Updated on
February 24, 2026
|
February 24, 2026
A complete teacher's guide to the graduated approach (APDR cycle) for SEN Support, with worked examples, template comparisons and common mistakes to avoid.
The graduated approach is the structured process schools use to identify, support and review the progress of pupils 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. If you are a class teacher, a SENCo, or a teaching assistant working with pupils who need additional support, the graduated approach is the framework that guides every decision you make about that child's provision.
Key Takeaways
The graduated approach is the model of action and intervention set out in the SEND Code of Practice (2015), Chapter 6. It describes how schools should respond when a pupil is not making expected progress despite receiving quality first teaching. Rather than a single assessment or a one-off intervention, it is an ongoing cycle that intensifies support incrementally, matching provision to need as understanding of the pupil deepens over time.
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 pupil 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 pupil.
The Code of Practice 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 pupils with SEND in England never reach the EHCP threshold. For those pupils, the graduated approach is the entirety of their formal SEN provision. Getting it right matters enormously.
It is worth noting that the graduated approach is not a SENCo-only responsibility. The Code of Practice is explicit: the class teacher is responsible and accountable for the progress of every pupil in their class, including those receiving SEN Support. The SENCo coordinates, advises and quality-assures, but the day-to-day delivery sits with you.
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.
Assessment in the graduated approach is not a single test score. It is a broad, triangulated picture of the pupil's strengths and difficulties. You are trying to answer one question: what exactly is getting in the way of this pupil's learning?
Start by gathering what you already know. Look at classroom observations, book scrutiny, formative assessment data, standardised test results, and any information from parents or previous settings. Then Categorise the difficulties against the four broad areas of need defined in the Code of Practice:
Many pupils present with needs across more than one area. A pupil with autism, for example, may have needs in Communication and Interaction, Social Emotional and Mental Health, and Sensory and Physical simultaneously. The assessment stage should capture all of these, not just the most visible one.
Where the class teacher's knowledge is not sufficient to fully understand the barriers, this is the stage to involve specialists. An educational psychologist can assess working memory and processing speed. A speech and language therapist can unpick receptive versus expressive language difficulties. An occupational therapist can assess sensory processing. The key principle is: do not plan an intervention until you genuinely understand the need.
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.
For each target, you need to specify the provision: what will be done, by whom, how often, and for how long. Will the pupil receive a specific intervention programme (such as Precision Teaching, Colourful Semantics, or Zones of Regulation)? Will they need adapted resources, pre-teaching of vocabulary, or a modified timetable? Will a teaching assistant deliver a daily small-group session, or will the class teacher adjust their differentiation within whole-class lessons?
The plan should also record who will be involved. Parents must be consulted and informed at this stage. The pupil's own views should be captured, particularly for older children. And the plan should specify a review date, typically at the end of the term.
This is where the plan is put into action. The class teacher retains overall responsibility, even when a teaching assistant delivers a specific intervention. You need to know what is being delivered, how the pupil 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 pupil'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 pupil 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.
The review stage asks three questions. What progress has the pupil made towards their targets? What has been effective? What needs to change?
A good review is evidence-based. You Compare the pupil's current performance against the baseline established at the Assess stage. You Validate the findings using multiple sources: test data, work samples, teacher observation, and the pupil's own self-assessment. You also consider the views of parents and any other professionals involved.
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 pupil 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 update 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.
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.
Aisha is a Year 4 pupil 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.
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 (Aisha reported that the words "move around" on the page) and 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.
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.
Plan: The phonics intervention continues with a reduced frequency (three sessions per week) as the gap is narrowing. A new target addresses reading comprehension: Aisha will answer literal and simple inference questions about a short text with 70% accuracy by Easter (baseline: 45%). The class teacher plans to use oracy strategies, including paired talk and "tell me" prompts during guided reading, to build Aisha's ability to Explain her understanding before committing answers to paper.
This cycle continues. By the summer review, there is either sufficient progress to reduce provision, or the accumulated evidence of three APDR cycles (with documented interventions, progress data and specialist input) provides a robust case for requesting an EHCP assessment if Aisha's needs are more complex than initially thought.
