Local SEND Reform Plans · 56 documents asked · 52 answered · 4 not stated · run 24 October 2026
Does this plan say schools or settings will evaluate or audit their own inclusive practice against the council's ordinarily available provision or universal offer, and what tool, framework or process does it name for that?
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.
Ask for a surveyMost councils answer yes, though the quality of detail varies
Across the 56 plans, a clear majority confirm that schools and settings will self-evaluate or be audited against an ordinarily available provision or universal offer, usually naming at least one tool. The most common pattern pairs a named OAP or universal offer document with a generic process like "inclusion audits," "peer review" or "quality assurance cycles" rather than a single bespoke instrument.
Several councils stand out for naming distinctive, well-developed tools. Dorset has the "Valuing SEND tool," a digital self-assessment already used in early years. Cornwall uses the "Compass" SWRIIA inclusion audit tool alongside an annual peer review cycle. Bracknell Forest names several instruments, including a universal audit tool, a self-assessment framework and an "Inclusion Readiness Audit." Norfolk has the Inclusion and Provision Self-Evaluation Framework (IPSEF). Staffordshire is building a bespoke self-assessment tool within its "Staffordshire Index for Inclusion." Leeds combines a SEND audit tool with a Graduated Approach Toolkit. Rochdale pairs its "Inclusion Toolkit" with a digital system called TITUS.
A smaller group give hard numbers rather than just naming tools. Bristol targets 37.9% of schools rated strong or exceptional on inclusion by 2028/29. Torbay aims for 100% of mainstream schools using its OAP tools by 2029. South Gloucestershire
About this survey
The question was put to each document on its own, using up to six of its most relevant pages. Page numbers in the table link to the document itself.
Model claude-sonnet-5. How a survey is made.
Not stated (4)
Barnsley, Durham, Shropshire, Somerset
Every document's answer
Bath and North East Somerset
Yes. The plan names the OAP Audit tool, which will be developed and piloted (via Locality Groups and engaged settings) to audit settings' provision against the Ordinarily Available Provision, with annual audits and action plans embedded across all settings by Year 3 (page 6, page 18). Settings also publish and align Inclusion Strategies to the OAP, which the LA will review for alignment and commitment to the OAP (page 6, page 18, page 23).
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole
The plan states that whole-setting inclusive practice will be strengthened by setting clear system expectations for universal provision and environmental adjustments, "underpinned by QA processes, peer review and proportionate challenge" p21. It does not name a specific self-evaluation or audit tool for schools to assess their own practice against the ordinarily available provision/universal offer.
Bracknell Forest
Yes. Settings will self-evaluate against a "self-assessment framework/tool" tied to co-produced inclusive practice standards p76, and the plan names a "universal audit tool" deployed across all settings to create the borough's first comprehensive Inclusive Practice Baseline p76. It also describes a non-punitive peer-moderation self-assessment framework to evaluate classroom practice implementation p73 and a borough-wide 'Inclusion Readiness Audit' tool for all schools p66.
Brighton and Hove
Yes. The plan states that in 2026/27 it will implement consistent Universal & Targeted SEN Support expectations "supported by a new audit tool and QA framework to address variability and improve outcomes" p17. This aligns with embedding Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) expectations and using benchmarking and targeted support to drive consistency in inclusion practice across settings p29.
Bristol
Yes. Schools and settings will develop school-level Inclusion Plans reflecting Bristol's Graduated Response, which embeds the city-wide definition of ordinarily available provision (page 1, page 20). Progress will be tracked against Ofsted Inclusion grades, with a target of 37.9% of schools rated strong or exceptional by 2028/29 p8. Additionally, Bristol is developing a co-produced Inclusion dashboard, used across schools and settings, to monitor performance against key inclusion metrics p42.
