To find missing or implausible SEND review dates, separate each date by purpose, run exception checks, and verify every flagged row against the current plan, review record and local-authority correspondence.
Do not bulk-replace blanks with a convenient term date. Give each exception an owner, correct the source record, preserve the history and schedule the next professional review from verified evidence.
This guide is for schools in England and is accurate on 22 July 2026. It distinguishes SEN Support reviews from statutory EHC plan reviews and is not legal advice.
Why review-date quality matters now
A review date is a promise to look again. When it is blank, copied from the wrong event or pushed implausibly far ahead, the plan may look orderly while the next conversation quietly disappears.
The SEND Code of Practice says SEN Support should include a clear date for review. Schools should talk to parents regularly and meet them at least three times each year.
That is not the same as the EHC plan duty. Under section 44 of the Children and Families Act 2014, the local authority must review a maintained EHC plan at least every 12 months.
The DfE's 2026 EHC plan statistics separate reviews expected, reviews completed and decisions communicated within four weeks. One column called “annual review date” can therefore conceal several different milestones.
No relevant official development in the previous 72 hours changed these duties. The latest national release, published on 25 June 2026 and updated on 30 June, informs the audit rather than changing it.
First separate the four dates
Before testing whether a date is plausible, define what it records. Otherwise a meeting date can be mistaken for completion, or a new plan version can accidentally reset the statutory clock.
| Date | What it should mean | Evidence to verify | Typical owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan effective date | When the current school plan or version became active | Approved plan and version history | Class teacher with SENCo oversight |
| Next SEN Support review | The agreed point to review outcomes, support and impact | Plan, parent and pupil discussion, school review cycle | Class or form teacher, supported by the SENCo |
| EHC review meeting | The meeting held as one part of the statutory review process | Invitations, advice, attendance and meeting report | Setting and local authority under local arrangements |
| EHC review completion | The local authority's maintain, amend or cease decision | Dated decision notice and any amendment record | Local authority |
Run a six-step review-date audit
1. Build the smallest useful audit view
Start with active plans only. Include a secure pupil identifier, legal status, plan type, version, effective date, last review event, next review date, source and owner.
Avoid exporting the full plan when dates are the question. A summer audit does not need to become a travelling library of sensitive pupil information.
2. Find missing dates
Flag active plans with no next review date, no recorded last review event, or no owner. Also flag EHC records where the school cannot identify the relevant local-authority milestone.
A blank is an exception, not proof that no review happened. Check meeting notes, correspondence and the authoritative system before deciding what to correct.
3. Test the sequence
Query dates before the plan became effective, after a pupil left, or before the last recorded review. Check dates that move backwards between plan versions or conflict with a signed review record.
For EHC plans, confirm the first issue or previous review anchor with the local authority. Do not assume an amended plan's issue date automatically replaces that anchor.
4. Test the interval without inventing law
For SEN Support, compare the date with the agreed school cycle and the pupil's needs. The Code requires a clear review date and regular parent discussions, not one universal national interval for every school plan.
For EHC plans, use the statutory 12-month review duty and the local process. A review may need to happen earlier when needs or provision change; a distant anniversary is not a reason to ignore current evidence.
5. Look for bulk and migration artefacts
Repeated identical dates across a cohort, dates decades ahead and sudden changes on one import day deserve investigation. They may be legitimate, but they often reveal a default, mapping error or bulk edit.
A weekend or holiday date is not automatically wrong. Dates do not observe inset days. Ask whether the date has a clear meaning, source, owner and workable action around it.
6. Correct with provenance
Record the old value, verified source, corrected value, reason, actor and correction date. If the source is wrong, correct it there first. If the source is right, investigate the sync or reporting layer.
The ICO's accuracy guidance says records should show their source and status. Historical mistakes can be retained when the record clearly shows the mistake and its correction.
The connected-data view
Consider a fictional composite pupil whose active SEN Support plan shows a review date far into the next school year. The plan alone cannot tell the SENCo whether that date is a typo, a local decision or a migrated default.
Provision records show support ending this term. Attendance has changed, and the latest pupil-view note raises a classroom-access concern.
Together, these signals make an earlier professional review sensible. They do not prove the plan is ineffective.
The professional question is: what event created the date, and does the current evidence still support waiting? The action is to verify the source, speak with the pupil and family, review delivery, and record a dated decision.
What the data cannot prove
A blank date cannot prove that a review was missed. An overdue flag cannot establish a statutory breach without checking the plan type, legal anchor, event history and the local authority's decision record.
An unusual date cannot explain a pupil's progress, family circumstances or whether provision is suitable. It is a prompt for accountable enquiry, not an automated verdict about need or support.
How Student Radar supports the audit
In Student Radar, the SEND Register keeps active ISP review dates close to the pupil record. Current review views distinguish no date set, overdue, due soon and scheduled records.
Authorised users can filter active ISP rows by year group and legal status, then set a verified date for selected plans. The separate Annual Review workflow keeps EHC review work distinct from an ISP date change.
Software can surface the exception and preserve the action trail. The SENCo and relevant professionals still decide what the evidence means, while the local authority retains its statutory EHC plan duties.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Agree the four date definitions and the source of truth for each.
- Run missing, sequence, interval and cohort-pattern checks.
- Verify every exception against the plan and review evidence.
- Separate school-owned corrections from local-authority actions.
- Give each unresolved item an owner, next action and review point.
- Sample corrected records after any sync or rollover.
Use the broader 12-check SEND register audit when dates are only one part of the gap. For a connected workflow demonstration, request a focused Student Radar walkthrough.
Sources and further reading
- Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, published 11 June 2014, statutory guidance dated January 2015, page updated 12 September 2024.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 44, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, regulation 20, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Department for Education, Education, health and care plans: reporting year 2026, published 25 June 2026, updated 30 June 2026.
- Information Commissioner's Office, Principle (d): Accuracy, current guidance accessed 22 July 2026. The ICO notes that this guidance is under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act.