Part A   Assessment of Principals

106
Part A  
Assessment of Principals
Assessing principals in the leadership programme
1. Introduction
The programme is designed to train principals to achieve the Standards for Principals (Appendix 1). The 
programme aims to support principals in developing the understanding and skills necessary for a 21st 
Century school leader. Details of the understanding and skills developed within the programme are set out 
in the standards for principals. These may be summarised as involving: 
•  having clear principles and values for the school community based on moral purpose;
•  understanding of ‘effective’ learning and teaching in relation to held principles and values;
•  ability to collect and synthesise evidence about the condition of the school;
•  understanding  how  to  plan  strategically  based  on  well-developed  principles  and  values  and  on 
evidence of the condition of the school;
•  ability to work collaboratively with school colleagues, parents and the wider community in order to 
lead and support school development. 
The leadership programme consists of two face-to-face (F2F) and two school-based phases. Prior to the 
first F2F phase (F2F1), principals collect data about their school which they are helped to analyse during 
F2F1. This analysis informs the identification of a strategic development priority and the construction of 
a school development plan. During F2F1, principals set up and work with a ‘development team’ to imple-
ment and evaluate the school development plan. They collect evidence including records of development 
team meetings, coaching plans, classroom observations and pupil surveys to support the evaluation. 
In the second F2F phase (F2F2), principals are supported in making a detailed analysis of the evaluation 
evidence. This analysis then informs planning for working with the school development team on a school 
development strategy for the longer second school-based phase. This phase extends over six months ena-
bling the principal and development team to work together in developing, implementing and evaluating a 
longer-term school development plan. This longer-term plan involves addressing the professional devel-
opment of all teachers in the school through programmes of appraisal and coaching.
In each phase of the programme, principals demonstrate their developing understanding and skills through 
presentations and written accounts. For example, principals give presentations of their work during the 
F2F phases of the programme. Trainers and peers give formative assessment feedback on these presenta-
tions which supports the development of written accounts in the portfolio. 
Summative assessment of successful completion of the programme is made on the basis of the evidence 
submitted by principals in their portfolio.
During the F2F and second school-based phase of the programme principals develop their portfolios for 
summative assessment. During the F2F phases, trainers give principals formative advice and support to 
the principals in their training groups on both the content and structure of portfolios. Principals continue 
to develop their portfolios during the second school-based phase, supported by their trainers using on-line 
links.

107
2. Formative assessment of Presentations
2.1 Content of presentations
During the F2F phases, principals give two presentations relating to the contents of their portfolios. These 
presentations help to establish the authenticity of the principal’s portfolio entries, and are assessed forma-
tively. Presentations focus on the principal’s ability to lead change in schools and to develop constructive 
relationships with colleagues within and between schools.
Presentation One (20 minutes) in F2F1
This presentation in F2F1 consists of five slides or three posters which are referred to in order to demon-
strate:
1.  How the specific need for change of the school was identified
2.  How colleagues were supported in actions (coaching and mentoring) designed to bring about this 
change
3.  How the effectiveness of these actions was evaluated
Presentation Two (20 minutes) in F2F2
This presentation in F2F2 consists of five slides or three posters which include:
1.  A diagrammatic representation of all colleagues involved in the school development work, 
indicating the roles played (other leaders, supporting colleagues, coaches, mentors, coaching 
participants, mentees, other people, e.g. students and/or parents, who contributed information or data)
2.  A more detailed description of the contribution to the school development work of one key 
colleague. This should include an analysis of the principal’s professional relationship with this 
colleague and how this helped or hindered the development work.
3.  A plan for developing a network of colleagues within and/or between schools that will support and 
sustain developments in practice.
 
2.2 The process of formative assessment of presentations
Large training groups are divided up for the presentations. There should be no more than 15 principals in 
each presentation group.
Principals in the presentation group observe the presentations of their peers and make peer assessments 
that contribute to the learning process for all principals. 
Group trainer, principals and experts (when present) should use pro-formas to help them formatively as-
sess each element in the presentations (Appendices 2 and 3).  

