Reconcile SEND status by comparing three records separately: the MIS SEN provision code, the school's working SEND register and the current plan or review decision.
Produce an exception list, verify each mismatch with its owner, then correct the record that is wrong. Do not copy one system over another or treat the longest list as the truth.
This guide is for schools in England and is accurate on 24 July 2026. It is not legal advice, and a reconciliation extract is not the statutory school census return.
Why reconcile before summer rollover?
A pupil can appear as SEN support in the MIS, on a local monitoring list in working records and attached to a plan that tells a third story. September will not resolve this disagreement through optimism.
The SEND Code of Practice says provision for pupils with SEN should be recorded accurately and kept up to date. It also says the school information system should be updated as appropriate after agreed discussions.
For the 2026 to 2027 school census, E identifies a pupil with an EHC plan and K identifies SEN support. A blank or local N comparison value is not a third form of SEN provision.
The current technical specification warns that incorrect SEN data may affect funding. The data matters, but the code must follow the evidenced decision rather than lead it.
No relevant official development in the previous 72 hours changed this framework. The latest DfE school data-protection update remains the 9 July 2026 revision.
Define what each record is for
Start by naming purpose and ownership. The same pupil can appear in several systems without every field meaning the same thing.
- MIS: the operational pupil record and source for the school census return. The data manager usually controls the edit.
- Working SEND register:the SENCo's current oversight of pupils with SEN, plus any clearly separate local monitoring workflow.
- Current plan and review: evidence of need, intended outcomes, support, views, decisions and the next review point.
Keep monitoring distinct from K. A school may monitor an emerging concern before deciding that SEN support is required. That useful local category is not a census status.
Build one controlled exception list
Compare the same pupil identifiers and a fixed evidence date. Include active pupils, recent joiners and leavers still required for the relevant return or transfer process.
Record only what the review needs: pupil, MIS code, working status, plan state, mismatch, evidence owner, proposed action and sign-off. Restrict named access and delete extracts under school policy.
| Mismatch | Check first | Owner | Safe action |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIS E, register K | Current local-authority EHC plan status | SENCo and data manager | Correct only after plan status is confirmed |
| MIS K, register monitoring | Identification or cessation decision and parent notice | SENCo and class teacher | Record the decision, then align the incorrect record |
| MIS blank, register K | Current assessment, plan and recorded SEN support decision | SENCo and data manager | Update the MIS if the evidenced decision is current |
| MIS K or E, no current plan | Whether status is valid but plan work is overdue | SENCo | Keep valid status and open a separate plan action |
| Codes align, needs differ | Source date, current assessment and vocabulary mapping | SENCo and data manager | Resolve provenance without inventing a translation |
Resolve each mismatch in seven steps
- Freeze the comparison date, systems and pupil population.
- Group exceptions by mismatch type rather than editing pupil by pupil at random.
- Check the latest dated plan, review, assessment and formal decision.
- Ask the teacher, pupil and parents where their current evidence is needed.
- Identify which record is wrong, stale or using a different purpose.
- Make one authorised correction and record source, reason, date and actor.
- Re-run the comparison and sample both corrected and apparently clean records.
Never infer an EHC plan from provision intensity or assume K because a pupil receives an intervention. Equally, improved attainment does not by itself show that SEN support should end.
If evidence is disputed, mark the exception unresolved and set an owner and date. A blank decision is safer than a confident edit made to satisfy a spreadsheet.
The connected-data view: when the code is not the whole question
Consider a fictional composite pupil whose MIS shows K while the working register shows monitoring. A recently closed plan records progress, but classroom evidence shows that adjustments remain necessary.
Provision records show that targeted sessions ended, while attainment stayed steady and pupil voice says the classroom scaffolds remain useful. The records are not actually asking one question.
The professional question is whether the pupil currently has SEN requiring special educational provision, and what evidence supports that decision. The action is a dated review with the teacher, pupil and parents.
The review may confirm K, support a recorded move off SEN support or identify missing evidence. The mismatch does not prove which answer is correct.
What the data cannot prove
A status mismatch does not diagnose SEN, establish that support was delivered or decide whether a pupil needs an EHC plan. A plan's existence does not prove that it is current or effective.
Reconciliation can expose contradictory facts, missing decisions and mapping failures. It cannot replace assessment, consultation, the graduated approach or the local authority's statutory role for EHC plans.
How Student Radar supports reconciliation
In Student Radar, the SEND Register provides the current SEND cohort, monitoring list, plans, completeness signals and next actions in one working view.
The School Census SEN reconciliation report compares Wonde-synced MIS SEN records with the working register. It flags one-sided pupils, provision-code differences, need differences and unmapped MIS terms.
Its named-pupil CSV requires a reason and an audited export. It is an informative working extract, not the census return. Authorised staff can inspect the MIS sync context behind the comparison.
Student Radar does not decide SEN status or replace the MIS. The SENCo and relevant staff still review the evidence, while the data manager controls the authoritative MIS change.
Your reconciliation sign-off
- The comparison date, systems and pupil population are recorded.
- Monitoring is visibly separate from E and K.
- Every exception has an evidence source, owner and outcome.
- EHC plan status is checked against current local-authority evidence.
- Corrections retain source, reason, date and actor.
- The re-run is clean or unresolved items have dated actions.
- A second person has sampled the result before the next return.
Use the 12-check SEND register audit to find wider gaps, then apply the controlled register clean-up where history or retention also needs attention.
To see the register, MIS comparison and audited exception workflow with realistic school data, request a focused SEND walkthrough.
Sources and further reading
- SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, January 2015; publication page updated 12 September 2024.
- School census 2026 to 2027: technical information, Department for Education, published 23 February 2026; updated 20 May 2026.
- Data protection in schools: record keeping and management, Department for Education, published 3 February 2023; updated 9 July 2026.
- UK GDPR accuracy principle, Information Commissioner's Office, publication and update dates not stated; accessed 24 July 2026.
- Complete the school census: statutory requirement, data sharing and regulations, Department for Education, published 30 July 2019; updated 18 March 2026.