The six-week SEND review: what to look at first

At an agreed six-week SEND review, look first at what support actually reached the pupil. Reconcile the plan with delivery, check access to learning, then examine comparable outcome evidence and pupil and parent views. Finish with a decision, an action owner and the next review date. A timetable can look reassuringly busy while leaving the important question unanswered.

This checklist is for SENCos and teachers in England preparing an early-term SEN support review. Six weeks is a locally agreed interval, not a statutory deadline or proof that an intervention has worked. Use the dates agreed for this pupil; school calendars differ. This meeting doesn't replace an EHC plan annual review or the duties attached to the plan. Urgent concerns and unmet provision need action when identified, without waiting for the meeting.

Bring the agreed plan and the evidence behind it

Find the version used when support began: the need being addressed, expected outcome, support, frequency, responsible staff and review date. Keep changes dated so staff can explain which arrangement operated in each part of the period. If the starting evidence is thin, describe that limitation. The baseline guide covers setting that starting point; this review checks what happened after the agreement.

The SEND code of practice, paragraphs 6.48 and 6.53 to 6.55, describes agreeing support and a review date, then evaluating its quality and impact with pupil and parent views. Paragraph 6.52 keeps responsibility with the class or subject teacher when other staff provide support. Invite the people who can explain delivery and authorise changes. Bring relevant records through the school's approved route, with access limited to those who need them.

Work through these six questions in order

Copy the questions into the meeting record. Beside each answer, retain its source and date, any uncertainty, and the action owner and deadline. Gather pupil and parent views before the meeting where possible, then use them throughout these checks. The order is a starting point for discussion; it mustn't delay a concern that needs attention now.

1. What was planned, delivered, missed or left unknown? Count the support opportunities in the agreed period. Record confirmed delivery, confirmed non-delivery and unresolved entries separately, with reasons where known. Distinguish a session offered while the pupil was absent from one cancelled by the school. A blank log doesn't prove that support was missed. Ask the responsible staff to resolve gaps and retain corrections with their source. Check duration, content and quality as well as counts.
2. Could the pupil access the support and ordinary lessons? Check timing, location, communication, equipment and agreed classroom adjustments. Attendance at school doesn't establish participation in a support session. Review relevant attendance and timetable records with staff and the family to identify questions about access. DfE's attendance guidance expects partnership with families and appropriate support for pupils with SEND. Records alone can't explain an absence or establish its cause.
3. What outcome evidence can fairly be compared? Return to the agreed target. Check whether observations or tasks address the same skill, with similar conditions and a clear account of adult prompting. Record dates, opportunities and changes in task difficulty. Separate performance during supported practice from use in ordinary lessons. An improvement across six weeks can inform the discussion; it can't establish that the intervention caused it. Use the intervention-impact guide when the question needs fuller evaluation.
4. What do the pupil and parent say is helping or getting in the way? Use communication that lets the pupil contribute. Ask about particular tasks, transitions and support arrangements, and ask the parent what they have noticed. Record disagreement alongside staff observations without flattening the accounts into a single verdict. If a contribution is outstanding, record who will seek it and how. No response doesn't establish agreement. Views can identify a change worth checking.
5. Which problem needs fixing now? Decide whether the immediate issue concerns delivery, access, the suitability of support, or insufficient evidence. More sessions won't repair an inaccessible arrangement. EEF's SEND guidance places high-quality teaching alongside carefully selected additional support. Check the classroom connection before adding another programme. Record the reason for continuing, adapting or seeking further advice, including what remains uncertain. Follow the applicable plan and professional routes for any change.
6. Who will do what, and when will it be checked? End with an accountable decision, the staff member responsible, a completion date and the next review. Specify the evidence needed to check the action, and explain the revised arrangements to the pupil, parent and relevant staff. Keep an unresolved question assigned until it has an answer. The broader assess, plan, do, review guide helps carry this record into the next cycle.

A participation record that changes the first action

This invented example uses no pupil or customer data. A plan offers a short preview of the first classroom task twice a week for six weeks, aiming to help a pupil begin that task with fewer adult prompts. The record covers 12 planned opportunities: eight confirmed delivered, two cancelled because staff cover was unavailable, one offered while the pupil was absent, and one with no confirmed delivery record. These categories account for all 12. The unknown entry stays unknown until checked.

Four ordinary-lesson observations describe task starts with the agreed prompts recorded. Two later observations used a shorter task and extra adult help, so staff keep them separate from the earlier comparison. The pupil reports that the preview helps when it happens before the lesson. The parent describes uncertainty about which mornings it is available. Neither account fills the missing delivery entry or proves effectiveness.

The teacher and SENCo agree to resolve the cover arrangement and explain the preview timetable to the family. The teacher owns the cover check by the next school day; the SENCo seeks confirmation of the unresolved entry from its recorder within two school days. They retain it as unknown if it can't be verified. They agree a further review in two school weeks, using delivery records and comparable task-start observations with prompting recorded. That follow-up tests the correction while the wider outcome question stays open.

EEF's implementation guidance distinguishes implementation outcomes from final pupil outcomes. That distinction helps here: repairing delivery is an action the school can check promptly. Establishing progress needs an appropriate observation period and evidence matched to the target.

Student Radar's Provision Map supports reviewing provision details. Outcome Tracking supports recording evidence, confidence and next steps against targets. Staff still need to verify source records, check access permissions and make the review judgement. These workflows can't establish causation or decide the pupil's support.

Sources and further reading

• DfE and DHSC: SEND code of practice, 0 to 25 years, January 2015, paragraphs 6.44 to 6.56. Publication page updated 12 September 2024.
• DfE: Working together to improve school attendance, published 6 May 2022, updated 9 July 2026, especially paragraphs 56 to 59.
• EEF: Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools, first edition, 20 March 2020, recommendations 2 to 4.
• EEF: A School's Guide to Implementation, third edition, 24 April 2024, recommendation 3, especially monitoring implementation outcomes.