✍️ Understanding Section F: Why Vague Wording Can Break an EHCP

If you’ve ever looked at your child’s EHCP and felt unsure what support they’re actually entitled to, you’re not alone.

Many parents are shocked to learn that vague wording in Section F can completely undermine their child’s legal entitlement to provision.

Section F isn’t just another box on a form — it’s the heart of the EHCP. It sets out exactly what special educational provision must be made for your child. And crucially, it is legally enforceable under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

That means:

If it’s written in Section F, the Local Authority (LA) must ensure it’s delivered.

But if it’s written vaguely, it’s almost impossible to hold anyone accountable.

---

🚫 The Problem with Vague Wording

You might recognise phrases like:

“Access to a sensory room as required”

“Regular speech and language support”

“Opportunities for emotional regulation”

“Support from a teaching assistant where appropriate”

They sound supportive — but legally, they mean very little.

“Access to” doesn’t tell you how often.

“Regular” could mean once a day, once a week, or once a term.

“As required” leaves it up to whoever interprets the plan on the day.

These woolly phrases make it impossible for you to check delivery and difficult to enforce through complaint or tribunal.

---

✅ What Lawful Wording Looks Like

Every provision in Section F must be:

Specific – it clearly describes what will be done.

Quantified – it states how often, for how long, by whom, and in what setting.

For example:

> ❌ “Regular speech therapy sessions.”

✅ “A qualified speech and language therapist will deliver one 45-minute session per week, plus a 15-minute follow-up in class with the teaching assistant.”

This level of clarity makes the provision deliverable, measurable, and legally enforceable.

---

📚 The Legal Backing

The SEND Code of Practice (para 9.69) states that all special educational provision “must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified.”

The case L v Clarke & Somerset [1998] ELR 129 also confirmed that vague wording is unlawful — parents must know exactly what support is being provided so they can hold the LA to account.

So if your EHCP is full of terms like “as appropriate,” “where possible,” or “to develop skills,” it’s time for a rewrite.

---

🛠️ What You Can Do

1. Read Section F line by line.

Highlight anything unclear, non-quantified, or open to interpretation.

2. Compare with professional reports.

Does the plan reflect what’s actually been recommended?

3. Request an amendment or review.

If provision is unclear or outdated, you can ask for the EHCP to be reviewed or amended — you don’t have to wait for the annual review.

4. Get expert support.

I help parents rewrite Section F to make it specific, quantified, and lawful — whether through one-off review sessions or full EHCP support packages.

---

💬 Final Thoughts

A vague Section F leaves children without the help they need — and parents powerless to challenge it.

A well-written Section F, however, protects your child’s right to meaningful support and ensures accountability at every level.

Remember:

> If it isn’t written clearly, it won’t be delivered consistently.

Your child deserves a plan that works — not one that hides behind wording.

💚

Rebekah Herbert

Independent SEND EHCP Advisor

www.independentsendehcp.co.uk

#SEND #EHCP #SENDLaw #ParentAdvocacy #SectionF #SENDSupport #Neurodiversity #EHCPReview