Switch course ▾
Session 5. Quality, Accreditation, Piloting and Costing a Programme
Objective. Use quality-assurance and accreditation frameworks as checklists, plan and read a pilot, decide whether to scale, cost a programme per teacher, and write a one-page briefing for an approving body.
A good programme still needs to be believed and paid for. Approvers do not read your outcomes first; they ask whether it is sound, whether it works and what it costs. This lesson goes beyond the key ideas: how to turn a public quality framework into an evidence file without claiming recognition you do not have, and how to read pilot data so that your decision is honest and your next version better than the first.
Key ideas
Quality assurance and accreditation in plain words
- Internal quality assurance is what the provider does itself: design review, observing delivery, moderating marks, collecting feedback and acting on it. External quality assurance is a check by an independent body. Accreditation is formal recognition, for a stated period, that a programme meets published standards.
- Public frameworks are useful as checklists. The UK Quality Code sets out principles for academic standards and quality in higher education. The European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) include standards on design and approval of programmes, student-centred teaching and assessment, teaching staff, and ongoing monitoring and periodic review.
- Australia's accreditation of teacher education programs uses six program standards, including outcomes, design and delivery, and evaluation and improvement, and asks for evidence of impact. These are examples, not your law. Ask your own ministry or accrediting body what applies, and do not claim recognition you do not have.
What approvers ask, and the programme dossier
- Across frameworks the questions are similar: is there a real need, are the outcomes clear, does the design and workload fit, is assessment sound, are the staff prepared, are there resources, and how will you check and improve it?
- Assemble a dossier from what you have already made in this course: purpose and need, competency map, one-page descriptor, module descriptors, assessment blueprint and rubrics, trainer plan, pilot plan, costs, and a monitoring plan.
- Write a one-page briefing for the decision-makers (see course 14.3 for board briefings): the need, the proposal, the cost with options, the main risks, and the exact decision you ask for. Nobody can approve a vague request.
Piloting and revising with evidence
- Pilot with one cohort of about 25 volunteers before you scale, and write the success criteria first: for example completion, assessment results, time teachers really spent, and trainer feedback. The pilot is also a test of delivery, so keep a log of what was changed on the day.
- Collect evidence at four levels, as in Guskey's model: reaction (exit slips), learning (assessment results), practice (observations and portfolio) and pupils (work samples). With one small group and no comparison, claim modestly: say what you saw, not that the programme caused pupils to improve.
- The EEF guide on implementation reminds leaders that a good programme can fail when it is poorly implemented. Sort the changes into: fix now (errors, timing), fix in the next version, and park. Decide go, adjust and re-pilot, or stop, and record it in a version log.
Costing a programme honestly
- List every cost line: one-off design, training of trainers, and for each cohort the trainer delivery, school visits, marking and moderation, coordination, printing, and room and refreshments. Separate one-off costs from per-cohort costs.
- Express the result per teacher and show who pays what, including in-kind support such as a free classroom. Teachers' own study time is not paid, but it is a cost to them; mention it so that approvers see the real load.
- Always bring options for a smaller budget and say what each cut costs in quality. A 2016 cost-efficiency brief from the International Rescue Committee, comparing nine teacher development programmes, found face-to-face workshops cost much more per teacher-day than teacher learning circles; use it as a prompt to think about peer learning, not as a promise for your context.
The pilot cycle
Turning a framework into an evidence file
Take the headings of a framework you respect, for example design and approval, teaching and assessment, staff, monitoring and review, and make one folder or envelope for each. In each place the document that answers the question: the competency map under design, the rubrics under assessment, the trainer plan under staff, the pilot plan under review. Where a folder is empty, you have found your next job before anyone external finds it.
Be careful with words. Using the ESG or the Quality Code as a checklist is good practice; saying that the programme 'meets European standards' or is 'accredited' is a claim that needs an actual decision by a body with authority. Ask your ministry or the relevant body which approval route applies and what evidence it wants, and write the answer into your plan.
