Method: every published document across the trust's six primary academies, plus the trust's own ten statutory publications, was read in full against rubrics built from the current statutory sources. Every finding quotes the passage it rests on and links to the document it came from. Six schools reviewed at £25 each.
This is a full content review of Brindle Heath Learning Trust: six primary academies and the trust itself, 78 documents and duties read in full, every finding evidenced with a quote and a link. The headline is a good one. The trust is well run and its schools publish nearly everything they are required to publish: 55 of the 72 must-publish items are in place and materially compliant, and only four statutory items have no published document at all. The trust's own publication set is strong, with eight of ten duties met, unqualified accounts filed early, and a scheme of delegation that is current and genuinely used.
The value in this report is not the individual gaps. It is the pattern. Seventeen must-level failures sound like seventeen separate problems for six separate headteachers. They are not. Eleven of the seventeen are two issues repeated six times and five times, and both of those trace back to a document the trust wrote once and asked every school to adopt. Fix the template centrally and the estate moves together. That is the argument for reviewing a trust whole rather than school by school, and it is the argument this report is built to make.
Harebell Primary Academy is the strongest school in the trust and the only one publishing the three swimming outcomes required by the PE and sport premium conditions of grant. Its safeguarding policy and SEND information report are genuine in-trust exemplars: they are school-specific rather than trust boilerplate, they name real people with real contact routes, and they would stand up to scrutiny today. Colliers Row's complaints policy and Fenwick Green's admission arrangements are also worth copying from. The trust does not need to buy in a model for any of these. It already owns one.
Each theme names the schools it affects. Full per-school detail is in the school sections below.
In priority order, with the owner we think is right for each. Note how few sit with headteachers.
A note on tone. Nothing in this report suggests any of the six academies is poorly run, and nothing here is a safeguarding concern in the operational sense. What it describes is a trust whose central template library has drifted a year or two behind the guidance it rests on, and whose publication calendar has slipped in the same place at every school. Both are ordinary and both are cheap to fix. The reason to fix them is that they are the kind of finding that reads very differently in an inspection or a complaint than it does here.
The ten publications the trust itself owes, independent of any school. Eight are met. Verdicts are evidenced with a quote from the published document.
| # | Duty | Verdict | Evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Audited annual report & accounts (publish by 31 January) | OK | “give a true and fair view of the state of the Trust's affairs as at 31 August 2025 and of its incoming resources and application of resources” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/key-information/annual-report-accounts-2025.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 2 | Articles of association | OK | “ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF BRINDLE HEATH LEARNING TRUST, COMPANY NUMBER: 09144207” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/governance/articles-of-association.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 3 | Master funding agreement | OK | “Name of Academy Trust: Brindle Heath Learning Trust. Company Number 09144207. Dated 1 April 2015.” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/governance/master-funding-agreement.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 4 | Governance structure: members, trustees, local governors and attendance | OK | “The Board of Trustees met on six occasions during the year ended 31 August 2025. Attendance is tabulated by trustee below.” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/governance/our-board Link inert in this sample |
| 5 | Register of business and pecuniary interests | OK | “Register of Interests 2025/2026: Members, Trustees, Local Governors and Senior Executive Leaders. Reviewed 3 October 2025.” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/governance/register-of-interests-2025-26.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 6 | Executive pay above £100k, published in bands | GAP | “Note 11(c): the number of employees whose emoluments fell within the following bands: £100,001 to £110,000 - 1 (2024: 1).”No corresponding disclosure located anywhere on the trust website. |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/key-information/financial-information Link inert in this sample |
| 7 | Whistleblowing procedure | OK | “Where a concern cannot be raised internally, staff may contact the Trust's external disclosure line or the independent whistleblowing charity named at section 9.” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/policies/whistleblowing-policy.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 8 | Scheme of delegation | OK | “Approved by the Board: 22 September 2025. Next Review Due: September 2026. Financial limits at Appendix B are reviewed annually.” |
Academy Trust Handbook brindleheathlt.org.uk/governance/scheme-of-delegation-2025.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 9 | Modern slavery statement | N/A | “Total income for the year ended 31 August 2025: £14,812,466 (2024: £14,209,318).”Turnover is below the £36m threshold at which a statement becomes mandatory, so this duty does not currently bite. |
Modern Slavery Act 2015 s.54 brindleheathlt.org.uk/key-information/annual-report-accounts-2025.pdf Link inert in this sample |
| 10 | Gender pay gap report (snapshot 31 March 2025) | GAP | “Average number of persons employed during the year: 268 (2024: 261).”Headcount is above the 250-employee threshold. No published report located for the 31 March 2025 snapshot, and none on the trust website for any year. |
Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk (no entry found) Link inert in this sample |
Brindle Heath's trust-level set is in good order and better than most trusts of this size. Nothing is substantively wrong: the accounts are clean and early, the scheme of delegation is current and specific, the register of interests has been reviewed within the academic year, and the whistleblowing procedure carries a real external escalation route rather than a token one. The two gaps are both administrative and both sit entirely with the central team. The executive pay disclosure exists in the accounts and simply has not been published separately on the website. The gender pay gap report has not been filed at all, and because the trust's headcount crossed 250 the duty now applies; this is the one finding in the trust section we would treat as time-critical, since the reporting deadline for the 31 March 2025 snapshot has passed. Modern slavery is correctly not applicable at £14.8m turnover, though it is worth revisiting if the trust grows.
