The Graduated Approach to SEN: Assess, Plan, Do, Review

The graduated approach is the structured process schools use to identify, support and review the progress of learners with special educational needs. It follows a four-stage cycle: Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR). Every mainstream school in England is required to use it as part of SEN Support (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). If you are a class teacher, a SENCo, or a teaching assistant working with learners who need additional support, the graduated approach is the framework that guides every decision you make about that child's provision.

‍

‍

The Graduated Approach

The SEND Code of Practice explains the graduated approach for learners who need SEN Support (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). Schools should use it when learners do not make expected progress after high-quality teaching and reasonable adjustments. The cycle becomes more precise as staff understand the learner's barriers more clearly. The Department for Education's improvement plan and 2026 reform consultation place this cycle within a changing system of National Standards, Individual Support Plans, and stronger mainstream inclusion (Department for Education, 2023; Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2026).

‍

‍

The term "graduated" is significant. It means the response is not all-or-nothing. You start with adjustments within the classroom.

If those adjustments are not enough, you move to more targeted interventions. If targeted interventions do not close the gap, you seek specialist advice.

At each stage, you Identify what the learner needs, put a plan in place, deliver the support, and then review whether it worked. This cycle repeats, usually on a termly basis, and each iteration adds to the evidence base about that learner.

‍

Mental Health, and Sensory & Physical, used for assessment." loading="lazy">

‍

The Code of Practise places the graduated approach within the broader framework of SEN Support, the category that sits between universal provision (Wave 1 teaching) and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Most learners with SEND in England never reach the EHCP threshold. For those learners, the graduated approach is the entirety of their formal SEN provision. Getting it right matters enormously.

The Code of Practice says class and subject teachers are accountable for every learner's progress. This includes learners receiving SEN Support (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). SENCos coordinate provision and advise colleagues. However, daily support sits with the teacher, not outside the classroom team (NASEN, 2014).

‍

‍

Assess, Plan, Do, Review Explained

The APDR cycle has four distinct stages. Each one has a clear purpose and a set of actions that the teacher (and wider team) should carry out. Here is what each stage involves in practice.

‍

‍

Stage 1: Assess

Assessment in the graduated approach is not a single test score. It is a broad, triangulated picture of the learner's strengths and difficulties. You are trying to answer one question: what exactly is getting in the way of this learner's learning?

The four areas are communication and interaction, cognition and learning, social, emotional and mental health, and sensory and/or physical needs (DfE, 2015). Use the data you already have to spot needs early. Review observations, books, assessments, tests, and parent input. Then group learner challenges into the four Code of Practice areas: communication, cognition, social-emotional health, and sensory/physical needs (DfE, 2015).

• Cognition and Learning (e.g. difficulty acquiring reading, writing or number skills; poor retention of information; discrepancy between oral and written work)
• Communication and Interaction (e.g. limited vocabulary, difficulty following verbal instructions, poor social timing, literal interpretation of language)
• Social, Emotional and Mental Health (e.g. withdrawn behaviour, difficulty controlling emotions, anxiety affecting participation, avoidance of new experiences)
• Sensory and/or Physical (e.g. fine or gross motor delay, visual or hearing impairment, fatigue from medical conditions, sensory processing difficulties)

Learners often have needs in more than one area. For example, a learner with autism may need help with communication, mental health, and sensory issues. Assessments should identify all needs, not only the most obvious ones. When assessing learners, include interoception profiling to explore sensory processing difficulties.

Involve specialists when you need a clearer view of barriers. Educational psychologists assess working memory and processing speed. Speech and language therapists address language difficulties, and occupational therapists assess sensory processing. Before you choose interventions, build a full picture of the learner's needs using specialist advice, teacher views, and parent views (DfE, 2015).

‍

‍

Stage 2: Plan

Planning means agreeing on specific, measurable targets and the strategies or interventions that will address them. This is where the graduated approach moves from understanding to action.

Effective targets are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. "Improve reading" is not a target. "Increase reading accuracy on age-appropriate texts from 85% to 92% by the end of the spring term" is a target. You should aim for two or three targets per cycle, not ten. Fewer targets mean sharper focus and clearer evidence of impact.

Describe each provision clearly: what will happen, who will do it, how often, and for how long. Will the learner receive Precision Teaching (e.g., Daly et al., 2005), Colourful Semantics (Bryan, 1997), or Zones of Regulation (Kuypers, 2011)? Do they need adapted resources, vocabulary pre-teaching, or a timetable change? Will teaching assistants run small groups each day, or will teachers differentiate lessons (Tomlinson, 2014)?