108
3. Assessment of Portfolios
The portfolio is the key means for principals to demonstrate that they meet the three key criteria for suc-
cessful completion of the programme. These criteria state that principals should demonstrate that they:
1.  have gained knowledge and understanding of the key ideas presented in the programme;
2.  are applying these ideas within their own practice;
3.  are reflecting on the implementation of new practices and considering implications for 
further development.
The Standards for Principals (Appendix 1) set out the detail of how these criteria are satisfied. Each sec-
tion of the portfolio should address all three key criteria to some extent. However, one or more key criteria 
are likely to be more clearly met than others by different sections.
3.1 Portfolio content 
The portfolio requirements are set out below. During the programme, trainers give formative advice and 
support to the principals in their training groups on both the content and structure of portfolios. 
Portfolio entry
No. of 
words Supporting documents in appendices
Phase in 
which 
completed
1 
Pre-course data analysis
Appendix 1:
Data analysis of pre-course research  in in-
termediate and final charts and diagrams 
F2F1
Reflective  account  of  the  analysis 
of pre-course school-based research 
data and key findings 
1000
Appendix 2:
Print out of Presentation 1 (5 slides maxi-
mum) with principal’s own notes and for-
mative  feedback  provided  by  colleagues 
and/or trainer 
F2F1
2
A.
School Development Plan 1 
grid, which includes:
•  priorities of school strategic 
development, details of planning 
of implementation and evaluation
•  work on the creation of the 
development group, consisting 
of talented teachers, deputy 
principal or Level 1 teachers
•  a brief commentary to 
explain approach to planning and 
assessment of expected outcomes
Appendix 3:
Completed plan in the form of a chart with 
referencing to Items D and E 
F2F1

109
Implementation plan
F2F1
A.
Evaluation details
F2F1
3 
F. Reflective account of the 
pilot school development 
planning process and analy-
sis of preliminary findings
1000
Appendix 4:
Analysis of data collected using item E.
Appendix 5:
•  Evaluation evidence of school 
development plan referenced to item E
•  Written report on various ways 
of selecting talented teachers
•  Minutes of meeting with mentors, 
deputy principal or Level 1 teachers
F2F2
(data 
collected 
in school-
based 
phase 1)
Appendix 6:
Print out of Presentation  2(5 slides 
maximum) with principal’s own notes 
and formative feedback provided by 
colleagues and/or trainer
4
G. Research findings from TALIS 
survey data questions 11,18 and 24
1000
Appendix 7:
Report on TALIS survey data questions 
11, 18 and 24, with analysis presented 
tables and graphs
F2F2
Reflective account of the analysis 
of the priorities for development 
of school teaching team based on 
outcomes of the F2F seminars 
1000
F2F2
5
I. School Development Plan 2, to 
include strategic priorities, action, 
implementation (coaching and 
mentoring) and evaluation plans.  
With brief commentary to explain 
what was changed in the school 
development plan during its reali-
sation, and why change was made 
Appendix 8:
Completed plan in the form of a chart 
with details of implementation and 
evaluation plans
F2F2

110
6
J. Reflective account of the imple-
mentation and evaluation of School 
Development Plan 2 at the mid-
point after three months, based 
on interim report for trainer’s 
visit, referencing Items K and L 
1000
School-
based 
phase 2
K. Report on trainer’s mid-term 
visit (and/or formative online 
support) including commentary 
on feedback given by trainer
Appendix 9:
Report on trainer’s mid-term visit (and/
or formative online support) during 2
nd
 