All six academies against the twelve items a primary academy must publish. This is the whole estate on one screen, which is the view a trust cannot get from six separate school reports. Sorted best first. Score is the number of the twelve must-publish items in place and materially compliant.
| School | Admissions | Appeals | Safeguarding | RSE | Phonics | SEND report | Accessibility | Equality | Pupil premium | PE premium | Complaints | Attendance | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harebell Primary Academy EXEMPLAR | OK | OK | OK | FAIL | OK | OK | OK | CHECK | CHECK | OK | OK | CHECK | 11/12 | View section → |
| Fenwick Green Primary Academy | OK | OK | OK | FAIL | OK | OK | CHECK | CHECK | CHECK | FAIL | OK | CHECK | 10/12 | View section → |
| Thornhaugh Primary Academy | OK | OK | OK | FAIL | OK | OK | CHECK | OK | CHECK | FAIL | OK | CHECK | 10/12 | View section → |
| Ashcombe Vale Primary Academy | OK | OK | CHECK | FAIL | OK | OK | FAIL | CHECK | CHECK | FAIL | OK | CHECK | 9/12 | View section → |
| Kingsmere Primary Academy | OK | OK | CHECK | FAIL | OK | FAIL | CHECK | FAIL | CHECK | FAIL | OK | CHECK | 8/12 | View section → |
| Colliers Row Primary Academy | CHECK | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL | OK | CHECK | CHECK | CHECK | CHECK | FAIL | FAIL | CHECK | 7/12 | View section → |
Read the columns, not the rows. RSE fails in every row and PE premium fails in five of six: those two columns account for eleven of the trust's seventeen must-level failures, and both are template problems. The attendance column is amber the whole way down for the same reason. Only the right-hand end of Colliers Row's row and the gaps at Kingsmere are genuinely school-specific.
Spread is narrow: 7/12 to 11/12 across six schools, which is a tighter band than we usually see and is itself a sign of a trust operating as one organisation rather than six. The corollary is that when Brindle Heath gets something wrong, it gets it wrong everywhere. That is a weakness in this report and an advantage in the fix.
Six academies. Harebell and Colliers Row are shown in full depth: every core statutory document reviewed policy by policy, with element-level verdicts, the quote each verdict rests on, and a supporting publications presence check. The remaining four carry a summary and a key findings table; their full depth is in the trust's compliance workspace. Click a school to expand or collapse its detail.
Harebell Primary Academy is the strongest school in Brindle Heath Learning Trust and the benchmark the other five should be measured against. Eleven of the twelve must-publish items are in place and materially compliant. Its safeguarding policy is school-specific rather than trust boilerplate, cites Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 correctly throughout, names the designated safeguarding lead and both deputies with direct contact details, and covers low-level concerns, filtering and monitoring, and the local authority designated officer route properly. Its SEND information report and PE and sport premium report are the best in the trust, and Harebell is the only academy publishing the three swimming and water-safety outcomes the conditions of grant require. The single must-level failure is the RSE policy's right-to-withdraw wording, which is the trust-wide template issue described in theme 2 rather than anything Harebell did. The three currency failures are the shared attendance template, a pupil premium statement still on 2024/25, and equality objectives approaching the four-year mark. None of this is serious. Harebell's report is short because there is genuinely little to say.
A 62-page, site-specific policy approved September 2025 and reviewed within the last twelve months. It cites Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 correctly and consistently, names the DSL and two deputies with direct contact routes, and covers low-level concerns, filtering and monitoring, and the LADO referral route. The only element not fully evidenced is a dedicated statement on the additional barriers to recognising abuse in children with SEND.
