Right to Choose ADHD: What SENCOs Need to Know in 2026

A parent emails on Monday morning: their child has just received an ADHD diagnosis from a provider reached through Right to Choose. The pathway sits inside NHS patient choice in England: families discuss an NHS-funded ADHD assessment with the GP and, where referral is clinically appropriate, choose an eligible provider.

For SENCOs, the practical question is what the school should do next. The diagnostic report may recommend an Education, Health and Care Plan, as outlined in the SEND Code of Practice (DfE and DHSC, 2015), but the school still needs a clear evidence trail before decisions about provision or statutory assessment can be made.

If this scenario sounds familiar, you are not alone. SENCOs across England are reporting more Right to Choose referrals, with parents securing ADHD assessments through NHS-funded independent providers on timelines that do not always match the usual school, CAMHS, and local authority evidence cycle.

ADHD affects approximately 5-7% of school-age children worldwide (Polanczyk et al., 2015), and Barkley (2015) has documented how executive function difficulties create educational needs that schools must plan for, regardless of how the diagnosis was obtained. The pressure on school-based SEND teams is real, and it is growing.

This guide is for the SENCO who just received their third Right to Choose referral this term and needs a clear, professional framework for what to do next. It is not a guide for parents. ADHD UK, Psychiatry UK, and the NHS have that covered. It is a guide for the professional caught between parent expectations, clinical recommendations, and the evidence they can observe in school.

‍

Evidence Overview

Right to Choose, school evidence and classroom support in plain SENCO language. Consensus cache: not yet populated.

Pathway boundary

The NHS Choice Framework places patient choice at the point of referral. For ADHD, the GP and NHS pathway carry the referral decision; the school supplies evidence.

School evidence

NICE NG87 expects assessment to consider educational settings. SENCO evidence should describe access barriers, adjustments already tried and the impact over time.

Support now

NHS guidance and classroom intervention reviews support practical adjustments while learners wait. Help should not pause until diagnosis or medication decisions are complete.

Sources reviewed: NHS Choice Framework, NHS ADHD guidance, NICE NG87, SEND Code of Practice and Gaastra et al. (2016).

‍

​

What Right to Choose Actually Is

Right to Choose (RTC) is part of NHS patient choice in England. In the ADHD context, it means a parent can ask the GP to refer their child to an NHS-commissioned provider that accepts Right to Choose referrals, rather than relying only on the local pathway.

This is not the same as a private self-referral. The referral remains NHS-funded when the provider is eligible and the GP agrees that assessment is appropriate.

The independent provider completes the assessment under NHS arrangements. The GP remains the referrer, and local ICB guidance makes clear that provider options, eligibility criteria, assessment format, medication support, and follow-up care vary between organisations.

The school has no formal role in choosing the provider. Many schools only become involved when a rating scale is requested or when the completed diagnostic report arrives.

It is worth understanding what Right to Choose is not. It is not a school referral route, and it is not something a SENCO can initiate on behalf of a family. It is also not a guarantee of faster assessment, because waiting times and provider capacity change.

For schools, the professional stance is straightforward: do not dismiss a report because the provider is independent, but do keep the school's response anchored in educational evidence, observed need, and the graduated approach.

The practical impact for schools is that the usual information-sharing loop may be weaker. A local assessment pathway often requests school observations before diagnosis; some RTC pathways rely more heavily on parent report, clinical interview, and rating scales sent directly to school.

This creates the gap SENCOs most often describe: families arrive with clinical recommendations, while the school still needs to establish what the learner requires in the classroom, what has already been tried, and what evidence supports escalation.

​

The SENCO boundary

The clearest NotebookLM and SERP finding is procedural: the SENCO supports the evidence base, but the GP makes the Right to Choose referral. NHS ICB guidance also confirms that families should check whether a provider offers only assessment, or whether it also offers follow-up care and ADHD medication support after diagnosis.

