Assess Plan Do Review: How the APDR Cycle Works in England

When a school tells you your child is "on SEN support," they should be running a structured cycle called Assess, Plan, Do, Review — usually shortened to APDR. This is not optional. It is the framework mandated by the SEND Code of Practice 2015, and if a school is not following it, they are not implementing SEN support correctly.

The problem is that the cycle often exists only on paper. Plans are written, interventions nominally scheduled, and review dates come and go with no real scrutiny of whether the child is making progress. Parents who understand each stage of APDR — and what evidence should exist at each point — can shift the dynamic in their child's favour.

Why APDR Exists

The graduated approach to SEN support is built on the recognition that children's needs change, and that what works needs constant adjustment. A static plan that is written once and revisited superficially once a year is not a graduated approach — it is administrative box-ticking.

APDR is designed to create a continuous feedback loop: identify the need precisely, plan a targeted response, deliver it consistently, and then rigorously review whether it worked. Each review feeds back into the next assessment, so the cycle genuinely adapts to the child rather than running on autopilot.

Stage 1: Assess

The assess stage requires the class teacher and SENCO to carry out a clear analysis of the pupil's needs. This is not the same as a formal diagnosis — the SEND system in England is needs-based, not diagnosis-based. What matters is the functional impact on the child's learning, not whether a clinical label has been applied.

The assessment should draw on:

• Teacher assessments and classroom observations
• Progress data (attainment, rate of progress over time)
• How the child compares with peers of the same age
• The child's own views about what helps and what does not
• The parents' perspective on the child's needs and experiences at home
• Any existing reports from external professionals (speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists)

One critical legal point: the Code of Practice specifies that pupils without a diagnosis have the same right to SEN support as those with one. A school cannot delay starting the APDR cycle because a CAMHS or paediatric appointment is still pending.

What you should see at this stage: A written summary of the child's needs, grounded in evidence, not just impressions. If the school's "assessment" amounts to a brief paragraph saying your child "struggles to focus," push back and ask what specific observations, data, and professional advice informed that description.

Stage 2: Plan

The plan must be developed with the parents and, where appropriate, the child. This is a statutory requirement, not a courtesy. The plan should document:

• The specific interventions and support strategies that will be put in place
• The expected outcomes — and these must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound), not vague aspirations
• Who is responsible for delivering each element of the plan
• The frequency and duration of each intervention
• A concrete review date

This is where many schools produce plans that look thorough but are legally weak. Targets like "will improve reading confidence" or "will be better able to manage emotions" cannot be measured at review. A SMART target sounds more like: "By the review date of [date], [child] will be able to read Level X books independently with 80% comprehension accuracy, as measured by the school's reading assessment tool."

Parents must be formally notified when SEN support begins. The plan should be shared with you, not just filed internally.

What you should see at this stage: A written plan with named interventions, measurable targets, named staff responsible for delivery, frequency of sessions, and a specific review date.

Stage 3: Do

The "do" stage is deceptively simple: the plan is implemented. But the Code of Practice is specific about accountability. The class teacher retains overall responsibility for the child's progress and must closely monitor the impact of the targeted support — even if the actual intervention is delivered by a teaching assistant or in a withdrawal group.

This matters because there is a widespread pattern in schools of a plan being written, handed to a TA, and then not monitored properly until the review date arrives. The class teacher must know what is happening in the intervention sessions and whether it is making a difference.

What you should see at this stage: Evidence that the interventions are actually happening — session records, baseline and mid-point measurements. You are entitled to ask whether the sessions in the plan are taking place, how often, and whether the TA has had any training for the specific intervention being used.

Stage 4: Review

The review is where the cycle either works or fails. The effectiveness of the support and its impact on the child's progress toward the agreed targets must be formally assessed.

Under the Code of Practice, reviews should happen at least three times per year — typically termly. The review should answer:

• Has the child made progress toward each target?
• Has the intervention been delivered as planned?
• What do the parents and child think about the impact?
• What changes are needed in the next cycle?

If the child has not met the targets, the next plan must change — different interventions, more intensive support, or external specialist involvement. A school that simply carries over the same unmet targets into the next plan without explanation is not running a genuine graduated approach.

If the child has consistently failed to make adequate progress despite well-implemented SEN support, this review evidence becomes the foundation for requesting an EHC needs assessment.

What you should see at this stage: A written review record with the outcome against each target, parental views recorded, and a clear rationale for the next cycle's plan.

Using the APDR Cycle as Evidence

The APDR cycle is not just good practice — it is a paper trail. When you eventually request an EHC needs assessment, the local authority will want to see evidence that the school has run sufficient graduated response cycles and that SEN support has proved insufficient.

Conversely, if the school is running superficial APDR cycles — plans that never have SMART targets, reviews that never happen on time, interventions that cannot be evidenced — you can document this and use it to demonstrate that the school's best endeavours have been inadequate, not because the child's needs are modest, but because the support has been poorly implemented.

Keep copies of every plan and every review document. Note the date each was given to you. If you are not receiving these documents routinely, ask in writing.

A Practical APDR Template

If you want to verify whether your child's school is following APDR properly, the England EHCP & SEN Blueprint at /uk/england/iep-guide includes an APDR tracking worksheet. It provides a structured format to record what each stage should contain, what the school is actually providing, and where the gaps are — which you can bring to your next SEN support meeting.

The cycle is simple in theory. In practice, holding a school to it requires knowing exactly what each stage should produce and being prepared to ask for it in writing.

See more United Kingdom guides →