No risk flags raised. This document would stand up to scrutiny today.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The policy cites the current edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education rather than a superseded edition MUST · currency | PRESENT | “This policy is written with reference to Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025, which all staff are required to read in Part One.” |
The 2025 edition is cited consistently. No stray references to earlier editions were found anywhere in the document. |
| The designated safeguarding lead is named, with a direct contact route, and the named person matches the school's live staff page MUST | PRESENT | “The Designated Safeguarding Lead is Mrs A Cowper (Deputy Head), contactable on the school office number extension 204 or by email at the address published on our Safeguarding page.” |
The named DSL and both deputies match the school's live staff page. A direct extension and email route is given rather than a generic office address. |
| The policy recognises additional barriers to recognising abuse or neglect in children with SEND, and commits to close liaison between the DSL and SENCO MUST | PARTIAL | “The DSL will liaise with the SENCO where a concern relates to a pupil with an education, health and care plan.” |
DSL and SENCO liaison is committed to, but the policy carries no dedicated statement on the additional barriers to recognising abuse in children with SEND. A short paragraph would close this. |
| The policy states that all staff receive safeguarding training at induction and regular updates at least annually, and that the DSL and deputies undergo in-depth training refreshed at least every two years MUST | PRESENT | “All staff receive safeguarding training at induction and a whole-staff update at least annually. The DSL and deputies complete formal DSL training refreshed at least every two years.” |
Stated plainly and in the terms the guidance expects, rather than buried in an online-safety subsection as is common elsewhere in the trust. |
| The policy sets out the process for managing low-level concerns about adults working in the school SHOULD | PRESENT | “Low-level concerns that do not meet the harm threshold are recorded centrally by the Headteacher and reviewed termly for patterns.” |
Includes the pattern-review step, which is the part most policies omit. |
Harebell's RSE policy is well written on curriculum content, sequencing and parental consultation, and it is the one place where an otherwise excellent school carries a must-level failure. The right-to-withdraw section states a general parental right but does not state the head teacher's duty to automatically grant a request, and does not carve out the science curriculum. This is the trust template wording, reproduced faithfully; the same paragraph appears at Fenwick Green and Thornhaugh.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| For a primary school teaching sex education beyond the science curriculum, the policy states that the head teacher must automatically grant a parental withdrawal request, except for content taught as part of the science curriculum MUST | ABSENT | “Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from those aspects of sex education which are not part of the statutory curriculum.” |
States a right to request. Does not state the automatic-grant duty, and the science carve-out is implied by "not part of the statutory curriculum" rather than stated. This is the trust template paragraph. |
| The school proactively engaged and consulted parents when developing and reviewing the policy MUST | PRESENT | “A parent consultation meeting was held on 14 May 2025 and the draft was circulated to all families with a two-week response window; nine responses were received and are summarised at Appendix C.” |
Genuinely evidenced with a date, a mechanism and a response count. This is better than most schools manage and is worth other Brindle Heath schools copying. |
| The policy explains how RSE content will be made accessible to all pupils, including those with SEND MUST | PRESENT | “Lessons are adapted with visual supports, pre-teaching of vocabulary and small-group delivery where an EHCP or SEND support plan indicates it.” |
Specific adjustments named rather than a bibliography reference to the SEND Code of Practice. |
| The policy confirms that a pupil withdrawn from sex education will receive purposeful alternative education during the withdrawal period SHOULD | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No statement located. Follows from the same gap in the trust template. |
| The policy sets out how parents can view the curriculum materials used in RSE on request SHOULD | PRESENT | “All teaching materials are available for parents to view at the school office on request, and no external provider agreement restricts this.” |
Includes the no-contractual-restriction confirmation, which is the part usually missing. |
On the DfE template, amounts stated, strands that reconcile exactly to the total. The only failure is currency: the statement covers 2024/25 and the 2025/26 refresh was due by 31st December 2025. This is the trust-wide pattern in theme 3, not a Harebell problem, and the quality of what is published suggests the 2025/26 work is already done.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The published statement covers the current academic year MUST · currency | ABSENT | “Pupil Premium Strategy Statement: academic year 2024 to 2025. This statement details our school's use of pupil premium funding for the 2024 to 2025 academic year.” |
The 2025/26 statement was due by 31st December 2025 and is not published. All six Brindle Heath academies are in the same position. |
| The statement states the funding amounts received and how they are allocated MUST | PRESENT | “Pupil premium funding allocation this academic year: £74,360. Recovery premium: £7,105. Total budget: £81,465.” |
The three spending strands sum to £81,465 exactly. Arithmetic checks out, which is not universal. |
| The statement reviews the impact of the previous year's expenditure SHOULD | PRESENT | “Review of outcomes in the previous academic year: the attainment gap in reading narrowed by six percentage points against the 2023-24 baseline.” |
Impact stated against a named baseline rather than in general terms. |
The best PE premium report in the trust and the only one that completes the swimming and water-safety section. Amounts stated, impact evidenced, sustainability addressed, and all three Year 6 swimming outcomes published as percentages. This is the document the other five schools should copy.
