London Vocational Ballet School says it has changed how it delivers and reviews support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), after a June inspection found that some pupils were missing support identified as necessary for them.
The school, based on Bulwer Street in Shepherd’s Bush, combines academic tuition with vocational ballet training for pupils aged 10 to 16. The inspection took place on 16 June and its findings were published on 14 September. The school’s response was made public on 29 September.
Academic Director Kate Blakeburn said the school had made changes to make SEND provision and its review more robust, and to strengthen continuing professional development for academic and vocational staff. The response does not detail what the changes involve, when they began or how their effect will be checked. It therefore describes action taken, but does not establish that every pupil now receives all the help required.
Four of the six areas assessed met the expected standard: achievement; attendance and behaviour; curriculum and teaching; and personal development and wellbeing. Inclusion and leadership and governance were each graded as needing attention. Safeguarding standards were met. There was no single overall grade.
The central concern was not that the school had failed to identify any needs. It had engaged external specialists and professionals, and some needs were identified and shared with staff. The inspection found, however, that recommendations for provision were not all put in place. It concluded that some pupils with SEND were consequently not receiving the help to which they were entitled.
It also found that leaders and staff had limited knowledge of pupils’ needs, and that staff did not receive enough development to understand how to reduce barriers to learning and wellbeing. Leaders did not routinely check whether adaptations and reasonable adjustments were appropriate or consistent. As a result, the quality and extent of help varied between pupils.
Leadership and governance was also marked as needing attention because the school’s proprietor had not ensured that all independent-school standards were consistently met. Oversight of SEND provision was not sufficiently developed, even though newer trustees had strengthened governance in some areas, including safeguarding. The professional learning programme was largely voluntary and was not closely connected to leaders’ evaluation of teaching, so identified weaknesses were not always addressed through training.
The school had 53 pupils against a capacity of 65 at the time of the inspection. Its six-area assessment recorded 19 pupils receiving SEN support and one with an education, health and care plan. These figures describe the inspection snapshot, rather than a current count of individual pupils.
The findings sit alongside positive judgements in other parts of school life. Academic outcomes at the end of Year 11 were described as consistently high, including for pupils with SEND and those facing other barriers. Pupils were well prepared for further vocational training, and their behaviour was praised. Attendance was in line with national averages. Teachers generally adapted lessons helpfully, although the inspection also found some inconsistency in curriculum delivery and in opportunities for pupils to apply knowledge independently.
For pupils, the difference between an identified recommendation and support delivered in lessons can affect access to learning and progress. The findings also covered the demands of dance training: the school provides pastoral care, physiotherapy and guidance on injury prevention, and leaders had strengthened adjustments for some pupils who need help with behaviour. Those positive measures do not replace the duty to provide each pupil with the additional support and adjustments required for their needs.
The next steps set out for the proprietor body are to ensure that required adjustments and additional support are provided, build staff and trustees’ understanding of effective SEND practice, and check provision routinely. Leaders are also expected to provide focused staff training and ensure it is applied consistently. No deadline for completing those actions or date for a follow-up inspection was specified in the published findings.
The school’s stated changes address the same areas identified for improvement, but their practical detail and impact remain unreported. The key test is whether recommendations from specialists are translated into consistent support for pupils and reviewed to ensure it is working.
