A school should stop an intervention when a recorded review shows that the intended outcome has been met, the pupil no longer needs that form of support, or an adequately delivered intervention is not producing a worthwhile response and a better next step is available. Check fidelity, delivered dosage, response, transfer, pupil and parent views, and opportunity cost before deciding. Then plan the transition, retain useful classroom strategies and set a monitoring point. Do not treat the final session or a tidy graph as the decision.
This decision guide is for schools in England and is accurate on 9 August 2026. It supports professional review, not diagnosis or legal advice. Provision specified in section F of an EHC plan cannot simply be stopped through a school intervention review because the local authority's duty to secure it is set out in section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Why the stop decision deserves its own review
Summer planning is a sensible time to release timetable, staffing and pupil time from support that should not roll forward. It is also a risky time to confuse an administrative ending with an evidence-led decision. A programme can finish because the calendar says so while the professional question remains stubbornly open.
England's SEND Code of Practice places review within assess, plan, do and review. Schools should evaluate the effectiveness and impact of support at the agreed date, involving the pupil and parents, then revise support in light of progress and development.
The Department for Education's inclusive mainstream fund guidance was updated on 7 August 2026. It says targeted provision should be implemented with fidelity and evaluated carefully for impact, and its current examples emphasise monitoring and adjusting targeted support through regular assessment. This timely update reinforces the need for a deliberate stop, step-down or adapt decision. The EEF's July 2026 Guide to Inclusive Teaching adds that additional support may be short-term or ongoing, and that ineffective support can hinder learning.
Choose between five decisions
Student Radar’s workable synthesis, not a statutory stop test. This five-way model structures professional review. It does not replace statutory guidance, an EHC plan or a school’s legal duties.
Do not reduce the review to stop or continue. The useful choice depends on what was delivered, what changed, what the pupil experienced and what the school can do next.
| Decision | Use it when | Required next step |
|---|---|---|
| Stop | The outcome is met, need has changed, or a fair trial shows little worthwhile response | Close the record, explain why, retain helpful strategies and monitor |
| Step down | The pupil can use the learning with less targeted support | Move support into ordinary classroom practice with a review trigger |
| Adapt | The aim remains sound but delivery, access, dosage or fit needs to change | Change the named barrier and give the adapted cycle a short review date |
| Continue | There is meaningful response, acceptable burden and a current outcome | Confirm the next block, owner, dosage and success measure |
| Reassess | The evidence is too weak, conflicting or based on the wrong question | Return to assessment rather than prescribing more of the same |
Run four checks before stopping
1. Was there a fair test of the intervention?
Compare planned dosage with sessions actually delivered. Check duration, group size, staffing, materials and any material departure from the intended approach. Separate pupil absence from school cancellation and attendance at school but not at the session.
If delivery was substantially incomplete, the evidence may justify fixing the timetable or changing the model. It does not, by itself, show that the pupil failed or that the approach is ineffective. Nor does it require an automatic repeat: first ask whether a fairer cycle is feasible and acceptable.
2. Is the response meaningful and transferable?
Compare a suitable baseline with the review measure, then look beyond the practised task. Ask whether the pupil uses the learning in class, participates more independently or experiences a relevant change in access. Include teacher observation, work, assessment and pupil or family views where they fit the intended outcome.
Stop or step down when the agreed outcome is met and targeted delivery is no longer needed. Consider replacement or reassessment when an adequately delivered cycle produces little meaningful response. Continue only because there is a current reason, not because stopping feels harder to minute.
3. Does the support still fit the pupil and the classroom?
Review current strengths, needs, accessibility and the link to high-quality teaching. Ask the pupil what helped, what felt burdensome and what transferred. Share the evidence and proposed next action with parents. A technically faithful programme can still be a poor fit for a pupil, time or context.
Check whether stopping one identified intervention leaves necessary adjustments and ordinary teaching support intact. Ending a programme is not the same as removing SEN support or changing SEN status.
4. What is the opportunity cost?
Record staff time, pupil time, missed curriculum or social opportunities, room use and the effect on other provision. Opportunity cost is not a shortcut for cutting support. It asks whether the same time and capacity could provide a more suitable response without weakening a statutory duty or a reasonable adjustment.
The EEF's implementation process ends with sustaining effort and deciding next steps. That makes stopping a legitimate implementation decision when the evidence supports it; it is not a confession that planning failed.
Close the intervention without dropping the learning
- Record the final review evidence, confidence and decision owner.
- State whether the outcome was met, the approach was replaced or reassessment is needed.
- Agree the decision with the relevant staff and involve the pupil and parents.
- Identify strategies, adjustments or teaching approaches that should continue.
- Tell staff what changes, from what date, and who remains responsible.
- Set a monitoring date and observable trigger for earlier review.
- Archive the intervention record without erasing delivery or outcome history.
- Check EHC plan provision separately through the statutory review process.
When another record changes the question
Picture a fictional composite pupil in a twice-weekly reading group. The review score has improved, so the first signal suggests that the intervention should continue.
Session records show that delivery was consistent. Classroom work and teacher observation show that the pupil now uses the target strategy independently. Pupil voice says the group helped, but it now removes them from a lesson they value. Attendance is stable, and the provision map shows that the same trained staff time could meet a more pressing need elsewhere.
The professional question becomes: can targeted delivery stop while the successful strategy is retained in class? The action is to step down, brief the teacher, preserve the review evidence and check transfer after six weeks. The combined data does not prove that the intervention alone caused the improvement or that support will never be needed again.
Keep the inference within bounds
A score cannot prove causation, diagnose a need or decide SEN status. Session counts cannot show the quality of delivery or the pupil's experience. Cost cannot measure belonging, dignity or access. Pupil and parent views are essential context, but they are not interchangeable with an outcome measure.
A dashboard cannot amend an EHC plan, remove a reasonable adjustment or decide that a school has met its best-endeavours duty. Section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 applies to relevant schools in England. Where evidence conflicts, record the uncertainty and arrange the next professional enquiry.
Keeping the evidence reachable in Student Radar
In Student Radar, Outcome Tracking links targets, evidence and professional review judgements. The Provision Map keeps active support, owners, cost and review needs visible, while the Intervention Planner connects planned sessions, attendance, delivery notes and review dates.
These connected records can reveal an incomplete trial, a successful step-down or a better use of capacity. They do not stop support automatically or replace the SENCo's professional review.
The decisions to record before closing the file
- List interventions due for a decision before the new timetable is fixed.
- Reconcile planned and delivered dosage for each one.
- Use the five-decision table with pupil, parent and staff evidence.
- Record opportunity cost without using it as a proxy for impact.
- Give every stop or step-down decision a transition and monitoring plan.
- Escalate uncertain need to reassessment rather than repeating by habit.
Use the intervention impact review to assemble the evidence, and the entry and exit criteria guide to define future decision rules before delivery begins. For a wider year-end map, use the archive, carry forward, adapt or stop guide.
To see the connected workflow in context, 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 66, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 42, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Inclusive mainstream fund: best practice for schools, Department for Education, published 25 June 2026; updated 7 August 2026.
- Guide to Inclusive Teaching: adaptations and additional support, Education Endowment Foundation, published 6 July 2026.
- A School's Guide to Implementation, Education Endowment Foundation, third edition published 24 April 2024.