Right to Choose ADHD: What SENCOs Need to Know in 2026

A parent emails on Monday morning: their child has just received an ADHD diagnosis from a provider reached through Right to Choose. The pathway sits inside NHS patient choice in England: families discuss an NHS-funded ADHD assessment with the GP and, where referral is clinically appropriate, choose an eligible provider.

Right to Choose for ADHD is the NHS patient-choice route in England. It means a GP can refer a child or young person for an NHS-funded ADHD assessment outside the usual local pathway. The referral must be clinically appropriate, and the provider must be eligible and hold a qualifying NHS contract (Department of Health and Social Care, 2024; NHS South West London ICB, 2026).

For SENCOs, the practical question is what the school should do next. An ADHD diagnostic report may suggest that an EHC needs assessment should be considered, but the local authority decides whether to assess and whether an EHC plan is necessary under the SEND Code of Practice.

If this scenario sounds familiar, you are not alone. SENCOs across England are reporting more Right to Choose referrals. Parents are securing ADHD assessments through NHS-funded independent providers. These timelines do not always match the usual school, CAMHS, and local authority evidence cycle.

ADHD is usually estimated at about 5% of children and young people when diagnostic criteria are applied consistently, but English services are now dealing with much greater recognised need, longer waiting lists and more referral pressure (NHS England ADHD Taskforce, 2025). For schools, the practical issue is not whether prevalence has suddenly changed. It is that more families are arriving with reports, rating-scale requests and urgent expectations while teachers still need to plan from observed access needs.

This guide is for the SENCO who just received their third Right to Choose referral this term and needs a clear, professional framework for what to do next. It is not a guide for parents. ADHD UK, Psychiatry UK, and the NHS have that covered. It is a guide for the professional caught between parent expectations, clinical recommendations, and the evidence they can observe in school.

‍

Evidence Overview

Right to Choose, school evidence and classroom support in plain SENCO language. Consensus cache: not yet populated.

Pathway boundary

The NHS Choice Framework places patient choice at the point of referral. For ADHD, the GP and NHS pathway carry the referral decision; the school supplies evidence.

School evidence

NICE NG87 expects assessment to look at educational settings. SENCO evidence should describe access barriers. It should also show the adjustments already tried and their impact over time.

Support now

NHS guidance and classroom intervention reviews support practical adjustments while learners are waiting. Schools should not pause help until a diagnosis is made or medication decisions are complete.

Sources reviewed: NHS Choice Framework, NHS ADHD guidance, NICE NG87, SEND Code of Practice and Gaastra et al. (2016).

‍

What Right to Choose Actually Is

Right to Choose (RTC) is part of NHS patient choice in England. In the ADHD context, it means a parent can ask the GP to refer their child to an NHS-commissioned provider that accepts Right to Choose referrals, rather than relying only on the local pathway.

This is not the same as a private self-referral. The referral remains NHS-funded when the provider is eligible and the GP agrees that assessment is appropriate.

The independent provider completes the assessment under NHS arrangements. The GP remains the referrer. Local ICB guidance makes clear that provider options, eligibility criteria, assessment format, medication support, and follow-up care vary between organisations.

Some providers assess and diagnose only. If medication is recommended, titration and shared care depend on the provider's contract and the GP's clinical agreement (Black Country ICB, 2026).

The school has no formal role in choosing the provider. Many schools only become involved when a rating scale is requested or when the completed diagnostic report arrives.

It is worth understanding what Right to Choose is not. It is not a school referral route, and it is not something a SENCO can initiate on behalf of a family. Current ICB guidance tells families to speak to the GP, who decides whether referral is clinically appropriate and sends the referral to the chosen eligible provider. It is also not a guarantee of faster assessment, because waiting times and provider capacity change.

For schools, the professional stance is clear. Do not dismiss a report because the provider is independent. But keep the school's response based on educational evidence, observed need, and the graduated approach.

For schools, the usual information-sharing loop may be weaker. In a local assessment pathway, the service often asks school staff for observations before diagnosis. Some RTC pathways rely more on parent report, clinical interview, and rating scales sent directly to school.

This creates the gap SENCOs often describe. Families arrive with clinical recommendations. The school still needs to establish what the learner requires in the classroom, what has already been tried, and what evidence supports escalation.

