Should TAs be assigned to pupils or to interventions?

The decision, and why it matters

To interventions, not a permanent one-to-one. EEF guidance (2025) advises against “Velcroing” a TA to one pupil: deploy TAs for structured interventions, while pupils who struggle most keep at least as much teacher time.

The load-bearing distinction is between attaching a teaching assistant to a named pupil for most of the day and assigning that same adult to a defined task: a structured intervention block, or rotating support across the class so the teacher can work with the pupils who need them most. The first model is the one the evidence warns about. When a TA sits beside one child lesson after lesson, that child often gets less time with the teacher than their peers, and can grow dependent on the adult rather than on their own developing skills.

The current EEF guidance report, Deployment of Teaching Assistants (March 2025, which superseded the 2015 Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants report), puts this first: TAs should add to, not replace, what the teacher does, and the pupils who struggle most should spend at least as much time with the teacher as everyone else, if not more. Well-chosen structured interventions are where TAs add the most value, but the guidance is clear that those sessions have to be monitored and tied back to what happens in the classroom.

Assign to the pupil, or to the intervention?

Set the two models side by side on the things that actually decide a pupil's progress.

The numbers come from the EEF Teaching Assistant Interventions strand (2024 update): well-evidenced, structured one-to-one or small-group interventions add about five months' progress on average, with targeted sessions consistently showing around three to four months, rated moderate impact for moderate cost on moderate evidence. General, unsupported deployment of a TA in class delivers little, and sometimes holds a pupil back.

What about an EHCP that says one-to-one?

This is where the choice feels forced, but it usually is not. The statutory mechanism is the same for every pupil getting TA help, whether they are on SEN Support or hold an EHC plan: assess, plan, do, review. At the plan stage the SENCO and teacher agree the interventions and the date they will be reviewed, and the class or subject teacher stays responsible for the pupil's progress even when a TA delivers the support (SEND Code of Practice 2015, paragraphs 6.44–6.56). So TA time is tied to identified needs and reviewed outcomes, not parked permanently on one child.

Where an EHC plan does specify one-to-one provision, the council has a duty to secure it (section 42, Children and Families Act 2014). That constrains the choice, but it does not mean the TA must sit at the pupil's side in every lesson. A TA can be the consistent adult delivering that pupil's interventions, and the named support in the plan, while still protecting the teacher contact and independence the evidence calls for. The error to avoid is reading “this pupil has funded support” as “this TA sits next to this pupil all day”.

One change on the horizon: the 2026 Schools White Paper Every child achieving and thriving proposes a digital Individual Support Plan recording each child's day-to-day provision and intended outcomes (House of Commons Library, 2026). It is a consultation proposal, not yet law, and it changes neither the current assess-plan-do-review duty nor existing EHCP rights, but it points the same way: support recorded against need and outcome, not against a permanent seat.

This page is general information, not clinical or legal advice.