EHCP Examples: What Good and Bad Plans Actually Look Like
When you receive your child's draft EHCP, it is easy to assume the document has been written correctly — that the local authority has included everything it should, in the format required by law. Most draft plans have not. The majority of draft EHCPs contain language that looks substantial but is legally meaningless, particularly in Sections B and F.
The difference between a good EHCP and a bad one is not length or how professional it looks. It is specificity. Case law is unequivocal on this: in L v Clarke and Somerset CC [1998], the court established that provision must be "so specific and so clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided is necessary in the individual case." That standard has been repeatedly affirmed, and it is now embedded in paragraph 9.69 of the SEND Code of Practice.
Here is what good and bad actually look like across the sections that matter most.
Section B: The Child's Special Educational Needs
Section B is the needs description. Everything identified here must have a corresponding provision in Section F. If a need appears in Section B but has no corresponding provision in Section F, the plan is legally incomplete.
Bad Section B wording:
"Callum has difficulties with reading and writing. He struggles to concentrate in class and can become anxious in social situations. He has been identified as having some autistic traits."
This is useless. "Difficulties with reading and writing" tells nobody what specific skills are impaired, at what level, or what the gap is between Callum's ability and his peers. "Some autistic traits" is not a needs description — it is a vague clinical observation with no operational content.
Good Section B wording:
"Callum has Autism Spectrum Condition (diagnosed by [clinician], [date]). He has specific difficulties with phonological awareness, assessed at a level equivalent to a 6-year-old (chronological age: 10 years 4 months, standardised score: 68, assessed by [specialist], [date]). He experiences significant anxiety in unstructured social situations such as breaks and lunchtimes, often resulting in physical symptoms (nausea, headaches) and refusal to re-enter class. He requires predictable routines and advance notice of any changes to timetable or expectations. He has difficulties with expressive language under cognitive load, with assessed sentence structure at [percentile] for age."
Every element is specific, evidence-based, and traceable to a named assessment. Each element also points directly to what provision in Section F must address.
Section F: The Special Educational Provision
Section F is the section that matters most. It is the only part of the EHCP that the local authority has an absolute legal duty to secure. The standard for Section F is that provision must normally be quantified in terms of type, hours and frequency, and level of expertise required to deliver it.
Bad Section F wording:
"Callum will have access to reading support. He will be supported by a Teaching Assistant when required. Opportunities for additional literacy intervention will be provided. Callum will benefit from a quiet space when he is feeling anxious. He will receive speech and language therapy as appropriate."
Every phrase here is legally unenforceable. "Access to" means nothing — it does not specify who, what, when, or how often. "When required" and "as appropriate" give the school total discretion to provide little or nothing. "Opportunities for" means nobody has to make those opportunities happen. "Will benefit from" is an aspiration, not a commitment.
Good Section F wording:
"Callum will receive 3 x 30-minute sessions per week of structured literacy intervention, delivered using the [named programme, e.g., Sounds-Write] by a Level 3 Teaching Assistant with specific training in the programme, as evidenced by completion of the training course within the last 2 years.
Callum will have a designated, named quiet space available to him at all times during the school day for sensory regulation. This space must be supervised by a member of staff trained in Autism and sensory regulation support.
Callum will receive direct Speech and Language Therapy: 1 x 45-minute individual session per week with a qualified Speech and Language Therapist during term time. In addition, the SALT will deliver a fortnightly training session to Callum's class teacher and TA to support the daily embedding of communication strategies."
This provision can be measured and monitored. If it is not delivered, there is no ambiguity — the local authority has failed in its Section 42 duty.
Section E: Outcomes
Section E sets the outcomes the child is working toward. These cannot be appealed to the SEND Tribunal, which is why getting them right at the draft stage is critical — they frame the purpose of the provision in Section F.
Bad Section E wording:
"Callum will become a more confident reader. He will improve his social skills and be able to engage better with peers. He will manage his anxiety more effectively."
None of these can be reviewed. "More confident" is not measurable. At the annual review, the school can claim progress has been made without demonstrating any.
Good Section E wording:
"By [date 12 months from plan issue], Callum will be able to read Level 17 (ORT equivalent) texts independently, with comprehension accuracy at 75% or above as assessed using the school's standardised reading assessment. This will be reviewed using formal assessment data at the Annual Review."
"By [date], Callum will be able to attend structured social activities at breaks (e.g., games club, homework club) for at least 3 sessions per week without requiring early withdrawal, as evidenced by staff observation records."
Each outcome has a specific target, a timeframe, and a defined method of measurement.
Free Download
Get the England EHCP & SEN Support Meeting Prep Checklist
Everything in this article as a printable checklist — plus action plans and reference guides you can start using today.
The "Weasel Words" to Challenge
The following phrases in Section F are indicators of a legally weak plan. Challenge every one:
| Weak Phrasing | Why It Is Unenforceable | What to Ask for Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Access to a quiet space" | "Access to" means nothing is guaranteed | "A designated quiet room, available at all times, supervised by trained staff" |
| "Support from a Teaching Assistant as required" | "As required" is entirely discretionary | "15 hours per week of 1:1 TA support, named in the school timetable" |
| "Opportunities for speech and language therapy" | Nobody is obliged to create those opportunities | "1 x 45-minute SALT session per week, delivered by a qualified therapist" |
| "Regular sensory breaks" | "Regular" is not a number | "A 10-minute sensory break every 60 minutes of lesson time" |
| "Will benefit from social skills support" | Aspirational, not operational | "2 x 45-minute weekly social communication group, delivered by a SALT" |
How to Use These Examples
When you receive a draft EHCP, go through Section F line by line. For each provision, ask:
- Is it specific about who delivers it?
- Does it state how often and for how long?
- Does it specify the qualification or expertise required?
- Can this be measured and monitored?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, that provision needs to be strengthened before the plan is finalised. You have a minimum of 15 days to respond to a draft plan, and you should use that time to review it systematically.
The England EHCP & SEN Blueprint at /uk/england/iep-guide includes a Section B and F review worksheet — a structured tool for checking each provision against the legal standard and identifying the language you need to request in its place.
Getting the draft right before it is finalised is far easier than challenging a final plan. Use the 15-day window deliberately.
Get Your Free England EHCP & SEN Support Meeting Prep Checklist
Download the England EHCP & SEN Support Meeting Prep Checklist — a printable guide with checklists, scripts, and action plans you can start using today.