‍

The SENCO boundary

The first school-facing lesson is procedural: the SENCO supports the evidence base, but the GP makes the Right to Choose referral. The second is the post-diagnostic support gap. A diagnosis does not guarantee titration, prescribing or ongoing review, particularly where the provider is assessment-only or the GP declines shared care. SENCOs should avoid promising that a report will open up medication or NHS follow-up.

That boundary protects the school. A useful phrase is: "We can provide school evidence and review classroom support, but the GP is the referrer for Right to Choose. We can help you prepare clear school information for that appointment."

‍

Support should not wait for diagnosis

NHS guidance is clear that support at home and school should continue while a child waits for referral or assessment (NHS, 2025). SENCOs do not need a diagnosis before using ordinary classroom adjustments where attention, organisation, working memory, or self-regulation affect access to learning. If medical, attendance, medication, sleep or safety issues are part of the picture, record the plan through the school's individual healthcare plan or equivalent support-plan process.

‍

Why SENCOs Are Overwhelmed

Parents get RTC diagnoses and expect schools to act on reports. The reports may recommend EHCPs or adjustments, but schools still have to translate clinical information into educational provision through the graduated response. SENCOs should manage expectations by reviewing school evidence, existing support and the practical adjustments that can be made now.

At the same time, the SENCO may have limited school-based evidence of the difficulties described in the report. A learner who masks ADHD traits effectively at school, or whose difficulties are managed well by existing provision, may not appear in the SENCO's records as a cause for concern.

The parent is telling the truth about what they see at home. The school is also telling the truth about what is observed in the classroom. Both accounts can be accurate.

Families often expect statutory support after RTC, especially when a report mentions an EHCP. Schools should also name a fairness problem with care. Families with time, health literacy and confidence with NHS forms are better placed to navigate RTC, while lower-income, minoritised or care-experienced learners with similar executive-function profiles may be seen first through behaviour systems rather than SEND assessment. The SENCO then has to hold two truths at once: the diagnosis may be valid, and school funding decisions still have to follow observed educational impact and the SEND Code of Practice.

Administrative tasks add pressure. RTC referrals can mean meetings with parents, written responses, provision reviews, observations and liaison with clinicians. These referrals, multiplied across a term, create extra work outside standard SEND reviews, so schools need a clear RTC protocol rather than managing each case ad hoc.

Barkley (1997) showed ADHD involves issues with self-regulation over time. This helps us understand different presentations at home and school. Classrooms offer external support that compensates for self-regulation problems.

Less structure at home means the same learner's difficulties are more obvious. This context dependency, not masking, helps SENCOs explain differences to parents.

‍

The Masking Question

Hull et al. (2017) defined masking as concealing traits to seem neurotypical. Autism research shows masking, and ADHD masking evidence grows, especially in girls.

An ADHD learner may seem organised at school. However, they often use significant effort to maintain it. Exhaustion often appears at home (Hull et al., 2017).

This means the SENCO's job when receiving an RTC diagnosis is not to decide whether masking is occurring. That is a clinical question. The job is to gather objective, school-based evidence of what the learner's functioning looks like in the educational environment, and to share that evidence honestly with the assessing clinician and, where relevant, with the local authority.

Use the Thinking Framework's Compare operation as an internal evidence tool. Do not use it as an external academic citation. Comparing home and school behaviours respects parent input and diagnostic reports. It also makes clear what the school sees, what support is already in place and what still needs review.

Use objective tools to reduce argument about impressions. Conners 4 parent and teacher forms provide aligned multi-informant ratings of ADHD symptoms; SNAP-IV scales assess symptom domains; and structured observations can add classroom context. The score is not the diagnosis. It is a better school evidence point than "seems fine in class" or "always distractible".

SENCOs should avoid informal reassurance. Saying "we don't see issues here" without data is not a professional position. Agreeing with all diagnostic recommendations without review is just as risky. The stronger line is: "We will gather school evidence, compare it with the report and explain what support the evidence justifies."

‍

What SENCOs Should Do When Parents Invoke Right to Choose

‍

First response

A clear, consistent response protocol saves time and prevents misunderstanding. The following steps apply from the moment a parent makes contact about an RTC referral or shares a completed diagnosis.

Step one: Acknowledge the parent's concerns without endorsing or questioning the diagnosis. A brief, warm acknowledgement confirms that you have received the diagnosis, recognises the effort the family has made, and commits to a review meeting within a defined timeframe. This is not the moment for a detailed discussion of what the school can or cannot provide.

