Resources Management · Physical Resources
Understand the requirement, then find what supports it. The school judgement follows an evidence review.
Computer labs’ equipment and utilization.
Computer labs are equipped with a sufficient number of devices commensurate with the number of students in the different classrooms, the availability of a network for internet connection, and an employee in charge of the laboratories, which led to the support of learning and research skills effectively for almost all students in different subjects.
Computer labs are equipped with a number of devices commensurate with the number of students in the different classrooms. Availability of a network for internet connection. An employee is in charge of the laboratories, which led to the support of learning and research skills for most students.
The school has computers and a network to connect to the Internet, and an employee performs lab tasks, and this has supported the learning of some students.
The school has computers that do not commensurate with the number of students and are limitedly effective in supporting learning. OR
No computer labs are available in the school.
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.