Quality of the Self-Study · Accuracy of the Self-Study and Students’ Achievements
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
Students’ Achievements (Academic and Non-Academic).
Almost all students' academic achievements are effectively aligned with learning objectives/curric ula
Students' non-academic achievements are varied and reflect the school’s role in developing their various skills. Almost all students participate actively in school activities and programs.
Most students' academic achievements are effectively aligned with learning objectives/ curricula.
Students' non-academic achievements reflect the school’s role in developing their skills, and most students participate in school activities and programs.
Some students' academic achievements are aligned with learning objectives/ curricula.
Students' non-academic achievements reflect the school’s role in developing their skills somewhat. Some students participate in school activities and programs.
Students' academic achievements are minimally aligned to learning objectives/ curricula or have limited achievements.
There are limited non-academic achievements, and students are minimally involved in school activities and programs.
Choose evidence that shows what the school does. The same evidence can support more than one standard without uploading the file again.
Reading existing governed sources; no second evidence database is created.
What does the evidence tell us? Record each finding clearly, connect it to supporting evidence, then submit it for review.
This layer interprets evidence; it never changes official QNSA text.
Compare the reviewed findings with the QNSA rubric. A responsible person chooses the judgement and explains why; the system does not choose it automatically.
Judgement is human-owned and grounded in governed findings plus the official QNSA rubric.
What should we keep doing? What needs to improve? Use the findings and judgement, then ask for each point to be reviewed.
This layer is grounded in professional judgement and governed findings.
Convert standard gaps into trackable actions, then record implementation impact.
No actions linked yet.
The reviewer challenges the quality of reasoning; the system never issues an accreditation judgement automatically.
The standard becomes an improvement story, not a static snapshot.
No history yet.