To spot duplicated or contradictory SEND provision, compare each pupil's current plan, any EHC plan Section F provision and the live intervention timetable line by line.
Match purpose, dosage, group size, staff, timing, review date and evidence. Classify each match as the same provision, complementary support, a contradiction or an unexplained gap.
This practical audit is for schools in England and is accurate on 6 August 2026. It organises evidence for professional decisions; it does not amend an EHC plan or determine need.
Why audit provision before September?
Summer planning is when a school can still align plans, staff and rooms before the timetable becomes an inherited fact. Three records can describe one support three different ways.
Duplication is not merely repeated wording. It can double-count staff time, book a pupil into two sessions at once or make one required provision appear to have been delivered twice.
Contradictions are different. One record may require four weekly sessions while another schedules two. A review date may have passed in one place and remain months away in another.
The April 2026 SEND reform consultation proposes future Individual Support Plans. It also says current duties and rights remain until new legislation takes effect. Treat proposals as proposals.
A check on 6 August found no material official development in the previous 72 hours that changed this audit. Current statutory guidance and existing EHC plan duties still apply.
Start with authority, not the newest spreadsheet
Put the source and its authority beside every provision line. The most recently edited record is not automatically the record that can lawfully or professionally displace the others.
For a pupil with an EHC plan, Section F identifies required special educational provision. Section 42 of the Children and Families Act places the duty to secure it on the local authority.
The school's current support plan can add useful teaching detail, smaller steps and local arrangements. It should not quietly reduce, rename or replace specified Section F provision.
The intervention timetable is an operational record. It shows when planned support can happen, who is assigned and what clashes exist. It does not alter the underlying plan by itself.
For pupils at SEN support, section 66 requires the appropriate authority to use its best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by the pupil's needs.
Build one provision crosswalk
Choose a representative sample first. Include pupils at SEN support, pupils with EHC plans, different year groups, individual support, groups and provision delivered by external staff.
Give each distinct provision a temporary audit ID. Copy meaning, not just labels, into one crosswalk. “Literacy group” and “structured decoding” may be the same support or entirely separate.
| Field | What to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Source and status | EHC plan Section F, current support plan, timetable or delivery record | Which record sets the requirement, and which describes delivery? |
| Purpose | Need, barrier, intended access and linked outcome | Are two labels addressing the same purpose? |
| Dosage | Frequency, duration, group size and programme length | Do the quantities agree, and are they actually scheduled? |
| Delivery | Named role, staff readiness, room, start date and timetable slot | Is the same capacity counted twice or left unassigned? |
| Review | Baseline, evidence, review date, owner and decision trigger | Which evidence will decide whether support changes? |
Use six tests to classify each line
- Exact duplicate: the pupil, purpose, dosage, staff, timing and review are the same. Keep one delivery identity and preserve links back to every authoritative source.
- Complementary support: the provisions share an outcome but do different jobs. Keep both and state the boundary, sequence and owner clearly.
- Contradictory provision: two current records specify incompatible dosage, group size, staff, dates or approaches. Escalate to the SENCo for source-led resolution.
- Orphaned requirement: provision appears in the current plan but has no viable staff, room or timetable slot. Record the gap and owner rather than marking it active.
- Shadow provision: a timetable or delivery log contains support that no current plan explains. Check its purpose, consent, review basis and whether it should continue.
- Capacity collision: the pupil, practitioner or room is committed to overlapping provision. Decide which arrangements are possible without silently dropping required support.
Do not merge lines merely because their names resemble each other. Equally, do not preserve two copies because one says “support” and the other says “intervention”. Forms enjoy aliases.
Resolve contradictions without losing the audit trail
First protect provision that must continue while the discrepancy is checked. Record the source, exact conflict, immediate risk, temporary arrangement, decision owner and resolution date.
If Section F and a school record conflict, do not edit the statutory wording inside the provision map. Secure the specified provision and use the proper review and local authority route.
If two school records conflict, return to current assessment, pupil and parent views, specialist advice and agreed outcomes. Decide which record changes, who updates it and who checks the result.
When two records are true views of the same provision, create one delivery identity with links to both. This removes double counting without erasing why the provision exists.
The connected-data view
Consider a fictional composite pupil. Their support plan records three weekly 20-minute decoding sessions. Section F specifies four weekly structured literacy sessions of the same duration.
The intervention timetable lists “reading boost” on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Delivery records show two sessions occurred because Friday repeatedly clashed with an assembly.
Labels alone suggest three provisions. Purpose, dosage, staff and timing suggest one provision described differently, with both a contradiction and a delivery gap.
The professional question is not “Which row should be deleted?” It is “What does Section F require, what is the school intending, and how will four deliverable sessions be secured and reviewed?”
The action is to preserve the Section F line, resolve the timetable collision, align the school plan, use one delivery identity and review attendance, work, pupil view and outcome evidence.
Connected records expose the discrepancy. They do not prove that missed sessions caused an outcome, that the programme is suitable or that changing dosage alone will improve progress.
What the audit cannot prove
A clean crosswalk does not prove that provision is suitable, high quality or effective. A completed session does not show what happened in it, how the pupil experienced it or why outcomes changed.
The audit cannot diagnose need, determine SEN status, amend an EHC plan or replace pupil, parent and professional views. It should prompt enquiry, not produce an automatic reduction in support.
EEF guidance also warns against treating attendance at an intervention as the success criterion. Target support closely to need, implement it well and review the pupil's response over time.
How Student Radar supports the workflow
In Student Radar, the Provision Map shows required, active and review-needed provision by pupil or provision, including missing staffing or date detail.
The Intervention Planner connects intent to sessions, staff, attendance and delivery. It helps expose planned support with no workable slot.
Outcome Tracking keeps evidence and professional review judgements beside provision. These views organise the audit; they do not resolve legal or professional contradictions automatically.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Select a representative pupil sample and freeze the source versions used for the audit.
- Build the crosswalk across current support plans, Section F and the live timetable.
- Classify every line using the six tests, without deleting source links.
- Protect required provision and assign each contradiction, gap or collision to an owner.
- Update the operational record, then check the linked plan and delivery view agree.
- Review on a named date using delivery, pupil-view and outcome evidence.
Use the Section F delivery audit for statutory detail. Use the intervention-capacity model when the problem is a timetable or staffing constraint.
To see how the connected provision workflow supports a source-led audit, 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 42, UK Parliament, enacted 2014; revised legislation checked 6 August 2026.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, enacted 2014; revised legislation checked 6 August 2026.
- Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, regulation 12, UK Parliament, made 4 June 2014; revised legislation checked 6 August 2026.
- SEND reform: putting children and young people first, Department for Education, closed consultation updated 27 April 2026.
- Selecting Interventions for pupils with SEND, Education Endowment Foundation, tool uploaded 10 April 2025.
- A School's Guide to Implementation, third edition, Education Endowment Foundation, published 24 April 2024.