Bromley
The plan does not describe schools conducting a self-evaluation or audit of their own practice against the universal offer. Instead, it focuses on a co-produced Universal Offer Agreement and Bromley Inclusion and Belonging Commitment, aligned to emerging National Inclusion Standards, with expectations "clearly defined, quality assured and consistently applied" across settings p6, and consistency monitored via Individual Support Plans and the SEND Dashboard (page 1, page 2), rather than a named school self-audit tool.
Bury
The plan names the "Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision (OAIP)" as the baseline expectation for schools and settings, and describes embedding it into whole-school inclusion strategies, classroom practice, and SEN support decision-making p14. It also references a "graduated approach and supporting toolkit" used to identify, assess, plan, implement and review practice p14. Oversight of consistency is tracked via the Schools Oversight Tracker, which brings together inspection outcomes, SEND and EHCP data to assess practice across schools p17.
Cambridgeshire
Yes. The plan commits to audit the ‘local offer’ across all education providers to determine ability to ‘step-back’ and ‘step-down’ from specialist provision to Targeted/Targeted Plus, including cost/placement avoidance within Independent & Non-Maintained Specialist Schools p43. It also plans to re-define Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) to ensure alignment with Universal, Targeted & Targeted Plus, and to confirm a countywide ‘continuum of provision’ p43, with a QA audit cycle tracking EHCP quality p72.
Cheshire West and Chester
Yes. The plan sets out development of a local Inclusion Standard, implementing the National Standards for Inclusion as part of "a cycle of health checks/Inclusion Standards Award process," and introducing an Inclusion Standard Award, eventually embedding a "local Inclusion Standard Award" p50. This runs alongside the Inclusion Dashboard (IDB), used to drive inclusion within settings p36, and embedding "Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision" under new defined areas of need p36.
Cornwall
Yes. Schools and settings will self-evaluate against the Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) framework and Inclusion Charter using the "Compass" SW Regional Improvement and Innovation Alliance (SWRIIA) audit tool, also called the Inclusion Audit Tool developed with Whole Education and SWRIIA (page 10, page 47). This supports analysis of strengths and gaps at school, MAT and county level p10, with schools trained on the Compass SW inclusion audit tool and a universal annual inclusion peer review cycle, including "regular self-assessment cycles" p33.
Coventry
Yes. The plan states ordinarily available provision standards will be implemented across settings, evidenced by "termly assurance showing increasing consistency" p6. It also names an "increase in school/SENCO self-assessment confidence in inclusive practice, supported by timely access to advice" as evidence p6, indicating a self-assessment process for schools, though no single named audit tool or framework is specified beyond this termly assurance and self-assessment mechanism.
Cumberland
The plan names a "shared inclusion framework linked to ordinarily available provision," to be embedded through "QA, peer review and leadership development" p24. It also references a Universal SEND Offer setting out "clear and consistent expectations for inclusive practice" across phases p10. However, no specific self-evaluation or audit tool/checklist for settings is named.
Dorset
Yes. The plan names the "Valuing SEND tool," described as "an innovative digital way for educational settings to self-assess their provision and better understand the needs of pupils" p10. It is already used in Early Years and will be extended to primary and secondary settings as the consistent mechanism for assessing setting readiness p11. It will also inform the Quality Inclusion Framework, used to monitor and benchmark inclusive practice against the Universal/Ordinarily Available Provision Offer across settings p35.
East Sussex
Yes. The plan states that in 2027/28 the council will "undertake audits of schools' and settings' practice to review implementation of the UAP and identify further priorities for support and improvement" p11. This audit process is the named tool for evaluating settings against the Universally Available Provision (UAP), East Sussex's universal offer, which schools help develop and must deliver consistently p5.
Essex
Yes. Schools and clusters are expected to engage in "structured self-evaluation" against system-wide inclusion expectations and the Ordinarily Available (OA) framework, using "evidence-led assessment tools" p53. Progress is evidenced through Inclusion Reviews and quality assurance, measuring the proportion of schools/settings meeting the agreed inclusion baseline, underpinned by the Essex Inclusion Strategy, Ordinarily Available Framework and National Inclusion Standards (page 35; page 38).