school-based phase
School-
based 
phase 2
L.  Supporting  information  for  the 
interim report
Appendix 10:
Mid-term  report  on  monitoring  results, 
which should be supported by the follow-
ing
1.  Report of how teachers’ competence 
was assessed
2.  Account of the allocation of coaches 
to classroom teachers
School-
based 
phase 2
3.  Synthesis of mentor meeting notes 
with the deputy principal
4.  Synthesis of the coaching process and 
records of the plans and meetings and 
targets set
5.  Report of the Lesson Study process
6.  Synthesis of the changes in classroom 
teaching
•  medium terms sequences
•  lesson observations
•  pupil evaluations
•  pupils’ work
7
M. 2
nd
 TALIS survey questions 11, 
18 and 24
Appendix 11:
TALIS survey data
School-
based 
phase 2
N. Synthesis of the evidence from 
the  monitoring  development  pro-
cess
Appendix 12:
To continue the account in Appendix 10
School-
based 
phase 2

111
O. Further evidence collected simi-
lar to item L (Appendix 5)
Appendix 13:
Evidence collected since the three month 
mid-point stage, e.g.
•  Assessments of teacher competence
•  Item M 2
nd
 TALIS survey
•  Further  notes  of  mentor  meetings 
with deputy principal
•  Further  monitoring  records  of 
coaching
School-
based 
phase 2
P. Final report of the development 
process and analysis of preliminary 
findings  including  account  of  the 
monitoring and evaluation process, 
referencing Items M, N and O.
2000
School-
based 
phase 2
Total Word Count 
7,000
3.2 The process of assessment of portfolios
Portfolios are accessible on-line to group trainers and independent trainers for 
assessment purposes.
3.2.1 Formative assessment
Principals submit their portfolio entries №1 to №3 (items A to E), electronically at the end of F2F1. At 
this point group trainers formatively assess the portfolio entry using the criteria in Appendix 4, and pro-
vide formative feedback.
Principals submit their portfolio entries №4 to №5 (items F to I) electronically at the end of F2F2. At this 
point group trainers formatively assess the entries using the criteria in Appendix 4, and provide formative 
feedback. They are supported by their local Expert in making this formative assessment.
The group trainer is also supported by their local Expert at appropriate points during the second School-
based phase.
3.2.2 Summative assessment
The complete portfolio is submitted on-line at the end of the second School-based phase, and comprises 
all of the portfolio entries №1 to №7 (items A to P) .The group trainer makes an initial summative assess-
ment of the portfolio as a whole based on their on-going knowledge of the principal and their development 
of the portfolio and propose an initial grade. An independent trainer then separately assesses the portfolio.
The final portfolio grade is generated using the algorithm in Table One

112
Table 1
Group trainer grade
Independent trainer grade
Final portfolio grade
Good pass
Good pass
Good pass
Good pass
Pass
Pass
Good pass
Borderline
Moderation
Good pass
Fail
Moderation
Pass
Good pass
Good pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Borderline
Moderation
Pass
Fail
Moderation
Borderline
Good pass
Moderation
Borderline
Pass
Pass
Borderline
Borderline
Moderation
Borderline
Fail
Fail
Fail
Good pass
Moderation
Fail
Pass
Moderation
Fail
Borderline
Moderation
Fail
Fail
Fail
Table One: Algorithm for generating final portfolio grade
Portfolios are moderated and given a final grade by an Expert where group trainer and independent trainer 
grades differ by two levels or where the independent trainer has given a borderline grade.
Following moderation, principals whose portfolios have been assessed as borderline or fail are given 
formative feedback by their group trainer and the opportunity to re-submit revised portfolios. Following 
re-submission the independent trainer re-assesses the portfolio. Re-submitted portfolios may not receive 
a ‘good pass’ grade. If the portfolio is assessed as borderline, the principal receives formative feedback 
from the independent trainer and a final chance for re-submission. Portfolios that continue to be assessed 
as fail following first re-submission result in the principal not continuing the programme.

