Educational Leadership · Parental & Community Partnership
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
Parents’ Satisfaction with School’s Efficiency and Response to their Complaints.
Parents' concerns and complaints are responded to quickly, and effectively and the school conducts a variety of surveys for parents on a regular basis covering almost all school aspects to measure their satisfaction, and makes good use of their suggestions in the decision-making process, resulting in high percentage of participation (not less than 60%), and high satisfaction rate (not less than 80%) towards school aspects.
Parents' concerns and complaints are responded to quickly, and the school conducts surveys for parents on a regular basis to measure their satisfaction, and makes use of their suggestions in the decision-making process, resulting in percentage of participation (not less than 40%), and satisfaction rate (not less than 70%) towards school aspects.
Parents' concerns and complaints are somewhat responded to by school, and the school conducts surveys for parents to measure their satisfaction, and makes partial use of their suggestions, resulting in percentage of participation (less than 40%), and satisfaction rate (less than 50%) towards school aspects.
Parents' concerns and complaints are limitedly responded to by school.
School does NOT conduct surveys for parents to measure their satisfaction. or
Surveys (if available) show low percentage of participation less than 15%, and low satisfaction rate with regards to most aspects less than 30%.
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.