EHCP annual review checklist for SENCOs and schools

In short: an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) annual review should test whether the current plan, outcomes and provision still reflect the child or young person’s needs. It should use evidence gathered before the meeting, include the pupil and their parents or carers, and finish with clear decisions and owners.

It is not a meeting where people read the plan aloud and then file the minutes. It is a review of whether the plan is helping the pupil make progress and whether anything needs to change.

The local authority remains responsible for ensuring the EHC plan is reviewed at least every 12 months. In practice, the school or setting will often arrange the meeting and gather the evidence. The exact process can vary locally, so use your local authority’s timetable and forms alongside the national guidance.

What should an EHCP annual review achieve?

A useful review should leave everyone clearer about five things:

what progress the pupil has made towards the outcomes in the plan;
whether the outcomes are still relevant and ambitious;
whether the provision described in the plan is being delivered;
what the pupil and family say is working, missing or getting in the way;
what needs to happen next, who owns it and when it will be checked.

The special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Code of Practice describes annual review as a process for monitoring progress towards outcomes and considering whether the plan remains appropriate. That means the quality of the evidence and discussion matters more than the length of the paperwork.

Before the meeting: gather the right evidence

Start with the plan itself. Mark the outcomes, provision and sections that need evidence. Then gather only information that helps answer whether the plan is working.

Useful evidence may include:

recent work, assessment information or progress notes;
attendance information where attendance is relevant to access or progress;
records of the support and adjustments that were actually provided;
intervention notes that show frequency, participation and observed response;
reports or advice from relevant professionals;
the pupil’s views, strengths, worries and aspirations;
the parents’ or carers’ observations and priorities;
the views of teachers and other staff who know the pupil well;
outstanding actions from the previous review.

Do not turn the evidence pack into a dump of every document connected with the pupil. A useful pack makes the decision easier. It should show what changed, what was tried, what the pupil experienced and what still needs attention.

Who needs to be involved?

The child or young person and their parents or carers should be given a genuine opportunity to contribute. Their views should not be added as a token paragraph after the professionals have already decided what will happen.

Depending on the pupil and the point in their education, the review may also need contributions from:

the special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) and headteacher or another senior leader;
the class teacher, form tutor or subject staff;
teaching assistants who deliver or observe the provision;
health, social care or other professionals who know the pupil’s needs;
a careers or preparation-for-adulthood lead for older pupils;
a representative from the next setting where a transition is approaching.

Not everyone needs to attend every review. The important question is whether the people with relevant knowledge have contributed and whether the pupil and family can take part in a way that works for them.

Questions to use during the review

A question-led agenda keeps the meeting focused on the pupil rather than on paperwork.

What has changed?

Has the pupil’s communication, learning, physical, sensory, social or emotional profile changed? Have there been changes at home, in health, in attendance, in staffing or in the curriculum that affect access to education?

What progress has been made?

Look at each outcome separately. Avoid saying only that the pupil is doing well or needs more support. Name the evidence and explain what it means.

A useful discussion sounds more like this:

The pupil now begins the agreed task with one prompt in four out of five observed opportunities. The next step is to reduce the prompt and check whether the skill transfers to a different lesson.

The example is not a required format. It shows the level of clarity that helps people decide what to do next.

Is the provision being delivered as intended?

If the plan specifies a type, frequency or intensity of support, check what happened in practice. If provision changed, record why. A review should not quietly treat a gap in delivery as proof that the provision was unnecessary.

What does the pupil and family say?

Record views in their own terms where possible. Distinguish between a direct view, a professional interpretation and an agreed action. This makes it easier to see whether the plan reflects the pupil’s experience rather than only the school’s description.

Does the plan need to change?

Decide whether the outcomes, provision, wording, placement or preparation-for-adulthood content needs updating. If the plan remains appropriate, say why. If the school needs advice or the local authority needs to make a decision, record the request and the next owner.

After the meeting: create a decision record

The output should be more useful than a transcript of who said what. Record:

the evidence considered;
the pupil’s and family’s views;
progress against each relevant outcome;
what provision was delivered and what impact it had;
agreed changes to support or outcomes;
actions that require advice, funding or a local-authority decision;
the person responsible for each action;
a realistic date for completion or review;
the documents that need updating, replacing or archiving.

The setting should send the review report and supporting information to the local authority and relevant participants within the timescale in the SEND Code of Practice. Check your local process, because authorities may provide their own forms and deadlines.

Keep the live record separate from the evidence trail

A common failure is to mix the current plan with old reports, working notes and email conversations. Staff then cannot tell what is current or whether an action was completed.

A workable structure has three layers:

Current plan and provision: what staff should use now.
Review decision and actions: what changed, who owns it and when it will be checked.
Supporting evidence: reports, observations, work samples and historic versions that explain the decision.

This is where a searchable SEND record system can help. MeritDocs can keep current SEND documents, review dates, evidence and versions together, so the review meeting starts with a usable record rather than a chase through folders. Staff still need to decide what belongs in the live record and approve any changes.

What a SENCO can check in ten minutes

Before closing the review, ask:

Can a teacher find the current plan without asking the SENCO?
Is the next review or action date visible?
Is every action assigned to a person or team?
Can the pupil and family see how their views affected the decision?
Is there a clear distinction between current provision and historic evidence?
Would the receiving setting understand what matters if a transition happened tomorrow?

If the answer is no, the problem is usually not another template. It is ownership, visibility or version control.

Implementation support for schools

Schools do not have to make a change to their SEND record process alone. MeritDocs can arrange an on-site visit to run a live demonstration for the staff who need to use or understand the platform, including relevant SEND staff and the school’s existing information technology (IT) team. The team can also help set up the system and support migration of existing SEND records alongside those staff.

The school remains responsible for agreeing access, checking the migration approach and reviewing records before adoption. Document formats vary, so migration should use best-fit mapping with warnings and human approval rather than a promise of perfect conversion.