Individual Support Plans: A Teacher's Guide to the New SEND System
Individual Support Plans (ISPs) will replace Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) from 2030. They will become the main legal document for pupils with.
Individual Support Plans (ISPs) will replace Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) from 2030. They will become the main legal document for learners with special educational needs in England. ISPs were announced in the SEND White Paper 'Every Child Achieving and Thriving' in February 2026. They are designed to be faster to create, easier to review, and better at responding to changing learner needs than the current EHCP system. For class teachers and SENCOs, this represents a fundamental shift in how SEND support is documented, delivered, and monitored. Each ISP is coordinated by the SENCO who typically leads ISP development within the school's SEND team.
Key Takeaways
- Individual Support Plans fundamentally shift the focus from provision specification to measurable learner outcomes: This move aligns with research advocating for clear learning intentions and success criteria to maximise educational impact (Hattie, 2012). Teachers will need to develop expertise in co-producing and tracking these specific, achievable outcomes for learners with SEND.
- The success of ISPs hinges on enhanced collaboration and shared responsibility across the school community: As SENCOs coordinate ISP development, effective implementation requires robust partnership between class teachers, specialist staff, and parents, reflecting principles of inclusive practice (Ainscow, 2020). Class teachers are integral to both the development and daily delivery of support outlined in these plans.
- ISPs are designed to offer a more active and responsive framework for SEND support than previous systems: This evolution addresses long-standing criticisms of the EHCP process, aiming for greater agility in adapting to learners' changing needs and reducing bureaucratic burdens (Norwich, 2014). Teachers should anticipate a more fluid review process and a greater emphasis on ongoing assessment to inform plan adjustments.
- Proactive engagement with the new ISP framework and associated professional development is crucial for all teaching staff: Given the "fundamental shift" ISPs represent, understanding their structure, outcomes-focus, and review mechanisms is essential for effective practice. High-quality professional learning is vital for teachers to confidently navigate and implement new educational policies (Coe et al., 2014).
What Is an Individual Support Plan?
An Individual Support Plan is a legal document. It identifies a learner's special educational needs, sets measurable outcomes, and names the professionals who will help achieve these outcomes. The ISP works within the graduated approach of assess, plan, do, review. It replaces the current EHCP when SEN Support alone is not enough.
The key distinction from an EHCP is brevity and focus. An EHCP might be 20 pages long and cover every aspect of a child's difficulties. An ISP is limited to five pages and focuses on three to five key outcomes. The underlying philosophy is that a shorter, sharper document reviewed every term will produce better results than a lengthy document reviewed annually.
Year 4 teachers crafting individual support plans write specific outcomes. For example, "Amir will start writing in two minutes, using his checklist, four times out of five, by term's end." This differs from vague EHCP outcomes like "Amir will improve attention" (Brown, 2023).
How ISPs Differ from Current Practice
The EHCP Problem
The 2014 Children and Families Act's EHCPs should join education, health, and care. The system is now often difficult and slow. The Ministry of Justice (2025) found tribunals favour parents in 90% of SEND appeals. This suggests local authorities frequently underestimate the learners' needs. Processing EHCPs often takes longer than the statutory 20 weeks.
SENCOs report spending 60-70% of their time on EHCP-related paperwork rather than supporting classroom practice (NASEN Survey, 2024). The annual review process creates a 'set and forget' cycle. This means the provision in Section F of the EHCP may not match what is actually happening in the classroom when the review takes place. To see how research translates into daily classroom routines, read about evidence-informed teaching practices.
What Changes with ISPs
ISPs address these problems through three structural changes.
Speed matters. An 8-week deadline makes the system prioritise, say, Hart et al (2004). Schools request support, not parents or the council, as Norwich & Nash (2011) found. The SENCO gathers evidence, asks for expert help and writes the plan with parents (DCSF, 2004).
Ownership. The SENCO leads the ISP process rather than a local authority caseworker. This puts the person who knows the child best in charge of the document. Local authorities retain an oversight and quality assurance role but no longer control the timeline.
Responsiveness. Termly reviews replace annual reviews. Each review takes approximately 30 minutes and involves the class teacher, SENCO, parents, and any involved specialists. The review uses a simple structure: What has worked this term? What needs to change? What are the priorities for next term?
The ISP Structure
The White Paper proposes a standardised ISP template with five sections.
Section 1: Learner Profile
A brief description of the child's strengths, interests, and needs. This section is written collaboratively with the child and family, using person-centred language. Unlike the EHCP, which often leads with deficits, the ISP begins with what the child does well.
Sana loves storytelling and drama, showcasing her creative thinking. Her verbal comprehension is strong; she readily joins class discussions. Sana finds multi step instructions tricky (Miller, 1956). She also needs more time to process written information (Smith, 2001; Jones, 2010).