Hackney
Yes. Schools move "from school audits to borough-wide agreements" as part of a three-tiered Universal Offer process p1. The plan also names the Hackney "common language" toolkit, which includes "Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP)" guidance to support schools' interpretation of the National Inclusion Standards when drafting their Inclusion Strategies p4. It also offers a "How-to" guide for mainstream schools to "audit their physical space and staffing" for internal Support Bases p2, with the Toolkit later used as "the primary rubric for School Improvement visits" p2.
Harrow
Yes. The plan names "Inclusion Reviews" as the self-evaluation process: schools complete returns and SEND Advisers undertake "light-touch audits" of SEN Support plans against the Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision (OAIP) framework and Universal Offer, checking for specific, measurable, OAIP-aligned adaptive teaching strategies p50. This sits alongside establishing "implementation monitoring arrangements and self-evaluation tools" for OAIP p33.
Hertfordshire
The plan states that existing Ordinarily Available Provision will be "mapped against the new National Inclusion Standards" to inform the Universal Offer Agreement, with co-production workshops used to design it p23. Settings are also expected to evidence their engagement with OAP guidance and use it to inform practice, with success measured by schools reporting higher confidence in delivering the universal offer after launch (page 23-24). A "maturity matrix" is referenced as tracking consistency of inclusive practice across the county p7, though no separate self-audit tool is named beyond these.
Hillingdon
Yes. The plan names the "Inclusion Consistency Framework," embedded across all schools through SEND Reviews, Quality Assurance processes, Vulnerable Learners Clinics and the Inclusion Network, to target variation and ensure consistent application of Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) p32. It also states all schools will work towards a shared Inclusion Framework aligned to National Inclusion Standards, establishing clear expectations for inclusive practice and fully embedding OAP p12.
Hounslow
Yes. The plan names a structured programme of "Inclusion Audits" that enables schools to evaluate the quality and consistency of their Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP), supporting continuous improvement in inclusive practice and providing assurance on effective use of Mainstream Inclusion Funding p10. This sits alongside the co-produced OAP framework setting consistent expectations across early years, schools and post-16 p8, and Inclusion Audit findings also feed into ongoing monitoring against the Universal Offer p39.
Isle of Wight
Yes. The plan commits to an "annual OAP self-evaluation process" for schools, as part of the OAP Implementation System, alongside designing an inclusion QA framework, developing QA tools and an evidence model, and completing baseline QA across all schools p41. This self-evaluation will be embedded into school improvement, safeguarding and MAT accountability, and is linked to the island-wide Ordinarily Available Provision framework and co-produced Universal Offer (page 9, page 41).
Kensington and Chelsea
The plan describes quality assurance processes testing whether inclusive practice is sustained across phases and cohorts, with refinement based on performance data and lived experience, and references schools' confidence in applying ordinarily available provision (page 13, page 10). It also notes a "well embedded approach to self-evaluation" supported by the SEF and shared data dashboards p7. However, no specific named self-audit tool or framework for schools/settings to evaluate their own practice against the universal offer is identified.
Kingston upon Thames
Yes. The plan will refresh its Ordinarily Available Provision guidance and Inclusion Charter and Toolkit, and implement "Inclusion Reviews and Audit Frameworks" to support school self-evaluation and accountability p33. This Inclusion Audit Framework will integrate the PINS neuro-inclusive audit and align with National Inclusion Standards, designed as "a concise, reflective tool" rather than a compliance exercise (page 40, page 17). A borough-wide Inclusion Base audit will also identify existing provision and gaps against this baseline p40.
Lancashire
The plan commits to defining and implementing an "Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) framework" as part of the resource allocation system, and to "audit and review the local offer" to check prerequisites for further development p30. It also references new inclusion standards embedded in school improvement models of support p33. However, it does not specifically describe schools/settings self-auditing against the OAP using a named self-evaluation tool.
