Resources Management · Physical Resources
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
Availability and appropriateness of educational facilities, resources, and services throughout the school.
Appropriate and adequate facilities, services, resources, and safe internet in school premises that actively support curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities across all stages.
All facilities are equipped with age and stage appropriate furniture that commensurate with students’ numbers and needs (including appropriate resources for students with special needs).
The school provides suitable rooms for all staff.
Appropriate and adequate facilities, services, resources, and internet services in school premises that actively support most curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities across most stages.
Most facilities are equipped with age and stage appropriate furniture that commensurate with students’ numbers and needs (including appropriate resources for students with special needs).
The school provides suitable rooms for most staff.
Facilities, services and resources are equipped to support curricular activities in some stages.
Some facilities are equipped with somewhat age and stage appropriate furniture to commensurate with students’ numbers /needs.
The school provides suitable rooms for some staff.
Facilities, services and resources are limited and inappropriate to support curricular activities.
The school facilities are not equipped with appropriate furniture / limitedly meet the needs of students.
Inappropriate rooms for staff.
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.