The ‘How Good is our School – Planning for Improvement ‘ document (2003) states that:
‘Quality assurance in a particular school depends on rigorous and systematic self-evaluation, or audit, of the quality and outcomes of the key areas of its work. Self-evaluation makes it possible to answer the key questions posed in How Good is our School?:

• How are we doing?
• How do we know?
• What are we going to do now?

The aims of the auditing process
The overall aims of the audit process are to:
• provide an evaluative account of the school’s performance on an annual basis;

• reflect on whether the school’s planning processes have impacted on the overall quality of teaching and learning and
• identify areas for continuous improvement.

• be ongoing throughout each academic session
• include a broad-brush examination of performance as well as a more detailed investigation of identified areas of school practice
• involve all staff depending upon their various roles and responsibilities
• involve parents, pupils and other stakeholders
• be systematic and rigorous
• be based on valid and reliable evidence from a wide range of sources
• use the nationally agreed quality indicators from HGIOS 2 and
• focus on the quality of learning for each and every pupil.

• Curriculum
• Attainment
• Learning and Teaching
• Support for Pupils
• Ethos
• Resources
• Management, Leadership and Quality Assurance.

As well as identifying strengths, the school should also identify where good quality has to be maintained and where it requires to be improved. Having done this, the school can formulate a plan of action to pace developments over a set period of time.

When will practice be audited?
The audit process allows a school to generate a range of evidence which can then be summarised in concise statements within the audit section of the school development plan. It should not be a one-off event but should take place throughout each academic session. A school should employ a combination of broad-brush views of provision along with more in-depth investigations within a three-year audit cycle. This will ensure that the school’s work is kept under systematic review and that staff are genuinely evaluating how development projects, for which targets and measures have been identified, have impacted on practice. This systematic and rigorous auditing process will then allow the school to select and plan for specific projects to improve its work.

The Broad-Brush Audit
A school should undertake a broad-brush audit of its performance against each quality indicator on an annual basis. Appropriate mechanisms should be employed to ensure that staff at all levels, and when appropriate, the School Board, the wider parental community, pupils and other stakeholders are involved in this process.
When undertaking a broad-brush audit, staff should use their professional judgement to assign one of four levels
4 = very good;
3 = good;
2 = fair;
1 = unsatisfactory
to each of the quality indicators from How Good is Our School? Pages 33 and 34 can be used for this purpose. The broad-brush audit should be based on firm evidence i.e. not on possible sources of evidence but on what has actually examined through the course of the session. This evidence can be collected in various ways by: 

• asking people what they think – e.g. through group discussions, team meetings, working parties, individual interviews, surveys / questionnaires and through written responses to specific questions e.g. relating to a particular QI.
• looking at documentation – e.g. forward plans, assessment folders including records of work, programmes of study, pupils’ work, reports to parents, minutes of meetings and policies and guidelines.
• undertaking direct observation – e.g. formal / informal visits to classes to observe lessons, team-teaching situations, exchanging classes, shadowing a group of pupils and video recording own teaching
• analysing data – e.g. individual 5-14 levels of attainment through the tracking spreadsheet / Phoenix, overall progress made towards class and whole school targets, national assessment records and data from Performance Management Unit.

• when awarding a level 4, staff recorded 3 examples of good practice
• when awarding a level 3, staff recorded 2 examples of good practice and 1 area for development
• when awarding a level 2, staff recorded 1 example of good practice and 2 areas for development and
• when awarding a level 1, staff recorded 3 areas for development.
  

When completed, the broad-brush audit will provide an overview of the schools strengths i.e. level 3 and 4 as well as areas for development i.e. level 2 and 1. Staff will require to have a ‘closer look’ at areas which fall into the latter categories (see section below on the in-depth audit).
The broad-brush audit should be undertaken throughout the session by setting aside part of each Inset day or several CAT sessions for staff to take a broad view of practice across each key area. Within these dedicated sessions, staff should be asked to assign a level of performance to a particular Key Area (ensuring coverage of all seven Key Areas over the year). They should then be required to support their judgement by noting evidence e.g. 3 examples of good practice and these sources of evidence should be listed at the end of each Key Area. The outcomes of discussion/evidence gathering systems should be briefly summarised within statements in the audit section of the development plan throughout the session. Staff may decide to carry-forward some audit statements from one school development plan to the next. This can be done only when there have been no significant changes or development work within that Key Area. Recent development work within the school may well impact on the level allocated by staff as well as providing relevant and reliable evidence to support revised judgements about practice within the school.

The in-depth audit
Having engaged in monitoring aspects of its work and undertaken a broad-brush audit, a school will wish to have a closer look at aspects of practice. There may be a number of reasons for engaging in an in-depth audit, e.g.:

• staff have allocated a level 1 or 2 to a particular quality indicator
• staff have not taken ‘a closer look’ at a particular Key Area for a couple of years
• a visit to classes by the head teacher has highlighted an area of practice which merits debate with the staff team
• the school’s link Quality Development Officer has highlighted an area during a quality assurance visit which would benefit from the school taking a closer look or
• HMIe have highlighted a need to examine practice in a particular area.

Consulting with pupils, parents and other stakeholders
It is a requirement of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 that schools consult with pupil, parents and staff throughout the school development planning process. Strategies for consulting with staff have already been discussed within these guidelines. A one-size-fits-all approach to consultation will not meet the diverse circumstances of our schools. It is therefore recommended that schools use a broad range of approaches to consulting with stakeholders, e.g.:

Pupils

• surveys/questionnaires to pupils in the middle/upper stages e.g. when auditing the QI 5:1 ‘Climate and Relationships’.
• suggestion boxes on display for a fixed period to elicit views on particular areas of school practice e.g. school accommodation.
• formal discussion/surveying of the Pupil Council.
• ad hoc pupil committees to elicit views on specific topics e.g. Primary 7 pupils about partnership with secondary school/other primaries.
• whole school discussions involving all pupils e.g. each class teacher dedicates a slot within an afternoon to elicit views of the pupil community.

Parents

• formal agenda item within each meeting of the School Board. Meetings can be planned to coincide with broad-brush audits with staff
• surveys/questionnaires to the entire parental community e.g. the Quality in Education survey (issued in CD format to all schools in January 2005), the HMIe survey of parents can be used - alternatively, a school may wish to formulate its own questionnaire based on the particular focus for audit
• ad hoc parent committees to elicit views on a specific issue e.g. the use of homework within learning and teaching
• invitation to respond in writing to draft copies of the school plan as well as key policy statements.

Other Stakeholders
A school may wish to consult other stakeholders to elicit their views about practice in a particular area. For example, when auditing QI 4:8 ‘Links with local authority, other schools, agencies and employers’, a school may wish to gather the views of health / social workers with regards the effectiveness of inter-agency working within the school. A range of approaches similar to those suggested above should be used to ensure that all parties contribute effectively to the audit process.