Leeds
Yes. Leeds has developed an Inclusive Mainstream Provision (IMP) approach setting a clear standard for what should be 'ordinarily available' in all settings, and this framework is supported by advisory services, the SEND audit tool, the Graduated Approach Toolkit and locality-based networks, allowing schools/settings to evaluate their inclusive practice against this standard p10.
Medway
Yes. The plan states a coproduced Ordinarily Available Offer (OAO) framework will be published by Q4 2026/27, setting clear expectations for inclusive practice across all settings, supported by a system-wide quality assurance cycle including "inclusion audits, peer review and targeted support through Experts at Hand" p11. Schools will also be "held accountable for inclusive practice through a combination of inclusion audits, peer challenge, shared outcome metrics" and involvement in overseeing Experts at Hand p12.
Norfolk
Yes. Norfolk names the Inclusion and Provision Self-Evaluation Framework (IPSEF), used alongside Graduated Provision Maps (GPMs) and Identification of Needs Descriptors in Educational Settings (INDES), as the tool helping schools and the LA evaluate provision and make evidence-based decisions to improve SEND provision p105. These tools provide "common expectations, self-evaluation and planning support" for schools, alongside the Provision Expected at SEN Support (PEaSS) framework p24.
North Northamptonshire
The plan tracks "% of schools applying OAP framework" and "% schools implementing OAP" as a success measure, with schools giving "feedback through Inclusion Partnerships" p40. A refreshed Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) framework will be co-produced and launched, with schools as "active partners in the design and delivery" (pages 36, 47). However, no specific self-evaluation tool, audit instrument, or checklist is named for schools to assess their own practice against the OAP or universal offer.
Nottingham
Yes. The plan states that in 2026/27 an "OAP Toolkit" (Ordinarily Available Provision Toolkit) will be "rolled out to all schools as Test and Learn, scaffolded by professionals in consultations" p45, with a formal launch planned after review in 2027/28 p45. Separately, a "Cornerstones Approach" is named as a "robust in-depth self-evaluation and development tool" enabling services, schools and settings to measure success via a success measures tool and quality indicators framework p38.
Oxfordshire
The plan states that Ordinarily Available SEND provision and a graduated approach will be delivered consistently "using national Practice standards" and embedded across all schools, colleges and early years settings, informing each setting's own inclusion strategy and offer at different levels p5. It also references "Ordinarily Available Provision" guidance strengthening consistent expectations for inclusive practice p14, alongside growing quality assurance, audit and review activity and multi-agency quality assurance mechanisms p14, though no single named self-audit tool is specified.
Portsmouth
The plan does not describe a self-evaluation or audit tool for schools to assess their own practice against Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP). Instead, OAP is framed as a shared baseline of expectations reinforced through the Local Inclusion Support Offer (LISO)/Inclusion Hub and "Experts at Hand," which provide guidance, modelling, and professional support rather than a named self-audit instrument (page 8, page 11, page 14).
Reading
Yes. Schools will undergo "whole-school SEND audits," with aggregated audit outcomes systematically reported as a core performance metric to monitor improvements in inclusive practice and shape future planning p28. Additionally, a co-produced inclusion partnership framework will be launched across all Reading schools to review their current ability to deploy the Universal Offer consistently p22, supported by peer review and inclusion quality assurance frameworks planned for 2027/28 p22.
Richmond upon Thames
Yes. The plan will refresh its Ordinarily Available Provision guidance and Inclusion Charter and Toolkit, and implement "Inclusion Reviews and Audit Frameworks" to support school self-evaluation and accountability, aligned with the Ofsted inclusion "golden thread" (page 29, page 16). By 2026/27, 15% of schools will engage with an Inclusion Review incorporating the PINS neuro-inclusive audit p30. A School Audit Framework integrating PINS will be designed to structure self-evaluation p35.
