InspectReady Your school, your story

For primary and secondary schools and trusts

When the call comes, will you be Ready?

Inspection preparation platform and expert support for schools and trusts.

InspectReady reviews your IDSR and supporting document summaries to prepare reports, evidence checklists and rehearsal materials. An experienced school leader works alongside you to interpret the findings, agree priorities and prepare your team. We call them your Ally.

A head teacher talking with colleagues in school

The InspectReady strategy

Start while there is time to act. Carry that preparation into inspection and the work that follows.

  1. 01

    Understand your evidence

    Read what your evidence says. Review the findings with your Ally and identify what needs attention.

  2. 02

    Improve and prepare

    Give the work a clear order. Gather missing evidence and help your leaders explain their decisions.

  3. 03

    Lead your inspection

    Use the preparation when it counts. Keep evidence to hand and work through questions with your Ally.

  4. 04

    Respond to the report

    Check the written account. Examine the draft, prepare corrections and explain the published outcome.

01Understand your evidence

Where are the gaps in your school’s evidence?

Start with your IDSR and the school documents you already have. We’ll guide you through what to share.

InspectReady reviews your evidence across all nine evaluation areas. It draws on our educational experience and a specialist database we’ve built for this work, containing our full reference library, policies, inspection guidance and regulations to explain what your evidence supports and where the gaps are.

Your Ally works through the findings with you and helps you decide what needs attention first.

These examples use a secondary school. For a primary school, the preparation follows its own evidence, including early reading, attendance and the wider curriculum.

InspectReady01 / Pre-inspection report
Illustrative extract

Pre-inspection report

Northbridge Learning Academy

Report card Illustrative grades

Grades assess how far the supplied evidence supports the framework standards. Missing evidence can limit a grade. This is a document-based assessment, not an observation of school provision or a prediction of an inspection outcome. These sample grades are fictional.

  • Exceptional0 evaluation areas
  • Strong standard1 evaluation area
  • Expected standard4 evaluation areas
  • Needs attention2 evaluation areas
  • Urgent improvement0 evaluation areas

Each circle represents one graded area.

Safeguarding
Further evidence needed
Inclusion
Needs attention
Curriculum and Teaching
Expected standard
Achievement
Needs attention
Attendance and Behaviour
Expected standard
Personal Development and Well-being
Strong standard
Leadership and Governance
Expected standard
Early Years
Not applicable
Post-16 Provision
Expected standard

Safeguarding needs further evidence. Early Years does not apply.

Curriculum and teachingWritten findings
Expected standardCurriculum and teaching

The curriculum plans set out what pupils should learn and when. The school’s monitoring summary reports that the work sampled across three terms generally follows these plans and builds on earlier learning.

Sources Illustrative curriculum plans · Curriculum monitoring summary

To refineAssessment follow-up

The monitoring summary records some variation in how assessment informs subsequent teaching. A follow-up review is needed to show whether the identified gaps have been addressed.

Illustrative screen · sample report extract.View the sample pre-inspection report ↗
Example 1 of 4. A fictional school, with illustrative findings.
02Improve and prepare

Before the call

Lead your team to close the gaps.

The pre-inspection report gives you a starting point. With your Ally, recognise what’s working well and agree two distinct priorities: where to gather stronger evidence of the work already happening, and where to strengthen your school improvement strategy.

Together, decide what your team will do next, giving them time to make improvements and gather evidence of the difference they make.

Two colleagues discussing their work around a table in a school office

Rehearsal questions

Prepare your people for the conversations.

InspectReady draws on your school’s uploaded evidence and our specialist database to prepare questions tailored to each role.

Subject leads, the SENCo, safeguarding and pastoral leads, senior leaders and governors each explain a different part of your school.

Each receives fifteen rehearsal questions, with document references and guidance to help them prepare. This maths example shows one question under each heading.

Your Ally helps leaders practise explaining their decisions, consider what the results show and identify anything they still need to check.

