E5: External and Internal Quality Indicators

The following self-assessment framework will be used to evaluate the quality of service provided across ORMS. The outcomes of this process will be reviewed at the Quality and Standards Committee, with the final report being submitted to the Board of Directors.

Key Question Quality Indictors Aspects
1. Outcomes 1.1 Standards 1.1.1    results and trends in performance compared with national averages, similar providers and prior attainment (where external comparators are available) and internal benchmarking over a period of time

1.1.2 standards of groups of learners

1.1.3 achievement and progress in learning

1.1.4 skills development

1.2 Wellbeing 1.2.1 participation and enjoyment in learning
2. Provision 2.1  Learning experiences


2.1.1 meeting the needs of learners, employers and community

2.1.2 provision for skills

2.1.3 education for sustainable development

2.2  Teaching


2.2.1 range and quality of teaching approaches

2.2.2 assessment of and for learning

2.3  Care, support and  guidance 2.3.1 provision for health and wellbeing

2.3.2 specialist services, information and guidance

2.3.3 safeguarding arrangements

2.3.4 additional learning needs

2.4  Learning  environment


2.4.1 ethos, equality and diversity

2.4.2 physical environment

3. Leadership 3.1  Leadership


3.1.1 strategic direction and the impact of leadership

3.1.2  Directors or other supervisory boards

3.2  Improving quality



3.2.1 self-evaluation, including listening to learners and others

3.2.2 planning and securing improvement

3.3  Partnership working 3.3.1 strategic partnerships

3.3.2  joint planning, resourcing and quality assurance

3.4 Resource management


3.4.1 management of staff and resources

3.4.2 value for money

Grading of Outcomes: The following Grading System will be applied

Grade 1: Excellent: Low Risk

  • Many strengths, including significant examples of sector-leading practice.

Grade 2: Good: Medium Risk

  • Many strengths and no important areas requiring significant improvement.

Grade 3: Adequate: High Risk

  • Strengths outweigh areas for improvement.

Grade 4: Unsatisfactory: High Risk

For further information on how this data will be gathered, see the following policy documents:

E1: Quality Systems

E2: Annual Course Monitoring

E3: External Examiners

E4: Review of Teaching and Learning

E11: Grading and Risk Assessment Scores