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. The review is not an extra note added after the work. It is the point where the plan is tested and the next decision is made.
In brief
Use seven parts:
1. the approved baseline plan; 2. actual delivery; 3. comparable evidence; 4. the pupil's view; 5. the parent's view; 6. a clear decision; 7. an updated next plan.
A useful review should also make the change easy to find later. Staff should be able to see which plan was reviewed, what was different at the next version, who owns the next action, and when it will be checked again.
1. Start with the approved plan
Begin with the plan staff were meant to follow, not the easiest document to find in a shared folder.
Check:
- the plan version and date;
- the outcome or target being reviewed;
- the agreed provision or adjustment;
- the responsible staff member;
- the evidence that was supposed to be collected;
- the planned review date.
That is the baseline. Without it, a review becomes a general description of how the pupil is doing rather than an assessment of a specific decision.
If the plan changed during the cycle, record that. A timetable change, a new adjustment, a change of staff, or a different intervention may affect the result. The review should show whether the original support was delivered, whether it was adapted, and why.
Do not overwrite the old plan and call the result a review. Keep the approved starting point available, then create a new version that explains what changed.
2. Record what actually happened
Do not copy the plan into the review. Write what happened in practice.
Record:
- what support was provided;
- how often and for how long;
- who delivered it;
- where it happened;
- whether delivery matched the plan;
- what interrupted or changed 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.
This distinction matters when the result is disappointing. A weak outcome may mean the support was not a good fit, but it may also mean that staff could not deliver it consistently. Those are different decisions. The record needs enough detail to tell them apart.
You do not need a daily essay from every member of staff. Agree a proportionate method before the cycle starts. It might be a session count, a short teacher check, a work sample at set points, or a record of whether an agreed adjustment was available in ordinary lessons.
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 and under similar conditions.
For example:
- Baseline: independent entry to science on one out of five observed days.
- Current evidence: independent entry on four out of five observed days.
- Result: progress is visible in science, but the same change has not yet been seen in English.
The last line matters. A review should not turn a partial result into a general claim about the pupil.
If evidence is mixed, say so. “No clear conclusion because delivery was inconsistent” is honest and useful. If the measure changed halfway through the cycle, record that as a limitation rather than pretending the two results are directly comparable.
A review can still lead to a decision when the evidence is incomplete. The decision may be to improve the delivery record, collect better evidence, extend the cycle, or seek advice. Unclear evidence is still a finding.
For a fuller explanation of the evidence trail, 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 the pupil would change.
Use the pupil's own words where possible. For example:
The checklist helps in science because I know what comes next, but I forget to look at it in English.
That gives staff a practical next question. Should the same visual support be used in English? Does the pupil need a prompt to use it? Is the format right but the routine wrong?
“The pupil's views were collected” gives nobody that information. Preserve the difference between the pupil's words and the school's interpretation of them.
5. Record the parent's view separately
The Code of Practice expects schools to work with parents, discuss outcomes and progress, and review support regularly. Parents should 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, increased anxiety, or a strategy that works at home but not in class. Say that plainly, then explain what the school did with the information.
If the school and parent disagree, do not flatten the disagreement into a sentence such as “all parties are happy”. Record the different views, the evidence considered, and the decision that followed. That makes the record more trustworthy and gives the next review something specific to revisit.
6. Make one clear decision
Every review needs a decision. “Continue to monitor” is not a decision unless it explains what will be monitored, why, by whom, and when the next decision will be made.
Use plain language. The next step may be to:
- 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 the support because the need or priority has changed;
- gather more evidence because the picture is still unclear;
- seek specialist advice because progress remains below what was expected.
Then connect the choice to the evidence. For example:
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 adult prompt over four weeks.
That sentence tells the next teacher what changed, why it changed, and what to look for next.
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 parts that changed:
- the target or outcome;
- the adjustment or provision;
- the responsible person;
- the frequency, duration, or setting;
- the evidence to collect;
- the next review date.
Give the new plan a clear status. Staff should not have to guess whether they are looking at a draft, an approved current version, or an older plan kept for history.
Archive or supersede the old version so it cannot drift back into use. If the next plan starts immediately, say so. A review note that records a change but leaves the old document as the easiest file to open has not solved the operational problem.
What to do when records disagree
SEND records rarely arrive in perfect agreement. A professional report, parent message, pupil statement and classroom observation may describe the same difficulty differently. That does not mean one source should be silently removed.
Keep the relevant source, date and speaker visible. Ask:
- Is the difference caused by context?
- Has the pupil's situation changed?
- Is one statement older than the others?
- Is the wording cautious enough?
- Does the disagreement change the provision or next decision?
The review should explain the decision without pretending that every source said the same thing. A tidy record that hides disagreement is less useful than a careful record that shows what still needs checking.
A practical SEN support review template
Use these headings if the school needs a consistent starting point:
Plan reviewed
State the document name, version, date, outcome, provision, owner, and agreed review date.
What was delivered
Record the support that actually happened, including material gaps or changes.
Evidence against the baseline
Use comparable evidence. Include the date, setting, measure, and any limitation that affects the conclusion.
Pupil view
Use the pupil's words where possible. Record what helps, what remains difficult, and what they want changed.
Parent view
Record the parent's observations, questions, concerns, and any difference between home and school.
Review decision
State whether the support will continue, adapt, stop, be replaced, or be reviewed again with better evidence. Explain why.
Next plan and ownership
Name the new provision, target, responsible person, evidence to collect, start date, and next review date.
This structure keeps the review focused on a decision rather than creating another long document that nobody uses.
How MeritDocs fits the workflow
MeritDocs is designed to keep the baseline, review version, and next plan connected. Staff can work from the current SEND record, keep documents searchable and filterable, see review dates, and export a usable record when needed.
The point is not for software to decide whether support should continue. The SENCO, teachers, pupil, parents, and other authorised professionals still make and approve that judgement. The point is to stop the judgement disappearing between a meeting note, an old Word file, and the plan staff actually need to use next.
What should not be in the review 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 questions
How often should SEN support be reviewed?
Agree the review date when the support is planned, then review regularly. The Code of Practice does not set one universal interval for every pupil. The timing should reflect the pupil's needs, the support being tested, and the period needed to judge impact. 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. Check whether the support was delivered as agreed, whether the measure matched the original baseline, and whether the cycle was long enough. The next step may be to improve delivery, collect better evidence, extend the cycle, or seek specialist advice.
Who owns the review?
The class or subject teacher remains responsible for the pupil's progress, working with the SENCO. Other staff may contribute evidence and deliver support, but the next action should have one named owner.
Can AI write the review for the SENCO?
AI can help organise recorded evidence or produce a draft. It should not invent progress, infer unsupported needs, or make the professional decision. Staff must check the sources, preserve pupil and parent views, edit the wording where needed, and approve the record.
Will this create another task between reviews?
It should not. A useful review updates the current plan and next action rather than creating a parallel report. Keep evidence linked to the decision, use a proportionate delivery record, 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 next step.
MeritDocs can keep the baseline, review version, and next plan connected so the change is easier to follow. The software does not make the judgement. It helps keep the judgement attached to the record that staff use afterwards.