Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Subject and technical command
30% weight
Check command of curriculum frameworks and inspection criteria: national curriculum sequencing, Ofsted EIF quality of education judgements, SEND code of practice, and phonics or maths mastery programmes they have advised on.
Evidence to listen for
Knows the material or discipline well beyond the level they teach
Holds the qualifications, licences, or certifications required, and they are current
Can answer an unexpected question honestly rather than bluffing
Keeps learning in their own field
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Knowledge barely ahead of the learners; bluffs when asked something unexpected.
2
Needs Improvement
Adequate on the syllabus only; gaps show under questioning.
3
Satisfactory
Solid command of the material for the level taught.
4
Very Good
Depth well beyond the taught level; comfortable being asked anything.
5
Excellent
Cites specific frameworks and key stages, explains how curriculum intent maps to assessment, and corrects common misreadings of inspection criteria.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Probe how they deliver advice on the ground: INSET days, coaching cycles with middle leaders, lesson observation feedback, work scrutiny, and how they leave capacity behind after the contract ends.
Evidence to listen for
Describes how they teach a specific thing, not their philosophy of teaching
Adapts when the first explanation does not land
Checks understanding rather than assuming it
Differentiates for varying ability within one group
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Only philosophy, no method; one explanation and no plan B.
2
Needs Improvement
Delivers content but cannot adapt when learners are lost.
3
Satisfactory
Sound instruction; differentiation is limited.
4
Very Good
Multiple routes to the same concept, with real checks for understanding.
5
Excellent
Describes a concrete CPD sequence or coaching cycle, names the artefacts left with the school, and shows staff practice changed afterwards.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Assess handling of adults and safeguarding in schools: chairing tense governor or MAT meetings, DSL escalation routes, KCSIE duties, DBS status, and managing resistant departmental staff.
Evidence to listen for
Has a concrete approach to a disruptive individual and a whole group losing focus
Knows the safeguarding or duty-of-care obligations for this age group and setting
Escalates a concern through the right channel
Sets boundaries without becoming punitive
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No behaviour strategy; unaware of safeguarding obligations.
2
Needs Improvement
Struggles with disruption; vague on duty of care.
3
Satisfactory
Manages a normal group; less confident with serious disruption.
4
Very Good
Confident group management with clear safeguarding awareness.
5
Excellent
Names KCSIE obligations and reporting routes, and gives an example of holding a difficult school conversation without losing the client relationship.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Look for evidence of measured impact: progress 8 or attainment shifts, FFT Aspire or ASP data use, baseline to endpoint reporting, and how findings were written up for trustees or local authorities.
Evidence to listen for
Measures whether learners actually improved, not just attended
Gives feedback that changes what someone does next
Communicates with parents, clients, or managers about difficult progress honestly
Records progress usefully
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No sense of whether anyone improved.
2
Needs Improvement
Tracks attendance rather than progress; avoids hard conversations.
3
Satisfactory
Monitors progress; feedback is general.
4
Very Good
Measures progress concretely and handles difficult conversations well.
5
Excellent
Quotes before and after data for a named school, explains the attribution limits honestly, and shares report structures leaders actually acted on.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