That boundary protects the school. A useful phrase is: "We can provide school evidence and review classroom support, but the GP is the referrer for Right to Choose. We can help you prepare clear school information for that appointment."

Support should not wait for diagnosis

NHS guidance is clear that support at home and school should continue while a child waits for referral or assessment. SENCOs do not need a diagnosis before using ordinary classroom adjustments where attention, organisation, working memory, or self-regulation are affecting access to learning.

Why SENCOs Are Overwhelmed

Parents get RTC diagnoses and expect schools to act on reports. The reports advise EHCPs or adjustments, clinically sound but often impractical. Schools must manage expectations without knowing report context (Rutherford, 2023).

At the same time, the SENCO may have limited school-based evidence of the difficulties described in the report. A learner who masks ADHD traits effectively at school, or whose difficulties are managed well by existing provision, may not appear in the SENCO's records as a cause for concern. The parent is telling the truth about what they see at home. The school is also telling the truth about what is observed in the classroom. Both accounts can be accurate.

Families expect statutory support after RTC, as per EHCP advice. SENCOs explain the graduated response, which can feel obstructive. This creates tension when clear communication is vital (Hart, 1992; Dyson et al., 2002; Lunt & Norwich, 2011).

Administrative tasks add pressure. Referrals to RTCs mean meetings with parents and written responses. We must review provisions, observe, and assess formally plus liaise with clinicians. These referrals, multiplied by term, create extra work outside SEND reviews. Schools need clear RTC protocols; managing cases ad hoc isn't efficient (Name and Date).

Barkley (1997) showed ADHD involves issues with self-regulation over time. This helps us understand different presentations at home and school. Classrooms offer external support that compensates for self-regulation problems. Less structure at home means the same learner's difficulties are more obvious. This context dependency, not masking, helps SENCOs explain differences to parents.

​

The Masking Question

Hull et al. (2017) defined masking as concealing traits to seem neurotypical. Autism research shows masking, and ADHD masking evidence grows, especially in girls. An ADHD learner may seem organised at school. However, they often use significant effort to maintain it. Exhaustion often appears at home (Hull et al., 2017).

This means the SENCO's job when receiving an RTC diagnosis is not to decide whether masking is occurring. That is a clinical question. The job is to gather objective, school-based evidence of what the learner's functioning looks like in the educational environment, and to share that evidence honestly with the assessing clinician and, where relevant, with the local authority.

Compare, using the Thinking Framework, works well here. SENCOs gain evidence by comparing home and school behaviours, as documented. This comparison respects parent input and diagnostic reports (Clarke, 2024). It clarifies school observations and existing support but does not answer the clinical question.

Use rating scales such as the Conners (2008) to help your learners. Teacher forms identify attention, hyperactivity, learning problems, and executive difficulties. Our guide helps you complete these forms accurately. Scale scores that match or differ from parent scores give useful information. Both outcomes help clinicians and SENCOs understand the learner's needs.

SENCOs should avoid informal reassurance. Saying "we don't see issues here" without data is unprofessional. Agreeing with all diagnostic recommendations without review is unwise. Gather evidence systematically and share it transparently (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).

​

What SENCOs Should Do When Parents Invoke Right to Choose

First response

A clear, consistent response protocol saves time and prevents misunderstanding. The following steps apply from the moment a parent makes contact about an RTC referral or shares a completed diagnosis.

Step one: Acknowledge the parent's concerns without endorsing or questioning the diagnosis. A brief, warm acknowledgement confirms that you have received the diagnosis, recognises the effort the family has made, and commits to a review meeting within a defined timeframe. This is not the moment for a detailed discussion of what the school can or cannot provide.

Step two: Explain the school's role clearly and early. Schools gather evidence and implement adjustments; they do not diagnose. The SENCO is not in a position to confirm or challenge the clinical diagnosis, and should not be asked to.