Schools use a variety of templates to record the graduated approach. Two common formats represent different philosophies: the structured grid (organised by area of need) and the person-centred proforma (organised around the child). Both fulfil the legal requirements, but they emphasise different things.
The structured grid format, used by many special schools and alternative provision settings, organises the APDR cycle into four columns (Assess, Plan, Do, Review) with rows for each of the four areas of need. It pre-populates common presenting difficulties and suggested strategies, making it a practical reference tool for less experienced staff. The person-centred proforma, such as the Dorset model used by many local authorities, begins with "All About Me" and places the pupil's voice, strengths and views at the centre of the document before moving to targets and actions.
| 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 pupil'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 pupils 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 Practice requirements | Meets Code of Practice 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 pupil 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 critical point is that neither template is the graduated approach itself. The template is the recording mechanism. The graduated approach is the thinking, the teaching, the observation and the responsive adjustment that the template documents. A beautifully completed template that describes provision that never actually happened is worse than useless. It is a liability.
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.
A provision map is a whole-school document that records all the additional interventions and support being delivered across the school, who receives them, and what they cost. Every intervention recorded in the "Do" column of an APDR cycle should also appear on the provision map. This creates accountability: the SENCo can see at a glance which interventions are running, which pupils are accessing them, and whether resources are being allocated proportionally.
When you complete the "Review" stage and record outcomes, this data feeds into the provision map's effectiveness analysis. If a particular intervention consistently produces strong progress across multiple pupils, the school has evidence to continue funding it. If an intervention shows poor outcomes despite consistent delivery, the school has evidence to replace it. The graduated approach is, in effect, the individual-pupil engine that drives whole-school provision mapping.
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 pupil's needs cannot be met from the school's own resources despite sustained, well-targeted support.
What does "evidence" look like in practice? It is the accumulation of multiple APDR cycles showing: clear assessment of need, SMART targets, specific interventions delivered consistently, and reviews demonstrating limited progress. It also includes evidence of specialist involvement (EP reports, SALT assessments, medical advice) and the pupil's and parents' views.
Schools that run the graduated approach well find EHCP requests straightforward, because the evidence already exists. Schools that treat APDR as a termly tick-box exercise find themselves scrambling to assemble retrospective evidence, often unsuccessfully. The graduated approach is, among other things, your EHCP insurance policy. Do it properly from the start.
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.
"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.
A pupil 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.
Teaching assistants deliver many SEN interventions, and they often do so brilliantly. But the graduated approach requires the class teacher to remain accountable. If you plan an intervention and then have no idea how it is going, whether the TA is delivering it consistently, or what the pupil'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.
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 pupil make progress? If not, was the intervention wrong, or was the assessment incomplete? What should change for the next cycle?
The Code of Practice is clear: parents should be involved at every stage. Pupils should contribute their views. In practice, many schools inform parents of the plan after the fact rather than co-constructing it. This is a compliance issue, but it is also a missed opportunity. Parents hold information about what works at home, what the pupil's anxieties are, and what motivates them. Pupils themselves can articulate barriers that adults do not see. A Year 5 pupil who says "I can't concentrate because the room is too noisy" is giving you assessment data. Listen to it.
A pupil with communication difficulties may also present with behavioural challenges, because frustration at being unable to express themselves leads to outbursts. If you address the behaviour without addressing the communication need, you will see limited progress. The areas of need described in the Code of Practice are categories for organising thinking, not sealed compartments. Connect the areas. Look for root causes. A pupil who is struggling with executive function may present with difficulties in cognition, communication, and SEMH simultaneously.
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.
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.
The graduated approach is sometimes thought of as primarily a tool for academic interventions, but it applies equally to social, emotional and mental health needs. In fact, some of the most effective uses of APDR involve self-regulation and emotional development.
Consider a pupil who becomes dysregulated during unstructured times. At the Assess stage, you Identify the triggers: transitions between lessons, noisy environments, unexpected changes to routine. At the Plan stage, you set targets around the frequency and intensity of dysregulation, and you put in place strategies such as a visual timetable, a designated calm space, and emotion coaching from a named adult. During the Do stage, you track incidents and note whether the strategies reduce them. At Review, you Compare the data to baseline and decide whether 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 pupil doing wrong?" to "what does the pupil need in order to regulate?" That shift in framing is central to the graduated approach and to effective SEND provision more broadly.
