Show Us the Plan: The Ofsted Expectation Most Providers Underestimate

Part 2 of a 4-part series reviewing Ofsted’s Inclusion Toolkit via the graduated approach: Assess, Plan, Do, Review.

Under the new Inclusion judgement, a coherent planning framework is no longer optional

Inclusion is not achieved by good intentions, pockets of great practice or scattered learner support interventions. Under Ofsted’s new Inclusion judgement, the question inspectors are really asking is blunt: “Show us the plan.”

Not a standalone document, not a policy statement, but a coherent planning framework that turns assessment insights into structured, consistent, and equitable support for every learner who needs it.

Even providers with a robust assessment process in place often fail to demonstrate that the insights gained actually drive a planned response. And this is where the gap opens between “Expected” and “Strong”, and where inconsistency will drag providers towards “Needs Attention”.

Plan

The second stage of the graduated approach, Plan, is where the sector often underestimates the expectations. Assessment is familiar; delivery is ongoing; review has accountability built into it. But planning sits in the middle, quietly determining whether inclusion is systematic or incidental.

What Ofsted Says

Although Ofsted does not label a standalone “planning” requirement, the expectation is embedded deeply within the new framework and it is impossible to meet the Inclusion standard without it.

In the Strong grade, Ofsted highlights:

“Leaders ensure that the barriers to learners’ and apprentices’ learning are reduced swiftly and consistently.“ [page 14]

Barriers can only be addressed swiftly and consistently if there is a structured plan guiding staff on what to do, when and how.

“Leaders do not take into account the needs of their learners and apprentices… in particular disadvantaged learners, those with SEND or high needs… and those who may face other barriers.“ [page 16]

This describes planning failure: the absence of a needs-driven, organisation-wide strategy.

Inspectors will look for whether leaders have established a culture in which:

“Staff understand the range of barriers that learners and apprentices may face… and work quickly and accurately to identify learners and apprentices who are facing those barriers.“ [page 12]

Understanding barriers is the foundation of planning. If staff cannot interpret assessment data, they cannot plan short-term adjustments or long-term strategies.

“Make sure learners and apprentices receive effective support… [and] ensure that appropriate reasonable adjustments are made…“ [page 12]

Planning is what happens for learners after a robust initial assessment that leads to the implementation of learning strategies and reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for the learner.

What This Means for Providers

Planning is the mechanism through which inclusion becomes systematic rather than situational.

Equity for learners without formal diagnoses
A significant percentage of learners experience barriers without having SEND labels or EHCPs. Only whole-cohort assessments and structured planning ensures they are not overlooked.

Proportionate allocation of support
Planning clarifies who receives ALS or specialist intervention, who receives tutor-led adjustments, and who requires only light-touch scaffolding and high-quality self-serve support tools.

Curriculum alignment
Planning determines how insights feed into curriculum sequencing, teaching adaptations and assessment preparation.

Accountability and impact
Ofsted wants to see a chain of logic: assessment → planning → delivery → impact. Weak planning breaks this chain.

If assessment reveals the “what”, planning defines the “how, who, when and why”.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Many providers fall short at the planning stage not because of lack of intent but because planning is absent, unstructured, or carried out by staff lacking confidence in producing appropriate plans for learners.

1. Treating the inclusion plan as a document, not a workflow

Many providers produce an Inclusion Strategy or ILP template but do not operationalise it. The plan exists on paper but doesn’t drive decisions, teaching or support.

Avoid it by: Building a single, organisation-wide workflow that shows who does what, when, and how assessment insights feed directly into planning action.

2. ALS/SEND plan one thing; curriculum teams do another

Specialists write recommendations, but tutors either don’t see them, don’t understand them, or can’t implement them consistently within the curriculum. Learners experience different support depending on who they interact with.

Avoid it by: Empowering tutors and teachers to produce plans based on assessment results for learners with learning barriers that aren’t the most complex. Free up ALS/SEND resource to work directly with learners with the most complex needs.

3. Plans triggered based on diagnoses, not barriers

Many learners with genuine barriers lack formal labels. Relying on SEND status to decide whether to trigger a learning support plan for a learner overlooks large cohorts who still need structured support.

Avoid it by: Using assessment insights to focus on barriers and needs, not labels. Make support decisions based on what the learner experiences in addition to what paperwork they have.

4. No clear decision rules for who receives what support

Without thresholds or criteria, support allocation becomes inconsistent. Different tutors make different decisions, or everything gets escalated to ALS, overwhelming specialist teams.

Avoid it by: Developing organisation-wide guidance for support allocation. What tutors can and should do independently, when ALS referral is appropriate, and how support should be tapered or sustained.

5. Tutors don’t understand the assessment results well enough to plan

Tutors receive information but aren’t trained or confident in interpreting it. They may not know how to convert insight into a short-, medium-, or long-term plan for the learner.

Avoid it by: Providing structured training and planning tools that explain assessment outputs in plain language and offer clear examples of adjustments and strategies mapped to each identified barrier.

What Good Planning Looks Like

At the Strategic Level (Leadership and Governance):

1. A barrier-based planning model: Support is triggered based on needs, not labels.
2. Structured decision-making criteria: Clear thresholds for:
   • ALS referrals
   • Tutor-led adjustments
   • Step-down or end-of-support decisions
3. Planned and targeted CPD: Staff know how to interpret insights and how to act on them.

At the Operational Level (ALS/SEND/Tutors/Trainers):

1. Clear and consistent learner profiles: Turn assessment into a concise, actionable profile outlining key barriers and practical adjustments.
2. Planning reviews at structured milestones: A pre-defined cycle prevents drift and keeps support proportionate.
3. Shared access to planning information: Tutors can see and use learner insights in their delivery.

Inspection Lens: Self-Audit Questions

Leaders can test their readiness (and risk) with five probing questions:

• Can we demonstrate a single, organisation-wide inclusion workflow that directly follows the APDR cycle?
• Do assessment insights clearly inform curriculum decisions, staffing models and support allocation?
• Can tutors explain, confidently and consistently, how they use learner insights to plan their learning support plans?
• Can we provide evidence of our rationale for support decisions?

If the answer to any question is “not yet”, planning inconsistency remains a significant risk.

By Chris Quickfall, CEO of Cognassist

Here is the first article of Chris’s series:

From self-disclosure to systematic insight: what ‘early and accurate assessment’ now means under Ofsted’s Inclusion judgement