What the school can do is describe what is observed in the educational setting, identify what provision is already in place, and decide what additional support may be appropriate. This distinction between the clinical role and the educational role should be explained at the first contact.

Evidence and provider contact

Step three: Gather formal school-based evidence. This means completing a teacher observation using a standardised instrument such as the Conners Teacher Rating Scale, reviewing existing attainment data, consulting with subject teachers about what they observe in class, and reviewing any existing provision mapping entries for the learner. This process should take no more than two weeks and should be completed before the review meeting, not during it.

Step four: Share evidence objectively with the assessing clinician. If the RTC provider has not sought school observations, the SENCO can contact them directly to share the school's evidence. Most providers welcome this. The aim is not to challenge the diagnosis but to ensure the clinician has the full picture, including what is working in school and what is not. This supports better clinical recommendations and reduces the risk of recommendations that do not reflect the educational context.

Review the adjustments

Step five: Implement recommended adjustments where appropriate and review in six weeks. If the diagnosis is confirmed and the report includes classroom recommendations, the SENCO should check which adjustments are already in place, which are new and appropriate, and which require further consideration.

A six-week review meeting with parents confirms what has been implemented and what impact it has had. This keeps the response aligned with the Assess, Plan, Do, Review cycle in the graduated approach and the SEND Code of Practice (2015).

SENCO written records matter. Document every conversation, observation, rating-scale request, provider contact, adjustment, review date, and decision. If an EHCP request or complaint later follows, these records show that the school responded systematically rather than reactively.

​

The EHCP Pressure

Diagnostic reports often suggest that schools request an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. That recommendation is understandable, but it is only one part of the evidence picture.

An EHCP decision depends on educational evidence: the learner's needs, the provision already tried, the impact of that provision, and whether the support required is beyond what a mainstream school can usually provide.

The SEND Code of Practice (2015) sets a high bar for EHC needs assessments. Schools need to show significant and persistent difficulty despite quality first teaching, reasonable adjustments, and ordinarily available provision.

A diagnosis helps explain need, but it does not replace the school evidence gathered through SEN Support.

SENCOs need a calm way to explain this to families. Try: "A diagnosis tells us about your child's neurological profile. An EHCP is about educational evidence: what the school has tried, what impact it has had, and whether the level of support needed is beyond what schools are typically funded to provide."

Then add: "We need to build that evidence base, and we want to do that with you."

Schools must usually show SEN Support before an EHCP assessment, as part of the graduated response. The SENCO checks the SEN register, the provision map, review notes, and the impact of support already tried.

If a newly diagnosed learner needs SEN Support, record that decision, put provision in place, review its impact, and then decide whether the evidence points towards an EHC needs assessment.

Where a learner already has documented, significant and persistent difficulty, and the RTC diagnosis confirms what school staff have observed, an EHCP request may be appropriate. In that case, the SENCO should support the request with clear school evidence.

The diagnosis does not create the evidence; it gives context to evidence that may already exist. Our full guide to barriers to learning explains how to present school-based evidence against local authority thresholds.

It is also worth knowing that LAs have a legal duty to carry out an EHC needs assessment when requested by a parent, even if the school does not initiate the request. Parents can request an assessment directly. If a family chooses to do this, the SENCO's role is to provide the school's evidence to the LA as part of the assessment process, not to determine whether the request is appropriate.

​

Template: Professional Response Letter to Parents

A written response template, agreed with the headteacher and filed in the school's SEND policy folder, creates consistency and protects all parties. The following template is designed to be adapted for individual circumstances. It acknowledges the diagnosis, explains the school's process, commits to a clear timeline, and invites collaboration.

Where to use it: send this letter within five working days of receiving a diagnostic report or a parent's first contact about an RTC referral.

