EHCP consultation evidence checklist for schools

An EHCP consultation response is only as strong as the evidence behind it. For a school, the aim is not to assemble the largest possible bundle. It is to show, clearly and proportionately, what the child or young person needs, what the draft plan requires, what the school can deliver and where a material gap remains.

Use this checklist when a local authority consults your school about being named in an EHC plan in England.

1. Check the consultation pack

Before assessing suitability, confirm that the local authority has provided enough current information.

You should normally expect:

• the draft EHC plan
• the advice and reports listed in Section K
• educational psychology advice where obtained
• relevant speech and language, occupational therapy, health or social-care advice
• the child's and family's views
• the placement request and consultation question
• current information from the existing setting where relevant

The SEND Code of Practice says assessment advice should be clear, accessible and specific. If a listed report is missing or clearly outdated, request it and explain why it matters to the response.

2. Build a needs-to-provision grid

Read Sections B, E, F and K together. A simple working grid can expose gaps quickly:

For each row, check:

• whether the need is described specifically
• whether the supporting advice is current and relevant
• whether the provision is detailed enough to understand
• the required frequency, duration, group size and expertise where relevant
• what facilities, staffing, training and timetable changes would be needed

Do not rely on a headline diagnosis. The response must engage with the individual needs and provision in this plan.

3. Evidence the graduated approach

Schools should keep a clear record of assess, plan, do and review activity. Relevant evidence may include:

• provision maps
• individual support plans or equivalent records
• intervention attendance and delivery logs
• baseline and review measures
• classwork or assessment information
• staff observations
• professional recommendations and how they were implemented
• parent and pupil views
• review minutes and agreed next steps

A list of interventions is not enough. Record whether they happened, what changed and what the next review concluded.

4. Record reasonable steps

If the school has concerns about incompatibility or its ability to meet need, the evidence should show which reasonable steps have been considered.

Depending on the individual case, this might include:

• changes to grouping or timetable
• staff training
• environmental adjustments
• additional adult support
• specialist advice
• assistive technology
• changes to routines or transitions
• support to reduce effects on the education of others

For each step, record whether it has been tried, its impact, what it would require and why it would or would not resolve the issue. Avoid generic claims such as "all reasonable steps have been exhausted" without the underlying record.

5. Separate resource pressure from the legal test

Funding, staffing and space may form part of the factual picture, but they are not automatic reasons for a school not to be named.

Evidence should answer questions such as:

• What exactly is unavailable?
• Could it be secured or adjusted?
• What would it cost and why?
• What effect would the proposed arrangement have?
• How does that effect connect to the statutory naming test?

This turns a resource statement into a reasoned analysis.

6. Include the child's and family's evidence

A consultation response should not reduce a child to capacity figures. Include relevant evidence about:

• what helps the child learn and participate
• current relationships and transitions
• communication preferences
• the child or young person's views
• the family's views and requested placement
• successful adjustments already in use

If the school's information conflicts with a professional report or family account, identify the difference and the evidence for the school's position rather than dismissing the other view.

7. Quality-check the response

Before submission, ask a second appropriate person to check that:

• every important statement has evidence
• dates and sources are clear
• Sections B, F and K have been cross-checked
• reasonable steps are recorded
• no diagnosis or generic capacity statement is being used as a shortcut
• the conclusion addresses the relevant legal test
• the tone is factual and respectful
• attachments are named and referenced

One-page evidence checklist

• Draft plan received and version recorded
• Section K advice present
• Needs-to-provision grid completed
• Current provision and APDR evidence gathered
• Reasonable steps considered and recorded
• Child and family views considered
• Resource statements connected to evidence
• Legal test identified
• Leadership review completed
• Submission and attachments retained

The local authority remains responsible for securing the special educational provision in Section F, while the school has its own duties, including best endeavours and the duty to admit if named. The Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice should be checked for the current position.

Unisen is being developed to organise this evidence against the plan sections and carry it into a structured consultation response.

Explore the school workflow.