An EHC needs assessment evidence file should show why the child or young person may have SEN and why provision through an EHC plan may be necessary.
Include their views, needs and strengths, progress, the graduated response, provision actually delivered, relevant health or development context, and current professional advice.
Organise evidence by the question it answers, with a source and date. The aim is a clear, proportionate account, not every document the school has ever owned.
This guide applies to schools in England and is accurate on 29 July 2026. It is not legal advice, and local-authority forms may ask for additional operational detail.
Start with the statutory test, not the local form
Section 36(8) of the Children and Families Act 2014 sets a two-part test. The child or young person has or may have SEN, and it may be necessary for provision to be made through an EHC plan.
The wording matters. A request does not need to prove the final outcome before an assessment has happened. It should give the local authority enough relevant evidence to apply both parts of the test.
Paragraph 9.14 of the SEND Code directs attention to progress, the nature and context of SEN, action already taken, additional support, development and relevant health evidence.
A local authority may publish criteria to guide decisions. Paragraph 9.16 says it must still consider individual circumstances and must not apply a blanket policy to a group or type of need.
No official development published in the previous 72 hours changed this threshold. The current Act, regulations and statutory guidance remain the basis for the checklist below.
Use this EHC needs assessment evidence checklist
Create an index before collecting attachments. Give each item a clear title, author or source, date, period covered and the statutory question it helps answer.
| Evidence strand | What to include | Quality check |
|---|---|---|
| Views, wishes and aspirations | Child or young person voice, parent or carer views, strengths and desired outcomes | Record how views were gathered and any communication support used |
| Nature, extent and context of SEN | Observed barriers to learning or participation, strengths, settings and patterns | Separate observed facts, reported views and professional opinion |
| Attainment and progress | Relevant baselines, attainment, developmental milestones and rate of progress | Show the period, measure, comparison and important access context |
| Graduated response | Assess, plan, do and review records, intended outcomes, adaptations and decisions | Show what changed after each review, not only that a cycle occurred |
| Provision and response | What was planned, frequency, delivery, missed sessions, response and review | Distinguish planned provision from provision actually received |
| Development, health and social context | Relevant physical, emotional, social or health information and agency action | Include only what helps explain SEN, access, provision or outcomes |
| Advice and evidence gaps | Current specialist advice, recommendations, school response and missing evidence | State currency, scope and whether further advice is being requested |
Show the graduated response as a decision trail
An assess, plan, do, review folder is useful only when it shows the reasoning between stages. Record the need identified, the agreed outcome, the support chosen and how delivery was checked.
At review, record the evidence considered, the child and family view, the professional judgement and the next decision. Keep superseded plans as history rather than silently replacing them.
Evidence of progress can support a request where that progress depended on much additional support beyond what is usually provided. Improvement does not make the support that enabled it disappear.
Likewise, limited progress is not self-explanatory. Check whether the provision matched the identified need, whether it was delivered and whether the outcome measure was accessible and relevant.
The provision map review offers a useful method for separating what was planned, delivered, adapted or stopped.
Do not make the school complete the assessment in advance
A request-stage file and the statutory assessment are different things. Existing current advice belongs in the file, but a school need not obtain every professional report listed in the regulations before asking.
If the local authority agrees to assess, regulation 6 requires it to seek specified advice. This includes parent or young person, educational, medical, psychological and social care advice.
It must also seek preparation-for-adulthood advice from Year 9 onwards, reasonable requests for other advice and any further information it considers appropriate.
Existing advice may be reused only where the author, local authority and parent or young person agree it is sufficient. The SEND Code says its currency should be checked.
Therefore, label missing advice as an evidence gap and say who has been asked. Do not describe an unfilled local checklist box as proof that the national statutory threshold cannot be met.
Apply a six-question quality check
- What decision or professional question does this item inform?
- Who created it, when, and what period does it cover?
- Is it an observed fact, a person's view or professional opinion?
- Does it describe support planned, support delivered or both?
- Is the information current, accessible and specific enough to use?
- Is every personal detail necessary for this purpose?
The last question is not decorative. ICO guidance says personal data must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary. More pages do not become more lawful through determined stapling.
The Department for Education updated its school data-protection guidance on 9 July 2026. Use secure transfer, follow school policy and involve the data protection lead where sensitive sharing needs review.
Safeguarding records need particular care. Share what is necessary through the appropriate route, and do not turn a general evidence bundle into a duplicate safeguarding file.
The connected-data view
Consider a fictional composite Year 6 pupil. Attainment records show slower recent progress, while the APDR plan schedules three supported literacy sessions each week.
Provision records show that eight of 18 planned sessions were delivered. Attendance is 94 per cent overall, but several absences fell on the session days and two sessions were cancelled for staffing reasons.
Current specialist advice supports the teaching approach. Pupil voice says returning to a missed sequence is confusing, and the latest review does not explain how the gaps were addressed.
The combined evidence changes the question. Instead of asking only why progress slowed, the SENCo asks whether the provision had a fair trial, how missed learning was recovered and what support is now necessary.
The next action is to verify delivery, review access with the pupil and family, update the professional analysis and record the remaining evidence gap before submission.
What the evidence cannot prove
A pattern cannot diagnose a condition, explain an absence or determine the outcome of an EHC needs assessment request. It can identify a question that needs proportionate professional enquiry.
A long list of support does not prove that it was suitable or delivered. A low attainment score does not establish the nature of SEN. A specialist label does not replace evidence about educational need.
Do not say that a school has exhausted its resources as if support were a finite box of biscuits. Explain what was reasonably available, what was tried, what happened and why provision through a plan may be necessary.
How Student Radar supports the workflow
Student Radar's EHCNA workspace lets authorised staff assemble an evidence pack around pupil profile, views, progress, graduated response, provision, relevant context, professional advice and evidence gaps.
Evidence items can retain source, date, provenance and an inclusion decision. The pack keeps the SENCo's recorded judgement visible before it is marked ready for export.
That joins records which otherwise sit in separate exports. It does not decide whether the statutory test is met, replace professional advice or make an EHC plan outcome inevitable.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Write the two-part statutory test at the top of the file index.
- Map existing evidence to the seven strands in the checklist.
- Add sources, dates, periods and fact or opinion labels.
- Reconcile planned provision with delivery and review records.
- Ask the child, young person and family what the records miss.
- Record evidence gaps, owners and request dates without delaying needlessly.
- Remove duplicate or irrelevant personal data before secure submission.
Use the pupil-data quality checks before assembling the pack. For a walkthrough of the EHCNA evidence workflow, contact Student Radar.
Sources and further reading
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 36, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, regulation 6, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, published 11 June 2014 and page updated 12 September 2024.
- Department for Education, Data protection in schools: sharing personal data, published 3 February 2023 and updated 9 July 2026.
- Information Commissioner's Office, Principle (c): Data minimisation, current guidance accessed 29 July 2026.