The plan should also record who will be involved. Parents must be consulted and informed at this stage. The learner's own views should be captured, particularly for older children. The plan should specify a review date, typically at the end of the term.

In 2026, some schools use AI tools to summarise baseline notes or draft plan wording. Use them only within approved, privacy-compliant systems: do not paste identifiable learner data into public tools, and treat generated text as a draft for teacher review. AI can scaffold the plan, but teachers, parents and specialists still decide what will be delivered (Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2026).

‍

‍

Stage 3: Do

This is where the plan is put into action. The class teacher retains overall responsibility, even when a teaching assistant delivers a specific intervention (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). You need to know what is being delivered, how the learner is responding, and whether any adjustments are needed before the formal review.

In practice, the "Do" stage involves several overlapping activities. Scaffolding within lessons needs to be adjusted to match the plan. Resources may need to be prepared in advance: visual timetables, word mats, sentence frames, concrete manipulatives. The learner's seating position, grouping arrangements and access to quiet spaces may need to change.

The "Do" stage is also where you collect ongoing evidence. Keep brief notes on what you observe. Does the learner engage with the intervention?

Are they making small steps of progress? Are there unexpected barriers emerging? This formative evidence is what makes the Review stage meaningful rather than a guess.

One of the most important aspects of "Do" is consistency. An intervention delivered three times in one week and then forgotten for a fortnight is not an intervention. It is a good intention. If timetabling or staffing makes consistent delivery difficult, that is information the SENCo needs to know about, because it will affect the outcomes at review.

‍

‍

Stage 4: Review

The review stage asks three questions. What progress has the learner made towards their targets? What has been effective? What needs to change?

Reviews should use evidence, but the evidence is not neutral. Compare the learner's progress to their starting point, then check that picture against work samples, observations, short assessment probes, self-assessment, parent views and professional advice. SEND progress can be uneven, so a single score may miss gains in fluency, independence, regulation or participation (Webster, 2019).

The review should lead to one of several outcomes. If the targets have been met, you set new targets at a higher level. If partial progress has been made, you may continue the same intervention with adjustments.

If there has been little or no progress despite consistent, well-delivered provision, this is evidence that the learner may need more specialist support, a different approach, or a referral to external agencies. In some cases, it is this accumulated evidence of "tried and not sufficient" that forms the basis of an EHCP request.

The review is also the point at which you u pda te the provision map. Every cycle of APDR generates data about what works, what does not, and what costs. This data feeds into whole-school SEND provision mapping and helps the SENCo and senior leaders allocate resources effectively.

‍

‍

Graduated Approach in Practice: A Worked Example

Theory is useful, but teachers need to see what the graduated approach looks like in a real classroom. Here is a worked example, drawn from a common scenario in a primary school.

‍

‍

The Learner: Aisha, Year 4

Aisha is a Year 4 learner who is falling behind in reading. Her class teacher has noticed that Aisha struggles to decode unfamiliar words, reads slowly, and frequently loses her place in the text. She avoids reading aloud.

Her written work is brief and contains many spelling errors, but when she talks about her ideas, she is articulate and enthusiastic. There is a clear discrepancy between her oral and written performance.

‍

‍

Cycle 1: Autumn Term

Assess: The class teacher gathers Aisha's data. Her standardised reading score places her at a reading age of 7 years 2 months (chronological age: 8 years 10 months). A phonics screening check reveals gaps in Phase 5 grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

Her working memory appears adequate based on classroom observation, as she can follow multi-step verbal instructions without difficulty. Her area of need is categorised as Cognition and Learning. The teacher discusses concerns with Aisha's parents, who report that Aisha avoids reading at home and becomes upset when asked to practise.

Plan: Two SMART targets are set. Target 1: Aisha will read Phase 5 grapheme-phoneme correspondences with 90% accuracy by the end of the autumn term (baseline: 65%). Target 2: Aisha will read aloud from a colour-banded text at Turquoise level with fewer than 5 errors per 100 words by December (baseline: 12 errors per 100 words).

The provision agreed is a daily 15-minute phonics intervention using a structured programme (e.g. Fresh Start), delivered by a trained teaching assistant in a group of three. The class teacher will also provide a coloured overlay because Aisha reported that the words "move around" on the page, and will pre-teach key vocabulary before guided reading sessions.

