A year-end SEND register audit should confirm who is recorded, why they are recorded, whether their status and needs are accurate, whether plans and reviews are current, and what must happen next.
The strongest audit also checks whether planned provision was delivered and accessible. It leaves every unresolved item with an owner and September date, rather than rolling uncertainty into a new academic year.
This guide applies to schools in England. It supports professional quality assurance, but it is not legal advice and software cannot determine whether a pupil has SEN or make a statutory decision.
What is a SEND register audit?
A SEND register is the school's working view of pupils identified with SEN and, in many schools, pupils being monitored. The audit tests whether that view matches current evidence and current action.
Do not confuse the internal register with the school census. Current Department for Education guidance records SEN provision using code E for an education, health and care plan and code K for SEN support. The spring census also collects primary and, where relevant, secondary need types.
A monitoring category can help a school organise early enquiry, but it is not a third statutory census status. Equally, a census code is not a complete support plan. The audit needs to reconcile both without allowing either to replace professional assessment.
Why complete the audit before rollover?
The SEND Code of Practice describes a graduated approach of assess, plan, do and review. A year-end audit reveals where that cycle has stalled before classes, timetables and staff responsibilities change.
It also supports the school's duty under section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to use its best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by a pupil's SEN.
The aim is not to make the list shorter for presentation. It is to make each record more trustworthy and each next action more explicit.
The 12-check SEND register audit
Work through the checks at pupil level, then review the exceptions as a cohort. Record the evidence inspected, the decision made and the person responsible for any correction.
| Check | Evidence to inspect | Required output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Current roll | Admissions, leavers, dual registration and destination information | Every record is active, transferring or archived through the correct process |
| 2. SEN status | EHC plan, SEN support decision, monitoring rationale and census code | E, K and local monitoring labels are accurate and not treated as interchangeable |
| 3. Area of need | Assessment, teacher evidence, specialist advice and current presentation | Primary and secondary needs reflect the evidence, with uncertainty stated |
| 4. Plan currency | Current support plan, ISP or EHC plan, version and approval date | Staff can identify the live plan and obsolete copies are controlled |
| 5. Outcomes | Agreed outcomes, success criteria and baseline evidence | Outcomes remain relevant, observable and connected to the identified barrier |
| 6. Review completeness | Review notes, evidence considered, decisions and next review date | Missing or overdue reviews become named actions, not silent gaps |
| 7. Pupil and family voice | Pupil views, parent or carer contributions and recorded disagreement | The record distinguishes participation from a copied-forward sentence |
| 8. Provision delivery | Planned frequency, session records, cancellations and staffing | The plan reflects what was intended and the review reflects what occurred |
| 9. Access and wider evidence | Attendance, behaviour, attainment, health context and classroom observation | Barriers to accessing support are visible without turning correlation into cause |
| 10. Open statutory and external actions | Annual review actions, referrals, requests, advice and local authority correspondence | Each open item has a status, owner, deadline and escalation route |
| 11. September ownership | Class allocation, transition notes, staff briefing and first review point | A named person knows the first action and where to find the live evidence |
| 12. Data handling and transfer | Access permissions, retention schedule, CTF and secure transfer trail | Records are accurate, appropriately restricted, traceable and transferred securely |
Check status without auditing pupils off the register
Start with the evidence, not a target register size. For SEN support, ask whether the pupil has a learning difficulty or disability that calls for special educational provision and whether the graduated response remains appropriate.
A pupil should not be removed merely because attainment improved, a programme ended or paperwork is inconvenient. Improvement may show that support is effective. Conversely, a pupil should not remain at the same status indefinitely because last year's label has become familiar.
Record the evidence, involve the pupil and family, and follow the school's agreed decision process. Keep EHC plan status distinct from the school's judgement about its own support arrangements, because the local authority holds the statutory plan duties.
Test whether the plan is genuinely current
A recent file date does not prove that a plan is useful. Check whether outcomes, provision, strategies and review evidence describe the pupil now.
Look for copied targets, contradictory versions, provision without frequency, review notes without a decision, and actions without owners. Confirm that classroom staff can identify the live record and understand the adjustments relevant to their role.
For pupils with EHC plans, track the latest annual review paperwork, amendments, outstanding advice and local authority actions. Do not describe an overdue local authority decision as if the school can resolve it by editing its register.
The connected-data view: attendance changes the question
Consider a fictional composite pupil recorded at SEN support. Their plan and review date appear current, and an intervention outcome shows limited progress. Viewed alone, the register suggests that the intervention should be replaced.
Delivery records show several cancelled sessions. Attendance data shows that other sessions repeatedly fell on mornings the pupil found difficult to access. Classroom evidence suggests the strategy was helpful when used consistently.
The professional question changes from “Why has this pupil failed to progress?” to “Was the planned support delivered and accessible often enough to judge?”
The next action might be to change the timetable, agree a re-entry routine, restore the intended frequency and set an early review using the same outcome evidence. The records do not prove why the pupil was absent or that missed sessions caused the outcome. They identify a gap that needs enquiry.
Audit the exceptions as a cohort
Once pupil-level checks are complete, group the exceptions. Useful categories include overdue reviews, no current plan, unclear status, incomplete pupil or family voice, delivery below plan, open annual review action and unknown September owner.
Look for patterns by year group and transition point. A cluster can expose a workflow problem, such as reviews scheduled too late, provision records held in separate systems or responsibility concentrated with one unavailable colleague.
Prioritise by consequence and time sensitivity, not by whichever column is easiest to colour red.
What the audit cannot prove
A complete register does not prove that provision is effective. A risk indicator does not diagnose SEN. Attendance, behaviour or attainment patterns do not establish motive or causation.
The audit also cannot replace an annual review, specialist assessment, safeguarding response or conversation with the pupil and family.
Use connected records to find contradictions, missing evidence and questions. Decisions still require lawful processes, professional judgement and the views of the people involved.
How Student Radar can support the audit
In Student Radar, the SEND Register brings the SEND cohort and monitoring list together with current plans, urgency cues and next actions.
SEND on a page supports a cohort view for leadership review, while the Heatmap helps authorised staff inspect attendance and wider pupil context behind a priority.
Linked records make it easier to move from an exception to its evidence without treating a dashboard colour as a decision. Access remains role and capability dependent, and the SENCo remains responsible for the professional review.
Finish with a controlled rollover list
- Correct factual errors and identify the live plan.
- Give every unresolved review or statutory action an owner.
- Set the first September action and review date.
- Confirm the receiving staff member can access the information they need.
- Transfer leaver records securely and keep a traceable record.
- Schedule a short exception review during the first two weeks of term.
Pair the audit with the broader SENCo end-of-year checklist and turn priority records into a usable SEND handover. To see the connected workflow 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 and Social Care, January 2015; publication page updated 12 September 2024.
- Children and Families Act 2014, section 66, UK Parliament, 2014.
- Complete the school census: data items 2025 to 2026, Department for Education, updated 18 March 2026.
- Data protection in schools: sharing personal data, Department for Education, updated 9 July 2026.
- Data protection in schools: record keeping and management, Department for Education, updated 9 July 2026.
- School to school service: how to transfer information, Department for Education, published 26 March 2014.