A costed provision map should show what support is planned, who delivers it, how often, for how long, how many pupils share it, and the reasonable staff and non-staff costs.
Keep planned capacity, actual delivery and pupil response separate. The total is a planning estimate, not a verdict on need, eligibility, effectiveness or compliance.
This guide is for schools in England and is accurate on 3 August 2026. It is not legal or financial advice. Use your local authority rules and your school's agreed costing method.
Why cost the provision map now?
Summer planning is the useful moment to test whether September's provision can fit the timetable, staffing structure and budget. A list of good intentions cannot cover a lesson.
The 2026 to 2027 DfE guidance says the notional SEN budget is an identified amount within the wider school budget. It guides decisions, but is neither a target nor a limit on duties.
Mainstream schools are expected to meet additional costs up to the current £6,000 high-needs threshold. That does not mean every pupil with SEN has an individual £6,000 allocation.
Section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 requires relevant settings in England to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision a pupil's SEN calls for.
Cost information supports that work. It does not allow a school to replace a needs-led decision with a price ceiling, however attractively the spreadsheet formats the result.
No material official development in the previous 72 hours changed this framework. The July 2026 Schools Budget Support Grant is wider funding context, not a pupil-level SEND allocation.
Build the map from decisions, not account codes
Start with the provision needed and the outcome it supports. Cost it only after frequency, duration, staffing and group size are clear enough to be delivered and reviewed.
| Field | Record | Decision it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Need, intended outcome and measure | Why this provision exists |
| Dosage | Frequency, minutes, weeks and review date | Whether the plan is deliverable |
| People | Role, skill, preparation, delivery and record time | Whether staff capacity and training exist |
| Group | Planned places, assigned pupils and actual participation | Whether capacity matches demand |
| Other cost | Bought-in services and attributable recurring resources | What the staff figure leaves out |
| Delivery | Sessions planned, delivered, missed and reason | Whether the provision had a fair test |
| Review | Evidence, pupil and parent views, judgement and next action | Whether to sustain, adapt or stop |
Use one transparent costing model
Agree the method with the school business professional. Use a fully loaded hourly employment cost where available, including employer on-costs, rather than a staff member's take-home pay.
Staff cost equals delivery, preparation, liaison, recording and review hours multiplied by the agreed hourly employment cost. Add only other costs that can reasonably be attributed.
Show the calculation and its source. Record exclusions such as central services, capital items or premises costs held elsewhere. A total without assumptions is merely a confident-looking guess.
A worked planning example
This fictional arithmetic example is not a recommended rate. A six-place group runs for two 30-minute sessions each week over 30 weeks, creating 30 delivery hours.
The school adds six hours for preparation, recording and review. At an agreed fully loaded rate of £24 an hour, staff cost is £864. Recurring resources add £96, giving £960 in total.
At full planned capacity, that is £160 per place. If only four pupils are assigned, the provision still costs £960 and the planning cost is £240 per assigned pupil.
Those figures prompt questions. Can two suitable pupils use the spare places? Is the group size appropriate? Is staff time available? They do not justify adding or removing a pupil.
Keep four numbers separate
- Planned capacity: the number of places the model can safely support.
- Assigned pupils: who is currently expected to receive the provision.
- Actual participation: who received the planned dosage and why gaps occurred.
- Outcome evidence: what changed, how it was measured and how confident the team is.
Combining these into one efficiency score hides important differences. An empty place, a missed session and uncertain outcome evidence are three different management problems.
The connected-data view
Consider a fictional composite school planning a small-group communication provision. The annual estimate is sound and all six places are assigned, so the map initially looks complete.
Delivery records show that several sessions were cancelled because the trained member of staff was covering elsewhere. Pupil counts are full, but planned dosage was not consistently received.
The professional question changes from “Is the group affordable?” to “Can the school protect the trained capacity needed to deliver it?” The action is a staffing and timetable review.
Cost, dosage, staff time and pupil count together reveal the capacity risk. They do not prove that the provision is effective, that absence caused any outcome, or that another model is better.
What costed data cannot prove
A lower cost per pupil does not prove better value. A higher cost does not show poor practice. Group size, pupil access, staff expertise, delivery fidelity and intended outcomes all matter.
Progress after provision does not prove causation. Limited progress does not prove the support was unnecessary. Missing delivery does not establish that the underlying approach failed.
A provision map cannot decide SEN status, top-up eligibility or EHC plan content. It cannot override specified section F provision, local funding rules or the school's best-endeavours duty.
How Student Radar supports the workflow
Student Radar's Provision Map shows provision by pupil or provision and surfaces missing cost, staffing, date and review details.
Its costed provision view is deliberately labelled as an estimate unless a full school finance ledger has been verified and reconciled. It is not presented as a closed accounting total.
SEND Reports can generate audited aggregate governance outputs from live SEND data. The current governor pack is not a cost report, so finance discussion still needs the agreed school figures.
Outcome Tracking and the Intervention Planner keep review and delivery evidence close to the map. Staff still make and record the decision.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Agree the costing method and hourly rates with the school business professional.
- Complete purpose, dosage, people, group, other cost, delivery and review fields.
- Separate planned capacity, assigned pupils, participation and outcome evidence.
- Flag missing costs and exclusions instead of silently treating them as zero.
- Review staffing and timetable feasibility with relevant leaders.
- Give every provision an owner, evidence measure and review date.
- Record which assumptions would change the estimate or decision.
Use the year-end provision map review to decide what should enter the new plan.
Then use the SEND provision impact report guide to turn delivery and outcome evidence into a leadership conversation.
To see the cost and capacity workflow in context, request a focused Student Radar walkthrough.
Sources and further reading
- The notional SEN budget for mainstream schools: operational guidance 2026 to 2027, Department for Education, updated 26 January 2026.
- SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, January 2015; GOV.UK page updated 12 September 2024.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, enacted 13 March 2014; revised text checked 3 August 2026.
- Schools financial value standard: checklist guidance, Department for Education, updated 16 December 2025.
- Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools, Education Endowment Foundation, published 20 March 2020.
- Schools Budget Support Grant 2026, Department for Education, published 8 July 2026.