Do: The intervention runs five days a week for ten weeks. The teaching assistant keeps a brief log of each session, recording which graphemes were practised and Aisha's accuracy. The class teacher checks in weekly by listening to Aisha read for two minutes and noting her fluency.

Aisha is given a reading diary with stickers to build motivation. After four weeks, the teaching assistant notices that Aisha is confident with most Phase 5 correspondences but consistently confuses the "igh" and "oi" digraphs.

Review (December): Target 1 is partially met: Aisha now reads Phase 5 GPCs with 82% accuracy (up from 65%, target was 90%). Target 2 is met: error rate has dropped to 4 per 100 words.

The team agrees to continue the phonics intervention but with a sharper focus on the specific digraphs causing difficulty. A new target is added around reading stamina, as Aisha still avoids sustained reading. Parents are updated and given a set of decodable books at the right level to use at home.

‍

‍

Cycle 2: Spring Term

Assess: Updated data shows continued progress. The class teacher also notes that Aisha's confidence has grown; she volunteered to read aloud in a guided reading session for the first time. However, her reading comprehension is weaker than expected for her decoding level, particularly with inference questions. The teacher uses a diagnostic reading assessment to Extract more detail about comprehension skills.

‍

‍

We reduced phonics to three sessions weekly, as the gap lessens. Aisha will answer comprehension questions with 70% accuracy by Easter. The class teacher will use paired talk and prompts during reading. This helps Aisha explain her understanding (45% baseline).

This carries on. By summer, review progress to possibly cut support. Three APDR cycles (interventions, data, input documented) build a case. EHCP assessment is needed if Aisha's needs are complex (Aisha, year not given).

‍

‍

APDR Template Formats

Schools record the graduated approach using various templates. Structured grids, organised by need area, differ from learner-centred proformas. Both meet legal duties, though each format stresses different aspects (Ofsted, 2014; DfE, 2015).

Grid formats organise the APDR cycle into four columns and rows for needs. These tools help less experienced staff structure the cycle consistently, but they can push staff towards a deficit-only model if the "Assess" box records only what the learner cannot do (Runswick-Cole and Goodley, 2013). Person-centred forms like Dorset's "All About Me" model put the learner's voice first, in line with the participation principles in the SEND Code of Practice (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). A strong template records strengths, environmental barriers, learner voice and the adaptation teachers will test next.

Feature	Structured 4-Column Grid	Person-Centred Proforma
Organisation	Four columns (Assess, Plan, Do, Review) with rows for each area of need	10 numbered sections centred on the learner's identity and views
Starting point	Areas of need identified (deficit-led)	"What do we like and admire about the CYP?" (strengths-led)
pupil voice	Not explicitly included in the template structure	Dedicated "My Views" section with space for direct quotes
Pre-populated content	Yes. Lists common difficulties and suggested strategies for each area of need	No. Open prompts requiring professional judgement to complete
Strengths captured	Not structurally. Focus is on difficulties and interventions	Yes. "All About Me" and "What's Working Well" sections
Multi-agency input	SENCo comments section at the end	"Who Can Help?" section with space for ELSA, EP, OT, CAMHS, family support
Home-school link	Implied but not structured	Explicit. "What's Working Well" and "What Could Work Better" split into Home, School and Other
Best suited for	Settings with many learners on the SEND register; staff who need strategy prompts; consistency across a large team	Person-centred reviews; EHCP preparation; settings that prioritise the child's voice and family partnership
Review structure	Termly review column with "What has been effective? What has improved? What could be better?"	Outcomes reviewed against targets, with attendee list and agreed actions for next cycle
Compliance	Meets Code of Practise requirements	Meets Code of Practise requirements and aligns with Preparing for Adulthood outcomes

Which format should you use? It depends on your context. Many schools use the structured grid for day-to-day SEN Support records and switch to the person-centred proforma when a learner is approaching an EHCP request, or when they want to ensure the child's voice is foregrounded in an annual review. Some schools combine elements of both, using the grid's pre-populated strategy bank as a reference tool alongside a person-centred front page.

The main point is that neither template is the graduated approach itself. The template is the recording mechanism. The graduated approach is the thinking, teaching, observation and responsive adjustment that the template documents. A complete template describing provision that never happened is a liability.

‍

‍

Connecting APDR to Provision Maps

The graduated approach does not exist in isolation. It connects directly to two other key systems in SEND provision: provision maps and Education, Health and Care Plans. Use it as a starting point for professional discussion: identify the learner's current need, record evidence from more than one lesson, and agree the next classroom adjustment with the SENCO or family.