113
4. Formal approval of the pass list, re-submission and appeals
Final grades are used to generate a proposed pass list for submission to the Assessment Board for Prin-
cipal and Teacher Certification (hereafter referred to as the ‘Assessment Board’). The Assessment Board 
reviews and formally approves the pass list. The Board considers the case of principals deemed to have 
failed as well as any cases of malpractice. The Board makes decisions about resubmissions by these prin-
cipals based on evidence presented.
Principals whose portfolios are assessed as ‘Fail’ may be allowed to re-submit the failed elements on one 
occasion. CPM will send such principals recommendations on how to improve the failed elements and 
how to submit their new portfolio by email.
The rationale for the result of Fail is produced in the summative assessment process, and signed off by 
CPM.
The Assessment Board considers the cases of candidates who do not complete the programme due to ill 
health or personal circumstances.
The Assessment  Board  considers  any  cases  where  malpractice,  usually  plagiarism,  is  suspected. The 
Board makes decisions about the possibility for re-submission by principals whose work is found to be 
plagiarised.
Following the Assessment Board a formal pass list is issued as well as decisions about re-submissions for 
those who failed. Centres of Excellence are notified about principals’ certification results by publication 
of a formal pass list.
Appeals
Principals are entitled to appeal against a decision of ‘Fail’. Assessment and moderation judgments made 
by Experts and Principal Expert about the quality of portfolios may not be questioned. Appeals may only 
be made in cases where it is believed that the processes of assessment and moderation set out in this 
document were not followed. In such cases principals should, with the support of their Centre, write to 
the Principal Expert giving details of and evidence for the basis of their appeal. Such an appeal should be 
made within 14 days of the pass list being issued. 
The Principal Expert acknowledges the request for a review immediately after its receipt. The appeal is 
investigated by the Principal Expert who consults with Experts involved in the assessment of the indi-
vidual making the appeal. The Principal Expert communicates in writing whether the appeal is accepted 
or rejected and provides a summary of the reasons for the decision

114
Part B 
Trainer’s Assessment
5 Introduction
Trainers and experts are assessed within the system, structure and procedures that have been designed 
and developed for the levelled programmes. These are explained in full in the CPM Expert Assessment 
and Trainer Assessment Handbooks. Actual process and evidence for assessment are appropriate to the 
context of the Leadership programme. For example, the trainer portfolio has Sections A, B and C, but the 
requirements, e.g. in Section A have been adapted to the specifics of the programme.
The arrangements for principals, trainers and experts are not only aligned with the levelled programmes, 
but also with the programme design and content of the Leadership programme itself. This means that the 
assessment designed and managed by CPM is thoroughly compatible with and supportive of the learning 
programme designed and managed by CoE.
The trainer and Expert assessment model has been designed to be as fair and accountable as possible and 
is based on the assessment principles of validity, reliability, sufficiency and authenticity. 
In the Centres of Excellence (CoE) system, assessment is integral to learning and the trainer and Expert 
assessment has been designed to support effective professional learning and practice. Everyone involved 
should understand and value assessment, whether formative or summative, recognising that it is part of 
learning and should not be at the expense of learning.
This is evident in aspects such as:
•  clearly defined professional standards;
•  key assessment criteria;
•  formative assessment through mentoring;
•  summative assessment of a range of evidence produced by the trainer or Expert drawn from her/his 
professional thinking and practice.
Assessment needs to be as relevant and meaningful as possible. The activities which provide evidence 
for assessment are an integral part of one’s professional development and professional work (and indeed 
can help in carrying out this work, e.g. providing a framework for planning). Assessment also needs to 
be clearly differentiated as either formative or summative in purpose, and based on evidence that is man-
ageable. There needs to be clear coordination between assessment criteria and types of evidence, so that 
the Experts know what to look for, and where and how to look. An important principle of the assessment 
model is that it is criterion-referenced. This means that if a trainer or Expert evidences all the specified 
criteria to the standard required they succeed.
 