InspectReady02 / Rehearsal
Illustrative extract

Rehearsal questions

Head of Maths
Question 01 of 15

“Your review says regular recall practice helped maths results rise from 58% to 66%. How do you know it helped?”

What this question explores

The 2025 pupils also had stronger starting points. That may explain some of the improvement.

Built from: M1, the illustrative maths outcomes review, and M9, the maths action-plan review.

Illustrative · one of fifteen for this role
Preview the rehearsal questions ↗

Your inspection.
Your decisions.
Experience by your side.

Ben leads InspectReady’s team of Allies, experienced school leaders who support you before, during and after inspection.

His experience spans headship, executive leadership, directing education and leading a multi-academy trust. He has prepared for inspection in those roles and supported other leaders through the process.

InspectReady brings that educational experience together with the product and education technology experience of co-founders Julie Kilcoyne and David Blake.

Meet the founders and read their experience
InspectReadyEducational leadership

Ben Parnell

Co-founder and Chief Education Officer

Former roles

  • Chief ExecutiveAthena Learning Trust
  • Director of EducationGreenshaw Learning Trust
  • Executive PrincipalUnited Learning and Ormiston
  • HeadteacherVarious schools, including Winton, Glenmoor and Hurlingham
03Lead your inspection

During inspection

Know your story.
Present it with confidence.
Support your community.

When the call comes, you’ve worked through your evidence and your leaders have practised explaining it. You can focus on leading the inspection, supporting your team and keeping school life running.

InspectReady’s telephone call scripts help you present a clear account of your school, drawn from your own evidence. Evidence one-siders put the relevant findings and document references to hand for each conversation.

As the inspection develops, the Keeping in Touch meeting tracker helps you record feedback and identify what needs a response.

Your Ally is on the phone, with the same evidence in front of them. Together, you work through what has been said, whether it’s an unexpected concern, a gap in the evidence or a statistic that needs explaining. They help you prepare for the next conversation.

You decide how to respond, with an experienced school leader alongside you.

It’s still your inspection. But you’re not alone.

04Respond to the report

After inspection

The draft report is not the final word.

A draft report can contain a statement that the evidence does not support. This example shows the disputed wording, the relevant documents and a more precise correction.

Your Ally helps distinguish factual errors from judgements you disagree with. The school checks and sends its response, following the instructions supplied with its draft report.

The report communication pack helps you explain the published outcome to staff, governors and parents. Your Ally helps you decide what needs explaining and what to follow up.

InspectReady04 / After inspection
Illustrative extract

Factual accuracy response letter

Review and response
Draft report checked against your evidenceFictional draft review
Worth taking upParagraph 14

"Leaders have not evaluated the impact of the attendance strategy." Your attendance panel minutes and half-termly impact review predate the inspection and were shared in the portal on day one.

Leave as it standsParagraph 9

"Outcomes in mathematics are weaker than in other subjects." Supported by your own data: maths grade 5+ is 15.2 points below languages.

Suggested wording, for you to edit

"We ask the team to reconsider paragraph 14 in the light of the attendance panel minutes of 12 March and the half-termly impact review, both provided during the inspection."

Fictional worked example · sample response.View the sample response letter ↗

Your school, your story.

You carry the responsibility for your school. With InspectReady, you have an experienced Ally to help you work through the evidence, prepare your team and think through difficult decisions.

Tell us a little about your school or trust and what you’re looking for. We’ll talk through the platform, Ally support, availability and pricing.

We’ll explain who will work with your school and how that support is arranged. Enquiring for a trust? We can discuss which schools you want to involve and the support you’re looking for.

Email the InspectReady team

Evidenced. Rehearsed. Told by you.

Your school, connected to the InspectReady platform and experienced leaders through your Ally.
InspectReady

02 / Rehearsal · Illustrative example

Head of Maths: rehearsal questions

Three sample questions from a 15-question preparation pack. Based on the sample school documents, with evidence references and notes to help you prepare.

