APDR cycles: a practical guide for SENDCos

APDR stands for Assess, Plan, Do, Review — the four stages of the graduated approach to SEND provision set out in the SEND Code of Practice. It's the structure Ofsted expects to see in every school, and from 2029, it's the rhythm every ISP will run on. This article walks through what each stage requires, how to make it manageable at scale, and what good evidence looks like.

The graduated approach isn't new. It's been in the Code of Practice since 2014. What's changing is the inspection regime around it — Ofsted's updated SEND framework expects to see APDR cycles documented, with parent involvement, with outcomes tracked, and with changes between cycles. That's a higher bar than most schools are currently meeting.

What APDR actually means

The four stages are deliberately simple. Each one is a question.

Assess — what's going on with this pupil? What do we know about their strengths, needs, and barriers, and how do we know it?

Plan — given what we know, what are we going to do about it? What provision, what outcomes, what timescale?

Do — actually delivering the provision. The bit that happens in classrooms, in interventions, with professionals.

Review — what changed? Did the provision work? What does the next cycle need to look like?

The cycle is supposed to repeat. Termly is now the norm in good schools; some run shorter cycles for pupils with the highest need. The minimum statutory expectation is annual, but few schools that take SEND seriously stop at annual.

Stage 1: Assess

The Assess stage is where most of the data enters the cycle. Done well, it's the foundation for everything that follows. Done poorly, it's a half-page summary that doesn't reflect the pupil.

A good assessment for an APDR cycle includes:

Quantitative data. Attendance, behaviour incidents, attainment data, intervention outcomes from the previous cycle. Most of this is already in your MIS.

Qualitative input from school. Class teacher observations, pastoral team observations, SENDCo observations. What changed since the last cycle?

Parent observations. What is the pupil like at home? What's working? What's worrying? This isn't optional under the new co-production standard.

Pupil voice. What does the pupil say? What helps? What gets in the way?

Professional input. EP reports, SALT assessments, OT input, CAMHS contact. Anything new since the last cycle.

The assessment doesn't have to be long. A page is often enough. What matters is that it captures the picture — not just the easily-measured bits.

The mistake schools make at this stage is overweighting the quantitative data. Attendance and behaviour numbers are easy to pull. Parent and pupil voice is harder. Schools end up with assessments that are 90% MIS data and 10% lived experience. The graduated approach is supposed to be the other way round.

Stage 2: Plan

The Plan stage takes the assessment and turns it into action. The output of the planning stage is the provision and outcomes sections of the ISP.

A good plan answers:

• What barriers are we addressing? (Drawn from the assessment.)
• What provision will we put in place? (Specific, costed, time-bounded.)
• What outcomes are we aiming for? (Measurable, with target dates.)
• Who's responsible for what?

Plans should be ambitious but realistic. Three or four well-resourced outcomes are better than a list of ten that no one can deliver on. The pupil's plan is a contract between the school, the parent, and the pupil — it should be deliverable.

Plans should also build on previous cycles. The plan for cycle three isn't written from scratch; it's the plan for cycle two adjusted based on the review.

The single biggest mistake at the planning stage is provision that's too vague. "Small group support" isn't provision. "Phonics intervention with the SENCO TA, three sessions per week, 20 minutes each, targeting outcomes 1 and 3" is provision.

Stage 3: Do

The Do stage is the longest. It's the term during which the provision is actually delivered.

What needs to happen during Do:

• The provision is delivered as planned (and adjusted if not workable)
• Staff log what they're doing — not in heavy detail, but enough to evidence delivery
• The pupil's response to provision is observed and recorded
• Any significant changes are flagged early, not at the review

This is where most ISPs fall down. The SENDCo writes the plan, hands it to the staff, and discovers at review that half the provision didn't actually happen — or happened differently from what was written.

The fix isn't more bureaucracy. It's lighter-touch logging that fits into the day. A short note from the TA after each intervention session ("did the planned activity, pupil engaged for 18 of 20 minutes, used the visual prompts well"). A quick observation from the form tutor. A weekly check from the SENDCo.

