Progress Schools Tees Valley · Lundy Loop · LAUNCH pathway
Ofsted Evidence in LAUNCH
How the loop answers the renewed framework without a single document made for inspection · start with the 10-minute walk on page 2
The evidence chain that already lives in the books
Dated NS+One precise next step, in the margin, dated
→
Own-colour responseThe pupil's correction or extension, visibly theirs
→
R after AudienceAdded only once the adult has genuinely received it
→
Chain over timeRepeat across weeks: visible progress in the pupil's own hand
No folder, no tracker, no photograph taken for a visitor. The chain is the ordinary residue of teaching done properly — which is exactly what work scrutiny now looks for.
Three channels of evidence
1 · The book
NS+ → response → R chains in LAUNCH pupils' exercise books; purple-pen responses distinguish Voice from teaching.
NS+ → response → R chains in LAUNCH pupils' exercise books; purple-pen responses distinguish Voice from teaching.
2 · The pupil
Ask them: "What was your last next step, and what did you do about it?" Loop language is taught, so they can answer.
Ask them: "What was your last next step, and what did you do about it?" Loop language is taught, so they can answer.
3 · The teacher
Can explain, from any open page, what the pupil did with feedback and what changed next — no notes needed.
Can explain, from any open page, what the pupil did with feedback and what changed next — no notes needed.
Framework mapping
| Renewed framework emphasis | What the loop already provides |
|---|---|
| Deep dives removed; inspectors follow naturally occurring evidence | Nothing here was made for Ofsted — which is now precisely the point. The chain exists because teaching happened. |
| "No documents created for inspection" made explicit | The anti-workload rule is written into the policy pilot: evidence exists only where it has curriculum, qualification or EFL value. |
| Staff wellbeing under Leadership & Governance | The anti-workload rule itself is leadership evidence: a deliberate decision to reduce marking burden while raising feedback quality. |
| Impact: do pupils know more and remember more? | Chains over time show the same pupil closing the same class of gap less often — improvement in their own colour. |
| SEND: adjustments sustained, not withdrawn for show | WS and I codes used accurately; independence never staged by removing reasonable adjustments (see SEND overlay). |
The 10-minute walk (do this yourself)
Six steps, one real book, no preparation. Built to be done, not read.
1Fetch a real book. any LAUNCH pupil's science book — whichever is nearest. Not a "best book"; the point is that any book works.
2Find a yellow NS+. Flick until you hit a dated next step. Read it. Is it one thing, precise, linked to the learning?
3Find the pupil's answer to it. Look for the own-colour response nearby. Is it genuinely theirs — a correction, an extension, a reworked calculation?
4Check the R. Is R present only where a response exists? If you find an R with no visible Voice, that is your coaching conversation — the gate matters more than the code.
5Trace one chain across three weeks. Same class of error, shrinking. That page-flip is the impact evidence.
6Run the QA question on the teacher — and time it. "What did this pupil do with your feedback, and what did it change next?" A fluent answer inside sixty seconds, from an open book, is the whole system working.
The one-line summary for any visitor: feedback here is complete only when the pupil has responded, an adult has genuinely received it, and it has changed what happens next. Everything you can see in the books is a by-product of that, not a display for you.
Status: draft implementation companion. Approved Feedback & Marking policy and qualification requirements take precedence.
Space → Voice → Audience → InfluenceDraft practice resource · Matt Roper