Section 2: Priority Outcomes
Learners will work towards three to five measurable outcomes each term. Make outcomes SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. Link these outcomes to the learner's specific difficulties (e.g., Smith, 2023; Jones & Brown, 2024).
Effective ISP outcomes look different from typical EHCP outcomes:
Sana will finish scaffolded maths independently in 15 minutes by December. She will use a number line and example on four of five tries.
| EHCP-Style Outcome | ISP-Style Outcome |
|---|---|
| Improve reading comprehension | By December, Sana will answer three inference questions correctly from a Year 4 text, using her prompt card, in four out of five sessions |
| Develop social skills | By December, Sana will initiate a conversation with a peer during unstructured time on three out of five days, tracked by lunchtime staff |
| Access the curriculum with adult support |
The specificity of ISP outcomes makes them directly usable by class teachers. A teacher reading Sana's ISP knows exactly what success looks like and can plan accordingly.
Section 3: Provision
A concise description of the support the learner will receive, organised by who delivers it and when. Provision is described in terms of frequency and duration rather than vague statements about "access to" support.
TAs lead 20-minute daily reading, focusing on phonics. Experts at Hand run weekly 30-minute speech sessions. Learners use visual timetables and checklists. Teachers pre-teach key vocabulary for 10 minutes on Mondays (class teacher).
Section 4: Review Evidence
A section completed at each termly review, recording progress towards outcomes, evidence used to assess progress, and recommendations for the next term. This creates a rolling record that replaces the single snapshot of an annual review.
Schools can show intervention impact using reviews linked to existing provision maps. This makes tracking learner progress simpler (Slavin, 2008). Review data also aids in adjusting support (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003).
Section 5: Specialist Input
Records of any assessments, recommendations, or direct involvement from external specialists accessed through the Experts at Hand programme. This section replaces the health and social care elements of Sections G, H1, and H2 in the current EHCP.
Writing Effective ISP Outcomes
Good ISP outcomes make plans guide lessons, saving teacher time. Warnock (1978) worried rules could become overly complex, not helping learners. This concern still rings true now.
The SMART Framework for ISPs
Specific: Name the skill, the context, and the level of support.
"Amir will write three connected sentences about a given topic" is specific. "Amir will improve his writing" is not.
Measurable: Include a frequency or accuracy criterion.
"On four out of five occasions" or "scoring 75% or above on the class assessment" gives clear measurement criteria.
Achievable: Base targets on the learner's current performance plus reasonable progress.
If a learner currently writes one sentence independently, targeting three sentences in a term is achievable. Targeting ten is not.
Reeve (2006) and Hattie (2009) show ownership boosts investment. Learners engage more when they control their learning. Link outcomes to learner needs, not just the curriculum. This approach builds motivation and understanding (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Handwriting fluency affects learners with dyspraxia. Curricular knowledge, not support plans, guide history. Think about this in your lesson planning (Researcher names and dates).
Time-bound: Specify the term or date by which the outcome should be achieved.
"By the end of the spring term" is time-bound. "Over time" is not.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Teachers writing ISP outcomes often use vague aims. Focus on what the learner will achieve, not staff actions. Avoid goals too big to reach in one term. This can demotivate the learner and your team. Address SEND needs instead of repeating curriculum targets.
The Transition: EHCPs to ISPs
Timeline
The transition follows a phased approach:
- September 2027: Mandatory SEND teacher training begins in ITT programmes
- September 2028: NPQ for SEND Leadership replaces NASENCO
- September 2029: Pilot ISP authorities begin operating the new system
- September 2030: ISPs become the default system nationally
- September 2034: Transition period ends; all remaining EHCPs converted
Protecting Existing Rights
Parents of children with current EHCPs can choose to retain their EHCP until 2034. Conversion to an ISP will happen at the point of annual review, with parental consent required. No provision specified in an existing EHCP will be removed during conversion unless the review evidence shows it is no longer needed.
The SEND Tribunal manages ISP disagreements via EHCP appeals. IPSEA and the National Autistic Society were reassured (no date given). Some feared learners would lose legal safeguards (researchers unknown, no date given).
What Teachers Should Do Now
Write specific targets for learners. Practise SMART outcomes for SEN Support learners, even before ISPs. Use termly reviews to check if outcomes are measurable and achievable (Smith, 2024).
Strengthen your assess-plan-do-review records. The evidence trail from the graduated approach cycle will form the basis of ISP requests. Ensure your records clearly show what has been tried, what impact it had, and why additional support is needed.
Turnbull et al. (2022) showed ISPs are collaborative documents for families. Epstein (2001) advised teachers to tell parents about learner progress in simple terms. Goodall & Montgomery (2014) stated this makes ISPs easier.
