1. Introduction
Getting an Education, Health and Care Plan is a milestone. But the plan you receive is only as good as the wording inside it — and most draft EHCPs need work before they are fit to sign off.
This guide walks through every section in plain English. For each one, you will learn what should be there, what strong wording looks like, and the red flags to push back on before the plan is finalised.
Draft vs final. When the LA decides to issue a plan, they send you a draft first. The draft is your single best chance to shape what the final plan says. Once finalised, changes only happen at annual review or via a tribunal appeal — both of which take months.
You have 15 calendar days from the date the draft is sent to respond. Use them properly. Read the plan twice, mark it up section by section, and reply in writing with your proposed changes. You can also request a meeting with the case officer to discuss amendments.
Why does every section matter? Because once finalised, the LA has a legal duty under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to deliver the provision in Section F. Vague wording quietly removes that duty. Specific wording locks it in.
2. EHCP sections explained, one by one
An EHCP runs from Section A through Section K. Some sections are short. Some — particularly B, E, F and I — decide whether the plan actually works for your child.
Section A: The Views, Interests and Aspirations of the Child and Parents
What should be here: Your child's voice (in their own words where possible), their interests and strengths, and your hopes for their future — short, medium and long term.
What good looks like: Specific aspirations such as "Alex wants to live independently and work with animals" — not generic phrases like "wants to do well at school." A clear pupil voice section, written or recorded with appropriate support.
Red flags: No child's voice at all; aspirations copied from a previous plan or template; no mention of independence, employment or adult life goals (these matter from Year 9 onwards).
Section B: Special Educational Needs
What should be here: A detailed, specific description of every special educational need across the four areas of the SEND Code of Practice: communication and interaction; cognition and learning; social, emotional and mental health; sensory and physical.
What good looks like: "Needs" rather than "difficulties". Concrete examples. Every need should be picked up later in Sections E and F. If a need is in B but not addressed in F, that is a drafting failure.
Red flags: "Has autism" or "has ADHD" instead of describing what those mean for this child; needs hidden inside health (Section C) that should be educational; sensory needs missed; masking not mentioned.
Section C: Health Needs
What should be here: Health needs that are relevant to education — for example, epilepsy management at school, ADHD medication monitoring, asthma plans, or feeding needs.
Red flags: Missing health needs that affect attendance or learning; copy-paste from a GP letter without picking out what matters for school.
Section D: Social Care Needs
What should be here: Any social care needs identified — short breaks, family support, carer needs. The Children Act 1989 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 sit behind this section.
Red flags: The section is completely missing or left blank (very common oversight); no assessment from the Children with Disabilities team where it would clearly be warranted.
Section E: Outcomes
What should be here: SMART outcomes — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound. Each outcome should link back to a need in Section B and forward to provision in Section F.
What good looks like: "By July 2025, [child] will independently use a visual timetable to transition between four classroom activities with minimal verbal prompting, on at least four days out of five."
Red flags: "Will make progress", "will improve confidence", "will engage more positively" — none of these can be measured, so none can be enforced.
Section F: Special Educational Provision — THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION
What should be here: Specific, quantified, legally enforceable support that meets every need in Section B and delivers every outcome in Section E. The legal test is that provision must be "specified and quantified" (Code of Practice paragraph 9.69, and the established case law from L v Clarke and Somerset).
What good looks like: "1:1 support for 15 hours per week from a teaching assistant trained in [specific approach]". "Weekly speech and language therapy for 45 minutes from a qualified SaLT registered with the HCPC, plus a programme implemented daily by the class TA under SaLT supervision."
Red flags: "Support as required", "access to", "opportunities for", "as necessary", "regular", "where appropriate". None of these can be enforced because they specify nothing. Anything that is not quantified (hours, frequency, who delivers it, what qualifications) is wallpaper.
Section G: Health Provision
What should be here: Specific health support linked to every need in Section C, with frequency and who delivers it. Health provision is commissioned by the NHS through the local Integrated Care Board.
Red flags: Generic references to "school nursing service" without saying what, how often, or by whom; treatment that is available in theory but not commissioned locally.
Section H: Social Care Provision
What should be here: Section H1 covers provision under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (legally enforceable). Section H2 covers wider social care provision.
Red flags: The whole section left blank; H1 provision hidden inside H2 (where it is not enforceable in the same way).
Note: H2 provision is advisory rather than legally enforceable in the same way as Section F. If something critical sits in H2, push for it to be moved to H1 or, where appropriate, to Section F.
Section I: The Named School or Setting
What should be here: The name and type of school or setting your child will attend. You have a statutory right to express a preference for any state-funded mainstream or special school, academy, free school, FE college or independent special school on the Section 41 list.
What good looks like: The school you asked for, named in Section I. The plan should also describe the type of provision if a specific setting cannot be agreed yet.
Red flags: A school you did not request; only a "type" named when a specific school exists; refusal that does not properly engage with the three statutory tests (parental preference, efficient use of resources, compatibility with the education of others).