Step two: Explain the school's role clearly and early. Schools gather evidence and implement adjustments; they do not diagnose. The SENCO is not in a position to confirm or challenge the clinical diagnosis, and should not be asked to.

What the school can do is describe what is observed in the educational setting, identify what provision is already in place, and decide what additional support may be appropriate. This distinction between the clinical role and the educational role should be explained at the first contact.

‍

Evidence and provider contact

Step three: Gather formal school-based evidence. Complete a teacher observation using a standardised instrument, such as the Conners Teacher Rating Scale. Then review existing attainment data, ask subject teachers what they see in class, and check any existing provision mapping entries for the learner. This process should take no more than two weeks and should be finished before the review meeting, not during it.

Step four: Share evidence objectively with the assessing clinician. With parent consent, if the RTC provider has not sought school observations, the SENCO can contact them directly to share the school's evidence. The aim is not to challenge the diagnosis but to ensure the clinician has the full picture, including what is working in school and what is not. This supports better clinical recommendations and reflects NICE's emphasis on school feedback after diagnosis (NICE, 2018).

‍

Review the adjustments

Step five: Put recommended adjustments in place where suitable and review them in six weeks. If the diagnosis is confirmed and the report includes classroom recommendations, the SENCO should check three things. Which adjustments are already in place, which are new and suitable, and which need more thought?

A six-week review meeting with parents confirms what has been implemented and what impact it has had. This keeps the response aligned with the Assess, Plan, Do, Review cycle in the graduated approach and the SEND Code of Practice (2015).

SENCO written records matter. Record every conversation, observation, rating-scale request, provider contact, adjustment, review date, and decision. If an EHCP request or complaint comes later, these records show that the school responded in a planned way rather than reacting after the event.

‍

The EHCP Pressure

Diagnostic reports often suggest that schools request an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. That recommendation is understandable, but it is only one part of the evidence picture. Use it as a starting point for professional discussion: identify the learner's current need, record evidence from more than one lesson, and agree the next classroom adjustment with the SENCO or family.

An EHCP decision depends on educational evidence. This means the learner's needs, the provision already tried, and the impact of that provision. It also means whether the support required is beyond what a mainstream school can usually provide.

The SEND Code of Practice says a local authority must conduct an EHC needs assessment when it considers that it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made through an EHC plan. Schools need to show that the learner has serious and ongoing difficulty. This must be despite quality first teaching, reasonable adjustments, and ordinarily available provision.

A diagnosis helps explain need, but it does not replace the school evidence gathered through SEN Support.

SENCOs need a calm way to explain this to families and senior leaders. Try: "A diagnosis tells us about your child's neurological profile. An EHCP is about educational evidence: what the school has tried, what impact it has had, and whether the level of support needed is beyond what schools are typically funded to provide." If an RTC report says a provision is "required" but school triangulation shows no significant educational impact, record the recommendation, test whether it maps to observed barriers, and explain the school decision in writing. This is not dismissing the diagnosis; it is applying the SEND threshold.

Then add: "We need to build that evidence base, and we want to do that with you."

Schools must usually show SEN Support before an EHCP assessment, as part of the graduated response. The SENCO checks the SEN register, the provision map, review notes, and the impact of support already tried.

If a newly diagnosed learner needs SEN Support, record that decision, put provision in place, review its impact, and then decide whether the evidence points towards an EHC needs assessment.

Where a learner already has documented, significant and persistent difficulty, and the RTC diagnosis confirms what school staff have observed, an EHCP request may be appropriate. In that case, the SENCO should support the request with clear school evidence.

The diagnosis does not create the evidence; it gives context to evidence that may already exist. Our full guide to barriers to learning explains how to present school-based evidence against local authority thresholds.

Parents can request an EHC needs assessment even if the school does not initiate it; the local authority must consider the request and decide within six weeks whether an assessment is necessary. Parents can request an assessment directly. If a family chooses to do this, the SENCO's role is to provide the school's evidence to the LA as part of the assessment process, not to determine whether the request is appropriate.

‍

Template: Professional Response Letter to Parents

A written response template, agreed with the headteacher and filed in the school's SEND policy folder, creates consistency and protects all parties. The following template is designed to be adapted for individual circumstances. It acknowledges the diagnosis, explains the school's process, commits to a clear timeline, and invites collaboration.