No risk flags raised. This is the in-trust exemplar for PE premium reporting.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The report publishes the percentage of Year 6 pupils meeting each of the three swimming and water-safety outcomes MUST | PRESENT | “Swim competently over 25 metres: 82%. Use a range of strokes effectively: 76%. Perform safe self-rescue: 71%.” |
All three outcomes reported as percentages, as the conditions of grant require. Harebell is the only school in the trust doing this. |
| The report states the amount of premium received and how it has been or will be spent MUST | PRESENT | “Total funding allocated for 2025/26: £17,700. Total planned spend: £17,700, itemised across five key indicators below.” |
Allocation and spend reconcile, itemised by key indicator. |
| The report describes the impact on pupils' participation and attainment, and how improvements will be sustained SHOULD | PRESENT | “Sustainability: two members of staff completed Level 5 PE specialist training in 2025 and will lead in-house CPD from September, reducing reliance on external coaching.” |
Sustainability is addressed concretely rather than asserted. |
| Supporting publication | Found | Link | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curriculum information by subject and year group | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/curriculum | Broken down by year group and subject with content summaries. Link inert in this sample. |
| Behaviour policy | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/policies/behaviour-policy.pdf | School-specific, approved March 2026, includes mobile-phone rules and a malicious-allegations process. Link inert in this sample. |
| Ethos and values statement | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/about/our-ethos | Published on the About pages. Link inert in this sample. |
| School contact details and named contact | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/contact | Address, telephone, email and a named member of staff for enquiries. Link inert in this sample. |
| Most recent Ofsted report or link | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/about/ofsted | Links to the published report on the Ofsted site. Link inert in this sample. |
| Uniform costs and suppliers | CHECK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/parents/uniform | Uniform list published but supplier and cost information is not itemised, which the 2021 statutory guidance on the cost of school uniforms expects. Link inert in this sample. |
| Privacy notice | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/privacy | Separate pupil and workforce notices, both dated 2025. Link inert in this sample. |
| Freedom of information publication scheme | OK | harebellprimary.brindleheathlt.org.uk/key-information/foi | Model publication scheme adopted, with a named contact for requests. Link inert in this sample. |
Fenwick Green publishes all twelve must-publish items, which not every school in the trust does, and its admission arrangements are the clearest in the trust: oversubscription criteria set out in plain order, with the consultation and determination dates stated. Its two must-level failures are both trust-wide patterns rather than local ones: the RSE right-to-withdraw wording and the missing PE premium swimming outcomes. The five currency failures are where the attention is needed. The accessibility plan was approved in March 2022 and is now beyond the three-year point the Equality Act 2010 Schedule 10 expects; the equality objectives date from 2021 and are past four years; the pupil premium statement and attendance policy carry the trust-wide issues. Safeguarding is sound, cites the 2025 edition and names a DSL who matches the staff page. This is a well-run school with a filing problem rather than a compliance problem.
| Document | Verdict | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSE / RSHE Policy | FAIL MUST | Right-to-withdraw section states a parental right to request but not the head teacher's duty to automatically grant, and omits the science-curriculum carve-out. Identical wording to Harebell and Thornhaugh: this is the trust template. “Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from those aspects of sex education which are not part of the statutory curriculum.” |
RSE Regulations 2019 |
| PE & Sport Premium Report | FAIL MUST | Amounts and impact are reported well, but the three Year 6 swimming and water-safety outcomes are absent entirely; there is no swimming section in the document. “Total funding for 2025/26: £17,930, allocated across the five key indicators as set out below.” |
PE & sport premium conditions of grant |
| Accessibility Plan | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Published and substantive, but approved March 2022 and beyond the three-year refresh point. The plan's own review field names a date that has lapsed. “Accessibility Plan 2022-2025. Approved by the Local Governing Body: 8 March 2022. Review: March 2025.” |
Equality Act 2010 Sch 10 |
| Equality Objectives | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Objectives published but dated September 2021, past the four-year point at which the specific duties expect a refresh. The objectives themselves remain reasonable and mostly need re-dating rather than rewriting. “Equality Objectives 2021-2025, agreed by the Local Governing Body on 21 September 2021.” |
Equality Act 2010 specific duties |
| Pupil Premium Strategy Statement | CHECK MUST · currency | On the DfE template with amounts stated and strands reconciling, but covers 2024/25. The 2025/26 refresh was due by 31st December 2025. “Pupil Premium Strategy Statement: academic year 2024 to 2025. Total budget: £69,215.” |
Funding agreement / DfE conditions |
| Attendance Policy | CHECK SHOULD · currency | The trust model (BH-CW-011), published verbatim, built on the 2022 advice rather than the August 2024 statutory guidance. Central fix. “This policy has regard to the Department for Education guidance 'Working together to improve school attendance' (2022).” |
Working together to improve school attendance (Aug 2024) |
| Admission Arrangements | OK | The strongest in the trust. Oversubscription criteria are set out in unambiguous priority order, with consultation and determination dates stated and the published admission number given. Worth using as the trust model. “Determined by the Board of Trustees on 26 February 2026 following consultation from 4 November 2025 to 17 December 2025. Published Admission Number: 30.” |
School Admissions Code |
| Safeguarding & Child Protection Policy | OK | Cites Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 throughout, names the DSL and deputy with direct contact routes, and the named people match the live staff page. No flags raised. “Written with reference to Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025. Designated Safeguarding Lead: Mr J Whitcombe, contactable directly on the number below.” |
KCSIE 2025 |
Thornhaugh sits alongside Fenwick Green at 10/12 and its profile is almost identical: the two must-level failures are the trust-wide RSE and PE premium patterns, and nothing local is wrong. Its equality objectives are the only current set in the trust, refreshed in November 2025 with measurable targets, and its SEND information report carries both the statutory complaints route and SENDIASS contact details, which most of the trust omits. The accessibility plan is the one local currency issue: it was approved in 2021 and is the oldest in the trust. Thornhaugh's pupil premium statement carries an internal review date of December 2025 that has itself lapsed, which is worth noting because it means the school's own tracking flagged this and it still did not get published. That is a process point for the trust rather than a criticism of the school.
