A teaching assistant timetable matches pupil need only when every deployment has a clear purpose, preserves access to the class teacher, fits the lesson and is reviewed against delivery, independence and outcomes. Start with the support pupils need, not last year's grid. Audit who the TA supports, what the teacher remains responsible for, what the adult should do, and what evidence will trigger a change.
This practical audit is for mainstream schools in England and is accurate on 5 August 2026. It supports professional and workforce decisions; it does not prescribe staffing for an individual pupil or alter provision in an EHC plan.
Why audit TA deployment before September?
Summer planning is the useful moment when pupil needs, class structures and staff hours can still meet before the timetable acquires the permanence of school furniture. A named adult in every box may look reassuring while saying nothing about the quality of support.
The SEND Code of Practice says teachers remain responsible and accountable for the progress and development of pupils in their class, including where pupils receive support from teaching assistants or specialist staff. Deployment should therefore improve access to high-quality teaching, not quietly transfer responsibility away from the teacher.
The Education Endowment Foundation's 2025 guidance makes the same practical distinction. TAs should supplement the teacher, scaffold learning and independence, deliver well-chosen structured interventions where appropriate, and receive the preparation and training needed for the role.
No material official development in the previous 72 hours changed that position. The useful current context is deliberate workforce planning and implementation, not a national formula for how many TA hours a pupil should receive.
Use the seven-question timetable audit
Audit one normal week, not an ideal week assembled for inspection. Select a representative sample across year groups, subjects, types of support and staff. Include pupils with SEN support, pupils with EHC plans where relevant, and support intended for a wider class or group.
- Purpose: what barrier, access need, planned provision or classroom goal is this deployment meant to address?
- Teacher access:does the arrangement increase or reduce the pupil's contact with the class or subject teacher?
- Lesson context: why is support needed in this lesson, at this point, rather than because the same box was filled last year?
- Adult action: should the TA model, prompt, check understanding, support participation, prepare resources or deliver a defined intervention?
- Preparation: has the teacher shared the learning intention, likely barriers, useful adaptations and the point at which help should fade?
- Independence: how will adults avoid over-prompting and notice when a pupil can attempt the task with less support?
- Review: what delivery, pupil-view and outcome evidence will be checked, by whom and on what date?
Record the decision, owner and review trigger
A useful audit ends in decisions, not coloured cells. For each sampled deployment, record the minimum evidence below. Avoid adding a new form when the information already exists in a plan, provision record, timetable or lesson-briefing routine. Paperwork has a natural tendency to reproduce when given a quiet cupboard.
| Audit field | Evidence to check | Decision and owner |
|---|---|---|
| Need and purpose | Current pupil or cohort need, intended access or outcome | Keep, change or investigate; SENCo and teacher |
| Lesson context | Subject, task, class profile, teacher plan and likely barriers | Define the TA role; class or subject teacher |
| Teacher contact | Who explains, questions, checks and gives feedback | Protect teacher interaction; teacher and phase or subject lead |
| Preparation | Briefing time, materials, training and specialist advice | Close the readiness gap; line manager |
| Independence | Prompt level, wait time, pupil voice and fading plan | Adjust scaffolding; teacher and TA |
| Delivery | Support delivered, missed, changed or displaced | Resolve repeated barriers; timetable owner |
| Review | Participation, work, assessment, outcome and views over time | Review on a named date; SENCo and relevant staff |
Test the timetable in the classroom
A spreadsheet cannot show whether the TA receives the lesson materials in time, whether the pupil can hear the teacher, or whether prompts arrive before the pupil has had time to think. Pair the timetable audit with a small number of learning walks, staff discussions and pupil conversations. The purpose is to understand the arrangement, not to grade the adult.
Look for pupils maintaining access to teacher explanation and feedback. Check whether the TA uses the agreed scaffolds, waits before prompting and steps back when possible. Ask teachers and TAs whether the role is clear, preparation is realistic and specialist advice is usable in that lesson.
Change one bounded part of the model first. The EEF's implementation guidance recommends treating implementation as a process shaped by school context. A short trial with a clear owner, support and review point is more informative than moving every adult on the first day.
The connected-data review
Consider a fictional composite pupil whose timetable shows TA support in every English lesson. The current plan identifies vocabulary preparation and structured prompts, while the lesson context requires discussion, independent writing and direct teacher feedback.
Delivery notes show the support usually happens, but pupil voice says adults sometimes answer before there has been enough thinking time. Work samples show greater independence after pre-teaching, while outcome evidence remains mixed in extended writing.
The professional question changes from “Does this pupil have enough TA hours?” to “Which parts need pre-teaching, direct teacher interaction, a fading prompt or no additional adult beside the pupil?” The action is a six-week, teacher-led adjustment with shared preparation, specified scaffolds and a named review date.
Pupil need, lesson context, provision delivery, work and pupil voice produce a better question. They do not prove that the TA caused an outcome, that support should be removed, or that one arrangement will suit every lesson.
What the audit cannot prove
A busy TA is not necessarily a well-deployed TA. A pupil working independently once does not prove that support is no longer needed. Progress data alone cannot explain the contribution of teaching, attendance, curriculum, provision, health, confidence or events outside school.
Do not use the audit to diagnose need, decide SEN status, reduce required provision to balance a timetable, or amend an EHC plan. Consider reasonable adjustments, specialist advice, pupil and parent views, staff expertise and the graduated approach. Where Section F specifies provision, schools should follow the plan and use the proper review route for any proposed change.
How Student Radar supports the workflow
In Student Radar, the Provision Map keeps planned support, staffing detail and review needs visible. The Class Overview gives authorised staff the pupil and class context they need before teaching or supporting a lesson.
Where targeted sessions are part of the plan, the Intervention Planner connects the schedule, assigned staff, pupil participation, delivery and review. These views organise evidence for human decisions; they do not allocate adults or determine provision automatically.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Select a representative week and sample deployments across classes and support types.
- Ask the seven audit questions with teachers, TAs and the timetable owner.
- Check classroom practice and pupil voice rather than relying on the grid alone.
- Name the deployment purpose, adult action, preparation and fading approach.
- Record who owns each change and the evidence that will be reviewed.
- Trial bounded changes, protect specified provision and review on a named date.
Use the intervention-capacity model when the audit reveals staff or timetable constraints. Then use the Assess, Plan, Do, Review evidence guide to define what would change the next decision.
To see the connected provision workflow in context, request a focused Student Radar walkthrough.
Sources and further reading
- SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, published 11 June 2014; GOV.UK page updated 12 September 2024.
- Deployment of Teaching Assistants, third edition, Education Endowment Foundation, published 26 March 2025.
- The deployment of teaching assistants in schools, Department for Education, published 27 June 2019.
- Strategic workforce planning for schools and trusts, Department for Education, published 4 December 2025.
- A School's Guide to Implementation, third edition, Education Endowment Foundation, published 24 April 2024.