EHCP spreadsheets versus SEND coordination software

An EHCP tracking spreadsheet can be the right tool for a small, stable caseload managed by one person. SEND coordination software becomes more useful when several people need current information, deadlines must be monitored across cases, evidence is spread between systems or reporting takes too much manual work.

The right choice is not "software at any cost." It is the simplest system that keeps records accurate, work visible and statutory responsibilities supported.

What an EHCP spreadsheet does well

Spreadsheets are familiar, flexible and inexpensive. A SENCO can create columns for:

• pupil reference
• plan status
• annual-review date
• assessment or consultation deadline
• named professionals
• outcomes and review status
• responsible staff
• next action

For a small school, this may be enough. Staff already understand the tool, changes can be made quickly and the school is not tied to a vendor.

A spreadsheet remains a reasonable choice when:

• one person owns the process
• the number of plans is modest
• few people need to update records
• documents are stored reliably elsewhere
• reminders and reports are simple
• version control is disciplined

Where spreadsheets start to strain

The difficulty is rarely the first tracker. It is the collection of trackers, documents and inbox threads that grows around it.

Common warning signs include:

• several copies with different information
• one SENCO acting as the only reliable source
• deadlines managed through memory or manual calendar entries
• provision records stored separately from outcomes
• evidence that cannot be found quickly for review
• updates copied into several systems
• reports rebuilt manually each term
• unclear access to sensitive pupil information

A spreadsheet can hold data, but it does not automatically create a workflow. The school still needs ownership, review routines, access controls, backup and a clear source of truth.

What SEND software may add

Products in the UK market cover different problems. Some focus on provision mapping, others on SEND registers and annual reviews, and others on local-authority assessment or consultation workflows.

Depending on the product, useful capabilities may include:

• shared case status and task ownership
• automatic deadline reminders
• links between needs, outcomes and provision
• provision-delivery records
• annual-review workflows
• audit history
• role-based access
• reports for leadership or governors
• links to a management information system
• structured communication with families or external professionals

Do not assume every product does all of these well. Compare the actual workflow your school needs with the product's live behaviour.

Spreadsheet versus software

Questions to ask before buying

1. Which exact process are we fixing?

Write down the current failure, such as missed consultation dates, annual-review administration or weak provision evidence. Do not buy a broad platform to solve an undefined problem.

2. Who must use it?

List the SENCO, teachers, teaching assistants, leaders, office staff, families and external professionals who genuinely need access. Check whether the permissions match those roles.

3. What integrates with the MIS?

Ask which pupil fields synchronise, how often, through which integration provider and what happens when records conflict. A logo on an integrations page is not enough.

4. How is sensitive data protected?

Schools should involve their data-protection lead. Review the data-processing agreement, hosting, subprocessors, access controls, audit logs, retention, incident process and deletion arrangements.

5. Can we leave cleanly?

Request a sample export before signing. Check whether plans, evidence, comments and audit history can be exported in a useful format, how long export remains available and how deletion is confirmed.

6. What does implementation require?

Include migration, data cleaning, staff training, support and the time needed to change routines. A tool is not implemented when accounts are created. It is implemented when staff use one agreed process consistently.

7. How will success be measured?

Choose measures connected to the original problem, such as:

• consultation responses submitted on time
• annual-review preparation time
• percentage of provision with current delivery evidence
• number of duplicate records
• time needed to answer a leadership query

Vendor claims about hours saved, funding gained or guaranteed compliance should be treated as marketing unless independently evidenced.

Software does not move statutory responsibility

A platform can organise information and prompt action. It does not change who holds legal duties. The local authority remains responsible for securing the special educational provision specified in Section F, and schools retain their own duties under the Children and Families Act.

Nor does an "Ofsted-ready" label prove that practice is effective. Inspectors and families need evidence that provision was delivered and reviewed, not merely that fields were completed.

A practical decision rule

Stay with a spreadsheet if it is current, controlled, secure and genuinely supports the team. Consider software when the cost of fragmented coordination, duplicated entry, weak visibility or manual reporting is consistently higher than the cost and change effort of a platform.

Before committing, run a trial using one real workflow with fictional or properly approved test data. Ask staff to complete the entire process, then test export and reporting.

Unisen focuses on coordination around school consultations and family draft-plan review rather than claiming to replace every SEND system.

Compare Unisen for school coordination or See pricing and pilots.