Reading pilot data and deciding
Read the pilot level by level. Attendance and exit slips show reaction; assessment results show learning; portfolios and visits show practice; pupil work samples hint at pupil effects. Weak numbers at one level point to different fixes: low attendance suggests the calendar, low scores on one outcome point to the module, and disagreement among markers points to the rubric. Time diaries tell you whether the plan matched teachers' real week.
Then decide with a rule you wrote before the pilot: go, adjust and re-pilot, or stop. Most first pilots end in 'adjust'. Record each change with its evidence in a version log, say what you cannot claim (for example that the programme caused pupil gains, with 25 volunteers and no comparison), and share a short, honest summary with the teachers who took part.
Examples from the classroom
An evidence file in Fergana
Scene. A district team in Fergana makes eight envelopes using the headings of a quality framework and puts into each the document that answers its question. Two envelopes stay empty: public information for teachers and a monitoring plan. The team writes a one-page teacher guide and a termly review schedule before it speaks to the education department. The officer later says the file made the meeting short.
Insight. A framework works as a checklist that shows gaps before outsiders do.
The time diary that changed the plan
Scene. In a Samarkand pilot, 10 of 25 teachers keep a simple time diary. The plan assumed 5.6 hours a week; the diaries show 6.8 on average, with one week at 11 because of the portfolio. The team spreads portfolio entries over three modules, shortens a reading by one page, and tells the second cohort the real expected weekly time up front, so nobody discovers it in week 16.
Insight. A small, cheap data source can reveal the biggest design problem.
A briefing for 500 units
Scene. A methodist in Tashkent prepares a one-page briefing for a funder who offers 500 units against a plan of 660. The page lists the need, the 8.8 units per teacher, three cuts that keep the assessed visit and moderation, the quality cost of each, and a single request: approve two cohorts for 494 units. The funder asks one question about peer visits and approves.
Insight. A specific request with options and named trade-offs is easy to approve.
Common pitfalls
- Calling the programme accredited or European-standard when only a checklist was used.
- Running a pilot without success criteria, so any result can be called a success.
- Claiming that a pilot of volunteers caused pupil gains.
- Showing a budget as one number with no options if money is short.
Pilot, Cost and Brief the Board
- Open the Activity Kit: a costing table for three cohorts (cost unit = one trainer-hour), a summary of sample pilot results, a quality checklist and a briefing template. (5 min)
- Alone (10 min): complete the costing table. Find the cost of one cohort, the total for three cohorts with the one-off costs, and the cost per teacher.
- Pairs (20 min): the funder offers only 500 units. Choose cuts from the options list that reach 500, say what each costs in quality, and decide what you refuse to cut.
- Trios (15 min): read the pilot summary. Decide go, adjust and re-pilot, or stop. List three changes and say which level of evidence supports each. Write one sentence of what you can honestly claim about pupils.
- Whole group (5 min): one pair and one trio report their decisions. Compare what they refused to cut.
- Part B, briefing (20 min): in pairs, use the quality checklist to see what is missing from the dossier, then write the one-page briefing for the board: need, proposal, cost and options, risks, and the decision you ask for.
- Alone (10 min): write your leadership task from the Kit.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- Which cut did you refuse to make, and what evidence or principle justified refusing?
- Which statement in your briefing would a sceptical board member challenge first, and what is your evidence?
- What would you promise teachers about the programme's future if the pilot results were mixed?
Reflect
- Which programme in your region was started at scale without a pilot, and what happened?
- Who pays for teachers' time in your system, and how visible is that cost?
- What would make you stop a programme, and who would you tell first?
Try it tomorrow
- Draw eight headings from a quality framework you respect and mark each one: have, partly, missing.
- Write your success criteria for a small pilot in four lines, one for each level of evidence, before running it.
- Take a real or imagined budget and write two cuts and the quality cost of each in one sentence.
Further reading and links
Treat quality frameworks as checklists, pilot small with success criteria set first, revise only on evidence, and cost the programme per teacher with options and honest claims.