How to Review a Draft EHCP Without Professional Help

You can review your child's draft EHCP yourself and produce a legally grounded response within the 15-day statutory window — without hiring a SEND consultant or waiting for SENDIASS to call back. The process follows a specific, repeatable method: cross-reference professional reports against Section B, test every Section F phrase against the legal specificity standard from paragraph 9.69 of the SEND Code of Practice, verify Section E outcomes are SMART, and confirm Section I is blank. This article walks you through each step in the order a professional would do it.

Parents review their own draft EHCPs successfully every day. The law was written to allow this. What most parents lack isn't the ability — it's a structured method. Here's the method.

Why You Can Do This Yourself

The legal test for a compliant Section F isn't subjective. Case law (L v Clarke and Somerset CC) and the SEND Code of Practice (paragraph 9.69) established an objective standard: provision must specify the type of support, the hours and frequency, and the level of expertise of the person delivering it. If a phrase in your child's draft fails any of these three tests, it's legally deficient. You don't need a law degree to spot it — you need a checklist.

The reason private SEND consultants charge £165–£252 for a draft review isn't that the analysis requires specialist expertise. It's that parents don't know what to look for, and the emotional stakes make it hard to think systematically under pressure. A structured review process fixes both problems.

The 5-Step Draft EHCP Review Method

Step 1: Gather Your Professional Reports (30 minutes)

Before you open the draft, collect every professional report that was submitted during the EHC Needs Assessment. This typically includes:

• Educational Psychologist (EP) report
• Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) assessment
• Occupational Therapy (OT) report
• Paediatrician's developmental report
• School's assessment and APDR records
• Any private assessments you commissioned

These reports are the source material for the EHCP. Every need they identify should appear in Section B. Every recommendation they make should translate into specific provision in Section F. The draft review is fundamentally a cross-referencing exercise: checking what the professionals said against what the LA wrote.

Make a simple list of every need identified and every recommendation made across all reports. You'll use this list as your master reference throughout the review.

Step 2: Audit Section B — Are All Needs Captured? (45 minutes)

Section B describes your child's special educational needs. Open it alongside your master list and check:

Is every identified need from the professional reports present in Section B?

If the EP identified working memory difficulties, is that in Section B? If the SALT identified receptive language needs, is that in Section B? If the OT identified sensory processing differences, is that in Section B?

LAs sometimes omit needs — particularly those that would trigger expensive provision in Section F. If a need doesn't appear in Section B, the matching provision won't appear in Section F. This is the first and most consequential place where draft EHCPs go wrong.

Are needs described with enough specificity?

"Communication difficulties" is too vague. "Receptive language processing at the 2nd centile, with significant difficulty following multi-step verbal instructions in classroom environments" reflects what the SALT report actually says. If Section B generalises what the reports specify, flag it.

Highlight every missing or watered-down need. These become specific amendment requests in your response letter.

Step 3: Test Section F Against the Specificity Standard (60 minutes)

This is the most important step. Section F is the legally enforceable part of the EHCP — the LA has an absolute duty under Section 42 of the CFA 2014 to secure everything specified here. LAs know this, which is why they systematically use vague language that sounds like provision but commits them to nothing.

For every line of Section F, apply the three-part test from paragraph 9.69:

1. Does it specify the TYPE of support? Not "literacy intervention" but "a structured synthetic phonics programme such as Read Write Inc."
2. Does it specify the HOURS AND FREQUENCY? Not "regular support" but "three 30-minute sessions per week."
3. Does it specify the LEVEL OF EXPERTISE? Not "a member of staff" but "a teaching assistant trained in Attention Autism, supervised termly by a Speech and Language Therapist."

Here are the most common vague phrases you'll find — and what they should say instead:

Flag every phrase that fails any of the three tests. For each one, write what it should say instead, referencing the professional report that recommended the specific provision.

Step 4: Check Section E Outcomes (30 minutes)

Section E outcomes can't be appealed to the SEND Tribunal — which makes getting them right at the draft stage critical. Bad outcomes lock you into vague, unmeasurable targets for the next twelve months.

For each outcome, check whether it's genuinely SMART:

• Specific: Does it name the exact skill or behaviour being targeted?
• Measurable: Can you objectively determine whether it's been achieved? "Improved confidence" fails. "Will independently initiate a conversation with a peer at least once per playtime, measured by staff observation records" passes.
• Achievable: Is it realistic within the review period given the current baseline?
• Relevant: Does it link directly to a need identified in Section B?
• Time-bound: Does it specify when progress will be reviewed?

Flag any outcome that reads like a wish ("will make progress in literacy") rather than a measurable target. Propose a SMART alternative linked to the relevant Section B need.

Step 5: Verify Section I Is Blank (2 minutes)

Section I names the educational placement. In a draft EHCP, Section I must be left blank. This is your statutory right — you get to express a preference for a school, and the LA must consult with that school before naming it.

If Section I already contains a school name in your draft, the LA has acted unlawfully. Flag this immediately in your response. This is not a grey area.

Writing Your Response Letter

You have a minimum of 15 calendar days from receiving the draft to respond. Your response should:

1. Thank the LA for the draft — keep the tone professional
2. List every missing need with reference to the specific professional report and page number that identifies it
3. List every vague Section F phrase with the specific wording you want instead, referencing paragraph 9.69 and the three-part test
4. List any inadequate Section E outcomes with your proposed SMART alternatives
5. Flag any procedural issues — Section I pre-filled, missing professional reports in Section K, needs identified in reports but absent from Section B
6. State your school preference for Section I and request the LA to consult with that school

Send the letter by email (for a timestamped record) and by post (for a physical paper trail). Keep copies of everything.

What Happens After You Respond

The LA must consider your representations. They may:

• Accept your amendments (the best outcome)
• Partially amend the draft (requiring you to assess whether the remaining issues are worth appealing)
• Reject your amendments and finalise the plan as drafted

If the LA finalises a plan you disagree with, you have two months from the date of the decision to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Tribunal can order changes to Sections B, F, and I. It cannot change Section E — which is why getting outcomes right at the draft stage matters so much.

Tools That Make This Easier

The England EHCP & SEN Blueprint provides the complete toolkit for this process: a Section F weasel word checker for the paragraph 9.69 analysis, outcome-writing worksheets for Section E, a section-by-section analysis reference card, and amendment letter templates that cite the exact legal provisions. It's designed for parents doing exactly this — reviewing a draft EHCP independently, under time pressure, without waiting for professional availability.

Who This Approach Is For

• Parents who've just received a draft EHCP and have 15 days to respond
• Parents whose SENDIASS has a multi-week wait list and the deadline won't move
• Parents who want to understand their child's draft deeply, not just hand it to someone else
• Parents preparing for a second or third EHCP cycle who want a more systematic approach than last time
• Parents who've read IPSEA's factsheets but need a practical method for applying them to their specific draft

Who This Approach Is NOT For

• Parents facing Tribunal who need a solicitor or caseworker to build their legal case
• Parents who have a complex multi-agency dispute involving health and social care provision that goes beyond educational needs
• Parents who genuinely cannot engage with a 30-page document due to their own additional needs — ask SENDIASS for an accessible format or an advocate who can attend in person

Frequently Asked Questions

What if I miss something in my review?

The Annual Review provides another opportunity to request amendments. If you spot something after the plan is finalised, raise it at the next review with specific evidence. You also have two months from finalisation to appeal to the SEND Tribunal on Sections B, F, and I. An imperfect response submitted within the 15-day window is vastly better than no response at all.

How long does a proper draft review take?

For a first draft with 15-25 pages, expect 3-4 hours of focused work spread over two or three evenings. This includes gathering reports, cross-referencing Section B, analysing Section F phrase by phrase, and drafting your response letter. It gets faster with practice — parents reviewing their second or third draft can typically complete the analysis in 2 hours.

Should I hire a consultant to check my draft review before sending it?

If you've done a systematic review using the method above and want a quick validation, a 15-minute consultant call (typically £25) to talk through your key concerns is reasonable. But don't pay £252 for a full review if you've already done the analysis — you'll be paying someone to tell you what you already know.

What if the LA ignores my amendments?

If the LA finalises the plan without adequately responding to your specific, legally grounded amendment requests, document everything. This becomes part of your Tribunal evidence if you appeal. The paper trail you create during the draft response phase — with specific references to paragraph 9.69, professional report recommendations, and the three-part specificity test — is exactly what the Tribunal examines.

Can the school's SENCO help me review the draft?

The SENCO can provide context about your child's needs and current provision. But remember that the SENCO works within the school's budget constraints and may have a complex relationship with the LA. They can help you understand what support is currently in place — which is valuable for the Section F analysis — but they're unlikely to help you draft a legally confrontational amendment letter. That part needs to come from you.

See more United Kingdom homeschool guides →