Educational Needs Assessment

Proof required

Submit your educational needs assessment record (methodology, observations from minimum three settings, record review notes, and learner conversation notes — all anonymised). Include SENCO/supervisor approval note.

What gets checked

• Assessment covers minimum three settings or subjects — not a single observation
• Record review and learner conversation are documented alongside observations
• Full anonymisation — pseudonym for learner, no school name, no parent names

Common mistakes

• Assessment is based on a single observation — insufficient for a needs assessment
• Record review or learner conversation is absent
• Identifying information present in the assessment record

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented — enhanced DBS with children's barred list check required for SEND placements
• Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented with module name and completion date
• Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named SENCO or SEN Coordinator — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
• Check full anonymisation — pseudonym for learner, no school name, no parent details, no combinations that identify the individual
• Verify SENCO/supervisor approval was given before the assessment began — not retrospectively

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your provisional provision recommendations (three to five strategies with need, evidence base, implementation approach, and impact measurement — minimum 500 words, anonymised) and a note confirming SENCO/supervisor discussion.

What gets checked

• Three to five strategies with specific evidence base for each
• Each strategy has a named impact measurement approach
• Recommendations are discussed with SENCO/supervisor before submission

Common mistakes

• Strategies lack evidence base — based on instinct without professional guidance references
• Impact measurement is absent — no indication of how you would know if the strategy worked
• Recommendations were not discussed with SENCO/supervisor

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify SENCO/supervisor discussion note is present before the recommendations were finalised
• Check each strategy has a specific named evidence base
• Check each strategy has a named impact measurement approach
• Ask student: what is the highest priority need in your assessment and why did you sequence your strategies as you did?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) review meeting record (date, SENCO/supervisor name and role, specific challenges — anonymised, minimum half page), (2) final needs assessment report (minimum 600 words, anonymised), (3) revision note (minimum 200 words).

What gets checked

• Review meeting challenged assessment methodology or recommendations — not only affirmed them
• Final report is professional-quality — suitable for inclusion in the learner's education record
• Revision note documents at least two substantive changes from SENCO feedback

Common mistakes

• Review meeting was only affirmative — no challenges documented
• Final report is written in reflective student style rather than professional assessment format
• Revision note documents cosmetic changes rather than substantive improvements

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation are on record for the full placement
• Verify SENCO has named professional qualification (SENCO accreditation or equivalent) — peer verification is NEVER acceptable
• Check full anonymisation throughout all submitted materials
• Verify revision note documents at least two substantive changes from SENCO feedback
• Ask student: how did the SENCO's knowledge of this learner change your assessment or recommendations?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.