Guide · Statutory planning
How to write SMART EHCP outcomes
Section E of an EHCP is where vague ambition turns into legal duty. An outcome that isn't SMART won't survive annual review — and won't hold a local authority to the provision in Section F. This guide covers what "SMART" really means in statutory context, and shows the shift from weak to legally useful phrasing.
What SMART means for Section E
The SEND Code of Practice (2015) requires outcomes to describe the benefit or difference the provision will make — not the provision itself, and not a "target" in the classroom sense. SMART is the working test.
Specific
Names the skill, behaviour, or capability. Not 'improve communication' but 'initiate a two-turn exchange with a familiar adult'.
Measurable
States the evidence source: observation frequency, work-sample count, standardised score, or a defined rubric. Anyone reading it should know what would count as met.
Achievable
Anchored in current baseline. If the pupil is at 20% accuracy, an outcome pitched at 90% by end of key stage is unrealistic and will be challenged at review.
Relevant
Connects directly to Section B needs and to the aspirations in Section A. Every outcome should trace back to a named area of need.
Time-bound
Ties to a review point — typically end of key stage for long-term outcomes, with shorter steps in the school's SEN Support / termly targets. 'By the end of Year 6' beats 'by the end of the plan'.
Worked examples across the four areas of need
Each pair below shows a common weak outcome first, then a SMART rewrite that would hold up at annual review or tribunal.
Communication & Interaction
Not SMART
"J will improve his social communication skills."
SMART
"By the end of Year 5, J will initiate and sustain a three-turn exchange with a peer during a structured task, in 4 out of 5 observed sessions across a two-week window, evidenced by adult-completed interaction logs."
Why it works: Names the skill (initiate + sustain 3 turns), the measure (4/5 sessions, two-week window), the observer, and the review point.
Cognition & Learning
Not SMART
"A will make progress in reading."
SMART
"By the end of Year 4, A will decode CVC and CCVC words with 90% accuracy on a curriculum-aligned assessment, up from a baseline of 45% (September YR3), reviewed each term."
Why it works: Baseline + target + assessment source + review cadence. A tribunal can test whether it was met.
Social, Emotional & Mental Health
Not SMART
"M will manage his emotions better."
SMART
"By the end of Key Stage 3, M will use a named regulation strategy (breathing, break card, or scripted exit) in 3 out of 4 recorded incidents of dysregulation, without adult prompting, evidenced by CPOMS entries and pastoral log."
Why it works: Names the strategies, sets a ratio, defines evidence sources, and avoids the untestable word 'better'.
Sensory & Physical
Not SMART
"S will develop her fine motor skills."
SMART
"By the end of Year 2, S will independently form all lowercase letters with correct start-point in 8 out of 10 handwriting samples, up from a baseline of 3/10 (Autumn Y1), reviewed termly with an OT-approved rubric."
Why it works: Uses an external rubric (OT-approved) so the measure is defensible, sets a countable ratio, and shows growth from a real baseline.
The wording that gets rejected at annual review
- "Will improve…" — no baseline, no measure. If nothing counts as "not improved", the outcome can't be tested.
- "With support" — Section F names the support. An outcome that requires support built in has quietly reduced the pupil's independence target to zero.
- "As appropriate" — invites the LA to define what's appropriate. Name the standard yourself.
- "Access the curriculum" — not an outcome, it's a right. Say what accessing the curriculum will let the pupil do.
How OMNIA supports SMART outcomes
OMNIA's plan generator drafts Section E outcomes from a pupil's live context — baseline data, area of need, and evidence-cited strategy library — then flags outcomes that are missing a measure, baseline, or review point. Every AI-drafted outcome cites the underlying evidence source so SENCos and case officers can challenge or defend it. See the EHCP outcomes examples guide for more worked Section E phrasing.