‍

‍

Provision Maps

Provision maps record school interventions, recipients, and costs. Interventions from APDR cycles' "Do" column must be on the map. This helps SENCo see which interventions run, who gets them, and if resources are fair. (Adapted from Ofsted guidance, 2014)

Recording outcomes from the "Review" stage helps analyse provision map effectiveness. Strong learner progress with an intervention provides evidence for continued funding. Poor intervention outcomes suggest the strategy should be adjusted or replaced. This learner-centred approach drives school-wide provision mapping in line with the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015).

‍

‍

Education, Health and Care Plans

An EHCP is the highest level of formal SEND provision. To request an EHCP assessment, the local authority needs evidence that the school has used the graduated approach systematically and that the learner's needs cannot be met from the school's own resources despite sustained, well-targeted support.

Evidence should show clear assessments of need and SMART targets across APDR cycles. It should also show that staff delivered interventions consistently, but reviews found limited learner progress. Specialist input also counts as evidence under the SEND Code of Practice. This includes EP reports, SALT assessments and medical advice, plus learner and parent views (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015).

APDR records matter because the system is under pressure. The National Audit Office reported rising EHCP numbers, variable local quality and a sharp rise in appeals decided in families' favour (National Audit Office, 2024).

In that context, APDR can feel less like responsive teaching and more like a delay mechanism: schools are asked to document failure before additional funding or placement is considered. Teachers should name that pressure without lowering the quality of the cycle. The evidence file should show reasonable steps, not months of repeated low-impact provision.

For headteachers, the "Do" phase is a staffing and finance question as much as a teaching question. A plan that depends on a teaching assistant being free for fifteen minutes every day will fail if cover, training and release time are not built into the timetable. Protect brief teacher-TA handover time, record who owns each action, and review the true cost of provision on the provision map.

‍

‍

Graduated Approach: Common Teacher Mistakes

The graduated approach is conceptually simple. Execution is where things go wrong. Here are the most frequent mistakes, drawn from inspection findings, SENCo feedback and classroom practice. Use it as a starting point for professional discussion: identify the learner's current need, record evidence from more than one lesson, and agree the next classroom adjustment with the SENCO or family.

‍

‍

1. Vague Targets

"Improve behaviour" is not a target. "Reduce the number of incidents requiring removal from the classroom from 5 per week to 2 per week by half-term" is a target. If you cannot measure it, you cannot review it. If you cannot review it, the graduated approach stalls at Stage 2 and never genuinely cycles.

‍

‍

2. Assessing Too Narrowly

A learner presenting with reading difficulties may have an underlying working memory weakness, a hearing impairment, or anxiety that makes them shut down when faced with text. If you only assess the surface-level skill (reading accuracy) and miss the underlying barrier, your intervention will address the symptom, not the cause. The Assess stage should cast a wide net before narrowing focus.

‍

‍

Over-Relying on Teaching Assistants

Teaching assistants deliver many SEN interventions well. But the graduated approach requires the class teacher to remain accountable. Research on learners with statements and EHCPs warns that high levels of adult support can separate learners from teacher instruction when TAs become the main educators (Webster and Blatchford, 2019).

If you plan an intervention and then have no idea how it is going, whether the TA is delivering it consistently, or what the learner's response has been, you are not running the graduated approach.

You are outsourcing it. Verify that the provision is happening as planned.

Check in with the TA. Look at the evidence. This is your responsibility.

‍

‍

4. Skipping the Review (or Making It a Rubber Stamp)

The review is the stage that gives the graduated approach its power. Without a genuine review, you are just delivering interventions indefinitely with no mechanism for deciding what comes next. A good review asks hard questions.

Was the intervention actually delivered consistently? If not, why not? Did the learner make progress?

If not, was the intervention wrong, or was the assessment incomplete? What should change for the next cycle?

‍

‍

5. Not Involving Parents and Learners

The Code of Practice is clear: parents should be involved at every stage, and learners should contribute their views (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). In practice, many schools inform parents of the plan after the fact rather than co-constructing it. That is a compliance issue and a missed source of evidence.

Parents know what works at home, what the learner worries about and what motivates them. Learners can name barriers that adults do not see. A Year 5 learner who says "I can't concentrate because the room is too noisy" is giving you assessment data. Listen to it.

