If there is one thing that trips up more EHCP plans than anything else, it is vague wording in Section F. Section F is the part of the plan that sets out the special educational provision your child must receive. It is the most enforceable part of the whole document, but only if it is written properly. Vague wording makes it almost impossible to hold anyone to account.
Why Section F is so important
Under the Children and Families Act 2014, the local authority has a legal duty to secure the provision in Section F. Not to try to secure it, not to consider securing it, but to actually deliver it. This is one of the strongest legal duties in the entire SEND framework. But that duty is only as strong as the wording in the plan. If Section F says something vague like "speech and language support as required," nobody can be held to account for delivering it, because nobody agrees on what it means.
What vague provision looks like
These are real examples of the kind of language that regularly appears in EHCPs and that does not give you anything to hold on to:
- "Access to speech and language therapy as appropriate"
- "Support from a teaching assistant when needed"
- "Strategies to support emotional regulation"
- "Opportunities for small group work"
- "Regular liaison between school and parents"
None of these tell you how much, how often, who delivers it, or what it should look like. That means when provision is not being delivered, there is nothing specific to point to.
What specific provision looks like
Specific provision answers these questions: what, how much, how often, delivered by whom, and in what setting. Here is how the same examples could be rewritten:
- "30 minutes of direct speech and language therapy delivered by a qualified speech and language therapist, once per week during term time"
- "15 hours of 1:1 support from a teaching assistant trained in [specific area], to be available throughout the school day"
- "A personalised emotional regulation programme delivered by a trained adult, twice weekly for 30 minutes, using [named approach]"
- "Daily access to a small group of no more than six pupils for core literacy and numeracy lessons"
- "Half-termly meetings between the SENCO, parents, and key worker to review progress against EHCP targets"
This kind of wording is enforceable. If the school is only delivering 15 minutes instead of 30, or if therapy has stopped, you have a specific, written commitment to point to.
The "quantified and specified" test
IPSEA, one of the most respected independent SEND advisory charities, uses a helpful phrase: provision in Section F must be "quantified and specified." This comes from case law and from the SEND Code of Practice itself. IPSEA's website has detailed guidance and model letters you can use if you need to challenge vague provision in your child's plan. Their resources are free and genuinely good.
What to do if your child's Section F is vague
First, go through the plan carefully and highlight any provision that does not answer the "what, how much, how often, by whom" questions. Then write to the local authority requesting that the plan be amended to include quantified and specified provision. Be specific about which entries you are challenging and what you would like them to say instead.
If they refuse or make only token changes, this is something you can appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Tribunal takes vague provision seriously, and local authorities know this. Often, a well-written letter citing the legal duty to specify provision is enough to get the plan amended without needing to go further.
Where to start
Read through your child's current EHCP, or the draft plan if you are mid-process, and make a list of every entry in Section F. For each one, ask: if this provision was not being delivered, could I prove it? If the answer is no, the wording needs to change. You have the right to request amendments, and you have the right to appeal if those requests are refused. Your local SENDIASS service can help you draft the letter.