackable actions, then record implementation impact.
Improvement action
No actions linked yet.
Impact
Impact not yet evidencedRecord impact only when a change for learners can be supported by evidence.
06
Review & challenge
The reviewer challenges the quality of reasoning; the system never issues an accreditation judgement automatically.
07
History
The standard becomes an improvement story, not a static snapshot.
No history yet.