Greater Manchester Independent School Review 2026: A small, specialist SEMH setting with a practical curriculum focus

This is a small independent secondary and post-16 setting in Greater Manchester, designed for students whose social, emotional and mental health needs have made mainstream schooling difficult to sustain. Capacity is small, and the model is intentionally personal, with site-based teams and defined leadership roles rather than a large, comprehensive-style structure.

The school’s current leadership is clearly positioned around continuity and specialist expertise. Miss Louise Hodson is listed as Headteacher and also appears as Executive Head of School and founder in the school’s published staffing information.

For families, the key question is fit. This is not an “alternative mainstream” with the same academic offer, timetable rhythms, and scale. It is a placement-focused setting whose strongest signals sit in small-group teaching, structured routines, therapeutic input, and qualifications that can be blended across GCSEs, Functional Skills and BTECs, depending on the student.

The school presents itself as a specialist SEMH provision that prioritises safety, structure, and consistency, with a strong emphasis on removing barriers to learning. The language across its public materials repeatedly returns to support, skill-building, and steady progress rather than a high-volume exam pipeline.

A distinctive feature is the way the staffing model is described. Alongside senior leaders and subject teachers, the published team list includes roles that signal day-to-day behavioural and emotional support, including a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist and Emotional Literacy Tutors. That mix matters because it usually changes how a school day feels for students who struggle with anxiety, dysregulation, attendance, or conflict. It also suggests that escalation pathways are designed to be handled internally, with specialist adults who understand SEMH presentation, rather than relying solely on sanctions.

The site description for GMIS North frames it as a dedicated learning centre and explicitly references a small roll, which often translates into calmer corridors, fewer transitions, and more predictable adult relationships. In SEMH settings, these basics are not cosmetic, they are foundational. Small scale can reduce social pressure and improve attendance patterns for students who find large peer groups overwhelming, while also allowing staff to spot early warning signs before issues compound.

There is also a practical realism in how the school describes its pupils. Formal documentation indicates that all pupils have special educational needs and disabilities and all have Education, Health and Care plans, which positions this as a placement-led school where the student profile is complex by definition, not by exception.

On headline GCSE performance positioning, the school sits below England average in the FindMySchool ranking for GCSE outcomes. Ranked 4,085th in England and 80th in the local Manchester area for GCSEs (FindMySchool ranking), results place it below England average overall, which aligns with the reality that SEMH cohorts often enter with disrupted prior learning, attendance gaps, and uneven subject foundations.

Within the published GCSE data, an Attainment 8 figure of 7.5 is shown, alongside an England comparator of 0.459. The metric format here is not one most parents will recognise from mainstream performance tables, so the more reliable interpretation for decision-making is the school’s overall ranking position and the nature of its cohort.

The most important practical point for families is what sits behind any single number: whether the school can reliably move a student from non-attendance, repeated suspensions, or emotionally unsafe mainstream days, into a stable programme with credible accreditation at the end. For many students in SEMH settings, that stability is the decisive outcome.

If you are comparing local options, the FindMySchool Local Hub and Comparison Tool can help you place this profile alongside nearby mainstream secondaries and alternative provisions, without over-weighting raw exam numbers in isolation.

Teaching is described through a staged approach that is not strictly age-banded. GMIS North sets out a stage-not-age curriculum model, with Years 7 and 8 incorporating a “Catch-up and Diagnose (CUD)” strand to identify and close gaps in foundational learning. Later secondary years may move into “Skills for Life (SFL)” strands, emphasising practical, real-world learning, while keeping literacy and numeracy central.

This type of structure is often effective for students whose learning history is fragmented. The example-evidence-implication is straightforward: the example is a deliberate catch-up model rather than assuming a smooth Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 transition; the evidence is the stated CUD and SFL strand approach; the implication is that students who have missed core content can rebuild basics without the constant stigma of “being behind” in a conventional age-based class.

Core subjects are explicitly listed as English, maths and science, and the school states it offers multiple qualification routes including GCSEs, Functional Skills and BTECs. That breadth matters, because it provides multiple exit ramps depending on readiness for full GCSE specification demands, and it allows staff to match accreditation to attendance capacity and emotional regulation in exam conditions.

The staff structure also hints at how teaching and behaviour management may be integrated. Roles such as Head of Teaching and Learning, SENCo, Assistant SENCo and safeguarding leadership are identified, which signals a framework where classroom practice, support planning, and safeguarding oversight are formally linked rather than improvised.

Where Students Go Next

Publicly available destination statistics are extremely limited for this setting. In practical terms, families should think about “next steps” in three layers.

First, qualification mix. With GCSEs, Functional Skills and BTECs all referenced, students may leave with different combinations, which can open different doors. For example, Functional Skills can support progression into post-16 training and apprenticeships when GCSE entry requirements are a barrier, while BTECs can create a more applied pathway for students who learn better through coursework and vocational framing.

Second, post-16 within the setting. The school is described as having a sixth form, but numbers can be small, and the right question is not simply “is there sixth form”, it is whether the student’s intended path, academic, vocational, or blended, is deliverable at the right level with the right support intensity.

