Demonstration example
An example improvement plan
Written by hand for a fictional primary school, to show what the Navigator produces. It was not generated by live AI. Try editing it, then build your own.
The fictional school's answers
- Priority
- Improve reading fluency in Key Stage 2 so that pupils can read age-appropriate texts accurately and with expression, and access the wider curriculum.
- What is happening now
- Many pupils in Years 3 and 4 decode accurately but read slowly and without expression. Teachers report that weaker readers avoid reading aloud and struggle to finish texts in other subjects. Reading lessons vary between classes, and fluency is not taught explicitly.
- Evidence
- Teacher assessment, pupil voice from the reading lead's survey, and lesson visits in the autumn term.
- Success would look like
- Pupils read fluently enough to understand what they read in every subject, and teachers teach fluency confidently and consistently.
- Capacity
- A reading lead with some release time, two teaching assistants who can be trained, and a modest budget for texts.
- Barriers
- Staff workload, a crowded timetable, and two newly qualified teachers in Key Stage 2.
Demonstration example: review and adapt before use.
Written by hand for a fictional primary school, not generated from your answers. It shows the kind of plan the Navigator writes.
Primary · Curriculum and teaching · Academic year
Improvement objective
Why this matters
Baseline evidence
Only what you told us. Anything not yet known is marked to be confirmed.
Missing information
What to find out before relying on the plan.
Assumptions
Review and adapt before use. This plan is a draft to support professional judgement. It does not replace leadership expertise, external review or current statutory guidance. Your plan is kept only in this browser tab: copy, print or download it before you close the tab.
School Improvement Navigator · Improvement plan · 26 October 2026
Primary · Curriculum and teaching · Academic year
Demonstration example: written by hand for a fictional primary school, not generated from your answers. Review and adapt before use. This plan is a draft to support professional judgement. It does not replace leadership expertise, external review or current statutory guidance.
Objective
By the end of the academic year, lower-attaining readers in Years 3 and 4 read age-appropriate texts with greater accuracy, pace and expression, supported by consistent, explicit fluency teaching in every Key Stage 2 class.
Why this matters
Pupils who read slowly spend their effort on decoding rather than meaning, which limits their understanding in every subject. The school's own evidence suggests fluency is not taught explicitly and practice varies between classes, so improving teaching consistency should help these pupils access the wider curriculum.
Baseline evidence
- Teacher assessment identifies slow, inexpressive reading among lower-attaining readers in Years 3 and 4.
- Pupil voice from the reading lead's survey suggests weaker readers avoid reading aloud.
- Autumn lesson visits found reading lessons vary between classes, with little explicit fluency teaching.
- Fluency baseline for the focus pupils: Baseline to be confirmed.
Missing information
- A consistent measure of reading fluency for the focus pupils has not been named. Agree one before the first review.
- The number of pupils in the focus group, and how disadvantaged pupils within it compare: Baseline to be confirmed.
- How much release time the reading lead has, and whether it covers coaching.
Assumptions
- The reading lead's release time is enough to lead training and monitoring.
- Teaching assistant time can be protected for targeted sessions in the spring and summer terms.
- An agreed fluency check can be used consistently by different staff.