Section	Suggested Wording
Opening	Thank you for sharing [Child's name]'s recent assessment report. We have read it carefully and we are glad you have been able to access a timely assessment. We know this process takes time and commitment from families.
School role	As the SENCO, my role is to review what [Child's name] experiences at school, what support is already in place, and what additional adjustments may be appropriate in the educational setting. I am not in a position to confirm or question the clinical diagnosis; that is the clinician's role. My job is the educational picture.
Next steps	Over the next two weeks, I will complete a formal classroom observation and gather feedback from [Child's name]'s teachers. I will also review the support already in place. I would like to arrange a meeting with you on [date] to share this evidence and discuss next steps together.
EHCP paragraph	Regarding the recommendation for an EHCP, I want to be transparent with you. The threshold for a statutory assessment is set by the SEND Code of Practice (2015) and requires evidence of significant and persistent difficulty despite quality-first teaching. The diagnosis is an important part of that picture. We will discuss whether the full evidence supports an EHCP request at our meeting.
Closing	We are committed to working with you and with [Child's name]. If you have any immediate concerns in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to meeting with you on [date].

Before sending any response, confirm the wording with your headteacher and ensure it aligns with your school's SEND policy. If your school has a legal officer or an LA SEND advisor, a copy of your standard template is worth running past them once, so you are confident the language is consistent with national guidance.

​

Regional Variations and ICB Funding

Check the local pathway

Right to Choose implementation varies by area. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) respond differently to referral pressure, provider capacity, and local commissioning decisions.

Some areas maintain wider access to ADHD assessments. Others publish tighter provider lists, eligibility notes, or guidance for GP referrals. This variation is one reason families can receive different advice in neighbouring areas.

SENCOs need to know the local ICB position because it shapes conversations with families. A parent may have been told they can use RTC, but the GP may still need to check whether referral is clinically appropriate and whether the chosen provider accepts that referral route.

Clear signposting reduces confusion. It also avoids the school being pulled into provider-choice questions that sit with the GP and NHS pathway.

The NHS England Right to Choose guidance is held at england.nhs.uk/rightchoice, but ICB-specific information is held on individual ICB websites, which vary in clarity. The most reliable way to check your local position is to contact your ICB's SEND or children's mental health commissioning team directly, or to ask your Local Authority SEND Improvement Partner, if your area has one, for the current guidance.

As of May 2026, several ICBs are reviewing or updating their ADHD and autism provider information for the 2026-27 commissioning year. If your school is supporting families through RTC referrals, check the current local position before giving process advice.

This is not the SENCO's statutory responsibility, but it helps families and reduces the calls and emails that arrive when referrals stall or fail.

ICB differences can also affect EHCP conversations. Some local authorities may question the weight of reports from providers they do not usually work with. The safer position is to focus on the educational evidence, not the label on the pathway.

Clinical reports are professional opinions. EHC assessments weigh all available evidence, including school observation, parent views, learner voice, attainment, attendance, and provision impact.

​

Understanding ADHD in the Classroom

Knowing ADHD traits in schools helps when making adjustments. Diagnostic reports use parent input and interviews (Barkley, 1990). Teachers should observe learners in class to build an educational picture (Visser et al., 2015; Sayal et al., 2018).

ADHD includes inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These show up differently across learners (Barkley, 1990). Inattentive learners may be overlooked because their difficulties are less externally visible than hyperactivity. They miss instructions, lose materials, and struggle to sustain effort across a task.

Classroom strategies should target executive function issues, not just behaviour. Barkley (1997) said ADHD is a self-regulation problem. A learner knows what to do but struggles to start and continue tasks. Use visual aids and timers. These support self-regulation better than lowered expectations.

The Thinking Framework's Sequence operation is useful here. When a teacher breaks a complex task into a visible, numbered sequence, they provide the external planning scaffold that the learner's working memory cannot hold.

This is not lowering demand. The task remains the same, but the entry point is structured. For a learner with ADHD, that adjustment can be the difference between task avoidance and task completion. Our article on ADHD, autism, and PDA in the classroom explores the overlaps and distinctions between these profiles in detail.