Northbridge Learning Academy

This example is for a Head of Maths. InspectReady prepares questions for subject and department leaders across the curriculum, middle and senior leaders, and specialist roles including the SENCo, safeguarding and pastoral leads. Governors, trustees and early career teachers have their own role-specific preparation.

How to use this: use the documents below to prepare your answers. Explain what you know and what you still need to check.

The documents behind these questions

This is a fictional worked example. These illustrative upload extracts supply every school-specific finding used in the questions. All figures and records below are invented for Northbridge, not findings about a real school.

M1 · Maths outcomes review, autumn 2025

Grade 4+ outcomes were 65% in 2023, 58% in 2024 and 66% in 2025. The 2025 cohort had a higher prior-attainment profile than the 2024 cohort. Disadvantaged pupils’ grade 4+ outcomes remained at 42% in both 2024 and 2025. The review attributes the overall recovery to weekly retrieval practice, introduced in September 2024, but contains no comparison adjusted for prior attainment. Its Year 11 spring forecast was 74% at grade 4+, compared with the eventual 66%.

M2 · Illustrative IDSR extract, autumn 2025

Disadvantaged pupils’ attainment is below that of other pupils nationally in both years shown. This extract provides no analysis linking maths intervention participation to later outcomes.

M3 · Maths assessment and moderation review, summer 2025

Year 8 fraction items remained weak in both the autumn and spring assessments. Total test scores improved, but the tests covered different content. Moderation identified inconsistent award of method marks on multi-step problems in two Year 10 classes. The review requests a recheck but contains no completed recheck record.

M4 · Maths curriculum and transition review, 2025

The Year 8 plan moves from fractions into ratio without a scheduled checkpoint for pupils who have not secured fraction equivalence. Year 7 baseline assessments identified gaps in place value; the review records that all classes retained the original opening unit, but gives no rationale for that decision.

M5 · Maths monitoring and work scrutiny summary, summer 2025

Across three terms, sampled work generally follows the planned curriculum. In the spring Year 9 algebra sample, teachers recorded misconceptions and planned follow-up tasks. The summer summary does not revisit those pupils’ work. In two Year 8 classes, recorded coverage matches the plan, but the sampled work contains little independent application.

M6 · Maths intervention and pupil premium review, summer 2025

Year 11 support-session attendance was 91%. The review calls the programme successful on the basis of attendance, but supplies no comparable starting and follow-up assessments. It records completed pupil premium expenditure on maths tuition. It contains neither a separate learning evaluation for disadvantaged participants nor a comparison with their starting points.

M7 · Anonymised SEND provision and maths training review, summer 2025

A review of sample support plans found that some lacked subject-specific teaching guidance or a review date. Maths staff completed training on worked examples. The subsequent monitoring record checks whether examples were used, but does not evaluate whether pupils with SEND could then complete similar work independently.

M8 · Maths attendance and catch-up review, summer 2025

Year 9 pupils with persistent absence had lower scores on the algebra assessment than their peers. The review records that catch-up materials were sent home. It does not record their completion or a later check of understanding, and does not establish whether absence caused the difference in scores.

M9 · Maths action-plan review, July 2025

Weekly retrieval practice and staff training on worked examples are marked complete. The action to improve disadvantaged pupils’ maths outcomes is also marked complete because tuition was delivered. The review records no follow-up to the unchanged 42% grade 4+ outcome, the Year 8 fractions finding or the requested Year 10 moderation recheck.

One example is shown under each heading. Your full preparation pack includes all fifteen questions, with evidence references and guidance.

Outcomes and assessment

  1. 01

    Your review says regular recall practice helped maths results rise from 58% to 66%. How do you know it helped?

    Why we ask
    The 2025 pupils also had stronger starting points. That may explain some of the improvement.
    Evidence to use
    M1: Maths outcomes review; M9: Maths action-plan review.
    Prepare your response
    Explain what changed in teaching. Compare pupils with similar starting points if you can, and say what you still need to check.

Curriculum and teaching

  1. 06

    Year 8 pupils still have gaps in fractions. How are you preparing them for ratio?

