A very high overall level of need is a significant screening finding. It warrants a careful individual review and, in some cases, a re-test before the school decides whether specialist assessment or referral is appropriate.

The result does not establish a diagnosis. Its purpose is to prompt the school to bring the evidence together, identify what remains unclear and decide which question needs answering. Where several pupils are flagged, review each one individually; they will not all need the same route.

Check the result first

Review whether the assessment was completed under suitable conditions. Consider engagement, fatigue, language, sensory access, illness, interruptions and any technical difficulty. Where validity is uncertain, repeat the relevant assessment under appropriate conditions rather than interpreting an unreliable result. Do not repeat testing automatically when the evidence is coherent.

Build an individual picture

Bring together:

• the pupil's pattern of scores, including strengths as well as difficulties;

• current attainment and progress over time;

• classroom observations and work samples;

• adjustments and interventions already tried;

• intervention attendance, delivery and response;

• the pupil's views;

• relevant information from home;

• advice already provided by other professionals.

Look for agreement and disagreement across sources. A high level of need may reflect several overlapping difficulties, an access issue, gaps in teaching or attendance, emotional factors, language needs or a more persistent learning need.

Define the assessment question

Do not begin by asking which label fits the pupil. Begin with the uncertainty that prevents the school from planning effective provision. For example:

• Why has progress remained limited despite a well-delivered literacy intervention?

• Is language affecting learning across the curriculum?

• Which cognitive, attainment or executive-function factors need closer examination?

• What provision or reasonable adjustments are required?

A clear question helps identify the right professional. Depending on the evidence, this might include a specialist teacher, educational psychologist, speech and language therapist, occupational therapist or another local pathway.

Review what has been tried

Review the assess, plan, do, review record before referral. Evidence should show what the school has tried, whether it was delivered as intended and what changed. Specialist input should build on this evidence, not restart the process. Support must continue while assessment is considered or awaited.

If the pupil does not yet have a written support plan, write a short one now: their strengths, the two or three barriers that get in the way most often, a few measurable outcomes (for example, “records homework accurately on four days out of five”), the classroom, targeted and access support, who does each part, and the review date. Name the person for each action, such as “the teaching assistant pre-teaches key spellings twice a week”, so the review can check what happened.

Agree with the pupil and family:

• the purpose of the assessment;

• what information will be shared;

• who will receive the report;

• how findings will affect teaching and provision;

• when progress will be reviewed (for pupils on SEN support, the SEND Code of Practice says schools should meet parents at least three times each year).

After the assessment

Translate findings into a small number of specific actions, responsible staff, outcomes and review dates. A lengthy report has limited value if its recommendations are not implemented and evaluated.

Useful guidance

• SEND guide for schools and alternative provision settings

• SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years

• The school's local authority graduated approach and referral pathways

• A discussion with the school's educational-psychology, specialist-teaching or inclusion service, which can help define the question before purchasing an assessment

Specialist assessment is a means of clarifying need and improving provision. It should remain an individual, evidence-led decision.