Where to use it: send this letter within five working days of receiving a diagnostic report or a parent's first contact about an RTC referral.

Section	Suggested Wording
Opening	Thank you for sharing [Child's name]'s recent assessment report. We have read it carefully and we are glad you have been able to access a timely assessment. We know this process takes time and commitment from families.
School role	As the SENCO, my role is to review what [Child's name] experiences at school, what support is already in place, and what additional adjustments may be appropriate in the educational setting. I am not in a position to confirm or question the clinical diagnosis; that is the clinician's role. My job is the educational picture.
Next steps	Over the next two weeks, I will complete a formal classroom observation and gather feedback from [Child's name]'s teachers. I will also review the support already in place. I would like to arrange a meeting with you on [date] to share this evidence and discuss next steps together.
EHCP paragraph	Regarding the recommendation for an EHCP, I want to be transparent with you. The threshold for a statutory assessment is set by the SEND Code of Practice (2015) and requires evidence of significant and persistent difficulty despite quality-first teaching. The diagnosis is an important part of that picture. We will discuss whether the full evidence supports an EHCP request at our meeting.
Closing	We are committed to working with you and with [Child's name]. If you have any immediate concerns in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to meeting with you on [date].

Before sending any response, confirm the wording with your headteacher and ensure it aligns with your school's SEND policy. If your school has a legal officer or an LA SEND advisor, a copy of your standard template is worth running past them once, so you are confident the language is consistent with national guidance.

‍

Regional Variations and ICB Funding

‍

Check the local pathway

How Right to Choose works varies by area. It is a national patient-choice right. In practice, the route depends on GP clinical judgement, provider eligibility, ICB guidance and provider capacity.

Some areas maintain wider access to ADHD assessments. Others publish tighter provider lists, central screening routes, eligibility notes or guidance for GP referrals. In 2026, several ICBs describe Indicative Activity Plans.

These plans set expected activity and funding levels. This means a provider may accept a referral but delay assessment dates when allocations are near capacity (Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB, 2026; Thames Valley ICB, 2026).

SENCOs need to know the local ICB position because it shapes conversations with families. A parent may have been told they can use RTC, but the GP may still need to check whether referral is clinically appropriate and whether the chosen provider accepts that referral route.

Clear signposting reduces confusion. It also avoids the school being pulled into provider-choice questions that sit with the GP and NHS pathway.

The NHS England Right to Choose guidance is held at england.nhs.uk/rightchoice, but ICB-specific information is held on individual ICB websites, which vary in clarity. The most reliable way to check your local position is to contact your ICB's SEND or children's mental health commissioning team directly, or to ask your Local Authority SEND Improvement Partner, if your area has one, for the current guidance.

As of May 2026, several ICBs are checking or updating their ADHD and autism provider information for the current local pathway. If your school supports families with RTC referrals, check the current local position first. Do this before you give advice about the process.

This is not the SENCO's statutory responsibility, but it helps families and reduces the calls and emails that arrive when referrals stall or fail.

ICB differences can also shape EHCP conversations, as some local authorities may give less weight to reports from providers they do not usually work with. Some diagnostic reports also use standard recommendation wording, which may not fit the classroom well. In the AI era, SENCOs should not guess how a report was written. Instead, check that each recommendation is individualised, linked to evidence, realistic for school and connected to observed educational impact.

Clinical reports are professional opinions. An EHC assessment looks at all available evidence. This includes school observation, parent views, learner voice, attainment, attendance, and the impact of provision.

‍

Understanding ADHD in the Classroom

Knowing ADHD traits in schools helps when making adjustments. Diagnostic reports use parent input and interviews (Barkley, 1990). Teachers should observe learners in class to build an educational picture (Visser et al., 2015; Sayal et al., 2018).

ADHD includes inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These can look different from one learner to another (Barkley, 1990). Inattentive learners may be missed because their difficulties are less visible than hyperactivity. They may miss instructions, lose materials, and struggle to keep going across a task.

Classroom strategies should target executive function issues, not just behaviour. Barkley (1997) said ADHD is a self-regulation problem.

A learner knows what to do but struggles to start and continue tasks. Use visual aids and timers. These support self-regulation better than lowered expectations.