    Why we ask
    The curriculum plan moves into ratio without a check that pupils are ready.
    Evidence to use
    M3: Maths assessment and moderation review; M4: Maths curriculum and transition review.
    Prepare your response
    Explain any changes to the plan and how you will check pupils’ understanding before moving on.

Inclusion and departmental leadership

  1. 11

    Some SEND plans lacked teaching guidance and review dates. How have you followed this up in maths?

    Why we ask
    The SEND review records these gaps but does not show whether they were resolved.
    Evidence to use
    M7: Anonymised SEND provision and maths training review.
    Prepare your response
    Use an anonymised follow-up review if available. Explain which gaps remain and what needs checking.

Illustrative preparation for a fictional school. These are evidence-led questions to rehearse, not a prediction of what an inspector will ask.

Use approved summaries and aggregate information when preparing your responses.
InspectReady

01 / Pre-inspection report · Illustrative extract

Pre-inspection report

Report card and written findings. Two sample sections for a fictional school.

Report card Illustrative grades

Grades assess how far the supplied evidence supports the framework standards. Missing evidence can limit a grade. This is a document-based assessment, not an observation of school provision or a prediction of an inspection outcome. These sample grades are fictional.

  • Exceptional0 evaluation areas
  • Strong standard1 evaluation area
  • Expected standard4 evaluation areas
  • Needs attention2 evaluation areas
  • Urgent improvement0 evaluation areas

Each circle represents one graded area.

Safeguarding
Further evidence needed
Inclusion
Needs attention
Curriculum and Teaching
Expected standard
Achievement
Needs attention
Attendance and Behaviour
Expected standard
Personal Development and Well-being
Strong standard
Leadership and Governance
Expected standard
Early Years
Not applicable
Post-16 Provision
Expected standard

Safeguarding needs further evidence. Early Years does not apply.

Northbridge Learning Academy

Curriculum and teaching

Expected standard

The curriculum plans set out the knowledge pupils should learn and the order in which it is taught. They include planned opportunities to revisit earlier learning before new content is introduced. The school’s monitoring summary reports that the work sampled across three terms generally follows these plans and shows pupils building on earlier learning.

Sources: illustrative curriculum plans; curriculum monitoring summary.

The monitoring summary identifies some variation in how teachers use assessment information to plan what comes next. It records examples where gaps in pupils’ knowledge have informed subsequent teaching, alongside others where the planned follow-up is unclear. These documents support the expected standard in this example, with assessment follow-up identified as an area to refine.

Source: illustrative curriculum monitoring summary.

Additional evidence required

  • A follow-up monitoring summary showing whether the gaps identified in assessment have been addressed in subsequent teaching and pupils’ work.

Next steps for leaders to consider

  • Consider how the approaches recorded as effective in the monitoring review can help subject teams make assessment follow-up more consistent.

Inclusion

Needs attention

The IDSR extract shows that disadvantaged pupils’ attainment has remained below that of other pupils nationally in the two years shown. The school’s inclusion review identifies improving outcomes for these pupils and pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) as a priority. The documents explain the support planned, but do not yet show that it is helping pupils catch up.

Sources: illustrative IDSR extract; inclusion review.

The inclusion review records that some support plans describe pupils’ needs without specifying the changes teachers should make to their teaching. It also records that review dates are missing from some plans. Leaders therefore cannot use these records to establish whether the agreed support has been reviewed and adjusted. The review does not establish how consistently teachers use the plans in lessons.

Source: illustrative inclusion review.

The reading intervention summary records the sessions provided and pupils’ attendance. It does not include comparable assessments before and after the support. Consequently, the summary does not demonstrate how much pupils’ reading has improved. This does not mean that the support has been ineffective; its effect has not yet been shown in the information supplied.

Source: illustrative reading intervention summary.

The pupil premium review lists the additional teaching funded and reports that the programme was delivered. It does not compare pupils’ learning before and after that support or explain how leaders used the results to change provision. Leaders have accounted for the activities funded, but have not demonstrated their contribution to improved attainment.

