Are you leading your inspection strategy, or is it leading you?

Safeguarding: Not yet evidenced

The approved evidence base for Northbridge Learning Academy does not include a safeguarding assurance summary covering policy currency, training dates, reporting routes, safer recruitment oversight or leadership knowledge of risk. Until a leadership-approved safeguarding assurance statement is provided, no judgement of met or not met can be made; this is an evidence gap, not a finding about the school's actual safeguarding arrangements.

SECTION 1: INCLUSION

Headline figures
Insufficient approved evidence Aggregate group outcome figures (disadvantaged, SEND, prior attainment bands)
Insufficient approved evidence Disadvantaged gap to all-pupils at KS4
Insufficient approved evidence SEND support and EHCP aggregate outcomes
Insufficient approved evidence Provision map coverage and review cycle data
IDSR signal Disadvantaged and SEND groups flagged as requiring continued monitoring (IDSR aggregate extract)

1. Key findings

The evidence base for inclusion at Northbridge Learning Academy is thin. The IDSR aggregate extract signals that disadvantaged and SEND groups require continued monitoring, and the SEND and inclusion aggregate summary confirms that these groups are a leadership priority. Beyond those signals, the approved evidence does not supply the disaggregated outcome figures, provision impact data or barrier-identification records that would allow a confident positive judgement against any of the four toolkit evaluation statements. Because the all-criteria basis requires every statement to be met, and because the evidence is insufficient to confirm that any statement is fully met, the grade is capped at Needs Attention. The two contradictions in the approved summaries, where positive-impact language sits alongside risk and decline language, are addressed explicitly below rather than averaged away.

• Identifying, assessing and meeting needs, and reducing barriers: The SEND and inclusion aggregate summary (PDF import) indicates that leaders have identified disadvantaged and SEND pupils as groups requiring continued monitoring. The summary uses positive-impact language in places, but the IDSR extract simultaneously flags these groups as watch points. These two signals are contradictory: the evidence does not resolve whether identification and assessment processes are producing measurable reductions in barriers, or whether barriers remain broadly stable. The specific aggregate data that would demonstrate the cycle from identification through to barrier reduction, such as a provision map with review outcomes, is absent from the approved evidence base.

This desktop report continues for another 6 sections. The full version is what a school receives.

Post-inspection action plan: Northbridge Learning Academy

Executive summary for governors

This action plan has been prepared in response to the inspection of Northbridge Learning Academy. It addresses the full range of areas for development identified across the Ofsted report-card framework, drawing on the school's approved evidence base including IDSR aggregate signals, attendance and behaviour summaries, curriculum and inclusion documentation, governance and QA records, and stakeholder survey data.

The evidence base indicates that outcomes are broadly stable, that disadvantaged and SEND cohorts require continued monitoring, and that attendance is improving but persistent absence remains a concern. The action plan below is structured to address these priorities systematically, with ownership distributed across the senior and middle leadership team rather than concentrated at headteacher level.

A note on the inspection judgements provided. The inspection judgements, named strengths and named areas for development fields were not populated in the submission to this tool. The action plan has therefore been constructed directly from the Ofsted report-card framework areas listed in the cross-reference, triangulated against the school's approved evidence signals. Where inspection wording is confirmed, leaders should cross-reference each action below against the precise language in the published report and adjust owner names, timelines and targets to reflect actual school data.

The plan is organised by priority band. Urgent actions require completion before any re-monitoring visit. High-priority actions must be substantially progressed within the first term. Medium and low-priority actions are time-bound across the academic year and the following eighteen months respectively.

Governors are asked to note that this plan is a living document. It should be reviewed at each full governing body meeting and at every SLT review cycle, with progress against milestones reported formally in writing. Where an action is not on track, the named owner is expected to escalate immediately rather than wait for the scheduled review date.

The IDSR signals confirm that persistent absence and the disadvantaged gap at KS4 and KS5 are the two data points most likely to attract inspector scrutiny at any re-monitoring visit. These are therefore treated as urgent priorities, alongside safeguarding culture assurance and the consistency of curriculum implementation across subjects and year groups.

This action plan continues for another 1 blocks. The full version is what a school receives.

Formal representations letter: Northbridge Learning Academy

Northbridge Learning Academy
[School Address Line 1]
[School Address Line 2]
[Town/City]
[Postcode]

Telephone: [School telephone number]
Email: [Head Teacher email address]

His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills
Ofsted
Piccadilly Gate
Store Street
Manchester
M1 2WD

Date: [Insert date]

Re: Formal representations under Section 13(7) of the Education Act 2005

School: Northbridge Learning Academy
URN: [Insert URN]
Inspection dates: [Insert inspection dates]
Draft report reference: [Insert draft report reference number]
Registered address: As above
Phase: Secondary (with sixth form)

Dear Chief Inspector,

Northbridge Learning Academy submits this letter as formal representations under Section 13(7) of the Education Act 2005 and in accordance with Ofsted's published representations procedure. The purpose of this letter is to identify two specific factual inaccuracies in the draft inspection report as issued to the school on [insert date of draft report], and to request that the report be amended prior to publication to reflect the documentary evidence available to, and shared with, the inspection team.

The school does not dispute Ofsted's right to form professional judgements on the basis of evidence gathered during the inspection. The representations set out below are confined to matters of verifiable fact where the draft report's wording does not accurately reflect the position at the school as evidenced by documents provided to the lead inspector.

Representation 1: The claim that leaders have not established a consistent process for reviewing attendance across pupil groups

The draft report states: "Leaders have not established a consistent process for reviewing attendance across pupil groups."

This claim is factually inaccurate. The attendance and punctuality review document, uploaded to the inspection evidence portal on 12 July, records an established weekly review cycle that covers attendance across pupil groups. Within that cycle, actions are assigned to named pastoral leads and reviewed against four-week outcome measures, providing a structured mechanism for monitoring whether actions are having effect. This is a documented, recurring process and not an informal or ad hoc arrangement.

The school acknowledges, and does not seek to conceal, that the evidence of sustained impact across all pupil groups remains thin in places. That is a legitimate and proportionate finding for the report to contain. What is not accurate is the assertion that no consistent review process exists, when the documentation shows otherwise.

The school requests that the relevant passage be amended to reflect that a consistent weekly review cycle is established, with actions assigned to pastoral leads and reviewed against four-week measures, and that the finding be reframed to focus on the evidence of sustained effect across groups, which is what the inspection evidence supports as the area requiring further development.

Representation 2: The claim that governors receive no reporting on the impact of attendance work

The draft report states: "Governors receive no reporting on the impact of attendance work."

This representations letter continues for another 18 blocks. The full version is what a school receives.