What the Paperwork Doesn’t See: A TA’s Place in the EHCP Annual Review

Annual reviews can feel like meetings for people with titles. You are not the SENCo. You are not the parent. You are not the local authority officer. But you are often the adult who knows how the child’s week actually unfolds. That is not a small thing.

The meeting is only one part of the review

The EHCP annual review is a process, not a single hour in a conference room. The school gathers views, advice and reports, the review meeting happens, and the local authority then decides whether the plan stays as it is, changes or needs further assessment. As a teaching assistant, your role usually sits before, during and after that meeting.

Beforehand, you may be asked for written observations. During the meeting, you may be invited to contribute or you may be there to listen. Afterwards, you may be the person who notices whether the agreed provision is actually happening in the classroom. All three parts matter.

Why your day-to-day notes carry weight

Paperwork can tell the team what a child’s needs are supposed to look like. You see what they look like on a wet Tuesday after a bad night’s sleep, or in the last ten minutes of a maths lesson, or at the point when the corridor gets too loud. That is the kind of evidence that helps a review make sensible decisions.

You do not need to be an expert in SEN law to contribute. You need to be specific. If a child is meant to have movement breaks and you have noticed they are happening less often since the timetable changed, that is useful. If a social skills group looked good on paper but the child is coming back unsettled every time, that is useful too. The review is not a test of your knowledge. It is a check on whether the plan is working in real life.

Build a one-page evidence sheet

Keep it short. A busy review does not need a diary of everything since last September. Pick three to five points that link directly to the child’s outcomes or the provision in the plan. For each one, note what you have seen, when and how often, what seems to help, and what you think the team should know.

Useful evidence sounds like this: ‘On six occasions in October, X left the classroom for movement breaks and returned able to start work within five minutes.’ Less useful evidence sounds like: ‘X really struggles.’ The first gives the team something to work with. The second gives them a feeling, not a fact.

Dates, frequency and brief examples are your friends. Avoid turning it into a character reference. The child is not the problem. The question is whether the support around them is matching their needs.

In the room: say less, land more

If you are invited to speak, stick to your evidence. You might say, ‘I have noticed that the visual timetable helps in the morning, but by the afternoon it is often out of date.’ That is clear, calm and useful. Try to avoid sweeping statements like ‘He always refuses’ or ‘She never copes.’ They invite disagreement and they do not help the team plan.

It is also fine to say what you do not know. If someone asks whether a child would manage a different intervention and you have not seen it, say so. Guessing can create commitments that are hard to unpick later. Bring a notebook. Write down the actions and who has agreed to do what. You will be glad of it when the meeting ends and everyone remembers a slightly different version of events.

The promises you cannot make

This is the bit that catches TAs out. In a review, it is easy to want to be helpful. Someone asks whether you could do an extra ten minutes of reading support each day, or run a social skills session, or keep a child on a bespoke timetable. You want to say yes because you care. But you are not usually the person who can agree resourcing, timetabling or changes to provision on the spot.

You can say, ‘I can flag that to the SENCo and check what is possible.’ You can say, ‘That would need looking at against the timetable.’ You can say, ‘I am happy to try that if it is agreed and I have the time.’ What you should not do is promise one-to-one support, specific outcomes, extra hours or a new intervention because it sounds reassuring in the room. Good intentions made under pressure can become tomorrow’s unreasonable expectation.

Raising a concern without turning it into a complaint

If something is not working, say it plainly and professionally. Focus on what you have observed, why it concerns you and what might help. For example: ‘Since the timetable changed, X has been leaving the classroom during literacy three times a week and missing the supported reading slot. I am concerned the provision is not happening as written. Could we look at how to protect that time?’

That is very different from a general moan in the staffroom. Raise it with the SENCo before the meeting if you can, so it is not a surprise. If it comes up in the meeting, keep it factual. The aim is not to win an argument. The aim is to make sure the review records the issue and the team decides what to do about it.

After the meeting: the follow-up that stops drift

Reviews have a habit of ending with warm words and no clear next step. Before you leave, ask what happens next and who is responsible. When the review report is written, ask to see the parts that relate to your work. If the plan changes, read the new provision and compare it with what is actually happening in the classroom.

Diarise a check six to eight weeks later. Are the agreed strategies still in place? Has the extra support started? If not, tell the SENCo rather than waiting for the next annual review. Keep your notes brief and factual. You are not policing anyone. You are making sure the child’s provision does not quietly drift away from what was agreed.

Your seat at the table may not come with a title. It still comes with something valuable: a clear view of the child’s ordinary school day. Use it well, keep it honest, and follow up afterwards. That is how teaching assistants help annual reviews become more than paperwork.