The graduated approach is the structured process schools use to identify, support and review the progress of pupils 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. If you are a class teacher, a SENCo, or a teaching assistant working with pupils who need additional support, the graduated approach is the framework that guides every decision you make about that child's provision.
Key Takeaways
The graduated approach is the model of action and intervention set out in the SEND Code of Practice (2015), Chapter 6. It describes how schools should respond when a pupil is not making expected progress despite receiving quality first teaching. Rather than a single assessment or a one-off intervention, it is an ongoing cycle that intensifies support incrementally, matching provision to need as understanding of the pupil deepens over time.
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 pupil 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 pupil.
The Code of Practice 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 pupils with SEND in England never reach the EHCP threshold. For those pupils, the graduated approach is the entirety of their formal SEN provision. Getting it right matters enormously.
It is worth noting that the graduated approach is not a SENCo-only responsibility. The Code of Practice is explicit: the class teacher is responsible and accountable for the progress of every pupil in their class, including those receiving SEN Support. The SENCo coordinates, advises and quality-assures, but the day-to-day delivery sits with you.
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.
Assessment in the graduated approach is not a single test score. It is a broad, triangulated picture of the pupil's strengths and difficulties. You are trying to answer one question: what exactly is getting in the way of this pupil's learning?
Start by gathering what you already know. Look at classroom observations, book scrutiny, formative assessment data, standardised test results, and any information from parents or previous settings. Then Categorise the difficulties against the four broad areas of need defined in the Code of Practice:
Many pupils present with needs across more than one area. A pupil with autism, for example, may have needs in Communication and Interaction, Social Emotional and Mental Health, and Sensory and Physical simultaneously. The assessment stage should capture all of these, not just the most visible one.
Where the class teacher's knowledge is not sufficient to fully understand the barriers, this is the stage to involve specialists. An educational psychologist can assess working memory and processing speed. A speech and language therapist can unpick receptive versus expressive language difficulties. An occupational therapist can assess sensory processing. The key principle is: do not plan an intervention until you genuinely understand the need.
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.
For each target, you need to specify the provision: what will be done, by whom, how often, and for how long. Will the pupil receive a specific intervention programme (such as Precision Teaching, Colourful Semantics, or Zones of Regulation)? Will they need adapted resources, pre-teaching of vocabulary, or a modified timetable? Will a teaching assistant deliver a daily small-group session, or will the class teacher adjust their differentiation within whole-class lessons?
The plan should also record who will be involved. Parents must be consulted and informed at this stage. The pupil's own views should be captured, particularly for older children. And the plan should specify a review date, typically at the end of the term.
This is where the plan is put into action. The class teacher retains overall responsibility, even when a teaching assistant delivers a specific intervention. You need to know what is being delivered, how the pupil 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 pupil'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 pupil 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.
The review stage asks three questions. What progress has the pupil made towards their targets? What has been effective? What needs to change?
A good review is evidence-based. You Compare the pupil's current performance against the baseline established at the Assess stage. You Validate the findings using multiple sources: test data, work samples, teacher observation, and the pupil's own self-assessment. You also consider the views of parents and any other professionals involved.
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 pupil 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 update 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.
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.
Aisha is a Year 4 pupil 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.
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 (Aisha reported that the words "move around" on the page) and 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.
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.
Plan: The phonics intervention continues with a reduced frequency (three sessions per week) as the gap is narrowing. A new target addresses reading comprehension: Aisha will answer literal and simple inference questions about a short text with 70% accuracy by Easter (baseline: 45%). The class teacher plans to use oracy strategies, including paired talk and "tell me" prompts during guided reading, to build Aisha's ability to Explain her understanding before committing answers to paper.
This cycle continues. By the summer review, there is either sufficient progress to reduce provision, or the accumulated evidence of three APDR cycles (with documented interventions, progress data and specialist input) provides a robust case for requesting an EHCP assessment if Aisha's needs are more complex than initially thought.
Schools use a variety of templates to record the graduated approach. Two common formats represent different philosophies: the structured grid (organised by area of need) and the person-centred proforma (organised around the child). Both fulfil the legal requirements, but they emphasise different things.
