How we source, verify, and review grammar school content

Grammar Schools Hub is designed to help families research grammar schools without guesswork. That means we separate structured school facts from editorial guidance and we keep source links close to the claims they support.

What we use as source material

• official datasets where they exist, including school record baselines and published performance sources
• school-published admissions, exam, and sixth form pages for details national datasets usually miss
• clearly labelled starter or community-led material only when a better official replacement is not yet available

If a metric is missing, we leave it null or omit it instead of inferring a value.

How school profiles are updated

Every school profile is backed by a JSON record in the repo. When a record changes we:

1. update the relevant source citations first
2. refresh lastVerifiedAt
3. regenerate derived files such as rankings and search data
4. run validation, tests, and a production build

That workflow keeps the structured facts on school pages separate from broader editorial judgement.

How guides, blog posts, and landing pages are reviewed

Editorial pages follow a different standard from school data pages:

• guides should answer a clear parent search intent and link into relevant school, area, and exam-area pages
• blog posts can be more editorial, but factual claims still need sources
• landing pages should support a specific journey such as free 11+ resources, 11+ rankings, or a comparison workflow

We also check that new pages are not orphaned. Each new guide, blog post, or landing page should be linked from at least one useful hub page.

How ranking and comparison pages should be used

Ranking pages are designed as a starting point, not a final verdict. Families should use rankings alongside:

• the full school profile
• published admissions detail
• exam-area context
• travel and shortlist fit

The compare tool and area hubs are there to support that more balanced research journey.

What still needs manual judgement

Not everything can be automated well. Agents and editors still need to watch for:

• stale school-published admissions language
• changes in 11+ registration or exam-stage wording
• thin pages that do not add anything beyond a page title and a list of links
• broken or weak internal linking

If you spot a school detail that looks out of date, open the cited source first and then update the record rather than editing generated files by hand.