Personal development: using evidence to make a better decision

What Ofsted leaves for leaders to decide

Ofsted’s current inspection FAQ states that schools and colleges do not need to follow DfE’s non-statutory enrichment framework to achieve the expected standard or above. Inspectors prescribe neither a set number of enrichment hours nor a particular programme design. First published in December 2025, the FAQ is maintained as a current resource.^[1]

Leaders therefore need to judge the educational value of their offer. What is it intended to do? Which students can use it, and what can the school learn from their experience? Choice is most useful when the purpose and review are clear. Counting activities alone cannot answer those questions.

Our earlier analysis of belonging and pupil voice, published on 2 November as a review of September evidence, asked what changes when a pupil speaks. Apply the same test to a personal development programme: what will leaders do differently after listening to students or examining their learning?

Decide what to learn before collecting evidence

A school planning work on confidence might want to understand whether students can recognise pressure in a fictional situation and explain a considered response. A school focusing on communication might examine how students identify a boundary or explain where to seek support. These are examples of focused learning questions for local use, not validated measures of wellbeing.

The choice matters because different evidence answers different questions. A completion record shows that a student finished an activity. A response to a knowledge check may illuminate understanding at that point. Feedback can show how the learning was experienced. A later conversation may suggest whether a student can explain or apply an idea in a different situation.

Each source of evidence has a place, but its interpretation needs care. A positive comment can identify a useful part of the teaching. It cannot establish that a programme caused lasting changes in attendance, mental health or attainment. Leaders should explain both what they learned and what remains uncertain.

What the programme’s learning tasks can show

Will Phillips’s programme outline includes reflection, knowledge checks and personal action tasks, alongside completion records and certificates. His emphasis on young people understanding themselves and making considered choices gives schools specific learning to examine.^[2]

The question becomes specific: after teaching, can students explain something about the pressure in a situation, the options available or a respectful way to respond? A school can review the actual tasks with that aim in mind. It can also ask what students found unclear and where more practice would help.

The enhanced Reset licence describes surveys and a report. Schools considering those should ask about the questions, response base, comparison and interpretation. The supplied launch materials contain no independent outcome evaluation. Will’s founder account explains purpose and experience; any claim about effects needs its own evidence.

A proportionate review of learning

Consider a fictional School Connection example. A sixth form wants students to think more carefully about peer pressure when choosing their next step. Staff use a neutral scenario and ask students to identify the pressure, weigh options and explain a possible response. They revisit a comparable scenario after teaching and consider how the reasoning has developed.

The method needs consistency and modest conclusions. Staff should agree what they are looking for, avoid prompting a preferred personal choice and consider who did not participate. A stronger answer to the second scenario may reflect learning, familiarity with the question or several other influences. It can inform the next teaching step without being described as a controlled evaluation.

Feedback can then examine access and experience. Was the language clear? Was there enough time? Could students ask for help? Were different ways of participating available? Private journals and safeguarding disclosures belong in their appropriate arrangements, rather than being collected to demonstrate programme impact.

The current state-funded school toolkit sets the inspection context for maintained schools and academies, including post-16 provision. Colleges and independent schools have their own arrangements. The review suggested here is a School Connection planning method, not an additional inspection evidence requirement.^[3]

Read the findings alongside the wider school picture

Our 16 October feature on severe absence and belonging explains why national statistics and qualitative accounts answer different questions. The same discipline is needed locally. A change in attendance during a four-session programme may have many explanations, including other support, timetable changes or circumstances outside school.

It is reasonable to look across learning, participation and student experience when deciding what to do next. The explanation should distinguish what the school observed from what it can attribute to a particular activity. That gives governors, staff and a programme provider a more trustworthy basis for discussion.

An honest review may support continuing, adapting the pace, improving access or choosing a different approach. Record the decision and the evidence behind it. That gives staff, governors and a programme provider a clear basis for the next discussion.