Failing the Independent School Standards Twice: What Happens Next

Receiving a second finding against the Independent School Standards can feel overwhelming. It raises understandable questions about what happens next, what action the Department for Education (DfE) may take and, most importantly, what your school needs to do to move forward.

Although the regulatory process becomes more serious after repeated failures, its primary purpose is to secure improvement, not punishment. Understanding what happens next allows proprietors and school leaders to respond confidently, make informed decisions and focus their efforts where they will have the greatest impact.

The first unmet standard is undoubtedly significant. A second finding, however, changes the regulatory picture.

In many cases, a first finding reflects an area that requires improvement or a school that has appropriate practice in place but has been unable to demonstrate it clearly through evidence. A second finding suggests that previously identified concerns have not yet been fully addressed or embedded into everyday practice.

If your school is currently waiting for a monitoring inspection, responding to an action plan or reviewing a draft report that identifies the same unmet standards, understanding the process ahead is essential.

The most important message is this:

There is a route forward.

The regulatory framework is designed to help schools improve and meet the required standards. However, the expectations become increasingly time-sensitive after each inspection, making early action, clear leadership and robust evidence more important than ever.

Who should read this guide?

This guide is written for proprietors, headteachers, governors, trustees, senior leaders and those responsible for compliance within independent schools.

Whether your school has recently received a second finding against the Independent School Standards or you’re looking to understand the regulatory process before it reaches that stage, this guide explains what happens next, the decisions the Department for Education may take and, most importantly, how schools can respond positively to secure lasting improvement.

What counts as failing a second time

There are several ways an independent school may receive a second finding against the Independent School Standards, and each follows a slightly different regulatory route. Regardless of how it occurs, the outcome is similar: the Department for Education will consider both the current findings and the school’s wider pattern of compliance over time.

The most common scenario is where a standard inspection identifies unmet standards, the school is required to produce an action plan and a subsequent progress monitoring inspection finds that some or all of those standards remain unmet.

However, a second finding does not always involve exactly the same standards.

A school may successfully address the original concerns but later receive new findings against different parts of the Independent School Standards. While the individual issues may differ, the Department will still consider the school’s overall compliance history when deciding what action is appropriate.

In some cases, schools may also receive an emergency inspection following a safeguarding concern, complaint or significant incident while they are already subject to regulatory action. These inspections, along with progress monitoring inspections, are carried out without notice. This means schools should always be prepared to demonstrate that improvements are embedded in everyday practice rather than relying on time to prepare.

Following any inspection, Ofsted submits its findings to the Department for Education, which is responsible for determining the next steps.

The key point for proprietors and leaders is that the Department considers the overall pattern of compliance rather than viewing each inspection in isolation. Schools that demonstrate genuine progress, strong leadership and sustained improvement are in a much stronger position than those where similar concerns continue to arise.

Understanding when regulatory action becomes public

One aspect of the regulatory process that sometimes comes as a surprise to proprietors is that formal regulatory action may become publicly available.

Where an independent school is found not to be meeting the Independent School Standards, the Department for Education (DfE) may require the proprietor to produce an action plan setting out how the unmet standards will be addressed. In many cases, this is accompanied by a warning notice that explains the action the school is expected to take and the timescales involved.

If, following a period of regulatory action, the required improvements have not been made, or where the concerns are particularly serious, the DfE may progress to issuing an enforcement letter.

Both warning notices and enforcement letters can be published on GOV.UK as part of the Department’s regulatory activity. This means that parents, local authorities, commissioners and other stakeholders may be able to access information about the regulatory action being taken.

For many school leaders, this is an unexpected part of the process. It’s understandable that schools often view correspondence with the Department as a private matter. However, once formal regulatory action reaches this stage, transparency becomes an important part of the regulatory framework.

This can have implications beyond inspection.

For independent special schools and Alternative Provision, commissioners and local authorities may review published regulatory information as part of their own due diligence before making placement decisions. Parents may also seek reassurance about how concerns are being addressed and what improvements have been made since the original findings.

From our experience

Schools that communicate openly and confidently about their improvement journey are often better placed to maintain trust than those that allow published information to speak for itself. Clear communication, supported by evidence of sustained improvement, helps demonstrate that leaders are taking the right action and remain focused on providing the best possible education and safeguarding for their pupils.

What enforcement action could mean for your school

If the Department for Education (DfE) decides that further regulatory action is necessary, it has a number of enforcement powers available. The action taken will depend on the seriousness of the concerns, the level of risk to pupils and the progress the school has made in addressing previously identified issues.

In many cases, enforcement action is intended to encourage schools to make the improvements needed to meet the Independent School Standards. However, where concerns remain unresolved, the consequences can become increasingly significant.

Restrictions on the proprietor

One option available to the Secretary of State is to impose one or more restrictions on the proprietor.

These restrictions may include:

• requiring part of the school’s premises to stop being used, either completely or for particular purposes
• requiring part of the school’s provision to close
• preventing the school from admitting new pupils, either entirely or for specific groups of pupils

Although these restrictions do not necessarily prevent a school from continuing to operate, they can have a significant impact on its day-to-day running.

