Evidence in Assess, Plan, Do, Review is the information needed to make and explain the next decision.
It should show the pupil's starting point and views, the agreed outcome and provision, what was actually delivered, how the pupil responded, and why support will continue, change or stop.
A completed form is not evidence of impact by itself. Neither is a test score without context. Useful evidence connects need, action, response and professional judgement.
This guide concerns SEN support in schools in England. It is accurate on 30 July 2026 and is not legal advice.
Why the evidence belongs to the cycle
Paragraph 6.44 of the SEND Code of Practice describes SEN support as a four-part cycle. Earlier decisions are revisited, refined and revised as the school develops a better understanding of need and what helps.
That makes the evidence cumulative. Each review should leave the next assessment better informed, not send everyone back to a blank template with the institutional memory of a goldfish.
The Code is statutory guidance for England. Its language matters: "must" reflects a statutory requirement, while "should" is guidance that relevant bodies must consider and be able to explain any departure from.
Section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 separately requires the appropriate authority for a mainstream school to use its best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by a pupil's SEN.
No official development published in the previous 72 hours changed these current duties or the graduated-approach evidence cycle.
What counts as evidence at each stage?
The minimum useful record is proportionate, specific and connected to a decision. It need not become a small archive devoted to the fact that a meeting occurred.
| Stage | Useful evidence | Question it should answer |
|---|---|---|
| Assess | Starting point, strengths, barriers, pupil and parent views, teacher assessment, progress and relevant context | What are we trying to understand, and what might explain it? |
| Plan | Agreed outcome, provision, expected impact, owner, review date and the evidence that will be gathered | What will happen, for what purpose, and how will we judge it? |
| Do | Actual delivery, participation, adaptations, brief observations and links back to classroom teaching | Did the pupil receive the planned support, and what occurred? |
| Review | Change from the starting point, pupil and parent views, quality of delivery, unintended effects and a reasoned next decision | What changed, what remains uncertain, and what will we do next? |
Assess: build a usable starting point
The Code says the teacher and SENCo should carry out a clear analysis drawing on assessment, experience, progress, attainment, behaviour, relevant teachers, comparisons, parental experience, pupil views and, where relevant, external advice.
This is triangulation, not a demand to collect everything. Choose evidence that can test the working question.
A broad attainment score may signal concern but still hide whether the barrier involves language, access, prior teaching, attendance or something else.
Record strengths and successful conditions as carefully as difficulty. The plan needs to know what already helps. A starting point that only lists what a pupil cannot do is both incomplete and poor design.
The assessment should be reviewed regularly. For some needs, the pupil's response to well-matched support helps the school develop a more accurate picture.
Plan: define what success would look like
A plan should connect the assessed barrier to an agreed outcome, adjustment, support or intervention. It should name the expected impact, responsibilities and a clear review date.
Decide the evidence method before delivery begins. That may include a short curriculum-linked task, observation in a defined situation, pupil feedback, a work sample or a relevant assessment measure.
The method should fit the outcome. If the intended change is participation in classroom discussion, an unrelated standardised score cannot carry the whole review.
The Education Endowment Foundation advises that targeted interventions should complement rather than replace high-quality teaching. Simply doing an intervention is not a success criterion; the intended pupil outcome remains the point.
Do: record delivery without writing a diary
The class or subject teacher remains responsible for the pupil's progress, including where a teaching assistant or specialist provides support away from the main lesson.
The record should distinguish planned provision from actual delivery. Capture whether sessions or adjustments happened, meaningful absences or timetable changes, adaptations, and a concise observation of response.
Attendance at a session proves attendance, not benefit. A detailed activity log proves activity, not progress. Both become useful when connected to the outcome, the pupil's experience and classroom evidence.
Keep recording sustainable. Use agreed prompts and small samples at useful points rather than asking staff to produce a novella after every Tuesday.
Review: make and record the decision
Review the effectiveness and quality of support on the agreed date. Look at progress from the starting point, whether delivery matched the plan, and the views of the pupil and parents.
Then record the judgement and its limits. Continue what is working, adapt the approach, gather different evidence, seek specialist advice, or stop support that is no longer needed or effective.
A graph without a decision is decoration. A decision without the evidence behind it is difficult to explain, revisit or improve.
Paragraphs 6.72 to 6.75 of the Code allow schools to determine their own record-keeping approach, while requiring provision to be recorded accurately and kept up to date. The record should show support provided over time and its impact.
The connected-data view
Consider a fictional composite pupil whose plan aims to increase independent participation in reading tasks. The baseline includes a curriculum sample, classroom observation and the pupil's account of what makes reading aloud difficult.
The provision record shows a structured fluency approach was planned. Delivery evidence then shows that several sessions were displaced by timetable clashes, although the pupil's general school attendance remained steady.
Later work samples show greater fluency in familiar passages. Pupil voice is more positive, but classroom observation shows that independence has not transferred consistently to unfamiliar text.
Connecting provision, delivery, attendance context, classroom response and pupil voice changes the question.
The SENCo should ask whether the approach needs more reliable delivery and an explicit classroom transfer step before judging its effectiveness.
The next action is to protect delivery, add the transfer strategy and review against the same intended outcome. The evidence supports that decision; it does not prove why the pupil responded as they did.
What the evidence cannot prove
A pattern does not establish diagnosis, causation or statutory eligibility. Progress after support does not prove that the support alone caused it, and limited progress does not prove that a pupil did not engage.
Check alternative explanations, evidence quality and whether provision was delivered as intended. Treat connected data as a prompt for professional enquiry, discussion with the pupil and family, and better planning.
The volume of uploaded evidence does not demonstrate compliance. The stronger record is the one that makes a proportionate, lawful and humane decision traceable.
How Student Radar can support the workflow
In Student Radar, Intervention Planner can connect the intended support to scheduled sessions, participation and review dates. Outcome Tracking can then keep evidence and a professional judgement beside the relevant SEND target.
These records can sit alongside the Provision Map rather than in separate exports. The software supports the evidence trail; it does not diagnose need, choose the outcome or make the review decision.
Next actions for the SENCo
- Choose one current SEN support plan and state its working question.
- Check that the starting point includes pupil and parent views.
- Link the assessed barrier, outcome, provision and expected impact.
- Confirm who records actual delivery and which response evidence matters.
- At review, record the decision, reasons, uncertainty and next date.
- Share the agreed record with the pupil, parents and relevant staff.
For a wider cohort check, use the SEND provision impact guide and the provision-map review workflow.
Sources and further reading
- SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, January 2015; GOV.UK page updated 12 September 2024.
- Schools: guide to the 0 to 25 SEND code of practice, Department for Education, September 2014.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Selecting targeted interventions, Education Endowment Foundation; intervention tool uploaded 10 April 2025.
- The Assess, Plan, Do, Review Cycle, Somerset Council, updated 11 December 2025.