Action plan
| 1. Establish a clear fluency baseline | |
|---|---|
| Description | Agree one fluency check (accuracy, pace and expression) and use it with the focus pupils in Years 3 and 4. Record results so they can be compared at each review point. |
| Rationale | Without a shared baseline, leaders cannot tell whether later changes are real. A simple, consistent check keeps the focus on the pupils who need it most. |
| Responsible role | English lead |
| Milestone | First half of the autumn term |
| Resources and dependencies | Release time for the English lead; age-appropriate assessment texts; time in a staff meeting to agree the approach. |
| Implementation indicator | Every focus pupil has a recorded fluency check using the agreed approach. |
| Outcome indicator | A baseline exists against which progress can be judged. Suggested target: review locally. |
| Evidence source | Fluency check records; the English lead's summary for senior leaders. |
| Status | Not started |
| 2. Train staff in explicit fluency teaching | |
|---|---|
| Description | Deliver a short sequence of training on modelling fluent reading, echo and choral reading, and repeated reading, followed by practice in year-group teams. Include the teaching assistants who will support the focus pupils. |
| Rationale | Variation between classes suggests teachers need a shared, practical approach. Training followed by practice in teams is more likely to change classroom routines than a single session. |
| Responsible role | English lead, with the deputy headteacher |
| Milestone | Second half of the autumn term |
| Resources and dependencies | Two staff meeting slots; cover for team practice; protected time for newly qualified teachers. |
| Implementation indicator | All Key Stage 2 teachers and the two teaching assistants have completed the training and planned at least one fluency routine. |
| Outcome indicator | Lesson visits show fluency routines used consistently across Key Stage 2 classes. |
| Evidence source | Training records; lesson visit notes; planning samples. |
| Status | Not started |
| 3. Build daily fluency practice into reading lessons | |
|---|---|
| Description | Introduce a short, daily fluency routine in every Key Stage 2 reading lesson, using texts linked to the wider curriculum where possible. |
| Rationale | Regular, brief practice is easier to sustain within a crowded timetable than separate sessions, and linking texts to other subjects supports access to the wider curriculum. |
| Responsible role | Class teachers, monitored by the English lead |
| Milestone | From the start of the spring term |
| Resources and dependencies | A bank of curriculum-linked texts; timetable time within existing reading lessons. |
| Implementation indicator | The routine takes place daily in every Key Stage 2 class, as seen in lesson visits and timetables. |
| Outcome indicator | Focus pupils read more accurately and with more expression on the agreed fluency check. Suggested target: review locally. |
| Evidence source | Lesson visits; timetables; fluency checks at review points. |
| Status | Not started |
| 4. Provide targeted fluency support for the focus pupils | |
|---|---|
| Description | Trained teaching assistants run short, structured repeated-reading sessions several times a week with the lowest-attaining readers, and share notes with class teachers. |
| Rationale | The weakest readers need more practice than whole-class routines provide. Structured sessions with trained adults give them more opportunities to read aloud with feedback. |
| Responsible role | Teaching assistants, overseen by the English lead |
| Milestone | Spring and summer terms |
| Resources and dependencies | Teaching assistant time; a quiet space; suitable texts. |
| Implementation indicator | Sessions take place as planned, with attendance recorded for each focus pupil. |
| Outcome indicator | Focus pupils, including disadvantaged pupils, make progress on the fluency check and are more willing to read aloud. |
| Evidence source | Session logs; fluency checks; pupil voice. |
| Status | Not started |
| 5. Review, refine and embed the approach | |
|---|---|
| Description | Evaluate what has worked, adjust routines and support, and write the fluency approach into the school's reading curriculum and induction for new staff. |
| Rationale | Changes last when they are reviewed honestly and become part of normal practice rather than a project. |
| Responsible role | Deputy headteacher, with the English lead |
| Milestone | Second half of the summer term |
| Resources and dependencies | Time for an evaluation meeting; the reading curriculum document. |
| Implementation indicator | An evaluation is completed and the reading curriculum and induction materials are updated. |
| Outcome indicator | The approach continues the following year without extra project time. |
| Evidence source | Evaluation notes; updated curriculum and induction documents. |
| Status | Not started |
Success criteria
Activities completed
- A fluency baseline is recorded for every focus pupil.
- All Key Stage 2 teachers and the two teaching assistants complete fluency training.
- Targeted sessions run as planned for the focus pupils.
Changes in professional practice
- Explicit fluency teaching is seen consistently in Key Stage 2 reading lessons.
- Newly qualified teachers teach fluency routines confidently, with support.
- Teaching assistants run structured repeated-reading sessions well.
Changes in pupil or school outcomes
- Focus pupils read age-appropriate texts with greater accuracy, pace and expression. Suggested target: review locally.
- Focus pupils report more confidence in reading aloud.
- Teachers report that focus pupils access texts in other subjects more readily.
Monitoring and evaluation
Governance challenge questions
- How will leaders know whether fluency teaching is being implemented consistently across Key Stage 2, and what will they do where it is not? (Implementation)
- What baseline has been established for the focus pupils, and how will progress against it be reported to governors? (Progress)
- How will leaders judge whether the work is improving pupils' access to the wider curriculum, not only their reading scores? (Impact)
- How are leaders checking that disadvantaged pupils within the focus group benefit as much as their peers? (Impact)
- What are the main risks to this plan, such as staff changes or timetable pressure, and how are they being managed? (Risk)
- How has staff workload been considered, and what has been stopped or reduced to make room for this work? (Capacity)
Made with School Improvement Navigator (PromptPaddi Limited). Review and adapt before use. This plan is a draft to support professional judgement. It does not replace leadership expertise, external review or current statutory guidance.