Rulebook · Plan check
Provision not linked to a need
Plans should be clear, concise, understandable and accessible, describe positively what the child or young person can do, and be forward looking. Outcomes should be SMART. Plans should have a review date. Reviews should consider whether the plan is still appropriate and whether changes are needed.
What a point from this check says, with placeholders in square brackets:
No reference to a need in Section B was found for this provision, so it is unclear which need it meets.
- Where it looks
- Section B: Special educational needs
- Section E: Outcomes
- Section F: Special educational provision
- How it is reported
- Could be clearerGood practice that makes the plan easier to follow and check. Not a legal requirement.
- Type of rule
- Good practice
- How Plenda finds it
- From the plan's headings and structure.
- What would address it
- Link the provision to the need it meets.
- The requirement
- See the requirement and every check that looks for it
- Rule id
chk.thread.provision_without_need- Rules version
- england-2026.10
- Law as at
- 30 September 2026
Sources
- SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.61Code of Practice: should (follow unless there is a good reason not to)
- SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.167Code of Practice: should (follow unless there is a good reason not to)
- SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.66Code of Practice: should (follow unless there is a good reason not to)
Plan checks look at what a plan says and how clearly. They do not judge whether the help is enough for the child.
If you think this rule is wrong or out of date, please tell us. A person reads every report.