Third, reintegration and transition. Many SEMH placements involve phased returns to mainstream, moves into further education, or supported transitions into training. The best way to assess this is to ask for the school’s typical transition routes, how they manage attendance recovery, and what happens when a student is ready to step down from specialist provision.

Admissions here are best understood as placement-led rather than consumer-led. The student profile described in official documentation indicates that pupils have Education, Health and Care plans, which usually means placements are agreed through local authority processes and professional consultation rather than a single annual deadline.

For families, the implication is that the “how to get in” process is about evidence of need and appropriateness of provision. The important preparation is practical: current reports, professional recommendations, attendance history, risk assessments where relevant, and clarity on what has and has not worked in mainstream.

If you are also considering mainstream local authority secondaries as alternatives, it is still worth checking annual co-ordinated admissions deadlines for your home authority. However, for a specialist independent placement of this kind, the more realistic timeline is governed by local authority decision-making and availability of places, not a single application day.

The public-facing evidence points to pastoral support being structurally embedded rather than optional. The team listing includes designated safeguarding leadership, attendance roles, and specialist support roles that reflect a high-support environment. For SEMH students, attendance is often both a symptom and a lever. Having dedicated attendance and emotional literacy roles can be a meaningful indicator of how quickly the school responds to early wobble points, such as partial attendance patterns or repeated late arrival.

Formal documentation also indicates a defined approach to welfare, health and safety, alongside explicit governance roles, which is important in any setting working with vulnerable cohorts. Students and families should still ask detailed questions about incident debriefs, restorative processes, and how the school coordinates with external services, but the visible staffing mix suggests these processes are part of day-to-day operations.

The March 2023 ISI regulatory compliance inspection reported that the school met all relevant Independent School Standards, including welfare, health and safety requirements.

Extracurricular and enrichment are framed less as “clubs for breadth” and more as a planned extension of SEMH and life-skills work. GMIS North explicitly references a broad enrichment curriculum that includes the Duke of Edinburgh Award, alongside vocational and wellbeing activities.

For students who have struggled in conventional school social structures, this matters because enrichment can become the route back into positive peer contact and sustained engagement. The example is Duke of Edinburgh and vocational and wellbeing activity; the evidence is the school’s stated enrichment offer; the implication is that students can rebuild confidence through structured, coached participation, rather than being expected to self-navigate a crowded after-school menu.

The staffing list also references Arts Award coordination and an outreach support worker connected with “FOX ABC Gym”, which reads as a targeted wellbeing and engagement channel, not simply sport as recreation. For SEMH cohorts, physical activity and coached routines can be central to regulation and behaviour stabilisation, especially when linked to mentoring and structured goals.

Published fee information for this school is not set out as a typical year-by-year schedule in the publicly accessible materials reviewed. The Independent Schools Council listing provides a day fee range of £14,334 to £29,000 per term, excluding VAT, and states that scholarships and bursaries are not offered.

For many families considering SEMH specialist settings, the practical issue is funding route rather than writing a cheque. If the placement is being explored through an Education, Health and Care plan process, the local authority’s decision-making and commissioning arrangements become central. Families should clarify early whether they are exploring an authority-funded placement, a shared arrangement, or a fully parent-funded place.

The school operates as a small site-based provision, and published information indicates a dedicated transport role within the team structure, which may matter for students who cannot travel independently.

Specific daily start and finish times are not clearly published in the accessible sources reviewed. For families, it is sensible to ask about the length of day, how the timetable is adapted for phased reintegration, and whether there is any flexibility for part-time attendance plans while recovery is underway.

Location-based admissions pressures in the traditional “catchment distance” sense are not the primary lever here, but it is still worth using FindMySchoolMap Search if you are balancing this option against mainstream schools where distance to the gates can be decisive.

• Specialist cohort profile. This is a setting for students with SEMH needs and significant disruption histories. For students who are coping in mainstream with lighter-touch support, the intensity and nature of provision may not be the best match.

• Published outcomes are limited. Small cohorts and specialist pathways can make headline exam comparisons less meaningful. Families should focus on stability, attendance recovery, and the quality of transition planning as much as raw grades.

• Fees transparency for parent-funded places. A standard 2025 to 2026 fee schedule is not clearly published in the materials reviewed, and the only readily available figures are a per-term range. If you are considering parent-funded entry, insist on a written breakdown of what is included and what is charged separately.

• Context of historic inspection information. The earlier Ofsted inspection, when the provision operated under a different name, graded it Requires Improvement in April 2019, so families should rely primarily on the newer compliance evidence and current leadership structures when forming a view.

This is a focused, small-scale independent setting built around SEMH need, with a staged curriculum model designed to rebuild foundations and move students towards workable qualifications and practical next steps. It will suit families and professionals seeking a structured placement for a student whose mainstream experience has broken down, particularly where emotional regulation, attendance recovery, and consistent adult relationships matter as much as subject breadth. The key decision is not whether it looks like a conventional secondary, it does not, but whether it offers the right intensity of support and a realistic pathway out of crisis and into stability.