A special educational needs (SEN) support review should answer three questions: what changed, what evidence shows it, and what happens next? If the note only says a meeting took place, it has not helped the next teacher, the parent, or the pupil.
The special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Code of Practice expects schools to review support on the agreed date, involve the pupil and parents, evaluate impact, and revise support in light of progress. So the review is not an extra note. It is the point where the plan is tested.
In brief
Use seven parts: baseline version, actual delivery, comparable evidence, pupil view, parent view, decision, and updated next plan. If those parts are clear, the review is clear.
1. Start with the approved plan
Begin with the plan staff were meant to follow. Check the version, date, intended outcome, support agreed, owner, and review date. That is the baseline.
If the plan changed during the term, say so. The review needs to show the difference between the original version and any later adjustment. Otherwise you cannot tell whether the agreed support was followed or quietly altered.
MeritDocs can keep the baseline version, review note, and revised plan linked, but the note still has to name the live version in plain language.
2. Record actual delivery
Do not copy the plan into the review. Write what happened.
Record:
- what was provided
- how often and for how long
- who delivered it
- whether it matched the plan
- anything that disrupted it
“Regular support” is too vague. “Three 20-minute sessions a week for six weeks, with one week missed because of staff absence” gives the review something real to test. If support was partly changed, note that too. A weak result may be a delivery problem, not a support problem.
3. Compare like with like
Evidence should match the starting point. If the outcome is reading accuracy, use a dated baseline and a later measure of the same kind. If it is independence in class, use the same sort of observation. If it is communication, describe what the pupil can now do in the same setting.
A simple note might say:
- Baseline: independent entry to science on one out of five days
- Current evidence: independent entry on four out of five observed days
- Result: progress in science, not yet in English
If evidence is mixed, say so. “No clear conclusion because delivery was inconsistent” is honest and useful. If the measure itself changed mid-cycle, note that too. A review can still be honest; it just needs to be honest about the method as well as the result. For a fuller version of this approach, see Assess, Plan, Do, Review is not four headings.
4. Include the pupil’s view
Do not reduce pupil voice to “happy with support”. Ask what helps, what still feels hard, and what they would change. Use the pupil’s own words where possible.
“The checklist helps in science because I know what comes next, but I forget to look at it in English.” That gives staff a next step. “Pupil voice collected” does not.
5. Record the parent’s view
The Code of Practice expects schools to work with parents, talk about outcomes and progress, and review support regularly. It also expects the parent to be part of the cycle, not just sent a summary afterwards.
Record the parent’s view separately from the school’s decision. A parent might report better sleep, more anxiety, or a strategy that works at home but not in class. Say that plainly, then say what the school did with it. If the school and parent disagree, do not flatten that into agreement.
6. Make one clear decision
Every review needs a decision. Not “continue to monitor”. Decide what happens next and why.
Use plain language:
- continue because the evidence shows useful progress
- adapt because the support helps, but the delivery or fit needs to change
- stop because it has not helped despite suitable delivery
- replace because the need or priority has changed
- gather more evidence because the picture is still unclear
- seek specialist advice because progress is still below what was expected
Then link the evidence to the choice. “Adapt the transition checklist. The pupil now enters science independently on four out of five observed days, compared with one out of five at baseline. They do not use it in English, so the next plan will use the same visual format in both rooms and fade the prompt over four weeks.”
7. Put the decision into the next plan
The review is not finished when the meeting ends. It is finished when the live plan reflects the decision. Update the target, adjustment, frequency, named owner, evidence to collect, and next review date. Archive or supersede the old version so it cannot drift back into use.
That is where MeritDocs helps most: it keeps the baseline, review note, and next plan connected so the change does not vanish between meetings. If the next plan is due to start immediately, write that in the note so nobody keeps using a version that has already been superseded.
What should not be in the note?
Cut phrases that hide the decision:
- progress discussed
- parents informed
- support ongoing
- continue to monitor
- pupil doing well
- review next term
Each one leaves a question behind. What changed? What evidence was used? What happens now? If the answer is not visible, the note is unfinished.
frequently asked question (FAQ)
How often should SEN support be reviewed?
Agree the review date when the support is planned, then review regularly. The Code does not set one universal interval, but it does expect regular review. For pupils receiving SEN support, schools should also meet parents at least three times a year.
What if the school cannot tell whether support worked?
Say that clearly. The next step may be to improve delivery, collect better evidence, extend the cycle, or seek specialist advice. Unclear evidence is still a finding.
Who owns the review?
The class or subject teacher remains responsible for the pupil’s progress, working with the special educational needs coordinator (SENCO). The updated action should have one named owner, even where several staff contribute.
Will this create another task between reviews?
It should not. A useful review record updates the current plan and next action rather than creating a parallel report. Keep the evidence linked to the decision and make the next check clear.
Takeaway
A good SEN support review starts with the plan staff were meant to follow and ends with a changed, approved plan that staff can find. Between those points, it records actual delivery, comparable evidence, pupil and parent views, the decision, and the updated next step.
MeritDocs can keep the baseline, review version, and next plan connected so the change is easy to follow. The software does not make the judgment. It stops the judgment disappearing between the meeting note and the plan that follows.