To deliver the training programmes for Principals requires a group of highly motivated trainers who un-
derstand and are skilled in the new approaches to teaching and learning. The trainers also have a crucial 
part to play in assessment of the teachers’ learning and practice using assessment criteria derived from the 
Principals’ standards.

115
As well as evaluating a principal’s learning, trainers also evaluate their own learning and practice and 
in doing so compile their own portfolio of evidence to demonstrate the quality of their work as trainers. 
The trainers’ learning and practice is assessed by Experts using the same key assessment criteria as for 
Principals. When they satisfy the criteria, they are certificated as CoE trainers.
Assessment of trainers and Experts is therefore aligned with Leadership assessment, and based on the 
same educational values and principles. The approach to designing and managing trainer assessment is 
itself aligned to the CoE vision, principles of teaching, learning and assessment, and aims to support the 
development of a professional community that shares core values, knowledge, understanding, skills and 
practice.
6 Assessment of Portfolios
6.1 Principles for the assessment of portfolios
Trainers involved with the Leadership programme fulfil their role as appropriate to the principles, de-
sign and practice of the programme. If the trainer is not already certified, s/he must submit a portfolio of 
evidence for summative assessment and certification based on her/his first programme of training. This 
portfolio must comply with the requirements given in this handbook. It is assessed according to the pro-
cedures laid down in the Trainer Assessment Handbook.
6.2 Portfolio content
The trainer professional standards for the Leadership programme are in Appendix 5. For the Leadership 
programme trainers need to demonstrate particular professional values, knowledge, understanding and 
skills in addition to those for Levels 3, 2 and 1 of the Teacher programme. 
When the portfolio evidence of candidate trainers is assessed, there needs to be sufficient evidence of 
meeting the standards for Levels 3, 2 and 1, as well as the particular standards relating to the Leadership 
programme.
Certified trainers who are training for the first time on the Leadership programme need to demonstrate 
through their Section B that they are able to train effectively on this programme.

116
The trainer portfolio contents for initial certification are listed in detail in Appendix 6 and an overview 
is provided here:
Section
Words
A
  
A1
A2
Knowledge and understanding of key ideas
A reflective account with a justification of the necessity for change in school 
practice 
A reflective account of school condition before changes in school practice, in-
cluding evidence collected during School-based phase 
2000
2000
B
B1
B2
B3
B4
Effective practice
Planning: records of planning from 4 sequential sessions
Teaching: records of critical events from the 4 taught sessions
Assessing: records of 2 formative and 2 summative assessments
Evaluating: report that evaluates the 4 taught sessions
250 
250
500
1500
C
Reflection and development
 Reflective account of own learning and how future practice will change
1500
Total
8000
6.3 The process of assessment of portfolios
6.3.1 Initial assessment of portfolios 
To evidence the standards and satisfy the assessment criteria each trainer must produce a portfolio of 
evidence of their learning and practice. This is summatively assessed by her/his local Expert and then by 
an independent Expert. 
The summative assessment of a trainer’s portfolio is first carried out by the local Expert. The organisation 
of the portfolio is the trainer’s responsibility but to help them, and the Expert, easily locate the minimum 
evidence requirements the appropriate assessment rubric should be used. This rubric can be used for both 
summative and formative feedback purposes. Trainer portfolio requirements are in Appendix 6
The Expert should consider the portfolio holistically in order to decide whether there is sufficient evi-
dence that a trainer has addressed the three key criteria. This involved a degree of professional judgement. 
The grades available to the Expert to award are Pass and Fail.
•  For a Pass, the trainer needs to prove to the Expert that s/he has satisfied the key assessment criteria.

