The Three Stages of Self-Evaluation

The self-evaluation process consists of three key stages which usually take up to 6 months to complete:

1. Initial drafting – Developing an initial report and gathering supporting evidence.
2. Draft submission and review – Regular draft submissions allow for continual formative feedback for refinement from peers and ICAPHE.
3. Formal submission – Submitting the final report to the Accreditation Review Panel.

Understanding the Purpose of Self-Evaluation

A self-evaluation is an opportunity for an applicant to reflect honestly on its strengths and areas for development. By submitting a Self-Evaluation Report, the applicant is essentially declaring, “we have assessed ourselves and believe we meet the required criteria.”

This process serves three key purposes:

1. Encouraging a rigorous and reflective internal analysis.
2. Offering an alternative framework to view operations and performance.
3. Consolidating all necessary information for the Accreditation Review Panel.

Structuring Your Self-Evaluation

The Self-Evaluation is structured around a series of criteria, forming a natural dialogue that helps shape the Self-Evaluation Report (SER). Ideally, this process should be straightforward; responding to questions to create a narrative, supplemented with relevant evidence in appendices.

If you do not have all the answers or supporting evidence, be candid. The Accreditation Review Panel recognises that none of us are perfect, but the self-evaluation must be an honest and reflective exercise that will ultimately benefit both you and your Programme. Likewise, if you feel that the questions do not provide a full opportunity to address the criteria, please feel free to add additional text to ensure alignment with the criteria.

A standard approach consists of demonstrating that the Programme complies with each criterion and then providing supporting evidence and examples. This helps maintain clarity and ensures that the document remains focused on factual support rather than speculation or overly aspirational language.

An academic exercise not an administrative one

Think of the self-evaluation as a narrative rather than a bureaucratic exercise.

The best self-evaluations involve those who know the subject of the self-evaluation whilst ensuring the voices and input from internal and external stakeholders. The exercise is an academic exercise not an administrative one. The process is designed to encourage critical reflection on processes and structures while presenting an engaging and insightful account for reviewers.

Incorporating a SWOT Analysis

The criteria conclude with a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis which serves three key functions:

1. Reinforcing the self-reflective nature of the process.
2. Highlighting areas requiring attention, reducing the likelihood of reviewers identifying issues you are already aware of.
3. Encouraging forward-thinking on opportunities for improvement.

Schools and Programmes are constantly evolving and often operate in competitive environments. Recognising areas for development is essential to our ongoing growth and success.

Formatting and Presentation

A well-presented report creates a strong impression. Consistent formatting should be followed carefully.

Appendices should be clearly labelled for easy reference.

The same principle applies to website references. Avoid providing only a general homepage or generic links. Instead, cite specific URLs where the required information can be found easily and quickly. Transparency in referencing online content demonstrates effective communication and transparency and is encouraged in the process.

All supporting documentation should be easily accessible to reviewers. This may require granting access to virtual learning environments or intranet systems in advance.

If changes occur between writing the report and the review, provide supplementary updates.

Formal Submission

The formal submission must be provided to the Accreditation Review Panel at least two months before the scheduled review. If you are struggling to meet the deadline, please inform ICAPHE as soon as possible so help can be provided. Alongside the report, include a tentative review schedule with a list of potential interviewees.

The Accreditation Review Panel will examine the report in detail, holding a pre-review meeting to identify areas that require further clarification, and which attendees are to be asked.