EHCP wording: vague vs specific examples

Why wording matters

An EHC plan is meant to translate identified needs into provision. If Section F only uses open-ended phrases, it can be difficult for families, schools and the local authority to know what must actually happen.

The SEND Code says provision must be specified for each and every need in Section B and should make clear how that provision supports the outcomes in the plan.

Examples to check

Vague: “access to adult support as required.” More specific: state what support is needed, when it is needed, how frequently it is delivered and the level of staff expertise required.

Vague: “regular speech and language input.” More specific: identify the type of therapy or programme, frequency, duration, who delivers it, who supervises it and how progress is reviewed.

Vague: “opportunities for sensory breaks.” More specific: identify when breaks are available, typical duration, what environment or equipment is required, and who supports the child if adult assistance is needed.

These are drafting examples, not wording that will fit every child. The right level of detail depends on the assessed needs and professional advice in that individual case.

What to do today

• Read Section B and make a list of every identified special educational need.
• For each need, locate the matching provision in Section F.
• Circle words such as “access to”, “opportunities for”, “regular”, “as needed”, “when appropriate” or “would benefit from” and ask whether the plan still tells you what will actually be delivered.
• Compare Section F with professional recommendations. If the plan departs from advice, ask the local authority to explain why.

What to ask for

• Ask for provision to identify the type of support, frequency, duration or hours where appropriate, staff expertise and any specialist equipment or programme.
• Keep your requested changes in writing during the draft-plan response period so there is a clear record of what you asked to be changed.