A programme review asks: is the programme achieving what it promises, for whom, and what should change? It draws on evidence from several sources and ends in prioritised, owned recommendations.
Review areas
Based on the areas used by language-school quality schemes (Eaquals, British Council Accreditation UK, CEA, NEAS, ALTO and similar):
| Area | Questions | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Aims and design | Are outcomes clear, level-referenced and matched to learner needs? | Syllabus, can-do statements, needs analysis |
| Curriculum and materials | Is the syllabus coherent, sequenced, recycled? Are materials appropriate and current? | Scope and sequence, materials audit |
| Teaching and learning | Is teaching effective and learner-centred? | Observation records, learner work, learner feedback |
| Assessment | Placement accurate? Progress tracked? Exit tests valid, reliable, aligned? | Placement data, test analysis, moderation records |
| Learner outcomes | Do learners progress, pass, stay, achieve goals? | Retention, level gain, pass rates, destinations |
| Learner support and welfare | Orientation, tutorials, counselling, safeguarding, accessibility | Policies, records, interviews |
| Staffing and development | Qualifications, observation, CPD, workload | Staff records, CPD log, observation cycle |
| Resources and environment | Rooms, technology, self-access, online platform | Audit, learner and staff feedback |
| Management and quality | Planning, data use, complaints, continuous improvement | Policies, minutes, action plans |
| Marketing and information | Is published information accurate (levels, hours, outcomes)? | Website, brochures vs reality |
Evidence sources
| Source | Method | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Learner data | program_metrics.py on enrolment, status, levels, results, attendance | Small groups; missing data; who withdrew and why |
| Learner voice | Surveys, focus groups, exit interviews | Survey fatigue; only satisfied learners respond |
| Teacher voice | Interviews, staff survey | Power dynamics; anonymity |
| Observation | Sample of lessons against agreed criteria | One-off lessons; observer bias |
| Documents | Syllabus, plans, tests, policies | Documents that do not match practice |
| Stakeholders | Employers, sponsors, partner institutions | Their goals may differ from learners' |
| Benchmarks | Other programmes, previous years, targets | Different intakes and definitions |
Triangulate: a finding needs at least two sources.
Key indicators
| Indicator | Definition | Typical concern level |
|---|---|---|
| Retention | Completed / (completed + withdrawn) | Under 75-80% |
| Pass rate | Completers meeting exit criteria | Under 75% or far above (test too easy?) |
| Level gain | Median CEFR half-steps per course | Zero or below the hours-based expectation |
| Attendance | Mean % of lessons attended | Under 80% |
| Satisfaction | Mean rating 1-5 | Under 3.5, or a drop from last year |
| Placement accuracy | Learners moved level in first two weeks | Over 10% |
| Teacher observation | % lessons meeting criteria | Trends, not single scores |
Compare against expected gains from guided hours (see the cefr-aligned-syllabus-builder skill): a 60-hour course rarely moves a learner a full CEFR level at B1+.
From findings to recommendations
| Finding (evidence) | Cause (judgement) | Recommendation | Priority | Owner | By |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evening B1 retention 62%; exit interviews cite timing | Class ends 21:30; working adults | Pilot 2x2h instead of 3x1.5h; online option | High | Programme director | Term 2 |
Priorities: high = learner outcomes or safety at risk; medium = quality or efficiency; low = good to have. Every recommendation is specific, owned, dated and measurable.
Ethics and data
- Anonymise learner data; report groups under 10 with caution or not at all.
- Share the draft with staff before publication; correct factual errors, keep judgements.
- Separate review of the programme from appraisal of individual teachers.
academic-english-eap-course-planner
Plan English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses: pre-sessional, in-sessional, foundation, IELTS preparation and discipline-specific EAP, with syllabus strands (academic reading, lecture listening and note-taking, essay and report writing, paraphrase, summary and synthesis, referencing and plagiarism, seminars and presentations, academic vocabulary, critical thinking), a 10-week pre-sessional outline, exit assessment, IELTS-CEFR alignment and academic style (formality, hedging, cohesion, reporting verbs). Estimates study hours and weeks to close an IELTS gap from overall or per-skill scores (IELTS rounding, minimum per skill, priority skills, feasibility before a deadline), and checks learner texts for contractions, informal words with academic alternatives, unhedged claims, 'you', And/But/So starts, rhetorical questions and missing citations.
actfl-proficiency-curriculum-mapper
Map world language curricula to the ACTFL framework: proficiency levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, Distinguished with sublevels), functions, contexts, text types and accuracy, proficiency vs performance, the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, presentational), the 5 Cs World-Readiness Standards, backward-designed thematic units with Integrated Performance Assessments, typical programme targets and FSI time estimates. Looks up approximate ACTFL-CEFR-ILR equivalences with what each level can do, and checks a unit map for missing modes, rehearsed skits mislabelled as interpersonal, translation or word lists as interpretive tasks, and units without an integrated performance assessment.
adult-literacy-esl-lesson-builder
Build lessons for adult ESL learners who are developing literacy (LESLLA learners: pre-literate, non-literate, semi-literate, literate in a non-Roman script): learner profiles and sensitive initial assessment, principles (oral language first, known to new, systematic phonics with adult-relevant text, repetition, classroom skills, respect for experience), a lesson routine (oral warm-up, review, new grapheme, blending, segmenting, decodable text, writing, functional literacy, Language Experience Approach), a phonics sequence for adults, sight words, functional literacy targets (forms, signs, medicine labels) and portfolio assessment. Checks whether a reading text is decodable with the letter-sound patterns and sight words taught so far, catching untaught digraphs, listing non-decodable words with the untaught part, and suggesting the most useful next patterns.
authentic-material-lesson-adapter
Turn authentic material (news articles, podcasts, videos, songs, menus, timetables, adverts, social media posts, forms, infographics) into language lessons by grading the task rather than the text. Selects texts for interest, relevance, exploitability, coverage, cultural load and rights; finds the 4-6 words to pre-teach, words to gloss on the page and words learners can ignore, plus names and cultural references to explain, with reading time by level; and builds a lesson shape (lead-in, pre-teach, gist or scanning, graded detail task, language focus on chunks and register, response) with task ideas per material type and level from A1 to C1. Covers copyright, fair dealing and fair use, Creative Commons and attribution.
can-do-statement-writer
Write and review can-do statements for language courses, units, lessons and learner self-assessment, CEFR or NCSSFL-ACTFL style: action (observable verb) + text or situation + level-specific conditions, learner ('I can') and descriptor ('Can') versions, progressions of one activity from A1 to C1, and coverage of reception, production, interaction and mediation. Includes a verb bank by mode and level and condition and text-type banks. Lints statements for teacher-centred phrasing, knowledge instead of use (learn, know, understand the passive), missing context, two skills in one statement, vague quality words, grammar items as outcomes, overlong statements and missing modes in a set.
cefr-aligned-syllabus-builder
Build language course syllabuses aligned to the CEFR (A1-C2, plus levels, Companion Volume 2020): entry and exit levels, guided learning hours and course length (with an L1-distance adjustment), syllabus type (topic, functional-notional, task-based, skills-based, multi-strand), unit-by-unit can-do outcomes, grammar from a core inventory by level, vocabulary, functions, pronunciation, balance of reception, production, interaction and mediation, recycling and assessment points. Checks a syllabus for units without can-do statements, core grammar for the level not covered, items above the course level, skills missing from most units and units with no vocabulary or functions.