| Document | Verdict | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSE / RSHE Policy | FAIL MUST | The trust template wording again: a right to request withdrawal, without the automatic-grant duty or the science carve-out. Third of three schools carrying this exact paragraph. “Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from those aspects of sex education which are not part of the statutory curriculum.” |
RSE Regulations 2019 |
| PE & Sport Premium Report | FAIL MUST | Spend and impact reported with amounts, but no swimming and water-safety outcomes anywhere in the document. “PE and Sport Premium 2025/26: £17,400 received. Key indicator spend is set out in the table below.” |
PE & sport premium conditions of grant |
| Accessibility Plan | CHECK SHOULD · currency | The oldest accessibility plan in the trust, approved June 2021 and now four years past approval against a three-year expectation. Content is still broadly sound; it needs re-dating and a refreshed action list. “Accessibility Plan. Approved: 15 June 2021. To be reviewed every three years.” |
Equality Act 2010 Sch 10 |
| Pupil Premium Strategy Statement | CHECK MUST · currency | Covers 2024/25 and carries an internal review date of December 2025 that has passed without republication. The school's own tracking caught this; the publication step did not follow. “Statement covers: 2024 to 2025. Date for next internal review of this strategy: December 2025.” |
Funding agreement / DfE conditions |
| Attendance Policy | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Trust model BH-CW-011 verbatim, on the 2022 advice. Central fix. “This policy has regard to the Department for Education guidance 'Working together to improve school attendance' (2022).” |
Working together to improve school attendance (Aug 2024) |
| Equality Objectives | OK | The only current set in the trust, refreshed November 2025 with three measurable objectives and named owners. This is the model for the other five schools. “Equality Objectives 2025-2029, agreed 11 November 2025. Objective 1 is measured against the termly attendance gap for pupils with SEND.” |
Equality Act 2010 specific duties |
| SEND Information Report | OK | Carries the statutory complaints route and SENDIASS contact details, both of which are missing elsewhere in the trust, and links correctly to the local authority local offer. Reviewed within the last twelve months. “If you are unhappy with the support your child receives, our complaints procedure is at section 12; you can also contact SENDIASS independently for free, impartial advice.” |
Children and Families Act 2014 s.69 |
Ashcombe Vale carries the two trust-wide failures plus one of its own: no accessibility plan is published anywhere on the school site. We searched the policies page, the SEND pages and the key information section and could not locate one; the school may well hold a plan internally, in which case this is a publication task rather than a drafting one. Its RSE policy is the weaker of the two variants in the trust, using discretionary wording that a request "will be considered" rather than the trust's standard paragraph. Safeguarding is amber rather than red: the policy is substantive and names a DSL who matches the staff page, but it still cites the 2024 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education. Everything else at Ashcombe Vale is in reasonable order and the complaints policy is properly academy-standard.
| Document | Verdict | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility Plan | FAIL MUST | No accessibility plan located anywhere on the school website. Checked the policies page, the SEND pages and key information. This is the only school in the trust without one published, and the school may hold it internally. no document located | Equality Act 2010 Sch 10 |
| RSE / RSHE Policy | FAIL MUST | Uses discretionary wording rather than the trust template. Saying a request "will be considered" is materially weaker than the automatic-grant duty the regulations place on the head teacher, and is the weaker of the two variants in use across the trust. “Any request from a parent to withdraw their child from sex education will be considered by the Headteacher on a case-by-case basis.” |
RSE Regulations 2019 |
| PE & Sport Premium Report | FAIL MUST | The report includes a swimming heading with no figures beneath it, which suggests an incomplete template rather than missing data. The three outcome percentages are not published. “Swimming and water safety: [to be completed following summer term assessment]” |
PE & sport premium conditions of grant |
| Safeguarding & Child Protection Policy | CHECK MUST · currency | Substantive and school-specific, with a DSL named who matches the live staff page and a direct contact route given. The issue is currency: the policy cites the 2024 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education throughout, with no reference to the 2025 edition. “This policy reflects the requirements of Keeping Children Safe in Education (September 2024), which all staff must read.” |
KCSIE 2025 |
| Equality Objectives | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Published but dated February 2022, past the four-year point. Objectives are stated without measures, so a refresh is an opportunity rather than just an administrative re-dating. “Equality Objectives, agreed by the Local Governing Body, February 2022.” |
Equality Act 2010 specific duties |
| Pupil Premium Strategy Statement | CHECK MUST · currency | Covers 2024/25, amounts stated and reconciling. The 2025/26 refresh was due 31st December 2025. “Pupil Premium Strategy Statement 2024-25. Total budget: £58,940.” |
Funding agreement / DfE conditions |
| Attendance Policy | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Trust model BH-CW-011 verbatim, on the 2022 advice. Central fix. “This policy has regard to the Department for Education guidance 'Working together to improve school attendance' (2022).” |
Working together to improve school attendance (Aug 2024) |
| Complaints Policy | OK | Properly academy-standard: three stages, with a panel at stage three that guarantees an independent member not connected to the management or running of the school. Review date set and current. “The Stage 3 panel will comprise at least three people not directly involved in the matter, including at least one member independent of the management and running of the school.” |
Independent School Standards |
Kingsmere has the most items with no published document: neither a SEND information report nor a set of equality objectives could be located anywhere on the school site. The SEND report is the more pressing of the two, both because it is the document parents of pupils with SEND actually look for and because Children and Families Act 2014 s.69 requires it annually. Its other two failures are the trust-wide RSE and PE premium patterns. Safeguarding needs attention but is not alarming: the policy is thorough and recently approved, but it cites the 2024 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education and names a designated safeguarding lead who no longer appears on the school's own staff page. We flag that as a matching discrepancy rather than an assertion that no DSL is in post; the school will know who the current DSL is, and the fix is to say so in the policy. Kingsmere's complaints policy and admission arrangements are both in good order.
