An Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) annual review can end with a valid decision to keep the plan unchanged. That should be an evidence-based decision, not the result of a rushed meeting where nobody could find the current reports.
Ask one question: did the review compare needs, outcomes and provision against current evidence, then record a clear recommendation about what happens next?
Key points
An EHCP annual review should compare current needs, outcomes and provision against evidence, then turn any gap into a clear recommendation. Give invitees and evidence two weeks' lead time, record differences of view, send the report within two weeks, and track the local authority's decision within four weeks.
What is the annual review legally meant to do?
The local authority holds the legal duty to review an EHC plan. Section 44 of the Children and Families Act 2014 requires a review within 12 months of the plan first being made and within each subsequent 12-month period.
The meeting is one part of that process. Regulation 19 of the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Regulations 2014 requires the local authority to consult the child and their parent, or the young person, take account of their views, consider progress towards the plan's outcomes, decide whether those outcomes remain appropriate and consult the setting.
For a pupil attending a school or other institution, regulation 20 adds the practical sequence. The meeting must consider progress towards the outcomes in the plan. From Year 9 onwards it must also consider the provision required for preparation for adulthood and independent living.
This is why reading each section aloud is a poor use of the meeting. The job is to test whether the plan still describes the pupil accurately and whether the specified provision is helping them move towards the agreed outcomes.
The SEND Code of Practice gives the wider statutory guidance. Schools should use their local authority's forms and submission route, but a local form does not replace the national duties.
Why do annual reviews fail to change anything?
A plan staying the same is not automatically a failure. If needs, outcomes and provision remain appropriate, maintaining the plan may be the right recommendation.
The problem is a decision made without enough evidence. The workflow breaks down when one person does not own invitations, evidence and the final report. Tasks get distributed, but nobody controls the complete process.
Three gaps cause most of the damage.
First, evidence arrives too late. Staff spend the meeting discovering information instead of judging it.
Second, reports describe activity rather than effect. "Attended the intervention" does not show whether the provision helped the pupil make progress.
Third, the meeting notes do not become a recommendation. They record what people said but leave the local authority to infer whether the school is asking to maintain, amend or cease the plan.
A better process gives each person a bounded contribution and keeps one named review lead responsible for the final record.
What should happen before the meeting?
Start with the current EHC plan, not a blank annual-review form. For each relevant outcome, identify:
- the provision intended to support it;
- what was delivered in practice;
- evidence of the pupil's response;
- the pupil's and family's view;
- any change in need, context or aspiration;
- the recommendation that the evidence may support.
This prevents the evidence pack becoming a pile of unrelated files. A work sample, attendance pattern, intervention record or professional report earns its place only when it helps the meeting answer a decision.
Regulation 20 requires at least two weeks' notice of the meeting. The person arranging it must obtain advice and information from the people who must be invited and circulate that material at least two weeks before the meeting.
Work backwards from that deadline. If papers must be circulated two weeks before the meeting, requests for contributions need to go out earlier. A school that asks teachers and professionals for everything at the two-week point has already left itself no checking time.
Use a simple ownership split:
- the review lead controls dates, invitations, evidence requests and the final report;
- teachers contribute current classroom evidence against named outcomes;
- staff delivering provision report frequency, changes and observed response;
- the pupil and family choose how they want to contribute;
- involved professionals provide advice within the agreed window;
- a senior leader resolves capacity or provision questions the special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) cannot settle alone.
The role split should be explicit. "Everyone contributes" sounds collaborative but often means nobody knows who owns the missing piece.
For a practical preparation list, use the EHCP annual review checklist for SENCOs and schools. It covers invitations, evidence, pupil and family voice, and the final checks around the meeting.
Which questions should drive the meeting?
Run the discussion outcome by outcome. Five questions are enough to keep it analytical.
What has changed since the last review?
Record changes in needs, strengths, health, communication, attendance, placement, staffing, aspirations or home circumstances where they affect the plan. Separate a new fact from an interpretation.
Was the specified provision delivered?
Compare the provision written in the plan with what happened. If delivery differed, record the difference and the reason. Do not use a gap in delivery as evidence that the provision itself was ineffective.
What progress is visible?
Use the starting point and the best available evidence. Avoid "good progress" unless the record explains what changed. A useful statement gives the reader enough detail to understand the judgement.