Source: illustrative pupil premium review.

Additional evidence required

  • A dated summary of the support-plan review, showing whether teaching guidance and review dates are now complete. Include leaders’ recorded checks of how the agreed support is used.
  • An anonymised reading intervention review comparing the same pupils’ starting and follow-up assessments, with the assessment dates and measures used.
  • A pupil premium evaluation linking the support funded to changes in pupils’ learning, together with the recorded decisions about which approaches to continue or change.

Next steps for leaders to consider

  • Consider whether support-plan reviews need a clearer schedule and named responsibility, so that gaps in guidance are followed up and changes are recorded.
  • Where the additional assessments show that pupils are not catching up, review the support with the staff responsible and agree when its effect will be checked again.
  • Use the pupil premium evaluation to consider whether funding should continue to support the same approaches or be redirected.
Illustrative documents behind these findings

These short extracts are invented for this website example. They show the documentary basis for its findings. No real school’s IDSR or pupil records are reproduced here.

  • Curriculum plans: The plans identify the knowledge to be taught, its sequence and opportunities to revisit earlier learning.
  • Curriculum monitoring summary: Work sampled across three terms generally follows the planned sequence and builds on previous learning. Assessment gaps inform subsequent teaching in some examples; in others, the planned follow-up is unclear.
  • IDSR extract: Disadvantaged pupils’ attainment is below that of other pupils nationally in each of the two years shown. This comparison does not explain the reasons for the difference.
  • Inclusion review: Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND remain an improvement priority. Some support plans identify needs but omit specific teaching adjustments or a review date. Classroom implementation was not evaluated in this document.
  • Reading intervention summary: Sessions delivered and attendance recorded. No comparable starting and follow-up reading assessments included.
  • Pupil premium review: Additional teaching and expenditure listed; delivery recorded as complete. No comparison of pupils’ learning before and after the programme, or resulting changes to support, recorded.

Northbridge Learning Academy and its source extracts are fictional. All grades are illustrative, not inspection predictions.

Not an official Ofsted report.
InspectReady

04 / After inspection · Illustrative extract

Factual accuracy response letter

Northbridge Learning Academy
Separate fictional draft-review example

This example uses an attendance panel record and an impact review made available during the fictional inspection. It shows a focused factual correction, not a challenge to every unfavourable finding.

Review notes

Paragraph 14: “Leaders have not evaluated the impact of the attendance strategy.” The attendance panel minutes of 12 March and the half-termly impact review both predate the inspection and were shared in the portal on day one. They record an evaluation, although they do not establish sustained improvement for every pupil group.

Paragraph 9: “Outcomes in mathematics are weaker than in other subjects.” The sample outcomes data supports this statement: maths grade 5+ is 15.2 percentage points below languages. No correction is requested for that finding.

Sample factual accuracy response

Dear inspection team,

We ask the team to reconsider paragraph 14 in the light of the attendance panel minutes of 12 March and the half-termly impact review, both provided during the inspection.

The draft states: “Leaders have not evaluated the impact of the attendance strategy.”

The panel minutes record leaders’ review of attendance actions. The half-termly impact review compares attendance information and identifies where further follow-up is needed. Both documents were shared in the portal on day one of the inspection. They show that an evaluation has taken place.

We recognise that these records do not demonstrate sustained improvement across all pupil groups. We are asking for the wording to distinguish that limitation from an absence of evaluation.

We suggest: “Leaders have evaluated the attendance strategy, but the evidence does not yet demonstrate sustained improvement across all pupil groups.”

Please review paragraph 14 against these documents and amend it to reflect the evaluation recorded. We are not requesting a change to paragraph 9 on mathematics outcomes.

Yours faithfully,
Headteacher
Northbridge Learning Academy

Fictional supporting documents: attendance panel minutes, 12 March; half-termly attendance impact review; inspection evidence submission record; subject outcomes summary. All documents and figures in this example are invented.

Fictional worked example. Northbridge Learning Academy and its supporting documents are invented.

A draft for the school to check and send. Not correspondence from Ofsted.