A restriction on admitting new pupils can be particularly challenging. While the school may remain open, pupil numbers may gradually reduce as existing pupils leave, affecting both financial sustainability and longer-term planning.

Removal from the register

Where the Department concludes that a school is unable to meet the required standards despite regulatory intervention, it may seek to remove the school from the register of independent schools.

As it is a criminal offence to operate an unregistered independent school, removal from the register effectively means the school must close.

This is one of the most serious powers available and is generally considered only after other regulatory options have been explored or where there are particularly significant concerns.

Appeals and emergency action

It’s important to remember that regulatory decisions are not always immediate.

Where a proprietor has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, any decision will generally not take effect until the appeal period has expired or the appeal has been determined.

However, the Department also has emergency powers where there is evidence that a pupil is suffering, or is at risk of suffering, significant harm. In these circumstances, an application can be made to a justice of the peace to impose immediate restrictions or remove the school from the register without waiting for the normal appeal process.

These powers exist to ensure that children’s safety remains the overriding priority.

Communicating with parents and stakeholders

Where restrictions are imposed on a school, proprietors are required to inform parents.

Open and timely communication is often essential at this stage. Parents, governors, commissioners and staff will understandably want reassurance that concerns are being addressed and that the school has a clear plan for improvement.

Providing accurate information, demonstrating progress and maintaining transparency can help preserve confidence while the school works towards meeting the required standards.

From our experience

Enforcement action is understandably concerning for any school leader. However, it is important to remember that regulatory action is only one part of the wider improvement journey. Schools that respond quickly, demonstrate strong leadership and embed sustainable improvements are often in a much stronger position when future inspections or monitoring visits take place.

Timescales are often shorter than proprietors expect

One of the biggest challenges schools face after receiving regulatory action is the pace at which improvements are expected to happen.

Many proprietors are surprised by how quickly the process moves. While improving systems, embedding new ways of working and gathering evidence all take time, the Department for Education (DfE) will often expect schools to demonstrate clear progress within a relatively short period.

Where an action plan is required, schools are usually expected to submit it within one month. In most cases, the expectation is that the agreed actions will be implemented within around three months of the notice being issued, although shorter timescales may apply where concerns are particularly serious.

In some circumstances, the Department may request two separate action plans. One focuses on addressing the most urgent concerns, particularly where safeguarding or pupil welfare is involved, while the second sets out how the remaining standards will be met over a longer period.

Your action plan matters

An action plan is much more than an administrative requirement.

It becomes the document against which your school’s progress is assessed and provides the framework for future monitoring inspections and regulatory decisions.

Before approving an action plan, the Department may ask Ofsted to evaluate whether the proposed actions are realistic, appropriate and likely to secure compliance. Following that evaluation, the Department may:

• approve the action plan
• approve it subject to amendments
• reject it and request a revised version

For this reason, it’s important that action plans are realistic, evidence-informed and achievable. An overly ambitious plan that cannot be delivered is far less effective than one that clearly prioritises sustainable improvement and sets out achievable timescales.

Focus on sustainable improvement

When schools are working under significant pressure, it can be tempting to concentrate on completing actions as quickly as possible.

However, inspectors and the Department are not simply looking for completed tasks. They want to see evidence that improvements have become part of everyday practice and are making a genuine difference across the school.

Policies need to be understood by staff. New procedures need to be followed consistently. Governance needs to demonstrate effective oversight. Most importantly, leaders should be able to show that improvements are sustainable rather than temporary.

From our experience

Schools are often under immense pressure during this period, and it’s understandable that leaders want to move quickly. However, the strongest action plans are those that balance urgency with realism. Schools that prioritise the actions with the greatest impact, allocate clear responsibilities and regularly review progress are usually better placed to demonstrate meaningful, lasting improvement.

Why schools fail the same standards twice

When an inspection identifies unmet standards for a second time, it is easy to assume that little or no progress has been made. In reality, that is rarely the full picture.

Most schools work hard to address the issues identified during inspection. Policies are updated, action plans are written and leaders invest significant time and effort into making improvements. However, despite those best intentions, some schools still find themselves facing the same findings at a later inspection.

In our experience, this is rarely because leaders are unwilling to improve. More often, it is because the improvements have not yet become fully embedded in everyday practice.

Understanding why this happens is the first step towards preventing it.

Improvements focus on paperwork rather than practice

One of the most common challenges is that schools concentrate on updating documentation without ensuring that day-to-day practice changes alongside it.

Policies may be rewritten, templates introduced and records updated, but inspectors are looking for evidence that these changes are understood, implemented consistently and making a genuine difference across the school.

Strong documentation is important, but it should always reflect what is happening in practice.

Schools mark their own homework

After an inspection, it is understandable that leaders want to demonstrate progress quickly. However, schools sometimes rely on the same individuals who identified or managed the original issues to evaluate whether improvements have been successful.

