The short version
The EHCP annual review exists to ask one question: is the current provision working, and if not, what has to change? In practice, many reviews end with a form that is mostly the same as last year's form, with a new date at the top.
That is not a review. It is a tick box.
The SEND Code of Practice 2015 is clear that the annual review is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a planning tool. When it works properly, it produces a record that shows what was agreed, what changed, and what happens next for a specific child.
If that record is living in a folder, an email thread, or a Word document that has not been opened since last June, it cannot do that job.
MeritDocs keeps SEND documents in one searchable hub, so staff can filter by pupil, see what is current, and export when needed. That means the review record is available when it is needed, not buried.
What a review is supposed to do
Regulation 18 of the SEND CoP sets out what the annual review should cover:
the pupil's progress towards the outcomes in the EHCP
whether the outcomes remain appropriate
whether the provision stated in the EHCP is appropriate
any new evidence, including from school and outside agencies
whether changes are needed
That last point is the key one. If nothing ever changes, the review has not done its job. Current provision that is not working for a specific child is a problem that the review is supposed to surface and respond to.
Why reviews stall
The most common reason reviews produce no new provision is that nobody has the full picture in one place before the meeting starts. The SENCO is working from memory. The class teacher has notes from a lesson. The outside agency has a report nobody has shared. The parent has been waiting three weeks for the school to confirm the date.
When the meeting starts without a shared record, time goes on gathering information rather than analysing it. The outcome is often a deferral: we will review again next term and see if anything has changed.
That pattern is expensive. Children spend terms in provision that is not working while the system catches up with itself.
A better sequence
Four weeks before the review
Request all outside agency reports in writing. Send a short提前通知 to parents and the pupil if they are old enough to contribute. Ask the class teacher to complete a two-page progress note covering academic progress, social development, and any incidents or changes since the last review.
Two weeks before the review
Pull the existing EHCP, the last review record, and any evidence of what has been tried. Check the current support plan against the stated outcomes. Identify the gap: what is working, what is not, and what specifically has to be different.
Prepare a one-page briefing that the SENCO brings to the meeting rather than assembles there.
At the meeting
Cover three things in order:
What has changed since the last review and what evidence there is for that change
What is not working and what the cost of that is for this specific child
What must be different next term and who is responsible for each change
Keep the record live during the meeting. Do not wait until the Friday after to write it up.
After the review
Send the updated record to everyone within five working days. Log the review date and the next review date in the school calendar. Set the next formal check-in before you leave the meeting.
What the record has to show
A review record that actually works answers four questions without requiring anyone to dig further:
Where was this pupil at the last review?
What was tried and what happened as a result?
What is the current picture?
What specifically has to be different, who is responsible, and by when?
If a member of staff cannot answer all four from the record, the record has a gap that needs fixing before the next review.
MeritDocs helps schools run this properly by keeping SEND documents in one place, with current information easier to find, review dates visible, and exports straightforward. The real gain is not just speed. It is a record people can actually rely on when the day changes quickly.
What to do with this now
If the last three reviews for any child produced no substantive changes in provision, that child needs a different approach to the next review. The starting point is not a better form. It is a single record that shows the progression from the first review to this one, so the meeting is about analysis not archaeology.
Run a five-minute check on every EHCP pupil in the school: when was the last review, did it produce any change, and does the record show the full picture? A SEND register audit takes two hours and tells you exactly where the gaps are.
That audit is a practical thing to do before the end of this term.