117
•  If s/he has significantly fallen short, e.g. weak, irrelevant or missing items of evidence, the Expert 
should award Fail.
6.3.2 Independent assessment of portfolios 
Before the trainer’s portfolio is assessed by the independent Expert, it should be anonymised by withdraw-
ing personal information such as the name of the trainer, course centre, region of practice, or photographs. 
The independent Expert, who is not the trainer’s mentor, assesses the portfolio on its merits, without any 
intervention or other influence from the local Expert. The independent Expert awards a Pass or Fail.
6.3.3 Moderation 
Moderation needs to take place if there is a difference between the assessments made during the initial 
and independent assessments. The portfolio needs then to be assessed again and a final recommendation 
made. In the case of a trainer portfolio, this is done by a team of two independent Experts. If this team 
cannot agree, the decision is referred to the Team Leader, and if it is still not clear what the appropriate 
decision should be, to the Principal Expert.
 
It should be noted that moderation is done objectively against the assessment rubric and criteria and on the 
basis of the evidence in the portfolio. There is not a standard formula involved. For example, if the out-
come of the local Expert assessment is Pass, and of the independent Expert assessment Fail, this means 
moderation is required, but does not predetermine what the outcome of moderation will be. 
 
Moderation is an essential part of the assessment process, to ensure fairness, reliability and other vital 
principles are met. It is also an opportunity for everyone involved in the assessment process to develop 
their understanding of the standards, the application of criteria and the interpretation of evidence. We can 
then feedback what we learn from the experience into improved assessment practice.
6.3.4 Making assessment decisions
 
The core part of the Expert’s role is to examine portfolio evidence and make assessment decisions that 
involve judging a trainer’s portfolio evidence against the three key assessment criteria. This means that 
the Expert must be familiar with and understand the criteria so that s/he can make accurate and as far as 
possible fair judgements.
 
The Expert should approach assessment positively and constructively. S/he is looking at the work of 
professional people and seeking to credit positive achievement rather than looking for opportunities to 
penalise.
 
It is important that Experts appreciate that each portfolio is a personal testimony – the trainer’s narrative 
of critical aspects of her/his professional life, involving report and reflection, supported by practice-based 
evidence. The trainer will have invested much of her/his mind, hand and heart in the evidence submit-
ted. Through reading the portfolio the Expert is going to get to know her/his professional values as well 
as appraise her/his professional knowledge, understanding and skills. The Expert is going to learn about 
how the trainer has developed professionally, learning from the experience of being trained and of train-
ing others. 

118
6.3.5 Checking that the portfolio conforms to requirements
 
It is crucial that the evidence in a trainer’s portfolio is:
•  clearly referenced – is the portfolio organised so that the Expert can easily refer to the appropriate 
piece of evidence?
•  valid – does each piece of evidence relate to the requirement, e.g. are there records of 4 sequential 
training plans in B1?
•  sufficient – have all the pieces of evidence been submitted and are they to the depth and breadth 
required?
•  authentic – is all the evidence submitted by the trainer their own work?
The portfolio structure and requirements have been designed to be as clear and efficient as possible and 
should be followed by the trainer. If the trainer falls short by presenting inappropriate or irrelevant evi-
dence, by producing too little or too much writing, or missing out items of evidence, this has a significant 
impact on the assessment decision. It may indeed mean that the portfolio is failed. 
Sometimes some trainers may feel frustrated by this discipline because they want to present ‘as much evi-
dence as possible’. However what is being required in the portfolio is no more or less than a thoroughly 
professional piece of work, which includes taking the task set seriously and meeting the requirements 
including taking time and trouble to make sure that the portfolio is well organised and presented.
The design of the portfolio is intended to facilitate the fulfilment of the assessment criteria by the trainer. 
The framework sets a ‘level playing field’ for all trainers to do their best. 
 
6.3.6 Reading the portfolio
The following guidelines are based on the assumption that the Expert is familiar with the trainer standards, 
assessment criteria and portfolio requirements, and has them readily available to refer to if necessary.
1. Read the portfolio cover sheet to develop an understanding of the working context and background 
of the trainer. This helps make sense of the evidence in the portfolio – although the judgements the 
Expert makes must be based on the criteria and evidence requirements, i.e. to the standards not the 
person.
 