InspectReady

03 / During inspection · Illustrative extracts

Telephone call scripts

Call 1 and Call 2. Selected passages, not the complete scripts.

Northbridge Learning Academy · Headteacher preparation

InspectReady uses your school’s context, IDSR and supporting documents to prepare both calls. The first helps you introduce the school as a whole. The second helps you explain your evaluation and improvement priorities. These passages use an extended fictional school example.

The school documents behind this example

These fictional extracts provide the context for the suggested wording. They describe Northbridge Learning Academy, not a real school or a visit to one.

School context statement

Northbridge is a secondary school with a sixth form, drawing pupils from several primary schools. Its community includes families with very different economic circumstances. Pupils arrive with a wide range of prior attainment. The school identifies continuity between primary, secondary and post-16 education, access to the full curriculum and suitable next steps at 18 as whole-school priorities.

Self-evaluation and monitoring summaries

Curriculum plans and monitoring across three terms support a coherent sequence of learning. The personal development review identifies the breadth of enrichment and preparation for next steps as strengths of provision. The IDSR extract and inclusion review identify disadvantaged pupils’ achievement and the evaluation of SEND support as priorities. The documents do not yet demonstrate the effect of all the support provided.

School improvement plan

The plan brings together curriculum access, attendance and achievement. It identifies literacy across subjects, more useful guidance for adapting teaching, and evaluation of additional support as shared priorities. Planned reviews will consider learning and outcomes alongside whether actions were completed. These are recorded intentions, not evidence that improvement has already happened.

Call 1 · Introductory call

Introduce your school and its community

You could say

“We’re a secondary school with a sixth form, serving a diverse community with high levels of disadvantage. Pupils join us from several primary schools, with a wide range of starting points. We need to help pupils make a successful start in Year 7, prepare them for sixth form or college, and support their next steps into further study, training or employment.

Our curriculum is a strength we can explain through the plans and monitoring. Our personal development review also identifies the breadth of opportunities and preparation for next steps as strengths of our provision.

The main question for us is how well that provision is translating into achievement for all our pupils. Our evidence points us towards disadvantaged pupils’ outcomes and the support for pupils with SEND. We’ve brought those priorities together in our improvement plan, with literacy, attendance and access to teaching running through the work. That is the whole-school picture I’d like to set out, including what is working and what we still need to evaluate.”

Coaching note: give the inspector a clear sense of the school they will encounter: its community, phases, starting points and priorities. Explain how the context shapes your decisions without using it to explain away outcomes. Keep the opening selective and leave room for questions.

Evidence to hand: school context statement, self-evaluation, IDSR extract, curriculum monitoring, personal development review and school improvement plan.

Call 2 · Follow-up detail call

Explain how your priorities connect across the school

A question to prepare for: “How does your understanding of the school shape your improvement priorities, and what will tell you that the work is making a difference?”

You could say

“Our priority is to make sure the curriculum and opportunities we offer translate into better outcomes across the school. The IDSR and our inclusion review show why we need to pay particular attention to disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND.

We’re treating this as a whole-school responsibility. The improvement plan connects literacy across subjects, attendance and the guidance teachers need to adapt their teaching. Additional support is part of that work, but we also need to understand how well pupils can access their everyday lessons.

The plan sets out reviews of what pupils are learning and how outcomes change, alongside checks that the agreed work has happened. We can show you the provision and the reasons for our priorities now. The evidence of its impact is less complete, so we are being clear about what we know and what the next reviews need to establish. We will use those findings to decide what to continue and what to change.”

Coaching note: connect the school’s priorities rather than listing separate initiatives. Explain why leaders chose them and how they will judge progress. Distinguish what the plan commits you to doing from what the evidence already shows has improved.

Evidence to hand: self-evaluation, IDSR extract, inclusion review, school improvement plan and additional evidence checklist.

Illustrative passages for a fictional school. The context and planning extracts above have been added to this worked example.

Adapt the wording to your own school and the conversation taking place.

Back to top