Quality of the Self-Study · Schoolwide Improvement & Action Plan
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
School’s Progress Report Based on Previous Mandatory Evaluation Report (Stage 1) /QNSA Accreditation Report.
School progress report is aligned to the actual reality of the school, and reflects working on all of the recommendatio ns from previous mandatory evaluation report (Stage 1)/ accreditation report, resulting in the improvement of almost all recommendatio ns/aspects of the school.
School progress report is aligned to actual reality of the school, and reflects working on most of the recommendations from previous mandatory evaluation report (Stage 1) /accreditation report, resulting in the improvement of most recommendations/aspects of the school.
School progress report is aligned to actual reality of the school, and reflects working on almost all the recommendations from previous mandatory evaluation report (Stage 1) /accreditation report, resulting in the improvement of some aspects of school.
School progress report is not aligned to actual reality of the school, and reflects minimally the school working on the recommendatio ns from previous mandatory evaluation report (Stage 1) /accreditation report.
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.