2. When examining the portfolio the Expert will find it useful first to read it all the way through without 
referring to the assessment criteria. This helps in getting a ‘feel’ for the quality of work submitted, 
documents such as programme and session plans can be scan read rather than read in detail. It also 
helps the Expert to identify any gross rubric infringements.
3. Having read through the portfolio the Expert should now ask her/himself, in very general terms, if 
the work evidences that the trainer:
•  has gained knowledge and understanding of the key ideas presented in the programme;
•  is applying these ideas within their own practice;
•  is  reflecting  on  the  implementation  of  new  practices  and  considering  implications  for  further 
development.

119
4. Having got an initial ‘feel’ for the evidence, the Expert can now check that the evidence requirements 
have been fulfilled in detail using the assessment rubric. This also gives a good indication of how 
easy it is to ‘find’ evidence. For example, are the reflective accounts relevant and focused, or general 
and descriptive? Portfolios should contain evidence that trainers have engaged with ideas from across 
the themes and key ideas of the programme. However, it is more important that trainers demonstrate 
engagement with, and openness to ideas, which will support development of practice than that they 
have gained superficial understanding in relation to each theme or idea.
5. Now the Expert can focus on how the work produced by the trainer has, or has not, evidenced each 
criterion. Writing brief notes using the rubric can help the Expert to clarify her/his thinking and arrive at 
an accurate assessment decision. The Expert’s notes will also be useful if the decision is ‘challenged’.
6.3.7 Making the assessment decision
Well organised portfolios that clearly do (or do not) satisfy the criteria are straightforward to examine. 
However those that are on the borderline between Pass and Fail require the Expert to look carefully for 
those points of evidence that will make a difference and help in making the decision.
There will be occasions when it is useful for the Expert to get a second opinion from her/his Team Leader. 
These situations occur with all Experts, no matter how experienced, so seeking help and guidance is the 
right course of action to take.
 
6.3.8 Providing summative feedback for the trainer
 
Independent Experts should complete summative feedback for the trainer, using the rubric.
•  As the Expert goes through the portfolio they should make some brief notes for themselves of those 
aspects of the portfolio and evidence which are leading them to form their judgement.
•  The Expert should refer to their notes when they have finished the portfolio, as these will help in 
producing their feedback. This feedback helps the trainer, both by responding to the quality of the work 
in the portfolio and also indicating how the trainer can improve the quality of their work in future, on 
the evidence provided.
•  If the result is a ‘Fail’, the Expert needs to indicate how the work can be improved for resubmission 
(if this is to be permitted).
•  Feedback should not be negative, personal or derogatory. The objective of the Expert’s feedback is 
to support trainers and to help them develop, pointing the way towards improving practice as well as 
noting areas of shortcomings. Feedback should always be constructive.
•  It is CPM’s responsibility to send this brief feedback to the individual trainer by email.
 
The CPM process of examining portfolios of evidence for summative assessment purposes, alongside 
training and mentoring relationships, is shown in the following diagram. 

120
6.3.9  Reporting possible malpractice
If the Expert encounters portfolios from different trainers which have common content, beyond what one 
would expect from sharing the same programme, or working in the same institution, s/he will:
•  Report the trainers/portfolio(s) to CPM, according to the instructions given by CPM, highlighting 
the particular sections of the portfolios which are causing concern
•  Provide a brief report (a paragraph) on why plagiarism is suspected.