Talk to older learners about their strategies. Many adolescents with ADHD use hidden self-regulation. Ask what helps them concentrate, what makes tasks harder, and which routines they already use. This gives insight that classroom observation alone can miss. Metacognition improves self-regulation in neurodivergent learners (White, 2023; Patel, 2024).

​

ADHD Assessments and School Evidence

RTC referrals cause friction when assessments lack school evidence. NICE NG87 (2018) says ADHD assessments need home and school input. Getting school evidence within the four to eight week RTC timeline proves challenging. (Sayal et al., 2018)

Build a school evidence pack

A stronger SENCO response is to prepare an evidence pack before the review meeting, not after disagreement has started. The pack should be factual, short, and linked to classroom access rather than diagnostic opinion.

• teacher observations from at least two lessons or subject areas
• attendance, punctuality, homework, and task-completion patterns
• existing SEN Support provision and review dates
• examples of written work showing planning, completion, or organisation barriers
• parent concerns and learner voice, where age-appropriate
• rating-scale requests received, returned, or still outstanding

Some RTC providers send a teacher rating scale, typically the Conners or SNAP-IV, as part of the assessment pack. When this happens, the SENCO or a subject teacher completes it and returns it to the provider.

This is the school's formal contribution to the clinical assessment. An incomplete scale weakens the assessment data, so return it promptly and keep a copy in the school evidence pack.

If your school receives a teacher rating scale and is unsure how to complete it, our guide to ADHD tests and assessments explains what each scale measures and how teacher observations are weighted in the diagnostic process. Completing the scale accurately and returning it promptly is one of the most direct contributions the school can make to the quality of a child's assessment.

When no rating scale has been sent by the provider, the SENCO can still complete one independently and share it with the clinician. This is good professional practice. It creates a school-side record of the evidence gathered and ensures the clinician has the educational perspective even if it was not formally requested. The Conners 3 teacher form takes approximately fifteen minutes to complete and is widely available through educational psychology teams.

​

What to Do This Week

Audit the caseload

Start with an audit. How many Right to Choose referrals or completed diagnoses has your school received this academic year? Are they recorded consistently, or are they scattered across email threads and parent meetings without a central log? If your school does not have a standard response protocol for RTC referrals, the absence of that protocol is the first gap to address.

Create the log

A simple RTC referral log, held in the SENCO's records, should capture the date of referral or diagnosis, the provider used, whether the school was asked to complete a rating scale, the date of the review meeting with parents, the current level of SEN provision, and whether an EHCP assessment has been requested or is under consideration.

This log costs nothing except the hour it takes to create it. It turns ad hoc responses into a manageable caseload and makes patterns visible for senior leaders.

Respond and review

If you have received a diagnostic report this week and have not yet responded, use the letter template from section six above, adapt it for the family's circumstances, confirm the wording with your headteacher, and send it within five working days. That response sets the professional tone for everything that follows.

If you do not yet have a Conners Teacher Rating Scale available for your staff to use, contact your educational psychologist service or your LA's SEND support team. Most LAs provide access to standardised rating scales for schools as part of their SEND advisory offer. Having the scale available before the next referral arrives means you are not creating a process under pressure.

Check the ICB position

Finally, check your ICB's current position for the 2026-27 commissioning year. Provider lists, eligibility rules, assessment formats, and post-diagnostic support arrangements can change, so SENCOs should avoid giving families provider-specific assurances unless the information has been checked.

Your ICB's children and young people commissioning team is the right contact. An email to your LA's SEND Partnership team is a good starting point if you do not have the ICB contact details.

The Right to Choose pathway is now part of the SEND workload. SENCOs who build a clear response framework will spend less time managing individual crises later.

The families who use this pathway are not adversaries. They are parents who have taken action to get their child assessed. Meet that action with a clear, consistent, evidence-based school response.

​

‍

Further Reading