EHCP sections A to K explained

What are the EHCP sections A to K?

Every EHC plan in England uses the same eleven lettered sections. The sections and what belongs in each come from regulation 12 of the SEND Regulations 2014 and the table titled "What to include in each section of the EHC plan" in the SEND Code of Practice 2015, conventionally cited as the table under paragraph 9.69.

The rest of this guide goes deep on the four sections that decide whether a plan is worth anything: B, E, F and I. For those we quote the exact statutory and Code wording, because those are the words you will end up putting in an email to your council.

Section B: what must be listed as a need?

All of them. Section B must specify your child's special educational needs, and the statutory duty is to specify, not to summarise. Every need that the professional advice identified belongs in Section B, because a need that is not in B will not get provision in F.

Section 37(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 says an EHC plan is a plan specifying "(a) the child's or young person's special educational needs; (b) the outcomes sought for him or her; (c) the special educational provision required by him or her". The operative word is specifying. It runs through every rule below.

So the first job when you read a draft plan is a mechanical one. Take each report in Section K, list every need it identifies, and check each one appears in Section B. If the educational psychologist identified working memory difficulties and Section B does not mention working memory, Section B is incomplete, and that is a Section B point you can appeal in its own right.

Section E: outcomes are not provision

Section E records what you want your child to be able to do. It is not the place for support, and support is not an outcome. The Code is blunt about this: there must be "a clear distinction between outcomes and provision. The provision should help the child or young person achieve an outcome, it is not an outcome in itself" (table under para 9.69, Section E entry).

This matters because the mix-up runs both ways and both directions cost you. Outcome language sitting in Section F, such as "Jamie will develop his social communication skills", looks like provision but commits nobody to doing anything. Provision sitting in Section E gets no protection from section 42, because section 42 only bites on Section F.

The test to apply as you read: could someone with a stopwatch and a timetable tell whether this happened today? If yes, it is provision and belongs in F. If it describes where your child will be in a year, it is an outcome and belongs in E, paired with the quantified input in F that gets them there.

Section F: the only section with an absolute duty

Section F is where the plan either works or fails. Where a council maintains an EHC plan it must secure the special educational provision specified in Section F (Children and Families Act 2014, s.42(2)). That duty is absolute. It is not reduced by budget pressure, staff shortages or the school's view, and it starts the day the final plan is issued.

Because the duty attaches to what is specified, vague wording destroys it. You cannot enforce a promise nobody can measure. This is why the Code sets a quantification standard and the courts set a clarity standard.

The Code of Practice standard

Paragraph 9.68 sets the base rule:

"In all cases, EHC plans must specify the special educational provision required to meet each of the child or young person's special educational needs. The provision should enable the outcomes to be achieved."

SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.68.

The table under paragraph 9.69 then sets out what Section F must contain:

"Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is secured through a Personal Budget."

"Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in section B. It should be clear how the provision will support achievement of the outcomes."

SEND Code of Practice 2015, Section F entry in the table under para 9.69.

The case law standard

The leading authority is L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129, which held that a plan 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. Very often specification of hours per week will no doubt be necessary and there will be a need for that to be done."

L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129, as quoted by IPSEA. Confirmed as good law for EHC plans under the 2014 Act in East Sussex County Council v TW [2016] UKUT 528 (AAC) and JD v South Tyneside Council [2016] UKUT 9 (AAC).

In B-M and B-M v Oxfordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 35 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal called "opportunities" wording "vague, meaningless and unenforceable", rejected "Support from a Learning Support Assistant" with no hours or qualifications, and held that "vague descriptions of levels of support are not acceptable" with "no room for dispute as to what provision is to be delivered". For support staff, the plan must identify the quantity of support, the required training, and the necessary experience.

The wording that fails, and what to ask for instead

Here is the pattern that passes. Before: "J will have access to speech and language support." After: "Joe will receive a 30 minute session twice a week focusing on developing his social use of language. The sessions will be delivered by a teaching assistant with one other child. The session programme will be developed under the direction of a Speech and Language Therapist who will train the TA in delivering the sessions." That is the Council for Disabled Children example reproduced by SEND and You, and it hits all four elements: type, hours, frequency, expertise.

Section I: the named school

Section I names the actual school or institution your child will attend, or the type of institution if none is named. It is enforceable: once a school is named in Section I, that school must admit your child (Children and Families Act 2014, s.43(2)). The draft plan you receive must not name a school, because naming comes after your request (s.38(5)).

You can request any institution in the list at s.38(3): a maintained school or nursery, an Academy, a further education institution in England, a non-maintained special school, or an independent institution approved under s.41. The council must consult that school (s.39(2)) and must name it unless one of only two things is true (s.39(3)-(4)):

1. the school is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of your child, or
2. your child attending would be incompatible with the efficient education of others, or with the efficient use of resources.

That is the whole test. "It is full" and "it is expensive" have to be argued inside limb 2 with actual evidence, not asserted. If the council will not name your school, that is a Section I appeal, and it is the one appeal that needs no mediation certificate at all. Seehow to appeal to the SEND Tribunalfor the certificate rules.

Should therapy go in Section F or Section G?

Usually Section F. The statute is explicit that health or social care provision which educates or trains a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision instead, which puts it in F and brings it under the absolute section 42(2) duty.

"Health care provision or social care provision which educates or trains a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision (instead of health care provision or social care provision)."

Children and Families Act 2014, s.21(5).

For speech and language therapy the Code goes further:

"Speech and language therapy and other therapy provision can be regarded as either education or health care provision, or both. ... since communication is so fundamental in education, addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as special educational provision unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so."

SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.74.

The practical difference is enormous. Provision in Section F must be secured by the council, whatever it costs (s.42(2)). Provision in Section G must be arranged by the health commissioning body (s.42(3)), which is a different organisation with a different waiting list and no Tribunal appeal against the content. A plan that puts speech and language therapy in G, or puts "see Section G" in F, has moved your child's therapy out of the enforceable half of the plan. Ask for it to be moved into F and quantified: sessions per week or term, session length, direct therapy or a programme, and the therapist's qualification.

Which sections can you appeal?

Three: Section B, Section F, and Section I. Section 51(2)(c) of the Children and Families Act 2014 lets you appeal the special educational needs specified, the special educational provision specified, the school or type named, and the fact that no school is named. Sections A, C, D, E, G, H, J and K are not appealable in the same way.

Those rights come round again every time the plan is finalised, amended or replaced (s.51(3); SEND Regulations 2014, reg 22(5)), which is why an annual review that ends in an amended plan is also an appeal opportunity. Theannual review guide sets out that cycle and the deadlines attached to it.