Methodology
The Pathway Fit Framework
Five dimensions, applied to one child. No school is universally best; fit depends on the child and the family.
The Pathway Fit Framework is our own approach to a question league tables cannot answer: does this particular school suit this particular child, in this particular family's circumstances? It is descriptive and deliberately transparent — you should be able to read a judgement, see the evidence behind it, and disagree with it.
01
Child Fit
Will this child feel known here?
Temperament, sociability, energy, interests and the daily texture of the school — house size, routine, how a new arrival is absorbed.
02
Academic Fit
Is the academic pitch right — neither crushing nor coasting?
Curriculum, setting, pace, support for a child working in an additional language, and what happens at the next transition.
03
Pastoral Fit
Who is responsible for this child's wellbeing, by name?
Boarding house structure, adult-to-child ratio, key-adult model, communication with families abroad, weekend life.
04
Family Fit
Does the school work for the whole family, at distance?
Values, faith and dietary provision, term rhythm, guardianship expectations, contact patterns and visit practicalities.
05
Practical Fit
Is this genuinely workable, year after year?
Total cost including likely extras, travel and airport transfer, entry ages and the realistic availability of a place.
How they combine
Each dimension is assessed separately and reported separately. We weight them using the priorities you set in the assessment, so a school can be an outstanding academic fit and still rank below another because pastoral care matters more to you. The weighting is visible, and it is yours to change.
Principles
Six commitments we hold ourselves to
No school is universally best
A school that transforms one child can quietly fail another. We assess fit for one named child in one family's circumstances, never overall merit.
Fit is explained, not scored in secret
Every Pathway Fit judgement is shown with the dimension it belongs to, the evidence behind it and the trade-off it carries.
Evidence is labelled by type
Verified, school-published and independent information are held apart, each with a reference and the date it was checked.
Trade-offs are stated plainly
Each recommendation carries what we would watch, not only what impresses. A report with no reservations is a brochure.
We will challenge a priority
Where a stated family priority looks less consequential than something else for this child, we say so, with our reasoning.
Decisions remain yours
We do not rank, guarantee admission, or accept payment from schools for inclusion. Admission decisions belong to schools alone.
Source transparency
Where our information comes from
Every material statement in a report carries the kind of evidence it rests on, a reference, the date it was checked and a confidence indicator.
Verified / official information
Drawn from official registers and regulatory publications, recorded with the document reference and the date checked.
School-published information
Stated by the school itself in its own materials. Accurate as published, and always worth confirming in writing.
Independent information
Published by an independent body or established reference source, held separately from the school's own claims.
Parent sentiment
Summarised themes from parent experience, where a sufficient and non-anonymous body of it exists. Not yet in use.
Not in use today. We will not publish sentiment until there is enough of it to be fair to a school.
Data confidence
Corroborated by more than one source type.
Single source, recently checked.
Planning estimate — confirm directly with the school.
What we would challenge
Every report respectfully questions one of your own priorities
One respectful disagreement, offered because a report that only agrees with you is not worth commissioning.
If you disagree, say so — the weighting is yours to set, and we will re-rank the shortlist on your instruction rather than ours.