Individual Education Plan Design

Proof required

Submit your anonymised needs summary (600–900 words) covering the student's strengths, identified barriers across the four SEND areas, existing provision in place, and the student's own stated preferences or targets — all using pseudonyms and no identifying details. Include a brief methodology note explaining how you gathered the evidence.

What gets checked

• All four SEND areas of need are addressed (cognition/learning, SEMH, communication/interaction, sensory/physical) — even if most are not primary for this student
• Student voice is explicitly represented — not just professional assessments; the student's own stated preferences or goals are documented
• Every reference uses a pseudonym or role descriptor; no names, dates, school names, or identifying combinations appear anywhere in the submission

Common mistakes

• Relying only on existing paperwork without any direct student interaction — the student voice component is non-negotiable for a valid IEP
• Including the school name, year group, or other combination of details that could identify the student despite using a pseudonym

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Current enhanced DBS clearance is a prerequisite — arranged through the placement institution, not Powstik. Confirm before accepting.
• Recognised safeguarding training module completion must be documented — verify module name and date are stated in the submission.
• A SENCO or specialist teacher (not a classroom teacher or peer) must have supervised all direct student contact and signed off the needs summary — peer attestation is never acceptable.
• Check the full submission for any identifying information: student names, school names, year groups combined with other details, or dates that could triangulate identity — reject any submission with identifying details present.
• Student voice must be explicitly represented in the needs summary — if only professional assessment data is present, the milestone is not met.

Proof required

Submit the completed, anonymised IEP document (using the school template or nasen format) with a brief annotation note (300–400 words) explaining how each SMART target connects to the needs assessment evidence, and a record of the SENCO's pre-submission feedback and how you incorporated it.

What gets checked

• All three targets are genuinely SMART — each has a Specific skill/behaviour, Measurable success criterion, Achievable timescale, Relevant connection to an identified need, and a Time-bound review date
• Provision column specifies real, named resources (named TA support, named programme, frequency) — not vague descriptors like 'additional support'
• SENCO feedback is documented and the annotation explains which suggestions you adopted and why — not just 'SENCO approved'

Common mistakes

• Writing targets that describe provision rather than outcomes ('student will receive reading support') rather than what the student will achieve ('student will read grade-level text with 90% accuracy by [date]')
• Setting three targets addressing the same area of need — a valid IEP addresses the full profile of identified priorities

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• All SAFEGUARDING prerequisites still apply — this milestone involves real student data (even if anonymised).
• SENCO or specialist supervisor must have reviewed the draft IEP before submission — not a classroom teacher, not a peer.
• Check that all three targets are outcome-focused, not provision-focused — reject targets that describe what will be done rather than what will be achieved.
• Provision column must name specific, real resources — vague provision descriptions indicate the IEP is not ready for real-world use.
• Confirm the document is fully anonymised — IEP templates often auto-populate with student names from school systems.

Proof required

Submit: (1) your meeting agenda (used to structure the presentation); (2) documented panel feedback (attributed to roles not names, minimum 250 words capturing specific points raised); (3) your critical reflection (500–700 words) addressing at least two concrete improvements to the IEP and one learning point about multi-professional working.

What gets checked

• Panel includes at least one SENCO or specialist education professional — a classroom teacher alone does not satisfy this standard
• Reflection identifies two concrete IEP improvements with specific rationale — not generic lessons about 'what makes a good IEP'
• Reflection addresses multi-professional working specifically — what different roles bring, where perspectives diverged, how the student's interests were centred

Common mistakes

• Presenting to a single reviewer rather than a panel — the multi-professional dynamic is the point, not just getting one person's sign-off
• Writing a reflection that summarises what happened in the meeting rather than critically evaluating the IEP and your own professional practice

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• SAFEGUARDING prerequisites apply — even the simulated review involves real (anonymised) student case data.
• At least one SENCO or equivalent specialist professional must be on the panel — a general classroom teacher does not satisfy this requirement.
• Peer attestation is never acceptable — both panellists must hold relevant professional roles.
• Reflection must engage with multi-professional working specifically — a submission that only evaluates the IEP document without reflecting on the professional dynamics of the review process is incomplete.
• Confirm all documentation referring to the student uses pseudonyms throughout.