| Document | Verdict | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEND Information Report | FAIL MUST | No SEND information report located on the school website. The SEND page carries a contact name for the SENCO and a link to the local authority local offer, but not the report itself, which must be published and reviewed annually. no document located | Children and Families Act 2014 s.69 |
| Equality Objectives | FAIL MUST | No equality objectives located. The school publishes an equality statement of intent, which is a different document and does not satisfy the specific duty to publish objectives. no document located | Equality Act 2010 specific duties |
| RSE / RSHE Policy | FAIL MUST | Discretionary withdrawal wording, matching Ashcombe Vale rather than the trust template. Weaker than the regulations require. “Requests to withdraw a child from sex education should be made in writing and will be considered by the Headteacher.” |
RSE Regulations 2019 |
| PE & Sport Premium Report | FAIL MUST | Swimming heading present with no figures beneath it, matching Ashcombe Vale. Amounts and key indicator spend are otherwise reported properly. “Swimming and water safety data for the current Year 6 cohort:” |
PE & sport premium conditions of grant |
| Safeguarding & Child Protection Policy | CHECK MUST · currency | Thorough and approved October 2025, but cites the 2024 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education, and the named DSL does not appear on the school's live staff page. Both are correctable in a single edit. “This policy is based on Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024. The Designated Safeguarding Lead is Mrs H Trethowan.” |
KCSIE 2025 |
| Pupil Premium Strategy Statement | CHECK MUST · currency | Covers 2024/25 and carries an internal review date of November 2025 that has lapsed. Amounts stated and reconciling. “Academic year covered: 2024 to 2025. Next review of this statement: November 2025.” |
Funding agreement / DfE conditions |
| Accessibility Plan | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Published, approved January 2023, now beyond the three-year point but the most recent of the trust's three stale plans. “Accessibility Plan 2023-2026. Approved: 17 January 2023.” |
Equality Act 2010 Sch 10 |
| Attendance Policy | CHECK SHOULD · currency | Trust model BH-CW-011 verbatim, on the 2022 advice. Central fix. “This policy has regard to the Department for Education guidance 'Working together to improve school attendance' (2022).” |
Working together to improve school attendance (Aug 2024) |
Colliers Row is the school in this trust that most needs support, and it is worth being precise about why. Two of its five must-level failures are the trust-wide RSE and PE premium patterns that every school shares. The other three are local: the safeguarding policy has a genuine gap in DSL identification, the complaints policy is not built to the academy standard, and no admission appeals timetable is published. Set against that, Colliers Row's complaints policy content is otherwise thoughtfully written, its phonics information is the clearest in the trust, and its pupil premium statement reconciles to the penny. This is not a school that has stopped caring about compliance. It is a school whose document set has drifted while attention went elsewhere, and every finding below is fixable within a term with central support. We would put the trust's effort here first, not because Colliers Row is failing, but because it is the one school where the gaps are its own rather than inherited.
A substantive 48-page policy, approved November 2024 and covering the ground properly on referral thresholds, contextual safeguarding and record-keeping. The problem is identification and currency. It cites the 2024 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education, names a designated safeguarding lead who does not appear on the school's own staff page, and gives no direct contact route to the DSL at all, routing all concerns through the general office number. For a parent or a member of the public trying to raise a concern, that last point is the one that bites.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The designated safeguarding lead is named, with a direct contact route, and the named person matches the school's live staff page MUST | ABSENT | “The Designated Safeguarding Lead is Mr P Ardley. Any concern should be raised without delay via the school office.” |
Two issues in one sentence. The named individual does not appear on the school's live staff page, and the only contact route offered is the general office. Both are correctable in one edit. |
| The policy cites the current edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education rather than a superseded edition MUST · currency | ABSENT | “All staff will read and understand Part One of Keeping Children Safe in Education (September 2024).” |
The 2024 edition is cited consistently throughout with no reference to the 2025 edition. The consistency is at least an advantage: there is one edition to update, not a mix. |
| The policy recognises additional barriers to recognising abuse or neglect in children with SEND, and commits to close liaison between the DSL and SENCO MUST | PARTIAL | “Staff should be aware that some pupils may find it harder to communicate a concern.” |
The barrier is gestured at in general terms but the policy carries no SEND-specific statement and no committed DSL and SENCO liaison route. |
| The policy sets out the referral route to the local authority designated officer for allegations against staff MUST | PRESENT | “Allegations against a member of staff will be referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer within one working day, and the Trust's Chief Executive informed.” |
Clear, time-bound, and correctly escalates to the trust as well as the LADO. |
| The policy states that all staff receive safeguarding training at induction and regular updates at least annually, and that the DSL and deputies undergo in-depth training refreshed at least every two years MUST | PARTIAL | “Safeguarding training forms part of induction for all new staff and is refreshed through the annual training cycle.” |
The all-staff annual commitment is there. The separate DSL two-year in-depth refresh is not stated anywhere in the document. |