‍

‍

Isolating SEN Areas Instead of Integration

Learners with communication difficulties may show behaviour issues when they feel frustrated. To make real progress, address communication needs alongside behaviour. The Code of Practice areas help organise thinking, but they should not divide it. Connect the areas and look for causes, as a learner struggling with executive function may have issues in cognition, communication, and SEMH.

‍

‍

7. Not Graduating the Response

The word "graduated" is doing important work in the name. Some schools jump straight from classroom concern to external referral without trying classroom-level adjustments first. Others keep running the same low-intensity intervention for years despite clear evidence that it is not working.

The response should escalate: classroom adjustments first, then targeted interventions, then specialist input, then external referral. Each cycle of APDR should either show progress (justifying the current level of support) or provide evidence that more is needed.

‍

‍

8. Failing to Record the Evidence Trail

If it is not written down, it did not happen. This sounds harsh, but it reflects the reality of Ofsted inspections, local authority audits and EHCP panels. Your termly APDR records, intervention logs, assessment data and review notes form the evidence trail.

They demonstrate that the school has met its legal duty to provide SEN Support. They also protect you professionally. Keep the records current, specific and honest.

‍

‍

APDR for Emotional and Behavioural Needs

APDR can support social, emotional and mental health needs as well as academic attainment. Vygotsky's account of learning through social mediation and Bowlby's attachment work both point to the role of trusted adults, routines and responsive interaction in development (Vygotsky, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). The practical question is not "What sanction is next?" but "What barrier is this behaviour showing us?"

Learners may struggle during breaks. Assess triggers: transitions, noise, changed routines (Assess, Plan, Do, Review). Set targets for frequency/intensity.

Use visual timetables, calm spaces, coaching (Assess, Plan, Do, Review). Track incidents to see if strategies work. Compare data (Assess, Plan, Do, Review) to baseline. Decide to continue, adjust, or escalate.

This kind of structured, evidence-based approach to emotional needs is far more effective than reactive behaviour management. It shifts the focus from "what is the learner doing wrong?" to "what does the learner need in order to regulate?" That shift in framing is central to the graduated approach and to effective SEND provision more broadly.

‍

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Limitations and Critiques

First, APDR can become too bureaucratic. Gross (2015) warned that special educational needs systems can create paperwork that protects institutions more than learners. The National Audit Office reported variable local quality, rising EHCP demand and growing tribunal pressure. This helps explain why teachers may experience APDR as proof of repeated failure before funding is considered (National Audit Office, 2024).

Second, the model can make assessment and review seem more objective than they are. Webster and Blatchford (2019) show that learners with high-level SEND often receive provision through adult support and differentiation, which can be hard to measure clearly. Progress in attention, regulation, communication, or participation may not show in standardised scores. For this reason, reviews need mixed evidence, not a single number.

Third, APDR can carry a deficit bias, which means it can focus too much on what is wrong with the learner. Inclusive education critics argue that systems often place the problem inside the learner. They may give less attention to curriculum design, classroom noise, language norms or school routines (Runswick-Cole and Goodley, 2013; Norwich, 2013). This matters for neurodivergent learners and EAL learners, whose difference can be misread as non-compliance or low ability.

Finally, the evidence base is uneven in culture and research methods. Much of the guidance comes from English policy and small studies in schools. Use care before applying it to other systems, phases, or communities. Even with these limits, APDR is useful because it gives teachers a shared method to review support, involve families, and adjust provision before needs grow.

‍

References

Bryan (1997).

DfE (2015).

Kuypers (2011).

NASEN (2014).

Rix et al. (2009).

Runswick-Cole and Goodley (2013).

Tomlinson (2014).

Webster (2019).

Webster and Blatchford (2019).

Wiliam (2011).

‍

Further Reading

• Department for Education and Department of Health (2015). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practise: 0 to 25 Years. London: DfE. Available at: gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practise-0-to-25
• Gross, J. (2015). Beating Bureaucracy in Special Educational Needs. 3rd edn. London: Routledge. A practical guide to reducing paperwork while maintaining effective SEND provision.
• Ekins, A. (2015). The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs: Impact and Implications for SENCOs, Teachers and Their Schools. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Explores how the 2014 reforms changed the role of the SENCo and the graduated approach.
• Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools: Guidance Report. London: EEF. Available at: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/send
• Ofsted (2021). Supporting SEND: Research Review. Manchester: Ofsted. Available at: gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-send/supporting-send