If you disagree with the named school, this is fully appealable to the SEND Tribunal. See our SEND Tribunal guide for the placement appeal route.
Section J: Personal Budget (if applicable)
What should be here: If you have requested a personal budget, this section sets out how it works — the amount, what it covers, and whether it is paid as a direct payment to you, held by a third party, or arranged as a notional budget by the LA.
Red flags: No information on how to request a budget; an offer that is far smaller than the cost of the provision it is meant to fund.
Section K: Advice and Information
What should be here: A list of every piece of advice the LA gathered during the assessment — school report, EP report, medical advice, SaLT report, OT report, parental statement, child's views, social care advice.
Red flags: Missing reports; reports listed but not attached; advice from a professional who never met your child; parental advice missing entirely.
3. How to check for weak wording
Most plans are not refused outright — they are quietly weakened with vague language. Train your eye for the danger phrases below. Wherever you see them in Section F, propose a specific replacement.
Danger phrases
- "Support as required"
- "Access to…"
- "Opportunities for…"
- "As necessary"
- "Regular" / "frequent"
- "Where appropriate"
- "School to consider…"
The test: could a lawyer take this plan into court tomorrow and prove the LA has failed to deliver it? If the wording does not name the support, the hours, the frequency and who delivers it, the answer is no — and a non-enforceable line is not provision at all.
Weak
"[Child] will have access to speech and language therapy as required."
Strong
"[Child] will receive direct speech and language therapy for 45 minutes weekly during term time, delivered 1:1 by a HCPC-registered SaLT, with a follow-on programme implemented daily by the class TA under SaLT supervision."
4. What to do if you are not happy
Reply in writing within 15 days with a marked-up version of the draft. Use tracked changes if you can, or quote the existing wording and your proposed replacement underneath. Be specific. "Section F bullet 3: please change to…" beats "Section F is too vague."
Ask for a meeting with the case officer if you have a long list of changes. Most disagreements can be resolved at this stage if you push politely but firmly.
If the council refuses changes you believe are necessary, your options are:
- Mediation — a structured conversation with the LA via a trained adviser. Free, non-binding.
- SEND Tribunal — full appeal to an independent court once the plan is finalised. See our SEND Tribunal guide for the full process.
- Annual review — every plan is reviewed at least once a year, and this is another opportunity to fix wording. See our annual review checklist.
5. Checklist: before you sign off
Print this and tick as you go
- Section A includes your child's own words and your long-term aspirations.
- Every need in Section B is picked up later in Sections E and F.
- Sections C and D either describe relevant needs or explicitly say 'none identified'.
- Every outcome in Section E is SMART, with a date.
- Section F specifies hours, frequency, who delivers it, and what qualifications they hold.
- Section F contains no 'access to', 'opportunities for', 'as required' wording.
- Section G health provision is linked to specific Section C needs.
- Section H1 captures any provision under the 1970 Act (rather than H2).
- Section I names the school you asked for — or properly justifies why not.
- Section K lists every report gathered during assessment, and each is attached.
- You have read the plan out loud at least once — vague wording is easier to hear than to see.
If more than two boxes are unticked, do not sign off yet — seek independent advice from IPSEA, SOSSEN, your local SENDIASS, or EHCP Compass first.
Frequently asked questions
›How long do I have to respond to a draft EHCP?
You have 15 calendar days from the date the draft is sent to you. Use them. Read the plan twice, mark up Sections B, E and F in detail, and reply in writing with your proposed changes. If you need more time, ask — most LAs will grant a short extension if you ask politely and early.
›Is Section F really legally enforceable?
Yes. Once an EHCP is finalised, the local authority has an absolute duty under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F. That is why the wording in Section F matters more than anywhere else in the plan.
›What if my child's needs change after the plan is finalised?
You can ask for an early annual review at any time if needs have changed significantly. You can also request a fresh EHC needs reassessment, though the LA can refuse if less than six months have passed since the last assessment. Both refusals are appealable.
›Can the school decide not to deliver something in Section F?
No. The provision in Section F must be made — that is a legal duty on the LA, not a suggestion. If a school is not delivering it, raise it in writing first with the SENCO and head, then with the LA's SEND team. If it continues, that is grounds for a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman and, in some cases, judicial review.
›Should I ever sign off a plan I'm not happy with?
No. Once finalised, your only routes to change it are the annual review (slow) or the SEND Tribunal (slow). Use the 15-day draft window to push hard. It is much easier to fix wording before the plan is final than after.
›What if a section is just blank?
Sections cannot lawfully be left blank. If Section D (social care needs) genuinely does not apply, the plan should say so explicitly — for example, 'No social care needs identified at this time.' A truly empty section is a drafting error and should be raised.
More questions? See our common questions on EHCP contents. Unsure what a term means? Check the SEND glossary.
Stress-test your draft EHCP with EHCP Compass
Create a free account to upload your draft, get section-by-section AI-assisted feedback on weak wording, and generate amendment requests in your own voice — before your 15 days run out.