| The policy sets out the process for managing low-level concerns about adults working in the school SHOULD | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No low-level concerns process located. Harebell's policy has a good model to lift. |
Colliers Row is the only school in the trust whose RSE policy makes no reference to parental withdrawal at all. Not weak wording, not discretionary wording: no wording. The policy is otherwise a reasonable curriculum document, setting out content by year group and naming the scheme in use, but on the one point the RSE Regulations 2019 are most specific about for primary schools it is silent. It also predates the trust template, which explains why it does not carry the same paragraph as Harebell, Fenwick Green and Thornhaugh.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| For a primary school teaching sex education beyond the science curriculum, the policy states that the head teacher must automatically grant a parental withdrawal request, except for content taught as part of the science curriculum MUST | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No reference to withdrawal appears anywhere in the document. The word does not occur in the extracted text. |
| The school proactively engaged and consulted parents when developing and reviewing the policy MUST | ABSENT | “Approved by the Local Governing Body, 9 March 2023. Reviewed annually by the PSHE lead.” |
The only approval recorded is by the governing body. No parent consultation mechanism, date or outcome is described. Harebell's Appendix C is a good model. |
| The policy explains how RSE content will be made accessible to all pupils, including those with SEND MUST | PARTIAL | “Teaching is differentiated to meet the needs of all learners in line with our SEND policy.” |
A general differentiation statement with a cross-reference. No RSE-specific adjustments are described. |
| The policy sets out the RSE curriculum content and how it is delivered MUST | PRESENT | “Content is set out by year group at Appendix A, delivered through weekly timetabled lessons using our chosen scheme of work.” |
This part of the policy is done properly and is the reason the document scores 4 of 8 rather than lower. |
| The policy sets out how parents can view the curriculum materials used in RSE on request SHOULD | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No statement located. |
A locally written procedure rather than the trust model, and it is genuinely well intentioned: the tone is warm, the timescales are realistic and the informal resolution stage is better written than most. The problem is structural. The panel at the final stage does not guarantee an independent member unconnected with the management and running of the school, which is what the Independent School Standards require of an academy. Adopting the trust model, or Ashcombe Vale's, would close this in a week.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The final-stage panel includes at least one member independent of the management and running of the school MUST | ABSENT | “A panel of three governors, none of whom has had prior involvement in the complaint, will hear the complaint at the final stage.” |
Prior non-involvement is not the same as independence from the management and running of the school. Ashcombe Vale's wording is the model to copy. |
| The procedure sets out clear stages with timescales for each MUST | PRESENT | “Stage 1: informal, response within 5 school days. Stage 2: formal written complaint to the Headteacher, response within 15 school days.” |
Clear, realistic and better expressed than the trust model. |
| The procedure explains how a complaint about the head teacher is handled MUST | PRESENT | “Where the complaint concerns the Headteacher, it should be addressed to the Chair of the Local Governing Body at the school address.” |
Correctly routed and correctly addressed. |
| The procedure explains the escalation route beyond the school once the school's process is exhausted SHOULD | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No route beyond the school's own final stage is described. The trust model covers this. |
| The procedure states a review date and it has not lapsed SHOULD · currency | ABSENT | “Next review due: September 2024” |
The document's own review date lapsed almost two years ago. |
The School Admissions Appeals Code requires the appeals timetable to be published, setting out the deadline for lodging an appeal and the timescale within which appeals will be heard. Colliers Row publishes neither. The admission arrangements themselves are published and carry a determination date, so the underlying process exists; what is missing is the parent-facing timetable that tells a family what to do and by when. Fenwick Green's published timetable is the model.
Amounts are stated and the spend is itemised, but there is no swimming and water-safety section at all, and the impact narrative is thinner than elsewhere in the trust. The trust-wide pattern in theme 4, in its plainest form.
| Element / check | Verdict | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| The report publishes the percentage of Year 6 pupils meeting each of the three swimming and water-safety outcomes MUST | ABSENT | no quote recorded | No swimming section, no heading, no figures. Harebell publishes all three and is the format to copy. |
| The report states the amount of premium received and how it has been or will be spent MUST | PRESENT | “Funding received 2025/26: £17,550. Spend to date: £12,400, with the balance committed to summer term provision.” |
Amounts stated and reconciling, with committed spend distinguished from actual. |
| The report describes the impact on pupils' participation and attainment, and how improvements will be sustained SHOULD | PARTIAL | “Participation in extra-curricular sport has increased this year.” |
Impact asserted without figures, and sustainability is not addressed. |
The clearest phonics information in the trust and worth saying so. It names the validated scheme in use, explains how the school supports pupils who fall behind, and does it in language a parent can actually read. Included here so the section is not read as a list of problems.