The Do stage is also where the parent portal earns its place. Parents who can see what's happening — not in real-time, but with weekly or fortnightly summaries — are partners in the provision. Parents who only hear about it at review are stakeholders being managed.

Stage 4: Review

The Review stage is where the cycle closes and the next one begins. Done properly, it's the most important stage.

A good review covers:

• Outcome status (RAG-rated against the targets set in the plan)
• What worked
• What didn't
• What changed for the pupil during the cycle
• What the parent says
• What the pupil says
• What the next cycle needs

The review is also where co-production becomes most visible. The parent should be in the review meeting, or have contributed in writing, or — if neither — have been offered both and declined. Whatever the case, it should be recorded.

Reviews should produce changes. If outcomes are all green, raise the bar. If they're all red, change the approach. If they're mixed, double down on what worked and rethink what didn't. A review that produces no changes is a review that wasn't really done.

What good APDR evidence looks like

For Ofsted, for the LA at EHCP application, and for your own internal tracking, good APDR evidence has these qualities:

It's structured. Every cycle has the same four stages, the same data captured, the same review questions answered.

It's compounded. Cycle three references cycle two references cycle one. The story develops over time.

It includes parent voice. Every cycle records what the parent contributed and how it shaped provision.

It records pupil voice. Every cycle, age-appropriate, in the pupil's own words where possible.

It tracks outcomes over time. RAG status across cycles tells the trend story — improving, plateauing, declining.

It shows the work. Provision is specific. Costs are recorded. Professionals named. Sessions logged.

It's accessible. The whole picture for any pupil can be pulled up in under a minute. Not assembled from five systems. Not retyped from Word documents.

How long should each cycle be?

Termly is now standard. Six weeks would be too short to see meaningful change in most provision. A full academic year is usually too long — needs change, professionals come and go, parents move, pupils develop. Three cycles a year, roughly aligned with the school terms, is what most schools settle on.

Some pupils need shorter cycles. A pupil in acute crisis might be on a six-week cycle for the first half-term, then a termly cycle once stabilised. The framework is flexible; the principle is that cycles should match the pace of change in the pupil's situation.

How does APDR fit with ISPs?

This is the question I get asked most often. The answer is simple: ISPs are the document. APDR is the rhythm.

The ISP's review section is the review stage of an APDR cycle. The ISP's provision and outcomes sections are the plan stage. The ISP's strengths-and-needs and barriers sections are the assess stage. The Do stage happens in classrooms, with the ISP as the reference.

So an ISP isn't separate from APDR — it's the artefact APDR produces and updates. Every termly review is an APDR review, and every review updates the ISP.

How does it fit with EHCPs?

EHCP outcomes follow the same logic. The EHCP itself is the long-term plan; APDR cycles within the year track progress against EHCP outcomes. At the annual EHCP review, the LA wants to see APDR cycles, RAG-rated outcomes, and changes between cycles — exactly the same evidence as for an ISP, just at a higher scale.

The LA's expectation at EHCP application is at least two completed APDR cycles. Three is stronger. The cycles must be evidenced — not just claimed.

Common APDR mistakes

Mistake 1: Annual cycles dressed as termly. Some schools claim termly cycles but only review meaningfully once a year. Ofsted will spot this.

Mistake 2: Reviews that don't produce changes. Every review should result in adjustments. If nothing changes, the review was performative.

Mistake 3: Missing parent voice. A review without parent input fails the new co-production standard.

Mistake 4: Vague outcomes. Outcomes that aren't measurable can't be RAG-rated, which means cycles can't track progress.

Mistake 5: APDR for some pupils, not others. Inconsistency is what Ofsted catches. Either every SEN Support pupil is on a structured APDR cycle, or none of them are.

What we built

SENDCo View is built around the APDR cycle. Every ISP runs on a termly review schedule. Termly review prompts surface automatically — nothing slips. Outcomes are RAG-rated and tracked over multiple cycles. Parent voice flows in from the parent portal. Intervention delivery is logged through the intervention log. When you need to evidence the cycle for the LA or for Ofsted, the data is already there.

See how the APDR cycle works in SENDCo View →