Keeping Your School Website Compliant After Policy Updates
A policy can be reviewed and approved while the school website still offers last year's version. The internal record looks complete, but a parent follows an old complaints route or reads information that no longer matches the school's arrangements. Keeping the website current means treating publication as part of the policy change, with an owner, a planned date and a check of what visitors can actually see.
This guide is for school leaders, business managers, governance professionals and website administrators in England. It focuses on ongoing maintenance after a change, rather than repeating the school website publication checklist or the website audit walkthrough. The workflow below supports governance readiness; completing it does not establish that every publication duty has been met.
Identify what the change affects
Begin with the approved change and its intended effective date. Ask which public pages, downloads, summaries and contact details depend on that information. One policy may appear in a central policies list, a topic page and an older parent information pack. Replacing the first copy you find may leave a contradictory version elsewhere.
Use the current DfE guidance for maintained schools or academies to check the applicable publication requirements. The guidance distinguishes information that must be published from recommendations, and school status matters. The examples below are prompts to investigate dependencies, not a claim that every school must publish a separate document for each topic.
| Change being reviewed | Public information to check |
|---|---|
| Safeguarding or child protection | Published policy, named contacts and any summary of how concerns should be raised. |
| SEND arrangements | SEN information report, relevant contact details and descriptions of support or access. |
| Complaints procedure | Procedure download, complaint contact route and explanations of stages. |
| Admissions arrangements | Correct intake year, admission-authority information and links to the relevant arrangements. |
| Behaviour, suspensions or exclusions | Published behaviour information and any linked explanation of the school's processes. |
For admissions, distinguish current and future entry years. A newer document is not automatically a replacement for every earlier set of arrangements. Check the relevant process before removing material that families may still need.
Name the owner before approval closes
Add a publication question to the policy-review record: does this change require a website action, and who will confirm it is complete? The policy owner can identify the approved content and affected information. The website administrator can make the update. A named reviewer can check the result from a visitor's perspective.
In a small school, one person may carry several of these tasks. Keep the steps distinct even if the names repeat. In a trust, agree who supplies the approved version and who updates academy-specific information. Do not assume that a central approval automatically changes each academy website.
Record a deputy or escalation contact for absence and access problems. A request left in an unavailable colleague's inbox is still an open publication action. Link it to the same record used to track policy review dates, so approval and publication do not become disconnected lists.
Set timing from the requirement and the risk
Do not assume there is one publication deadline covering every policy update. Check any applicable timetable or specific requirement, the approval decision and the effective date. Agree the publication task early enough to meet those requirements, allowing time for verification. Treat any internal turnaround target as the school's working arrangement, not as a DfE rule.
Give inaccurate safeguarding contacts or a misleading complaints route prompt attention through the appropriate school process. If the final replacement is delayed, escalate the problem and agree an accurate interim response. The website administrator should not invent policy wording or publish an unapproved draft to make the tracker look complete.
Where a policy takes effect later, label the dates clearly and agree how visitors will distinguish the current arrangements from forthcoming changes. A publication date, an approval date and a next review date describe different events; changing one does not prove the others happened.
Give the publisher a complete handover
Send the approved file or authorised source, the approval reference, effective date, target page and a short list of related updates. Identify what should replace an existing item and what needs to remain available. Include the public title and contact details so the publisher does not have to guess from an internal filename.
For example, a revised complaints procedure may require changes to the downloadable document and the contact-page description. The handover should identify both. Ask the policy owner to resolve discrepancies between the document and accompanying text before publication.
Keep a record of the version supplied. This makes it easier to distinguish a publishing mistake from a later change to the source document. Avoid sending several attachments with similar names and no explanation of which one has authority.
Verify the public result before closing the action
Open the live website as an ordinary visitor, without relying on the editing view. Follow the normal navigation and download the linked file. Compare its title, version and effective date with the approved source, then check the surrounding page for older wording or contacts.
Search the website for the policy title and inspect other visible copies. Test important links from a phone as well as a desktop where practical. If an old file still appears, investigate whether it is a separate upload or a cached copy before declaring the update complete. Check that the document is readable and that the page explains how a parent can obtain help accessing information.
Preserve historical records under the school's retention arrangements. Managing the public version should not erase evidence needed to explain an earlier decision or complaint. Ask the responsible leader to decide how historical material should be retained and labelled rather than leaving competing versions unexplained.
Keep evidence that answers a useful question
A proportionate completion record can show the approved version, affected URLs, publication date, reviewer and verification result. A dated screenshot or saved copy can support it, but should be linked to the source and action record. A screenshot showing a link does not establish that the linked document was the correct version.
If an inspector or parent asks why published information differed from practice, the school needs a clear account of what was available and when it changed. The DfE complaints guidance for maintained schools explains that DfE may ask about deviations from a published procedure when considering an escalated complaint. Keep the record factual; a corrected page does not remove the need to examine an earlier concern.
Return publication to the normal review cycle
Close the action only after the live check, or retain a clear possible gap with an owner and next review point. Include outstanding publication actions in the existing policy-review discussion. A short readiness snapshot can identify the approved policies still awaiting publication or manual review without creating another full report.
Use the School Website Compliance hub when a wider check is needed. The aim is a dependable routine: a policy change triggers a publication decision, the right person updates the public information, and someone verifies the result. That connection keeps website maintenance part of governance work throughout the year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does approving a policy mean the website update is complete?
No. Confirm whether public information needs to change, assign the publishing task and check the live page and download against the approved version. Keep the action open if a possible gap remains.
How quickly should you publish a policy change?
Check the requirement that applies to the policy, its effective date and the risk of leaving inaccurate information online. Agree a publication date that meets the applicable requirements; do not assume one generic deadline covers every change.
Who should check that the new version is live?
Name a reviewer who can compare the public result with the approved source. The policy owner and website administrator should agree their roles, and the check should use the live website rather than only the editing view.
What evidence should you keep after a website update?
Record the approved version, affected URLs, publication date and verification outcome. A dated screenshot or saved copy can support the record. Keep unresolved issues visible with an owner and suggested next action.