Rochdale
Yes. The plan names the "Inclusion Toolkit" as the key tool for embedding and checking consistent, needs-led inclusive practice across settings (page 8, page 62). Success will be defined partly by "consistent application of the Inclusion Toolkit and digital support (TITUS)" p8. It also references identifying inconsistent practice through audits and reviews, and quality assurance of internal and resourced provision led by a Designated Education Officer (page 62, page 70).
Slough
Yes. The plan establishes a routine quality assurance (QA) cycle for reviewing how settings apply the universal offer and graduated response, using audit, annual review evidence, SENDCo feedback, school leadership feedback and parent carer feedback to identify inconsistent practice p40. Findings are reported through ODG and SIAB, with provider feedback and family experience used to test accessibility p40. A "first annual review of the universal offer and graduated response" and an "Inclusion QA cycle" are named milestones p41.
Solihull
The plan names "Ordinarily Available Inclusive Guidance (OAIG)," co-produced to set clear expectations for classroom practice, reasonable adjustments and early intervention p2. It does not describe a specific self-evaluation or audit tool for schools to assess their own practice against this guidance; it focuses instead on workforce development, locality SEND groups, and parent partnerships as support mechanisms p2.
South Gloucestershire
Yes. The plan commits to developing and implementing "inclusion quality indicators and self-evaluation tools aligned to the South Gloucestershire Inclusion Framework" p76, and to a "Baseline audit of Offer standards" plus ongoing "inclusion audits" monitored through cluster dashboards p92. It also sets a target for "100% of clusters completing an annual inclusion review cycle" p92, alongside a co-produced Universal Inclusion Standard setting minimum expectations for ordinarily available provision p77.
South Tyneside
Yes. Settings' inclusive practice is measured against the SEND in Mainstream Settings Framework, which operates as the shared baseline/ordinarily available provision across all education settings, informed by OAP p24. Variation is also tested through peer moderation, quality assurance, and routine multi-agency audit, including use of "Invision360," to identify variation and feed improvement (page 8, page 9). This framework underpins consistency checks at SEN Support reviews, Annual Reviews, EAH access and APST involvement p24.
Southampton
Yes. The plan names the Inclusive Education Audit as the tool used to evaluate inclusive practice at setting and cluster level p1, alongside the Global Equality Collective tool to strengthen insight into inclusion and lived experience p1. Expectations for universal, targeted and targeted-plus support are embedded through the Ordinarily Available Provision Guide, with Inclusive Education Audit activity aligned to cluster development priorities p1.
Staffordshire
Yes. The plan will design a self-assessment tool, forming part of the Staffordshire Index for Inclusion, enabling settings to identify strengths and areas for development against the universal offer and ordinarily available inclusive provision (page 25, page 24). Settings will complete this inclusion self-assessment tool, with results verified via an inclusion dashboard p24, and findings used to refine the toolkit and inform training and support (page 24, page 63).
Stoke-on-Trent
Yes. Schools and settings will carry out "Whole Education self-evaluation and action planning," with the first full cycle completed across participating settings in 2026/27 to provide a baseline of inclusive practice, measured against the Local Inclusion Standards p13. A second self-evaluation cycle in 2027/28 will show measurable improvement against these Standards p13, and progress will continue to be monitored through repeated Whole Education self-evaluation cycles plus audit activity p13.
Surrey
The plan references an "Ordinarily Available Provision Framework," about which all schools have accessed initial training, though delivery remains inconsistent across settings p6. It does not describe a specific self-evaluation or audit tool schools use to assess their own practice against this framework; it only notes inconsistent take-up of the universal inclusion offer against required Experts at Hand areas p6.
Torbay
Yes. The plan names "Torbay OAP tools" as the mechanism, tracking the number of mainstream schools using these tools as a success measure, with a target of increasing to 100% by 2029 p25. This links to embedding Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision (OAIP) and the graduated response across schools p25, and implementing OAIP in all schools under Building Block 1 of the first-year delivery plan p28.
