Editorial policy

Our articles are written to help school staff understand a defined question and make a better-informed professional decision. Each article should add practical value through practitioner analysis, a worked example, a useful framework or a clear synthesis of primary sources. We do not publish extra pages merely to target small variations of the same search query.

Student Radar produces this library and may link to relevant parts of its own product. Commercial links do not change the evidence standard, and product capabilities should be described only at their verified boundary.

We prefer primary and authoritative sources: legislation, statutory guidance, government departments, regulators, inspectorates and the organisations responsible for the material being discussed. Links are provided where they help a reader inspect the evidence directly.

Our publication standard requires the named human editor to check material claims against those sources before an article is approved. Automated research or drafting does not satisfy that requirement. Proposed policy is labelled as proposed, consultation material is not presented as settled guidance, and dates or jurisdictional limits are stated when they affect how the information should be used. Secondary sources may provide context, but they do not displace the applicable official source.

AI tools may assist with research organisation, early drafting, structure, editing or the creation of clearly labelled editorial illustrations. They do not approve an article, establish a fact, act as a source or count as a reviewer. An AI-generated summary is checked against the underlying source before it can support published wording.

We do not put identifiable pupil, family or school case data into the public editorial workflow. Examples should be generic, fictional or appropriately anonymised. Editorial illustrations explain an idea; they are not records of real pupils, schools or events.

Our publication standard requires a named human to approve the article and accept responsibility for its claims, framing and limitations. Automated drafting or technical checks cannot approve publication or replace that editorial judgement.

When a separate subject-matter review has genuinely been completed and recorded, we may show the reviewer and review date. We do not invent or automatically add reviewer credentials. Readers can learn about our named author on the About page.

Articles about safeguarding, health, SEND duties or other high-stakes matters are general educational information for England unless stated otherwise. They are not case-specific legal, clinical or safeguarding advice and do not diagnose a pupil, determine risk, allocate provision or make a referral decision.

School staff must follow current statutory guidance, local policy, professional advice and emergency procedures. Safeguarding decisions remain with the designated safeguarding lead and relevant agencies; health decisions remain with appropriately qualified professionals and the pupil’s agreed plan. Evidence and software can support a review, but professional judgement remains with accountable people.

We correct material factual errors and update guidance when an authoritative source changes. Significant revisions retain the original page address where practical and update the visible or structured modification information. We do not change dates simply to make an unchanged article appear fresh.

To report an error, a missing source or a material change, email info@studentradar.com. Please include the article address and the passage or source you believe needs review. We will assess the point and make the outcome visible in the article when a correction is required.