A useful SEND provision impact report explains what support was intended, what pupils actually received, what changed, what remains uncertain and what the school will do next.
It should connect delivery, attendance, cost and outcome evidence without pretending that one score proves causation.
The result is a short decision document for leaders and governors, not a catalogue of everything the provision map has ever contained.
This guide is for schools in England. It supports professional reporting and review, but it is not legal advice and does not replace the school's published SEN information report or individual pupil reviews.
Why report on SEND provision impact at year end?
The statutory SEND Code of Practice describes a graduated approach in which schools assess, plan, do and review.
Its school guidance expects rigorous monitoring and evaluation of SEN support, focused on outcomes and evidence of attainment.
The report should therefore help the school refine provision, not simply prove that adults were busy.
A year-end view is useful because leaders can compare intent with delivery before budgets, timetables and responsibilities reset.
It can expose provisions that were effective, inconsistently delivered, poorly matched to need, or impossible to judge from the evidence collected. Paperwork tends to report its own existence as an outcome. A good impact report resists.
Start with the decisions the report must support
Agree the audience and decisions before exporting data. A SENCo may need a working report for senior leaders and governors covering cohort patterns, resource choices and September actions.
Families and pupils need individual, accessible review conversations. Inspectors may examine the evidence, but inspection performance should not become the report's organising purpose.
Keep this management report distinct from the SEN information report that schools must publish and update annually under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. The public report describes arrangements and policies.
An internal impact report can use appropriately controlled pupil-level and cost evidence to guide decisions. Do not publish personal data or sensitive operational detail merely because both documents contain the word “report”.
The seven questions your impact report should answer
Use the following structure for each priority provision, then summarise patterns across the cohort. Record gaps openly. “Not yet known” is more useful than a confident conclusion assembled from incomplete delivery notes.
| Question | Evidence to review | What to report |
|---|---|---|
| 1. What need or barrier were we addressing? | Assessment, pupil and family views, teacher evidence and specialist advice | The specific barrier and why this provision was selected |
| 2. What did we intend to provide? | Plan, intended frequency, duration, staffing, group size and expected outcome | A precise description of the provision and review point |
| 3. What was actually delivered? | Session records, staffing changes, cancellations, duration and pupil attendance | Delivered dosage, variation from plan and the reason where known |
| 4. Could pupils access it? | Attendance, timetable clashes, reasonable adjustments, participation and pupil voice | Access barriers and changes made during delivery |
| 5. What changed? | Outcome measures, work, observation, participation, independence and family views | The direction and significance of change, including mixed evidence |
| 6. What resources did it use? | Staff time, training, materials, external services and opportunity cost | Actual or carefully estimated cost with assumptions stated |
| 7. What happens next? | Evidence strength, pupil and family views, feasibility and continuing need | Continue, adapt, stop or investigate, with an owner and review date |
Separate provision, implementation and outcome
These are three different judgements. First ask whether the provision was a reasonable match for the pupil's current barrier. Then ask whether it was implemented as intended. Only then ask what changed.
The Education Endowment Foundation's guidance on selecting interventions stresses matching support closely to current barriers and implementing it well.
A provision can be evidence-informed and still be the wrong match for an individual pupil. It can also be well matched but too disrupted to evaluate.
Report fidelity and access alongside outcomes. This helps leaders avoid withdrawing useful support because delivery failed, or continuing ineffective support because the timetable looks reassuringly full.
The connected-data view: delivery changes the conclusion
Consider a fictional composite pupil receiving a planned literacy provision. The end-point assessment shows limited change, which could lead to the simple conclusion that the provision did not work.
The intervention record shows that several sessions were not delivered. Attendance data shows that other sessions fell on days the pupil was absent. Pupil voice adds that returning after a missed session felt difficult.
The professional question changes from “Should we stop this programme?” to “Was there enough accessible delivery to test the approach, and what would make the next cycle more reliable?”
The action might be to change the timetable, provide a re-entry routine, confirm the intended frequency and review using the same outcome measure.
Report cost against delivered support, with the assumptions visible. Do not divide it by a change score and present the result as scientific certainty.
The records do not prove that missed sessions caused the limited progress or that improved delivery will produce a particular result. They show why the first conclusion is too strong and identify a testable next step.
Use more than attainment to describe impact
Relevant outcomes depend on the agreed purpose of support. Evidence may include curriculum progress, communication, independence, participation, attendance, successful use of an adjustment, or reduced reliance on adult prompting.
It may also include the pupil's experience of belonging and access. Do not add every available measure. Choose evidence that can answer the original question.
The Department for Education's 2026 Universal SEND Services process and impact evaluation used mixed methods, including management information, surveys, case studies and research diaries.
A school report is smaller, but the principle travels well: combine quantitative patterns with evidence about implementation and experience.
What the data cannot prove
A before-and-after score does not by itself show that a provision caused the change. Attendance patterns do not establish motive.
A low cost does not make weak provision good value, and a high cost does not make necessary provision wasteful.
Small groups, changing contexts and overlapping classroom support make simple comparisons especially fragile.
State the strength and limits of the evidence. Distinguish observation from interpretation, record missing delivery data and include pupil and family views.
The duty in section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 is for relevant schools to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by a pupil's SEN.
A software score cannot discharge that duty or decide what provision a pupil needs.
How Student Radar can support the report
In Student Radar, the Provision Map can keep planned support, delivery status, staffing, cost and review prompts together.
Intervention Planner can connect scheduled sessions with pupil attendance and delivery records, while Outcome Tracking supports evidence-informed professional judgements about progress and next steps.
Linking those records helps a SENCo inspect the evidence behind a cohort summary rather than treating a dashboard colour as a conclusion.
The system supports the review workflow; the SENCo, teachers, pupils and families still supply the context and professional judgement.
End-of-year reporting checklist
- Agree the audience, decisions and reporting period.
- Check that intended outcomes and review dates were clear.
- Compare planned provision with actual delivery and pupil access.
- Use outcome evidence that matches the barrier being addressed.
- Include pupil, family and teacher evidence, including disagreement.
- State cost assumptions and avoid false cost-effectiveness claims.
- Name evidence gaps and what will be collected next time.
- Decide what to continue, adapt, stop or investigate.
- Give every action an owner and review date.
- Share only the right level of information with each audience.
Link the report to the broader SENCo end-of-year checklist and use the SEND handover guide to turn decisions into usable September actions. Then schedule the first review before the new timetable develops folklore of its own.
To see how connected provision evidence can support your reporting workflow, 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.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, Schedule 1, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Selecting interventions, Education Endowment Foundation, supporting resource for Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools, first published 20 March 2020.
- A School's Guide to Implementation, Education Endowment Foundation, third edition, 24 April 2024.
- Universal SEND Services process and impact evaluation, Department for Education, 29 January 2026.