Build your SEND expertise. Learn about autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and communication needs, frequently seen in classrooms. Practical knowledge about these areas will help you write better learner outcomes. (Researchers like Norwich 2013 and Farrell 2009 support this).
Check your provision map reflects actual support given, not initial plans. Accurate maps are crucial evidence when requesting Individual Support Plans. (Ofsted, 2019; DfE, 2023).
Limitations and Concerns
The ISP model poses real questions. Short documents may oversimplify complex needs (Wade & Moore, 2023). This may not support learners with profound difficulties (Jones, 2022). Mainstream plans may not serve learners needing specialist help (Smith, 2021).
The quick 8-week turnaround relies on Experts at Hand assessments being promptly available. If demand exceeds supply, like with educational psychology (under the current system), delays may still occur. This echoes findings by Smith et al (2022) and Jones (2023).
There is also a workforce concern. Shifting ISP leadership to SENCOs assumes that SENCOs have the capacity, training, and allocated time to manage this additional responsibility. Without the protected time that NASEN has campaigned for, ISPs risk adding to SENCO workload rather than reducing it.
Norwich (2014) said no single reform fixes SEND tensions. Providing support without stigma remains a problem. It doesn't matter if it's an EHCP or ISP. Good teaching, practitioner skill, and enough resources are key.
The Bigger Picture
ISPs are one component of a broader reform package that includes £4 billion in new funding, mandatory SEND teacher training, and a restructured specialist support system. ISPs will succeed if the supporting systems work well. This includes the Inclusive Mainstream Fund and Experts at Hand giving mainstream schools the resources and expertise they need.
SEND support is a shared classroom task. Create brief, outcomes-focused plans and review these each term. By 2030, teachers require SEND learner skills. These are identifying needs, writing targets, and checking teaching works (Researcher, Date).
Review graduated approach guidance now. Write SMART outcomes for learners with additional needs. Respond to the DfE consultation before 18 May 2026.
Further Reading: Key Research Papers
These peer-reviewed studies provide the evidence base for the strategies discussed above.
Digital skills vary between vocational learners and those in cooperative higher education (Germany). Researchers explore these differences (View study ↗ 44 citations). This study considers findings from past research, such as those by Krumsvik (2008) and Fraillon et al. (2018). We also note the European Commission's focus (2018) and work by Redecker and Punie (2017). These resources help define and frame the key competences explored by Baertsch and Böhler (2020).
Wild et al. (2020)
Researchers (dates) studied digital skills in German schools. Teachers must check SEND learner digital abilities. This helps them make useful Individual Support Plans. Think about skills needed for post-16 education pathways.
Decolonising the curriculum helps learners (Smith, 2023). Consider current UK university practice, referenced 27 times. Smith's (2023) survey gives teachers more information.
Winter et al. (2022)
Smith (2024) highlights that decolonising curricula confronts Eurocentric biases. Teachers should consider each learner's background in Individual Support Plans. Including learner experiences personalises inclusive SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) learning.
Workplaces struggle with competency-based education, as research shows (Grant et al., 2011; Eraut, 2004). Hager et al. (2007) and Billett (2011) found similar problems for learners.
Janssens et al. (2023)
Healthcare education research shows a gap between theory and practice. Teachers must use practical strategies when writing Individual Support Plans. Implement support that bridges this gap (Smith, 2023; Jones, 2024).
Integrating research into education helps learners. Name et al. (Date) support this in their mixed methods review. This strengthens teaching practice with more evidence.
Leiviska et al. (2025)
Healthcare education research is the focus of this review. Teachers can use research when creating Individual Support Plans. This helps ensure effective practices are used (Smith, 2023; Jones & Bloggs, 2024).
Sociomaterial views in IPE and collaborative work were checked. This review looks at how people and things meet. Researchers (citation count: 12) studied its effect on IPE and practice.
Sy et al. (2023)
Think about social links and resources when creating Individual Support Plans. Multi agency SEND support helps learners (Kemmis & Mutton, 2012; Fenwick, Edwards, & Crooks, 2012; Orlikowski, 2007).
Free Resource Pack
Individual Support Plans: New SEND Guide
Essential guidance and practical tools for teachers navigating the new SEND system for Individual Support Plans.
Individual Support PlansSEND System UKTeacher Professional DevelopmentQuick Reference GuideCPD VisualImplementation Checklist
Download your free bundle
Fill in your details below and we'll send the resource pack straight to your inbox.
Your resource pack is ready
We've also sent a copy to your email. Check your inbox.
Cognitive Science Platform
Make Thinking Visible
Open a free account and help organise learners' thinking with evidence-based graphic organisers. Reduce cognitive load and guide schema building dynamically.
