Writing evaluatively: from self-evaluation to sharper improvement

michaelgreeneducat
Apr 29
5 min read

This blog is the first of two. This one focuses on self-evaluation: how leaders think, write and communicate evaluatively. The second will build from this, exploring how strong evaluation translates into high-quality priority improvement planning.

Over the last few years, I've had the privilege of working with a wide range of school, college and university leaders on strengthening self-evaluation and improvement planning. A consistent theme has emerged: leaders are often doing the right work, but often struggle to articulate it with sufficient clarity, precision and evaluative depth.

Too often, self-evaluation is descriptive, capturing activity rather than judging its effectiveness. The consequence is predictable: if the diagnosis lacks precision, improvement planning lacks traction. In response to this, I've developed two practical approaches that help leaders sharpen their evaluative thinking:

The Funnelling Approach: structuring evaluation from judgement through to evidence and impact
The ‘Janus’ evaluative lens: interpreting data across time, not in isolation

Used together, I strongly believe they support leaders to move beyond description towards precise, evidence-led evaluation that drives improvement.

The core principle: evaluation, not description

Strong self-evaluation is fundamentally about making a judgement. It's not enough to describe what is happening. Leaders must be explicit about how well it is working and why. The reader should not have to infer your view. A simple question helps here: Am I making a judgement, or simply describing activity?

Where evaluation is strong, it tends to be:

confident without being overstated
rooted in evidence rather than assertion
focused on impact, not process

The Funnelling Approach: structuring evaluative thinking

The Funnelling Approach reflects how effective leaders think. It begins with a clear position and then drills down into the detail that substantiates it. You start with a position statement (sometimes referred to as a landing statement because it immediately ‘lands’ the key point.). This captures the evaluative judgement succinctly. From there, you “funnel” downwards:

Elaborate: what sits behind the judgement?
Evidence: how do you know?
Impact: what difference is this making?
Actions: what next?

The process is cumulative. Each layer strengthens the original judgement.

However, this isn't a rigid formula. The discipline lies not in following a template mechanically, but in ensuring that the evaluation:

makes a clear judgement
is substantiated with appropriate evidence
articulates impact convincingly
leads logically to next steps

What distinguishes strong evaluative writing isn't whether all elements are explicitly visible, but whether the thinking is coherent, secure and purposeful.

Using evidence with precision

A common weakness in self-evaluation is either the absence of evidence or an over-reliance on a single source. Strong evaluation draws on connected evidence, including:

first-hand evidence (lesson visits, work scrutiny, observations etc.)
quantitative data (outcomes, progress, participation)
stakeholder perspectives, particularly from pupils

However, evidence alone is insufficient. The key is interpretation. Data should not sit passively in tables. It must be actively explained. Leaders need to articulate not just what the data shows, but what it means.

The ‘Janus’ evaluative lens: making sense of data over time

When working with leaders on data, I often refer to Janus, the Roman god who looks both backwards and forwards. It's a helpful metaphor for evaluation. Too often, data is presented as a static snapshot. In reality, it should be understood dynamically across time. The ‘Janus’ lens (as I call it) encourages us to consider:

The past: What trends are evident over time?
The present: What is happening now?
The future: What does this mean for our priorities?

This ensures evaluation isn't reactive, but grounded in trajectory and direction of travel. A single data point can mislead. A trend, interpreted carefully, provides a far more secure basis for judgement.

Impact: the critical discipline

If there's one area where evaluation most often falls short, it's in articulating impact. Leaders frequently describe what's been done and sometimes how well it's been implemented, but stop short of explaining the difference it's made. Strong evaluation always answers: What difference is this making to pupils?

This might include:

improved outcomes or rates of progress
changes in pupils’ engagement or independence
improved quality and consistency of work
stronger attendance or participation
narrowing gaps etc.

Without this, evaluation remains incomplete. Activity isn't the same as impact.

From evaluation to improvement

High-quality self-evaluation isn't an end in itself. It's a means to sharper improvement planning. Evaluation typically lead directly to clear, precise next steps. These should be tightly aligned to what the evaluation has revealed, not generic or aspirational. In practice, self-evaluation and priority improvement planning operate as a continuous cycle:

evaluate with precision
identify what needs to change
act with clarity
evaluate again

Over time, this creates a disciplined, iterative approach to improvement rather than a static annual process.

Presentation matters: clarity and emphasis

Even the strongest evaluation can lose impact if it's difficult to navigate. I always suggest that leaders use formatting deliberately:

bold to foreground key judgements and critical data points
bullets to present multiple pieces of evidence succinctly

However, overuse fragments the narrative. The aim is balance: a clear evaluative thread, supported by selective emphasis.

What does this look like in practice?

Often, when working with leaders, I am asked: What does this actually look like in practice?

The examples below are intended to respond to that question. They are illustrations, not exemplars. They demonstrate how the Funnelling Approach and the Janus lens can be applied in a concise, evaluative form, but should always be adapted to context. In the examples below, I am evaluating attainment:

Outcomes at the end of Key Stage 2 are consistently strong and improving, with attainment in reading, writing and mathematics combined securely above national. In 2025, 74% of pupils achieved the expected standard, compared with approximately 61% nationally, continuing an upward trend from 68% in 2023 and 71% in 2024. This reflects improved curriculum coherence and greater consistency in teaching, particularly in reading fluency, writing and mathematical reasoning. Work scrutiny and internal assessment show pupils applying their knowledge with increasing independence across subjects. As a result, pupils leave the school well prepared for Key Stage 3. Leaders are now focused on increasing the proportion of pupils achieving greater depth, particularly in writing.
Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils are a significant strength, improving over time with gaps closing year-on-year. In 2025, 68% of disadvantaged pupils achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics combined. While this remains below the 76% achieved by non-disadvantaged pupils in the school, the gap has reduced from 18 percentage points in 2023 to 8 points in 2025. Disadvantaged pupils also perform well above the national figure for disadvantaged pupils (approximately 47%). Pupil voice and work scrutiny indicate strong engagement and increasing independence, with pupils accessing the full curriculum successfully. This sustained improvement led to recognition by the Secretary of State in 2025. Leaders are now focused on further diminishing the in-school gap, particularly by strengthening challenge for disadvantaged pupils capable of greater depth.

In the examples above, you'll see that a next step has been included. This is deliberate, but it is not always necessary. Use your professional judgement. Where included, next steps should align closely with your priority improvement plan, a theme I will explore in the next blog.

Strong self-evaluation isn't about producing a document. It is about developing a disciplined way of thinking. When leaders evaluate with precision, interpret evidence over time and focus relentlessly on impact, improvement planning becomes sharper, more targeted and more effective.

In the next blog, I'll explore how this evaluative thinking translates into high-quality priority improvement planning, including how to identify root causes, define priorities and sustain momentum over time.

You may find it helpful to download the accompanying summary document as a quick reference.

If you'd like any support with self-evaluations and self-evaluative writing, please contact me.