No risk flags raised. This is the in-trust exemplar for phonics information.
| Supporting publication | Found | Link | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curriculum information by subject and year group | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/curriculum | Published by year group with subject overviews. Link inert in this sample. |
| Behaviour policy | CHECK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/policies/behaviour-policy.pdf | Published, approved 2022. No mobile-phone rules and no malicious-allegations process. Harebell's is the model. Link inert in this sample. |
| Ethos and values statement | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/about | Published on the About page. Link inert in this sample. |
| School contact details and named contact | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/contact | Full contact details with a named office manager for enquiries. Link inert in this sample. |
| Most recent Ofsted report or link | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/about/ofsted | Report published directly on the site. Link inert in this sample. |
| Uniform costs and suppliers | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/parents/uniform | Itemised with costs and two supplier options, in line with the 2021 statutory guidance on the cost of school uniforms. Better than Harebell's. Link inert in this sample. |
| Charging and remissions policy | OK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/policies/charging-remissions.pdf | Published, approved 2025. Link inert in this sample. |
| Privacy notice | CHECK | colliersrow.brindleheathlt.org.uk/privacy | A single combined notice dated 2021. Most schools now publish separate pupil and workforce notices. Link inert in this sample. |
| Freedom of information publication scheme | NOT FOUND | not located | No publication scheme located. Academies are public authorities for FOIA purposes. Presence check only; not counted in the score above. |
This is the section a single-school report cannot write. Seventeen must-level failures across six schools looks like seventeen jobs. It is not. Eleven of them are two documents, and both of those documents live at the centre. Below is the same seventeen findings sorted by who should actually do the work, and it is the sorting rather than the finding that saves the trust money.
Six central actions close 11 of 17 must-level failures and 12 of 29 currency failures. The remaining work is spread across four schools, averages two items each, and none of it requires anything to be commissioned or bought. That is the difference between a whole-trust review and six school reviews: not that the findings differ, but that the pattern is visible, and the pattern is where the leverage is.
One further observation for the board. Three of the four items with no published document at all involve documents the school almost certainly holds internally: an accessibility plan, a SEND information report, a set of equality objectives. Nothing in this review suggests the underlying work is not happening at Ashcombe Vale or Kingsmere. What is missing is publication. That distinction matters, because it determines whether the trust is dealing with a capacity problem or a process problem, and everything we can see points at the second one.
A report is a photograph. Compliance is a film. Every finding in this document has a date attached to it, and the reason the trust is reading about a 2022 attendance template and a 2021 accessibility plan is that nothing was watching the clock. The workspace that comes with a whole-trust review is the part that stops this report being needed again in two years.
| Capability | What it means for Brindle Heath |
|---|---|
| Tracks every fix across the trust | All 17 must-level failures, 29 currency failures and 2 trust duties from this report land in the workspace as tracked items with an owner, a due date and a status. Mr Okafor sees all six schools on one board; each headteacher sees only their own. When the RSE template is corrected centrally, the six school-level items close together rather than being chased six times. |
| Stores and versions every policy | Each of the 68 documents reviewed is held with its approval date, its review date and its edition history. When BH-CW-011 is rebuilt on the August 2024 guidance, the workspace records that the 2023 version was retired, at every school, on a date. That is the record that answers an inspector's question, and it is exactly the record the trust does not have today. |
| Renewal reminders | Accessibility plans on a three-year clock, equality objectives on four, pupil premium statements on the 31st December cycle, safeguarding on the annual KCSIE edition. The workspace holds those clocks and gives notice before the date, to the named owner. Thornhaugh's pupil premium statement flagged its own review date and still lapsed; a reminder that goes to a person rather than sits inside a PDF is the difference. |
| New-requirement alerts | When a statutory source changes, the workspace identifies which of the trust's documents rest on the superseded version and tells you which schools are affected. Had this been running in August 2024, the attendance template would have been flagged at all six schools that month rather than surfacing in this report two years later. |
| Re-scan and re-score | The estate is re-read on a rolling basis across the twelve months, so the league table above is a live number rather than a July 2026 snapshot. The board sees the score move as fixes land, which is also the evidence that the fixes landed. |
The automated scan checks whether a document exists at a URL. It is genuinely useful and it is free. But it cannot tell you that Colliers Row's RSE policy never mentions withdrawal, that Kingsmere's named DSL is not on the staff page, that Ashcombe Vale's swimming heading has nothing beneath it, or that the same paragraph in three policies traces to one trust template. Every one of those findings required reading the document. That is what the £25 per school buys, and it is why the interesting half of this report is the half a presence check cannot reach.
Four things, in order, and none of them needs a decision from the board today.
A closing word to Mr Okafor and Mrs Sandiland. Brindle Heath Learning Trust comes out of this review well. Six schools, 72 must-publish items, 55 in place and materially compliant, unqualified accounts filed early, a scheme of delegation that is current and specific, and a trust template library that is used consistently enough that its faults show up as a clean pattern rather than as chaos. That last point is a compliment, even though it is also the source of eleven of the seventeen findings. A trust where every school gets the same thing wrong is a trust that is actually operating as one organisation. It is a great deal easier to fix than the alternative.