Preparing an evidence file for school quality review

A policy describes an intended rule or arrangement. A record can show what happened when that arrangement was used. Both may be relevant, but they answer different questions.

For example, a complaint procedure may explain who receives a concern and how it is considered. An appropriately protected case record can help show whether the steps were carried out. The preparation team should not treat the existence of the procedure as a complete account of its implementation.

Begin with the records the school already uses. Ask what activity an item describes, who can explain it and whether its dates and scope match the review. Create additional documentation only where it resolves a genuine management or evidence gap.

Ownership means more than the person who uploads a file. The owner should understand the source and be able to confirm its status, explain its use or identify the person responsible for doing so.

The school coordinator can organise the file, while programme leaders, administrators and other staff retain responsibility for their material. This division prevents the coordinator from being expected to certify the accuracy of information they do not control.

Where an item comes from a partner or authority, retain the source and the relevant relationship. A document about another entity should not silently become evidence of the school's own activity.

An index should allow the team to locate relevant material without duplicating every document. Useful fields include the topic or requirement, evidence title, owner, source location, dates, version, access classification and review status.

If one document supports several questions, reference the same controlled item. Duplicated files can diverge, leaving different reviewers with different versions of the same institutional statement.

The register should distinguish a working draft, a current approved document, an operating record and an item confirmed for a particular submission. Those states have different meanings.

A document's title is rarely enough to interpret it. Keep the information needed to understand when it applied, who approved it and which activity it covers.

If a record is corrected, distinguish the correction from the original event. Do not rewrite an old record so that it appears a process was followed at a time when it was not. An honest account can explain the gap, subsequent action and current position.

Where material is translated, link the original and translated version. Ensure that entity names, dates, limitations and responsibilities have not changed in translation.

An evidence task does not justify giving every contributor access to all school information. Consider the purpose of the review, the people who need access and the sensitivity of the record.

An index can refer to a restricted record without containing the personal information itself. Where a redacted item is appropriate, preserve the meaning needed to understand the evidence and record the source. Clarify the requirements before removing information material to a formal process.

The first enquiry to a support provider should describe the task. Establish an appropriate transfer route before sending identifiable pupil information or a large institutional archive.

A collection without a question

The team uploads everything available, leaving the reader to work out what it establishes. Address this by linking each item to a relevant question and explaining its scope.

A policy presented as implementation

The file includes a procedure but no account of its use. Identify the operating evidence relevant to the review rather than adding more policy wording.

An unowned or inaccessible reference

An index points to a personal folder or a link that the responsible reviewer cannot open. Assign a maintained source location and test access for the intended users.

Several “final” versions

Different teams circulate slightly different files. Establish the current source and record which version was confirmed for the activity concerned.

Review the file for the following:

1. The scope is consistent across the material.
2. Each significant item has a source and an accountable owner.
3. Dates and versions are interpretable.
4. Material supports the question for which it is presented.
5. Unresolved gaps remain visible and assigned.
6. Sensitive information is limited and appropriately handled.
7. Institutional confirmation identifies an actual package and version.

An internal completeness check can help organise the work. It does not establish an official conformity conclusion.

For ICEQC preparation, use the current Application Materials Guide. The method in this article and the editable register are IESG working aids, not official application documents.

Download the evidence register · Requirements and evidence support · Discuss evidence preparation