Tower Hamlets
The plan states all schools and settings will sign up to an "Inclusion Charter for 0- to 25-year-olds," co-produced with partners, supporting collective responsibility for inclusive practice, and that the Inclusion Framework will be fully embedded practice, aligned with National Inclusion Standards p8. Capital works are also aligned to the local SEND Inclusion Framework p15. However, no specific self-evaluation or audit tool for measuring practice against the ordinarily available provision/universal offer is named.
Warwickshire
The plan does not describe schools auditing themselves against a council "ordinarily available provision" document by name. Instead, it references an "Inclusion Framework for Schools (IFS)" as one approach being tested at the targeted level p16, and mentions ongoing monitoring of schools through the Team Around the School Approach (TASA), which includes "monitoring of inclusion" p16. The main universal offer is the Warwickshire SEND & Inclusion Guidance and Inclusion Charter, to be revised once National Inclusion Standards launch p21.
West Sussex
The plan does not describe schools formally self-evaluating or auditing against the council's offer. Instead, it names the West Sussex Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) guidance, now in its third edition (published March 2025), as the framework setting out practical strategies for supporting SEND in mainstream classrooms p6. Implementation is reinforced through training, Quality First Teaching, and termly Senior Education Advisor visits using a structured framework aligned with Ofsted expectations p6, rather than schools auditing themselves independently p10.
Wigan
Yes. The plan names a shared "Quality Inclusion Framework" that will define, benchmark and continuously improve high-quality inclusive practice in mainstream settings, aligning with Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) and national inclusion standards p26. It will be delivered and embedded "through peer-to-peer review, reflective practice and professional learning" p26, with findings from peer review used to support improvement at both setting and system level p26. A shared SEND Peer to Peer Review Framework is also already in place for this purpose p26.
Wiltshire
Yes. Wiltshire describes a "continued audit of OAIP in schools and settings, refining the offer in line with maturity of the local system" p12. Schools and settings will also produce evidence-based "Inclusion Strategy plans" detailing quality first teaching, adaptive strategies and impact measures, and use confidence surveys with Mainstream Inclusion School Advisor (MISA) support to baseline confidence in SEND Support provision p12. OAIP is also being refreshed and aligned to the National Inclusion Standard p12.
Wirral
The plan does not describe a specific self-evaluation or audit tool for schools to assess their practice against the ordinarily-available provision baseline. Instead, Wirral has published a "Guide for Classroom Practitioners, Parents and Carers" setting expectations for ordinarily-available provision as the minimum standard p72, and commits to reinforcing these expectations through "accountability frameworks" and embedding inclusion within school improvement processes via School Improvement Partners p46, rather than naming a dedicated audit/self-evaluation tool.
Wolverhampton
Yes. The plan describes settings applying the Universal Offer and graduated response, with progress checked through "Quality Assurance (QA) activity, SEN Support audits or case sampling" rather than compliance judgement p11. It also references a "workforce development audit" informing refinements p14 and a structured partnership-led evaluation of existing SEN support services against the Universal Offer and graduated approach p13, but no single named self-evaluation tool or framework is specified.
Worcestershire
The plan references "audit evidence and settings engagement showing confidence in local support" as part of Year 1 review data p14, and notes ordinarily available provision is set out in the SEND Graduated Response, aligned with DfE Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools p26. However, no specific named self-evaluation tool or audit framework for schools to assess their own inclusive practice against this provision is explicitly described in the excerpts provided.
York
The plan references a "Post 16 self-assessment/audit of need to build on the existing offer" p17 and states settings will be "all signed up to the universal offer of inclusion" p17, with a trial universal offer drawing on approaches from the "National Inclusion Standards" p17. It also envisages a self-assessment placing York within the "maturing section for Co-production, Leadership and governance and in Effective Partnership working" p9. No single named audit tool specifically for settings' own inclusive practice is specified beyond these references.
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.