This is rarely a question of commitment or professionalism. It is simply human nature. When people work closely within the same systems every day, it can become difficult to recognise gaps or challenge established ways of working.

An independent perspective often provides valuable reassurance that improvements are genuinely embedded rather than assumed.

Leadership capacity becomes stretched

Responding to regulatory action takes considerable time and energy.

At the same time, leaders continue to run the school, support pupils and staff, manage recruitment, oversee safeguarding and respond to the many challenges that arise during a busy school year.

Even with the best intentions, improvement work can lose momentum when leadership capacity is stretched too far.

Creating realistic action plans, prioritising effectively and seeking additional support where needed can make a significant difference.

Compliance isn’t maintained

Meeting a standard once is only part of the journey.

Inspectors want to see that compliance is maintained over time.

For example, a Single Central Record may be fully compliant immediately before an inspection. However, if new staff join throughout the year and recruitment checks are not consistently monitored, compliance can quickly begin to drift.

The strongest schools build regular quality assurance into their normal routines so that standards remain high throughout the year rather than only when inspection is approaching.

Governance doesn’t provide sufficient challenge

Effective governance plays a vital role in sustained school improvement.

Where proprietor bodies or governors receive limited information, provide little challenge or rely solely on assurances from senior leaders, opportunities to identify emerging concerns can easily be missed.

Increasingly, inspectors are looking for evidence that governance provides meaningful oversight, asks appropriate questions and monitors the effectiveness of improvement activity.

Strong governance should provide both support and constructive challenge.

From our experience

Schools rarely receive repeated findings because they don’t care about improvement.

More often, leaders are balancing competing priorities, responding to unexpected challenges and working hard to implement change with limited time and capacity. An independent review can provide valuable reassurance that improvements are fully embedded, while identifying any remaining gaps before they become repeated inspection findings.

Sustainable improvement is the goal

None of these challenges automatically mean a school is poorly led or providing a poor education.

In many cases, they reflect the realities of leading a busy school where operational demands compete with long-term improvement priorities.

The important question is not whether issues arise, but how quickly they are identified, addressed and embedded into everyday practice.

Schools that develop a culture of continuous improvement, supported by effective governance, robust quality assurance and independent challenge, are much better placed to demonstrate sustained compliance and provide the best possible outcomes for their pupils.

Keeping this about the children

When schools are responding to regulatory action, it’s completely understandable that attention becomes focused on action plans, inspection findings and demonstrating compliance.

However, amidst the deadlines, documentation and regulatory requirements, it’s important not to lose sight of why the Independent School Standards exist in the first place.

They are designed to help ensure that every child is educated in a safe, supportive environment where they can learn, develop and thrive.

When improvement work becomes focused solely on satisfying an inspection or responding to a regulatory notice, it can quickly become an administrative exercise. Policies are rewritten, evidence is gathered and actions are completed, but the purpose behind those actions can sometimes become less visible.

The most successful schools take a different approach.

Rather than asking, “How do we meet this standard?”, they ask:

“How will meeting this standard improve the experience of the children and young people in our school?”

That shift in thinking changes everything.

If safeguarding arrangements need strengthening, the priority is not simply meeting a regulatory requirement. It is ensuring every child feels safe, supported and protected.

If leadership and governance need to improve, the goal is not simply producing better minutes or stronger oversight. It is creating better decision-making that benefits pupils every day.

If quality assurance needs strengthening, it is about giving leaders greater confidence that the education, care and support being provided are consistently meeting the needs of every child.

When improvement is viewed through the lens of children’s safety, wellbeing and education, compliance becomes a natural outcome rather than the primary objective.

Policies become everyday practice. Evidence reflects what is genuinely happening across the school. Improvements become sustainable because staff understand not only what they are doing, but why it matters.

Our Perspective

Schools that recover well from a second finding don’t focus solely on meeting the Independent School Standards. They focus on strengthening leadership, embedding sustainable practice and creating the best possible experience for the children and young people in their care. When those things are in place, compliance is far more likely to follow naturally.

Download

Our free Independent School Standards Self-Assessment Checklist helps you review compliance across all eight parts of the standards, record where the evidence sits, and agree actions with your proprietor body before an inspection team tests it for you.

[Download the checklist]

How can Jarvis Education help?

Every school’s circumstances are different, and our support is tailored to meet the needs of your school.

Whether you’re responding to regulatory action, preparing for a monitoring inspection or simply looking for independent assurance, we provide practical, objective support to help you move forward with confidence. Our independent reviews help schools understand where they stand, identify opportunities for improvement and demonstrate that positive change is embedded in everyday practice.

Above all, we’re here to support school leaders in strengthening leadership, governance and safeguarding, so improvements are sustainable and continue to benefit the children and young people in their care.

If you’d like an independent, confidential conversation about your school’s current position, we’d be pleased to help.

Continue Exploring

• Why Independent Reviews Matter Before an ISI Inspection
• Independent School Audits & External Reviews
• Building a Culture of Inspection Readiness
• Governance in Independent Schools
• Safeguarding Supervision