Evaluating impact - Self Evaluation Guidance

Inadequate

Satisfactory

Good

Outstanding

• Low priority given. Any evaluations are bureaucratic and rarely used to measure impact on the individual or practice
• No long term measurements – if any takes place, the focus is on provision or short term benefits
• Value-for-money is viewed largely in terms of the monetary cost
• Any evaluation is not used in any meaningful way to inform future direction

• Some systems for measurement such as forms or feedback but limited causal link to outcomes
• Most evaluation is of provision rather than effect on practice
• Best-value/value-for-money issues implicit at best
• Impacts fairly narrowly interpreted and only rarely consider pastoral and school climate benefits
• Little use made of information in informing future direction

• Some priority given to monitoring and evaluating impact
• Range of criteria used to measure impact on school, area and individual going beyond academic attainment to consider the benefits of individuals
• Some criteria to judge 'value-for-money'
• Results of evaluation play a role in influencing future direction
   

• High priority given to monitoring and evaluating impact. Wide range of criteria used to measure impact on school, area and individual
• Clear criteria for determining 'value-for-money'
• Explicit consideration and wide recognition amongst workforce of range of different kinds of training and support
• Approaches are personalised to suit the needs of participants
• Approaches recognise and address the changing roles and responsibilities of schools and the wider school workforce
• Methods make use of value-for-money approaches such as effective whole or area workforce development, use of in-house expertise
• Strong encouragement for professional recognition including accreditation and high take-up.of the personal benefits and contribution to whole school climate
• Results of evaluation are used to influence future direction