What is SEN Support, and how does the graduated approach work?

SEN Support is not a waiting room where a child stays until somebody decides whether the difficulty is serious. It is the way schools in England identify special educational needs, plan provision, put it into everyday teaching and learn from the result when an education, health and care plan is not in place.

The process is often described as the graduated approach: assess, plan, do, review. Its value lies in the questions adults answer, not in writing those four words on a form.

What counts as SEN Support?

Under the SEND Code for England, a child has special educational needs when a learning difficulty or disability calls for special educational provision. That provision is educational or training provision additional to or different from what is generally made for children of the same age ^[1]. A diagnosis is not part of that definition.

Schools also make ordinary teaching adaptations for many pupils. The boundary is not always obvious from one lesson. The school considers the nature of the child's difficulty, what high-quality teaching and targeted classroom support have achieved, and whether additional or different provision is called for.

When a school decides to make SEN provision, parents should be formally notified. Support should then be developed with the pupil and family, recorded and reviewed ^[1].

SEN Support is not one standard package. GOV.UK gives examples including special learning programmes, extra help, smaller-group work, observation, communication support and help with physical or personal care ^[2]. The right provision depends on what the child is unable to access and why.

Assess: build a working picture

Assessment does not have to mean one formal test. It means gathering enough relevant information to understand the need and decide what to try.

The picture may include:

• the pupil's view of difficult and manageable parts of school;
• parents' observations and experience;
• teachers' assessment, work samples and knowledge of progress;
• what happens in particular lessons, transitions and unstructured times;
• support already used and its effect;
• attendance, wellbeing and participation where relevant;
• advice from health, educational psychology or other specialists when needed.

Keep the sources distinct. A teacher may report that a child completes written work. A parent may report that the child cannot speak for an hour after school. The child may say they copy without understanding because asking for help draws attention. Those accounts do not cancel one another. Together, they create questions about effort, access and recovery.

Assessment should be specific enough to guide action. "Poor focus" could involve losing oral language, not understanding the task, being distracted by noise, needing movement, worrying about errors, pain, fatigue or several factors together. Each suggests a different first experiment.

The Code says the school should revisit assessment when progress remains below what is expected despite evidence-based teaching targeted at the area of weakness, and should consider specialist assessment where appropriate ^[1]. This is why the approach is graduated: the response becomes more detailed as the evidence requires.

Plan: say what will change

A useful plan connects a barrier to provision and an intended outcome.

Compare these two entries:

Support with attention as needed.

In independent writing, the teacher will check that R can state the first step, provide the instruction in writing and return after five minutes. For six weeks, staff will note whether R begins and how many further prompts are needed.

The second is not automatically the correct intervention. It is clear enough to deliver and review.

For each provision, record:

• the need or barrier it addresses;
• the support or teaching approach;
• where and when it applies;
• who is responsible for arranging and delivering it;
• the outcome sought;
• how the pupil will know what to expect;
• the information that will show whether it helped;
• the review date.

An outcome should describe meaningful access or progress rather than obedience. "L will use the agreed way to request clarification in three subject lessons" is more useful than "L will be more compliant". The child may need support, teaching and a reliable adult response for that outcome to become possible.

Parents and the pupil should be involved in agreeing the plan. Involvement does not mean that every request must be accepted. It means views are heard, decisions are explained and the resulting provision is understood.

Do: make the plan part of ordinary school life

The class or subject teacher remains responsible for the pupil's day-to-day education, including where interventions involve teaching assistants or specialist staff ^[1]. The SENCO coordinates and advises, but a plan cannot live only in the SENCO's folder.

The "do" stage needs practical answers:

• Do all relevant staff know the agreed provision?
• Is it available to supply teachers and in different rooms?
• Can the child use it without having to explain private information publicly?
• Does the child understand how to ask, enter, leave or return?
• Is an adult prompt helping access, or replacing thinking the child could do?
• Is the intervention connected back to classroom teaching?

EEF guidance for mainstream schools emphasises high-quality teaching, understanding individual needs and making careful use of targeted interventions ^[3]. Additional provision should not mean that the child repeatedly misses the teaching or relationships they need in order to receive disconnected help elsewhere.

Ask what happened, not only what was timetabled. Staff absence, room changes, misunderstanding or a child finding the support unusable can all alter delivery.

Review: examine delivery and effect

A review is not a progress update followed by "continue as before". It is the point where the group decides what the last cycle taught them.

Begin with delivery:

• Was the provision available at the agreed frequency and in the relevant settings?
• Did the child know how to access it?
• Were there periods when it stopped?
• Was it changed during the cycle, and why?

Then examine effect:

• What can the child now access, understand, begin, complete or tolerate more reliably?
• What does the child notice?
• Has the barrier moved to another part of the task?
• Were there costs such as fatigue, stigma, lost curriculum time or greater dependence?
• On which days did it work differently, and what was different about those days?

If provision did not happen, the school has not yet tested its effect. If it happened consistently and did not help, repeating it unchanged is not a stronger graduated response.

The review can lead to continuation, refinement, a different approach, further assessment or specialist advice. It may also show that the child no longer needs that particular provision. Record the decision and reasons.

How often should the cycle turn?

The Code expects reviews on the date agreed in the plan and says schools should meet parents of pupils receiving SEN Support at least three times each year ^[1]. That does not require every contact to be a large formal meeting. It does mean the family should not discover at the end of the year that a plan was never tested.

Set a period that fits the question. A classroom instruction change may be reviewable after several weeks. A teaching programme may need longer. An urgent barrier to eating, toileting, safety or attendance should not be left untouched until the next routine review.

If circumstances change, bring the review forward.

Where reasonable adjustments fit

SEN Support and reasonable adjustments overlap, but they are not the same test. A disabled pupil may need a school policy or practice changed to avoid substantial disadvantage whether or not they receive SEN Support or have an EHC plan. A child receiving SEN Support may not meet the Equality Act definition of disability.

Ask the school which question it is answering. Is this special educational provision for SEN, a reasonable adjustment for disability, ordinary adaptive teaching or more than one of these? The practical change may look similar, but clear routes matter when responsibilities or disagreements arise.

When the cycle is going nowhere

Look for the point where information has stopped changing.

• Is the need still described too broadly?
• Has specialist advice been recommended but not requested?
• Is the plan precise but inconsistently delivered?
• Are reviews measuring attainment while the main problem is participation or distress?
• Has the child changed year group or teacher without the plan being transferred?
• Is increasing support still insufficient for the child to make expected progress or access school?

Ask the SENCO to record the answer and the next action. If the child's needs may require provision beyond what the school ordinarily arranges through SEN Support, discuss the separate EHC needs assessment route. That route does not replace the school's responsibility to continue current support while a decision is made.

The school support plan guide helps you check the written detail. For a short preparation route before a meeting, use the SENCO meeting guide.

A quick test of the current cycle

Take one priority need and complete this sentence:

We think [barrier] is happening in [situation]. For [period], [role] will provide [provision]. We expect this to change [meaningful access or progress]. We will review delivery and effect on [date] using [child, school and family information].

If the adults cannot complete one part, that is the work for the next conversation. The gap may be assessment, clarity, responsibility, delivery or review. Naming it is more useful than beginning another cycle with the same general target.

Sources

1. Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years
2. GOV.UK, Special educational needs support
3. Education Endowment Foundation, Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools