Why Provision Map isn't enough any more

Provision Map (provisionmap.co.uk, by Edukey) has been the default SEND tool in UK schools for over a decade. Thousands of schools use it. It does provision mapping well — that was the problem it was built to solve, and it solves it. But the SEND landscape has changed considerably since the tool was designed, and the SEND Reform White Paper has changed it again. Schools that have used Provision Map for years are starting to ask whether it's still enough.

This article isn't a hatchet job. Provision Map is a respectable tool that did good work for a long time. The question this article tries to answer is: given the new statutory standard arriving in September 2029, what does a good SEND tool need to do, and where does Provision Map fall short of that standard?

What Provision Map does well

Let's start with the strengths. Provision Map's core proposition has always been provision mapping — tracking what's being delivered to which pupil, by whom, at what cost. It does this well:

• Provision can be assigned by pupil, group, or class
• Costs are calculated automatically based on staff time and resource costs
• Provision waves (1, 2, 3 — universal, targeted, specialist) are clearly modelled
• Reports for SLT and governors come out cleanly
• The interface is familiar to a generation of SENDCos

If your school's SEND need is "we need to know what we're doing for which pupils, and what it's costing us," Provision Map handles that. It's why it became the default.

Where Provision Map falls short for the new standard

The SEND Reform White Paper introduces requirements that Provision Map wasn't designed for. Some of these gaps can be worked around. Some can't.

1. ISP support is partial

Provision Map handles provision mapping. The new statutory ISP is more than a provision map. It's a five-section structured plan:

• Strengths and needs
• Barriers
• Provision (this is what Provision Map does well)
• Outcomes
• Review

Provision Map covers section 3 (provision). Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 either don't exist as structured fields or are bolt-on. Schools using Provision Map currently work around this with separate Word documents for the assessment, the review, and the outcomes — which is exactly the manual workflow the new standard is trying to replace.

Provision Map have indicated they'll add ISP-specific functionality. As of writing, no public roadmap or release date has been announced.

2. No parent portal

This is the biggest gap. Provision Map is a SENDCo tool. Parents don't access it. Co-production happens (if it happens) outside the system — emails, meetings, Word documents.

Co-production is mandatory under the new standard from September 2029. A parent portal isn't optional any more — it's the mechanism by which co-production becomes evidenceable. Schools using Provision Map will need either a separate parent portal product (more cost, more integration headaches) or a workflow that generates Word documents to email back and forth (which doesn't scale and doesn't evidence properly).

There's no public Provision Map roadmap addressing parent portals at the time of writing.

3. EHCP evidence packs are not native

Provision Map can produce reports about provision. It cannot produce a structured EHCP evidence pack with the ten sections an LA expects. Schools using Provision Map for EHCP applications still pull data from multiple systems and assemble the pack manually in Word. The three-to-four-hours-per-pupil problem persists.

4. MIS data is not deeply fused

Provision Map can sync some data from MIS systems. The integration is read-some-things, not the deep fusion that the new EHCP evidence standard requires. Attendance, behaviour, exclusions, grades and medical conditions need to be live in the SEND tool — not just imported on a schedule.

5. Costed interventions don't tie to outcomes

Provision Map costs interventions. What it doesn't do well is tie those costs to specific outcomes — and that's the question the £1.6bn Inclusive Mainstream Fund is going to make schools answer. "What did this pound buy?" needs an outcome answer, not just an intervention answer.

6. APDR cycles aren't structured

Provision Map can record reviews, but the APDR cycle isn't a first-class concept in the tool. Schools have to build their own discipline around when to assess, plan, do and review. The new standard expects the cycle to be visible in the tool — Ofsted will look for it.

What to look for in a replacement

If your school is reviewing its SEND tooling for 2026 or 2027, here's the criteria a tool needs to meet:

Five-section ISPs as a first-class concept. Not a customisable form that can be made to look like an ISP. The structure should be built into the tool, mapped to the DfE schema as it firms up.

Secure parent portal with one-click invitations. Not an upsell. Not a separate product. Co-production needs to be built in, parents need easy access without compromising security, and the audit trail needs to capture every contribution.

Deep MIS data fusion. Live attendance, behaviour, exclusions, grades flowing into pupil profiles in real time, and into evidence packs automatically.

One-click EHCP evidence packs. The 10-section structured pack as an output, with every section sourced. Not "we can produce reports" — the actual pack the LA expects.

APDR cycles structured into the workflow. Termly review prompts. RAG-rated outcomes that track over multiple cycles. Audit trail of changes between cycles.

Costed interventions linked to outcomes. Each intervention has a cost. Each cost is associated with one or more outcomes. Cost-per-outcome is a calculable number.

Field-level permissions. A teacher sees one view, the SENDCo sees another, the DSL sees a third. All from the same underlying record.

Full audit trail. Every view, edit, export, and parent contribution logged. Exportable for Ofsted.

Article 28 DPA. Available before contract sign. UK data residency. No AI training on pupil data.

Built for the White Paper. Not retrofitted. Built around the new standard from the start.

A note on switching

Switching SEND tooling isn't trivial. There's data migration, staff retraining, parent communication, and a transition period when both systems exist. Schools that switch should plan for it.

That said, the switching cost is finite. The cost of staying on a tool that doesn't meet the new standard, then trying to retrofit compliance in 2029, is much higher.

If you're on Provision Map and it's working for you, the question isn't "should I switch tomorrow?" The question is "what's my plan for September 2029, and does my current tool get me there?" If the answer is yes, stay. If the answer is no, start evaluating alternatives now.

How SENDCo View compares

SENDCo View is built specifically for the new standard. The five-section ISP is the core workflow — not bolted on. Parent co-production through a secure portal is a flagship feature. EHCP evidence packs generate in one click. APDR cycles are structured with termly review prompts. Costed interventions tie to outcomes. Field-level permissions are part of the security model. UK data residency is contractual.

We're working with a founding cohort of 10 schools through 2026 to make sure it fits the way real SENDCos actually work. Lifetime access for £599 for the first 10 schools.

See the founding school programme →

Read more about how SENDCo View handles ISPs → Read more about the parent portal → Read more about EHCP evidence packs →

Frequently asked questions

Is Provision Map adding ISP support? Provision Map have signalled work on the new standard. As of writing, no detailed public roadmap or release date has been announced. Schools relying on a future feature are taking on risk.

Are there other alternatives besides SENDCo View? Yes. Senflow, SENMaster, Educater Envision and a few others all operate in this space. Each has different strengths. We've written about how to evaluate SEND software in general — the criteria above apply to any tool you're considering.

What about data migration? Most SEND tools support CSV export. The migration work is mainly mapping fields between formats and re-establishing the parent contact relationships. A typical school can migrate in a working week if the data is reasonably clean.

How much should a SEND platform cost? For a single school, expect £600–£1,500/year for a tool that does the full job (ISPs, evidence packs, parent portal, costed interventions). MAT pricing is usually per-school with discounts. Anything significantly cheaper is probably missing one of the pillars; anything significantly more expensive needs to justify itself against the alternatives.

Can our LA mandate a specific tool? LAs can express preferences but generally can't mandate a specific commercial product. They can require that a school's tool produces a specific output format (the EHCP evidence pack, for example), and that the school can integrate with the LA's own systems where required.