Model Lyceum (practice school) — Cycle 2
Draft · Continuation cycle — every indicator starts from its prior level; confirm or adjust each one.
This cycle can involve several people — school leadership, teachers, the educational technologist, an external validation expert, meta-mentors — working across days or weeks. Each section is saved separately when you press its own save button; there is no need to finish everything at once or in any particular order, and you can return to an earlier step at any time.
Reconcile the two assessments
The administration and the team each rate every parameter. When both are done, reconcile the differences and record the agreed level — the assessment cannot be confirmed until every parameter has one.
Overall progress
16/19 indicators rated
The school’s digital profile
A1 — Participatory strategic planning
Well-defined goals and action plans based on a critical assessment of the school’s current state, aligned with the national digital-transformation strategy.
Level 3 — Process redesign
Detailed strategic and action plan with input from many teachers, students and parents; ≥50% of staff aware and regularly contributing; plan drives equipment, budget and hiring decisions.
Evidence
- Minutes no. 4 / 12.09.2026 — Development strategy 2026–2030, approved by the pedagogical council
A2 — Data-informed decision making
Strategic and operational decisions are based on systematic data collection and analysis.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
Leadership promotes data-based decisions for differentiation, personalised support, resource and incident management.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
A3 — Learning organisation and knowledge sharing
Collecting and sharing best practice; analysing experience and incidents to revise plans and routines.
Level 3 — Process redesign
Leadership takes the lead, organises monthly experience exchanges tied to the development plan; documented and periodically summarised.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
A4 — Monitoring and evaluation
Use of metrics, data-collection tools and the action plan to regularly analyse and monitor digital-transformation progress.
Level 1 — Accidental
Data collected only as much/rarely as required by the state; analysed only for formal reporting, with no resulting decisions or plan changes.
No evidence recorded for this parameter.
A5 — Leadership support and motivation
Leadership’s active support and motivation of staff implementing digital innovation.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
Leadership encourages teachers, supports pioneers with praise and public recognition.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
B1 — Integrated STEAM / interdisciplinary project-based learning
Pedagogical change toward creative, collaborative, cross-disciplinary, real-world-problem-based learning.
Level 3 — Process redesign
Interdisciplinary, project-based teaching becomes a regular practice for a substantial share of staff.
Evidence
- Head teacher’s file — Lesson observation records from the autumn term
B2 — Changing teacher and student roles
Shift toward a collegial culture: co-planning, cross-discipline integration, peer lesson observation and feedback, team teaching; students contributing to planning and materials.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
A growing minority engage in collaborative teaching activities.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
B3 — Learner-centred assessment
Formative, diagnostic and summative assessment centred on the learner; personalised feedback; self- and peer-assessment.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
Sometimes promoted or coordinated by leadership.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
B4 — Structural changes in curriculum, scheduling, and learning spaces
Systemic, permanent changes to curriculum, scheduling, and learning-space design inspired by new pedagogies (blended learning, project days, outdoor learning, repurposed spaces).
Level 3 — Process redesign
Leadership promotes, monitors and organises sharing of experience.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
B5 — Pedagogical use of digital resources and AI tools in teaching and learning
Whether digital tools and AI applications are used to genuinely enhance pedagogy — not merely accessed (Domain D) and not merely a competence the teacher holds (Domain C), but deployed in lesson design, delivery and learner engagement.
Level 1 — Accidental
Digital tools used occasionally, mainly for presentation or projection; no AI tools used in teaching; no coordination of practice.
No evidence recorded for this parameter.
C1 — Teachers’ digital competence
Teachers’ ability to meaningfully use digital technology to support innovative pedagogy, aligned with DigCompEdu.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
A baseline of certified teachers is established.
Evidence
- Training register — Attendance list from the February in-house training
C2 — Learners’ digital competence
Students’ digital competence, aligned with DigComp 3.0: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, content creation, safety, problem-solving.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
Some subjects beyond Educația digitală begin addressing it, without cross-subject coordination.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
C3 — Structured professional development, mentoring and coaching capacity
Whether the school has internal mechanisms — not just access to external training — that sustain digital-competence growth among staff, including DigiProf-B/-C uptake and internal “teacher teaches teacher” practice.
not rated yet
C4 — AI literacy and emerging-technology competence
Staff and student understanding of AI systems, their capabilities and limitations, ethical use, and emerging technologies beyond current curricular requirements.
not rated yet
D1 — Network and digital security
Network quality and digital security, anchored to Order 675/2024 Annex 5’s mandatory standards as the binding floor.
Level 1 — Accidental
Meets the minimum floor, but coverage and usage are poorly coordinated: subnets may exist on paper, but management is ad hoc and no one tracks incidents.
No evidence recorded for this parameter.
D2 — Digital devices
Access to modern digital devices for staff and students, anchored to Order 675/2024 Annexes 1, 2 and 4 as the binding floor.
Level 1 — Accidental
Meets the quota and spec minimums; devices are present but used mainly as projection tools, or sit idle outside a few classrooms; no borrowing rules or usage tracking.
No evidence recorded for this parameter.
D3 — IT management
Planning, periodic resource and security analysis, and strategic development of the school’s IT function.
Level 2 — Initial coordination
School has an IT manager (internal or outsourced) responsible for planning; the development plan includes an IT section used for the annual IT budget.
Evidence
- Recorded in the team’s working notes
D4 — User support
Quality of IT and educational-technology user support, including staff satisfaction.
Level 0 — Below floor
Staff or students experiencing IT problems have no recourse of any kind — not even informal self-help.
No evidence recorded for this parameter.
D5 — Software, digital services, and information systems
Systematic use and development of educational and administrative software, digital services and information systems; movement toward interoperable, cloud-based solutions.
not rated yet
Legend
- Not started
- In progress
- Needs attention (evidence missing)
- Complete