For example:
The pupil now starts the agreed independent task after one verbal prompt in four of five observed lessons. At the previous review, an adult needed to remain beside them for the first five minutes. The strategy appears to be helping, but the change has not yet transferred to practical lessons.
That statement shows the baseline, the current position and the limit of the evidence. It gives the meeting something to decide.
What do the pupil and family want changed?
Preserve their views in their own words where possible. If the school disagrees with a request, record the difference and the evidence behind each position. Regulation 20 requires the report to refer to differences between recommendations, not tidy them away.
What is the recommendation?
State whether the evidence supports maintaining the plan, amending it or considering cessation. If an amendment is recommended, identify the sections and wording that need attention. "More support" is not a usable recommendation. Name the need, outcome, provision, frequency, responsibility or placement issue that the evidence says must change.
What must the record show after the meeting?
The written report should be a decision record, not a transcript. It needs to show:
- who contributed and which evidence was considered;
- progress towards each relevant outcome;
- whether the provision was delivered and what effect it had;
- the pupil's and family's views;
- the school's recommendation on maintaining, amending or ceasing the plan;
- any differences of view;
- actions the school can take now, with owners and dates;
- matters that require a local authority decision.
Regulation 20 requires the written report to be prepared within two weeks of the meeting and sent to the people who had to be invited. It then requires the local authority to notify the parent or young person, and the setting, of its proposal within four weeks of the meeting.
If the local authority proposes to amend the plan, regulation 22 requires it to send the parent or young person a copy of the EHC plan, notice of the proposed amendments and the supporting evidence. It must give at least 15 days for representations or a request to meet an officer. Schools should not present their meeting recommendation as though the local authority has already made that decision.
Track these as three separate records:
- the review meeting and evidence;
- the school's report and recommendations;
- the local authority's decision and any amended final plan.
Combining them into one overwritten document makes it hard to see who decided what and when.
How can schools keep the workload controlled?
Schools can control the workload by reusing current, governed information and asking each contributor for a specific piece of evidence. One person should not have to rewrite every document from scratch.
A class teacher may be best placed to describe classroom access and progress. That does not mean they should automatically own invitations, agency contacts, legal timescales and the whole report. Leadership still needs to protect enough SENCO or review-lead time for coordination and professional judgement.
MeritDocs supports this workflow by keeping SEND documents in a searchable hub, with review dates visible and exports available when the review pack is needed. The school still decides what counts as evidence, who can access it and what recommendation should be made.
The SEND evidence-pack guide gives a practical structure for separating the current plan, review actions and supporting evidence. Schools with recurring deadline problems should also check the review-date workflow.
What should a SENCO check before closing the case?
Before marking the review complete, ask:
- Did invitees receive the information at least two weeks before the meeting?
- Does the report connect evidence to outcomes and provision?
- Are the pupil's and family's views visible?
- Does the report state a recommendation and any disagreement?
- Was it circulated within two weeks?
- Is the four-week local authority decision date being tracked?
- If an amended plan arrives, can staff tell when it becomes the current version?
Keep the review open until any missing step is completed. A meeting date in the calendar is not the same as a completed review process.
Frequently asked questions
Can an EHCP annual review recommend no changes?
Yes. Maintaining the plan can be a sound recommendation when current evidence shows that needs, outcomes and provision remain appropriate. The report should explain why, rather than copying last year's wording.
Who is responsible for the annual review?
The local authority has the statutory review duty. For a pupil attending a school or other institution, the local authority must ensure a review meeting is held and may require the headteacher or principal of specified settings to arrange it. Local processes vary, so schools need a named internal lead as well as the local authority route.
Does everyone invited have to attend?
Regulation 20 identifies who must be invited. Contributions can still be gathered when someone cannot attend. The review should not lose relevant advice simply because a professional is unavailable on the meeting date.
What if the provision in the plan was not delivered?
Record the gap, its reason and any effect on the pupil. Do not treat non-delivery as proof that the provision was unnecessary or ineffective. The review needs to distinguish the plan from what happened in practice.
What should you do next?
Choose one forthcoming EHCP annual review and map its workflow from the circulation deadline backwards. Name the review lead, assign each evidence request and create separate dates for the report and the local authority decision.
MeritDocs helps schools keep the supporting documents, current record and review dates together. The value is a review trail that staff can follow without rebuilding the history from inboxes and old files.
Sources
Section 44 of the Children and Families Act 2014