A SENCo end-of-year review should identify what is overdue, what was not delivered as planned, what must be handed over safely and which pupils need an explicit September action.
Start with deadlines and open actions, then connect plans with provision, attendance, behaviour, health, safeguarding and family communication. Record an owner and review date for every next step before staff become unavailable.
This checklist is for schools in England. It supports professional review, but it is not legal advice.
It does not replace your school, trust, local authority or safeguarding procedures. Term dates vary by council, academy and trust, so use it in your own final full week or fortnight.
Why this matters before the summer break
The end of term is a control point. It is the last practical chance to settle unclear ownership, preserve evidence and make sure an urgent action does not depend on one person remembering it six weeks later.
The current SEND Code of Practice is statutory guidance for England. Schools and other listed bodies must have regard to it when carrying out their SEND duties.
The final review is therefore about decisions and evidence, not tidying a register for appearance's sake.
Paperwork has a habit of becoming institutional memory once everyone who remembers the context has left the building. Without named actions, the September team may face a small archaeological dig through email folders.
The SENCo end-of-year audit table
Work through the table with the people who own each record. A red flag does not automatically mean support has failed. It means the evidence needs a decision, an owner or a safe handover.
| Check | Evidence to review | Warning sign | Action before term ends | September follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plans and reviews | Review dates, current plans, advice and pupil or parent contributions | Overdue, incomplete or due before early autumn | Confirm the process, missing evidence and accountable owner | Book the date and state what must be ready |
| Provision delivery | Planned sessions, staffing, delivery notes and changes | Provision recorded but inconsistent or unevidenced | Record what happened and decide whether the plan changes | Check delivery after the first full cycle |
| Interventions | Entry measure, attendance, dosage, exit criteria and review decision | Weak attendance, unclear purpose or no review judgement | Decide to continue, adapt, pause or close | Recheck participation and intended evidence |
| Attendance | Weekly patterns, reasons, agreed support and reasonable adjustments | A pattern hidden by the overall percentage | Agree support or a holiday-period handover where needed | Review early rather than waiting for a term total |
| Behaviour and transition | Recent changes, context, adjustments and pupil voice | A new pattern without an updated support response | Brief receiving staff and record the question to explore | Observe in context and speak with the pupil |
| Health and access | Healthcare plans, medication, allergies, PEEPs and care arrangements | Needs, staff or emergency arrangements have changed | Use the school's health and safety processes to update arrangements | Confirm trained staff, access and current documents |
| Safeguarding and early help | Current concerns, referrals, plans, contacts and secure transfer status | An action depends on one unavailable member of staff | Escalate through the DSL and agreed multi-agency route | Confirm receipt and prompt action by the right people |
| Communication and voice | Requested, promised or gathered parent and pupil contributions | Useful context is sitting outside the live record | Incorporate it or record why a decision is pending | Close the loop with the pupil or family |
| Open actions | Owner, deadline, dependency and completion evidence | No owner, no date or an owner unavailable over summer | Reassign, schedule or close with a recorded reason | Review the action list in week one |
1. Start with dates, ownership and unfinished decisions
Filter for plans or reviews that are overdue, incomplete or due during the summer and early autumn. Check whether advice, pupil views and parent contributions have been requested, received and used in the live record.
Separate a missing document from a missing decision. The next action should say who will do what, by when, and what evidence will allow the SENCo to decide whether the action is complete.
An action without an owner is merely a wish wearing a date badge.
2. Compare planned provision with what was delivered
Review provision recorded on plans against session records, staffing, pupil participation and usable evidence of impact. Do not assume that a timetable entry proves delivery, or that attendance at a session proves benefit.
For each intervention, check the intended outcome, entry measure, expected dosage, actual participation, review evidence and exit criteria. Record a professional decision to continue, adapt, pause or close it.
A whole-school provision map can make gaps easier to see, while outcome tracking keeps the evidence and review judgement beside the target. Neither replaces the discussion with the pupil and staff who know the context.
3. Look for attendance and behaviour patterns that change the plan
The Department for Education updated Working together to improve school attendance on 9 July 2026.
The statutory guidance for England continues to emphasise early pattern identification, listening to pupils and families, understanding barriers and arranging support or reasonable adjustments.
Review weekly and session-level patterns, not only the year-to-date percentage. Ask whether missed provision, particular transitions, lessons, days or transport arrangements require a September response.
Attendance data identifies a question; it does not answer it on its own.
Recent behaviour changes may also alter support or transition planning. Check the context, strategies already tried, reasonable adjustments and pupil voice. Avoid turning a dashboard pattern into a story about motive.
4. Review health, access and safeguarding handovers separately
Check individual healthcare plans, medication, allergies, personal emergency evacuation plans and care arrangements through the school's established procedures.
The DfE's current medical conditions guidance says policies should be regularly reviewed and individual healthcare plans reviewed at least annually or earlier when needs change.
Keep safeguarding work within the school's child-protection system and access controls.
Under Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025, the DSL should transfer child-protection files securely and separately, confirm receipt, and make the receiving DSL or SENCo aware as required.
KCSIE 2026 has been published for information but does not take effect until 1 September 2026.
It strengthens the emphasis on structured, prompt review and action after transfer. Prepare for that change without presenting future guidance as a current duty.
The connected-data view: a fictional example
Consider a fictional composite pupil whose overall attendance does not initially look exceptional. A weekly view shows repeated Friday absence.
Provision records then show that a large share of a scheduled intervention is missed because it also happens on Friday.
Behaviour and communication records show growing anxiety around a lesson and transition on that day. The right conclusion is not that the records prove a cause.
The SENCo now has a better professional question to explore with the pupil, family and relevant staff.
The action might be to review the timetable, consider adjustments, move the intervention and name a September owner. The review date should be early enough to see whether participation and experience have changed.
What connected records cannot prove
Connected data cannot diagnose a need, establish why a pupil was absent, prove that an intervention caused an outcome or decide a statutory route. It can reveal timing, sequence and gaps that separate exports may conceal.
Treat a risk indicator as a prompt to inspect evidence, listen and apply professional judgement. A spreadsheet may be a useful map, but it is still a map drawn by a committee and should not be mistaken for the child.
Choose the September priority group
End with a deliberately small list of pupils who need explicit attention in the first two weeks. Include those with an overdue review, changed need, uncertain provision, a critical handover or a pattern that needs prompt enquiry.
- Name the September owner and a backup.
- State the first action and the evidence needed.
- Set a review date within the first two weeks where appropriate.
- Record who must be involved, including pupil and family voice.
- Keep safeguarding and health information in the correct secure system.
How Student Radar can support the workflow
Student Radar can bring the SEND register, current plan, provision, attendance, behaviour, communications and open actions into the same pupil context.
This helps the SENCo inspect the evidence behind a pattern rather than treating one indicator as a verdict.
The Heatmap can help teams find a pattern and open the pupil context, while the Intervention Planner supports review of scheduling, attendance, delivery notes and intended impact. Access remains role and capability dependent.
If you want to see how the joined-up review works 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, January 2015; publication page updated 12 September 2024.
- Working together to improve school attendance, Department for Education, updated 9 July 2026.
- Keeping children safe in education, Department for Education, current 2025 version and 2026 version for information.
- Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions, Department for Education, December 2015.
- School term and holiday dates, GOV.UK, accessed 12 July 2026.