The structured grid format, used by many special schools and alternative provision settings, organises the APDR cycle into four columns (Assess, Plan, Do, Review) with rows for each of the four areas of need. It pre-populates common presenting difficulties and suggested strategies, making it a practical reference tool for less experienced staff. The person-centred proforma, such as the Dorset model used by many local authorities, begins with "All About Me" and places the pupil's voice, strengths and views at the centre of the document before moving to targets and actions.
| 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 pupil'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 pupils 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 Practice requirements | Meets Code of Practice 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 pupil 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 critical point is that neither template is the graduated approach itself. The template is the recording mechanism. The graduated approach is the thinking, the teaching, the observation and the responsive adjustment that the template documents. A beautifully completed template that describes provision that never actually happened is worse than useless. It is a liability.
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.
A provision map is a whole-school document that records all the additional interventions and support being delivered across the school, who receives them, and what they cost. Every intervention recorded in the "Do" column of an APDR cycle should also appear on the provision map. This creates accountability: the SENCo can see at a glance which interventions are running, which pupils are accessing them, and whether resources are being allocated proportionally.
When you complete the "Review" stage and record outcomes, this data feeds into the provision map's effectiveness analysis. If a particular intervention consistently produces strong progress across multiple pupils, the school has evidence to continue funding it. If an intervention shows poor outcomes despite consistent delivery, the school has evidence to replace it. The graduated approach is, in effect, the individual-pupil engine that drives whole-school provision mapping.
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 pupil's needs cannot be met from the school's own resources despite sustained, well-targeted support.
What does "evidence" look like in practice? It is the accumulation of multiple APDR cycles showing: clear assessment of need, SMART targets, specific interventions delivered consistently, and reviews demonstrating limited progress. It also includes evidence of specialist involvement (EP reports, SALT assessments, medical advice) and the pupil's and parents' views.
Schools that run the graduated approach well find EHCP requests straightforward, because the evidence already exists. Schools that treat APDR as a termly tick-box exercise find themselves scrambling to assemble retrospective evidence, often unsuccessfully. The graduated approach is, among other things, your EHCP insurance policy. Do it properly from the start.
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.
"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.
A pupil 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.
Teaching assistants deliver many SEN interventions, and they often do so brilliantly. But the graduated approach requires the class teacher to remain accountable. If you plan an intervention and then have no idea how it is going, whether the TA is delivering it consistently, or what the pupil'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.
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 pupil make progress? If not, was the intervention wrong, or was the assessment incomplete? What should change for the next cycle?
The Code of Practice is clear: parents should be involved at every stage. Pupils should contribute their views. In practice, many schools inform parents of the plan after the fact rather than co-constructing it. This is a compliance issue, but it is also a missed opportunity. Parents hold information about what works at home, what the pupil's anxieties are, and what motivates them. Pupils themselves can articulate barriers that adults do not see. A Year 5 pupil who says "I can't concentrate because the room is too noisy" is giving you assessment data. Listen to it.
A pupil with communication difficulties may also present with behavioural challenges, because frustration at being unable to express themselves leads to outbursts. If you address the behaviour without addressing the communication need, you will see limited progress. The areas of need described in the Code of Practice are categories for organising thinking, not sealed compartments. Connect the areas. Look for root causes. A pupil who is struggling with executive function may present with difficulties in cognition, communication, and SEMH simultaneously.
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.
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.
The graduated approach is sometimes thought of as primarily a tool for academic interventions, but it applies equally to social, emotional and mental health needs. In fact, some of the most effective uses of APDR involve self-regulation and emotional development.
Consider a pupil who becomes dysregulated during unstructured times. At the Assess stage, you Identify the triggers: transitions between lessons, noisy environments, unexpected changes to routine. At the Plan stage, you set targets around the frequency and intensity of dysregulation, and you put in place strategies such as a visual timetable, a designated calm space, and emotion coaching from a named adult. During the Do stage, you track incidents and note whether the strategies reduce them. At Review, you Compare the data to baseline and decide whether 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 pupil doing wrong?" to "what does the pupil need in order to regulate?" That shift in framing is central to the graduated approach and to effective SEND provision more broadly.