121
7  Formal approval of the pass list, re-submission and appeals
Following the moderation process, grades attributed to all trainers are used to generate a proposed pass 
list for submission to the Assessment Board for Trainer and Expert Certification (hereafter referred to as 
the ‘Assessment Board’). The Assessment Board reviews and formally approves the pass list. The Board 
considers the cases of trainers and Experts deemed to have failed as well as any cases of malpractice. The 
Board makes decisions about resubmissions by these trainers based on evidence presented.
•  Trainers whose portfolios are assessed as ‘Fail’ may be allowed to re-submit the failed element on 
one occasion. CPM sends by email to such trainers recommendations on how to improve the failed 
element and how to submit their new portfolio. 
•  The rationale for the result of Fail is produced in the summative assessment process, and signed off 
by CPM and Cambridge.
•  The Assessment Board considers any cases where malpractice, usually plagiarism, is suspected. The 
board makes decisions about the possibility for re-submission by trainers whose work is found to be 
plagiarised.
•  Following the Assessment Board a formal pass list is issued as well as decisions about re-submissions 
for those who failed.
•  The Centre of Excellence is notified on trainer’s certification results by publication of a formal pass 
list. 
Appeals
Trainers are entitled to appeal against a decision of ‘Fail’. Assessment and moderation judgments made 
by Experts, Team Leaders and Principal Expert and Cambridge about the quality of portfolios may not be 
questioned. Appeals may only be made in cases where it is believed that the processes of assessment and 
moderation set out in this document were not followed. In such cases trainers should, with the support of 
their Centre, write to the Principal Expert giving details of and evidence for the basis of their appeal. Such 
an appeal should be made within 14 days of the pass list being issued. 
The Principal Expert acknowledges the request for a review immediately after its receipt. The appeal is 
investigated by the Principal Expert who consults with Experts and Team Leaders involved in the assess-
ment of the individual making the appeal. The trainer may be asked to make their representation in person 
to the Principal Expert. The Principal Expert communicates in writing to the Centre whether the appeal is 
accepted or rejected and provides a summary of the reasons for the decision.

122
8 Quality assurance
The trainer assessment system is accredited by Cambridge International Examinations. This external and 
independent quality assurance, building on CPM’s own internal quality assurance procedures, helps the 
assessment system measure up to international standards. Accreditation consists of the collection and 
analysis of data which address the quality of the assessment system in practice. The accreditation is car-
ried out by a small team of experts in assessment from Cambridge.
This integrity and quality is symbolised ultimately by the certification, which celebrates success in achiev-
ing the status of trainer through an assessment process that meets international standards.
9  Recertification
9.1 
Evidence of ongoing development at the same level of programme for trainers
For each cycle of training at the same level, the certified trainer needs at least once a year to produce a 
fresh Section B (Effective Practice) for each level of programme on which they are training. For example, 
if a trainer is training at Leadership and Level 1 during the year, they should submit a new Section B for 
Leadership and a new Section B for Level 1. These will be formatively assessed by her/his local Expert.
Gathering evidence of ongoing development using Section B is not only be manageable but also helpful 
to trainers. The evidence comes from and is based on their working context and practice, and uses normal 
reporting formats as appropriate.
Trainers gain feedback and guidance from local Experts which helps in their next steps in training. It is 
not about repetition – it is about a spiral of professional learning in which with each cycle of experience 
they can revisit their thinking and practice enriched by new ideas, new experiences and growing confi-
dence and can show how they are developing, deepening and strengthening their understanding and skills.
9.2  Portfolio of evidence for recertification for trainers
Recertification is based on the following:
•  An overall review of the trainer’s performance and development during the number of years prior 
to recertification.
•  An overall review of the evidences for Section B of trainer’s performance and development during 
the number of years prior to recertification
•  The evidence for Sections B and C for the most recent programme of training, assessed summatively 
by local and independent Experts. 
Independent assessment for recertification is carried out by a sub-group of the team of Experts. Recom-
mendations for recertification are presented for authorisation to the CPM Assessment Board. Trainers will 
initially be re-certificated every 2 years until the process is proven. Once the process is proven, a more 
manageable period for re-certification on an ongoing basis is likely to be every 5 years, in line with the 
teacher re-certification cycle.

123

жүктеу/скачать 1,78 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: