Entry criteria state what evidence should be present before a pupil starts a school intervention. Exit criteria state what evidence will prompt staff to stop, step down, adapt or replace it.
Write both before delivery begins. Record the barrier, baseline, eligibility evidence, planned dosage, outcome measure, review date and decision owner, then include pupil and parent views in the review.
This guide is for schools in England and is accurate on 7 August 2026. Criteria support professional judgement. They are not a national eligibility test, a diagnosis or permission to withhold provision a pupil needs.
This guide isn't legal advice.
Why define entry and exit criteria now?
Summer planning is the useful moment to turn a list of interventions into support that staff can explain, deliver and review. Otherwise, an intervention can become a permanent resident of the timetable, complete with its own cupboard.
The SEND Code of Practice says SEN support should follow assess, plan, do and review. It asks schools to agree expected impact and a review date, choose evidence-informed support, then evaluate impact with pupils and parents.
The EEF's Guide to Inclusive Teaching, published on 6 July 2026, adds a useful current warning: targeted support can help or hinder, so schools should integrate it with classroom learning and monitor its impact.
DfE guidance published on 25 June 2026 also describes targeted provision as evidence-based, implemented with fidelity and evaluated carefully. Ofsted's version 2 evidence base expects a graduated approach, not a prescribed national form.
No material official development published in the previous 72 hours changed this position. The workable task is to make each local decision rule clear without pretending one threshold fits every pupil or intervention.
Build the seven-field criteria template
Start with the intervention's purpose, not the available programme. Entry criteria should identify a barrier the support is designed to address and the evidence that makes the match reasonable.
Exit criteria should describe a decision point; it is not merely the final Friday. Completing a block of sessions tells you that time passed. It does not tell you whether learning transferred or what should happen next.
| Field | Record before delivery | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Barrier, intended outcome and link to classroom learning | Is this still the right problem to address? |
| Entry evidence | Assessment, observation, pupil and parent views | Did the pupil match the intended group? |
| Baseline | Measure, context, date and person recording it | Can the outcome be compared fairly? |
| Delivery model | Content, group size, frequency, duration and trained role | Was the planned support actually delivered? |
| Participation | Minimum usable exposure and response to missed sessions | Is there enough delivery evidence to judge impact? |
| Exit evidence | Outcome measure, transfer check and views to consider | Continue, adapt, step down, stop or reassess? |
| Ownership | Review date, teacher, delivery lead and decision owner | Who records and communicates the next action? |
Write entry criteria that match need rather than labels
Use more than one source where workable. A curriculum assessment may show the learning barrier, teacher observation may show its context, and pupil or parent views may explain how it affects participation.
A diagnosis should not become a default ticket. Some pupils need timely additional support without one, while pupils who share a diagnosis may need different teaching or provision.
Check what has already happened in high-quality teaching. Entry criteria should not imply that ordinary classroom adaptation has ended, or that targeted support transfers the class teacher's responsibility elsewhere.
Avoid vague phrases such as “working below expected level”. Name the assessment or observable barrier, the context, the comparison point and what classroom support has already been tried.
Write exit criteria as a decision; it is not a cliff edge
Use the same or a genuinely comparable measure at baseline and review. Add a transfer check: can the pupil use the learning in the classroom or another relevant setting instead of only in the intervention room?
Set the minimum delivery evidence needed for a fair review. If sessions were repeatedly cancelled or inaccessible, the result may test the timetable more than the intervention.
Agree what each decision means. Continue when support remains appropriate; adapt when the match or delivery needs work; step down with a monitored transition; stop or reassess when a different response is needed.
Meeting exit criteria does not prove that every need has disappeared. It may mean the pupil can return to universal provision for this outcome, retain another adjustment, or begin a different graduated cycle.
A reusable model statement
Use this as a drafting frame, then replace every bracket with a school-agreed detail. A template with unopened brackets is a polite note to future staff; it is not yet an operational plan.
Entry: begin when [evidence sources] show [defined barrier] in [context], after [classroom response], using [named baseline] recorded by [role] on [date].
Delivery: provide [content and approach] for [frequency and duration] by [trained role], recording delivered sessions, participation, missed-session reasons and classroom links.
Exit review: compare [outcome measure] with the baseline and check [transfer evidence], pupil and parent views, and delivery completeness. [Role] decides to continue, adapt, step down, stop or reassess on [date].
When another record changes the question
Take a fictional composite pupil. Baseline and classroom evidence support entry to a targeted programme. At review, the outcome measure shows little apparent change.
The intervention schedule then shows several cancelled sessions. Session attendance shows further missed delivery, while classroom notes suggest the pupil used one taught strategy when the relevant task arose.
The professional question changes from “Did the pupil fail the intervention?” to “Was there enough accessible delivery to judge impact, and what did transfer into class?”
The action is to review the timetable, delivery model and classroom link before deciding whether to repeat, adapt or replace the support. The evidence does not prove why sessions were missed or that more sessions will work.
Keep the inference within bounds
Entry data cannot diagnose a condition, determine SEN status or show that one programme is the only appropriate response. Exit data cannot amend an EHC plan or remove another required provision.
A threshold can support consistency, but it cannot replace a proportionate individual assessment. Apply reasonable adjustments and safeguarding procedures regardless of whether a pupil meets a local intervention rule.
Progress after an intervention does not establish causation. Limited progress does not prove ineffectiveness when delivery, access, measurement or classroom transfer were incomplete.
Keeping the evidence reachable in Student Radar
In Student Radar, the Intervention Planner keeps an aim, pupils, staffing, schedule, session attendance, success criteria and review date in one workflow.
Review records support a professional decision to continue, adapt, pause or complete. Outcome Tracking keeps evidence-backed judgements beside SEND targets. Neither view makes eligibility decisions automatically.
The decisions to record before closing the file
- List each targeted intervention's purpose and intended outcome.
- Replace labels with observable entry evidence and a dated baseline.
- Record the delivery model and the exposure needed for a fair review.
- Write exit evidence that includes classroom transfer and pupil views.
- Define continue, adapt, step-down, stop and reassess decisions.
- Name the review owner, delivery lead, teacher and communication action.
- Check criteria do not delay reasonable adjustments or required provision.
- Audit delivery and attendance before interpreting the outcome measure.
Use the Assess, Plan, Do, Review evidence guide to choose proportionate evidence, then check the intervention capacity model before promising places.
To see the connected 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.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, enacted 13 March 2014.
- Guide to Inclusive Teaching: adaptations and additional support, Education Endowment Foundation, published 6 July 2026.
- A School's Guide to Implementation, Education Endowment Foundation, third edition published 24 April 2024.
- Inclusive mainstream fund: best practice for schools, Department for Education, published 25 June 2026.
- Education inspection toolkits: supporting evidence base, version 2, Ofsted, updated 12 June 2026; toolkits take effect from September 2026.