Progress Schools Tees Valley · Lundy Loop
Impact Framework
One page · what "working" looks like, and where the proof already lives · 2026/27
Impact questions, mapped to existing measures
| Question | Existing measure (no new data) | Healthy signal |
|---|---|---|
| Are pupils responding to feedback? | R-gate chains in books; EFL/digital capture where it already exists (code E) | Rising proportion of NS+ with a visible own-colour response; R never present without Voice |
| Is learning moving? | Itslearning judgements: emerging → developing → secure → exceeding; STAR assessment repeats | Movement along the Itslearning scale between data drops; STAR repeats trending up against each pupil's own baseline |
| Is provision changing because of pupil Voice? | IEDP and APDR review cycles; EHCP annual reviews; PfA targets | Targets and provision entries that cite what the pupil did or said, not only what adults observed |
| Is workload falling, not relocating? | Termly staff pulse (see monitoring crib); QA coaching notes | Staff report less written marking and more received responses; no parallel evidence folders appearing |
| Do pupils understand the loop? | Pupil voice during QA visits; passport language | Pupils can name their last next step and what they did about it, in their own words |
The core claim, falsifiably stated: if the loop is working, the same pupil closes the same class of gap in fewer attempts over a term — visible in their book, their Itslearning judgement and their STAR repeat, without any measure invented for the purpose.
What we will not do: count Rs, set loop quotas, or build a tracker. The moment the measure becomes the target, R becomes decoration and the framework has failed by its own definition.
Space → Voice → Audience → InfluenceDraft practice resource · Matt Roper