The Thinking Framework's Sequence operation is useful here. When a teacher breaks a complex task into a visible, numbered sequence, they provide the external planning scaffold that the learner's working memory cannot hold.

This is not lowering demand. The task remains the same, but the entry point is structured. For a learner with ADHD, that adjustment can be the difference between task avoidance and task completion. Our article on ADHD, autism, and PDA in the classroom explores the overlaps and distinctions between these profiles in detail.

Talk to older learners about their strategies. Many adolescents with ADHD use hidden self-regulation. Ask what helps them concentrate, what makes tasks harder and which routines they already use. This gives insight that classroom observation alone can miss, and connects well with metacognitive routines such as planning, monitoring and review.

‍

ADHD Assessments and School Evidence

RTC referrals can create friction when assessments lack school evidence. NICE NG87 covers recognition, diagnosis and management of ADHD. It expects assessment to use evidence across settings. Getting school evidence quickly can be difficult, so prepare factual teacher observations and provision records before disagreement starts.

‍

Build a school evidence pack

A stronger SENCO response is to prepare an evidence pack before the review meeting, not after disagreement has started. The pack should be factual, short, and linked to classroom access rather than diagnostic opinion.

• teacher observations from at least two lessons or subject areas
• attendance, punctuality, homework, and task-completion patterns
• existing SEN Support provision and review dates
• examples of written work showing planning, completion, or organisation barriers
• parent concerns and learner voice, where age-appropriate
• rating-scale requests received, returned, or still outstanding

Some RTC providers send a teacher rating scale, typically the Conners 4, Conners 3 or SNAP-IV, as part of the assessment pack. When this happens, the SENCO or a subject teacher completes it from recent classroom evidence and returns it to the provider.

This is the school's formal contribution to the clinical assessment. An incomplete scale weakens the assessment data, so return it promptly and keep a copy in the school evidence pack.

If your school receives a teacher rating scale and is unsure how to complete it, our guide to ADHD tests and assessments explains what each scale measures and how teacher observations are weighted in the diagnostic process. Completing the scale accurately and returning it promptly is one of the most direct contributions the school can make to the quality of a child's assessment.

When no rating scale has been sent by the provider, the SENCO can still complete a structured teacher observation or locally approved rating scale and share it with consent. This creates a school-side record of the evidence gathered and ensures the clinician has the educational perspective even if it was not formally requested. Use the tool your LA, educational psychologist or provider recognises, and keep the completed form with the provision map and review notes.

‍

What to Do This Week

‍

Audit the caseload

Start with an audit. How many Right to Choose referrals or completed diagnoses has your school received this academic year? Are they recorded consistently, or are they scattered across email threads and parent meetings without a central log? If your school does not have a standard response protocol for RTC referrals, the absence of that protocol is the first gap to address.

‍

Create the log

A simple RTC referral log should sit in the SENCO's records. It should record the date of referral or diagnosis, the provider used, and whether the school was asked to complete a rating scale. It should also include the date of the review meeting with parents, the current level of SEN provision, and whether an EHCP assessment has been requested or is under consideration.

This log costs nothing except the hour it takes to create it. It turns ad hoc responses into a manageable caseload and makes patterns visible for senior leaders.

‍

Respond and review

If you have received a diagnostic report this week and have not yet responded, use the letter template from section six above, adapt it for the family's circumstances, confirm the wording with your headteacher, and send it within five working days. That response sets the professional tone for everything that follows.

If you do not yet have a Conners Teacher Rating Scale available for your staff to use, contact your educational psychologist service or your LA's SEND support team. Most LAs provide access to standardised rating scales for schools as part of their SEND advisory offer. Having the scale available before the next referral arrives means you are not creating a process under pressure.

‍

Check the ICB position

Finally, check your ICB's current position for the current local pathway. Provider lists, eligibility rules, assessment formats, and post-diagnostic support arrangements can change. SENCOs should only give families provider-specific assurances after checking the information.

Your ICB's children and young people commissioning team is the right contact. An email to your LA's SEND Partnership team is a good starting point if you do not have the ICB contact details.

The Right to Choose pathway is now part of the SEND workload. SENCOs who build a clear response framework will spend less time managing individual crises later.

The families who use this pathway are not adversaries. They are parents who have taken action to get their child assessed. Meet that action with a clear, consistent, evidence-based school response.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Further Reading