What should be in the sections relating to education (sections B and F)?

The law says a child or young person’s education, health and care (EHC) plan must specify their special educational needs (SEN). This is set out in section 37(2)(a) of the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014 and Regulation 12(1)(b) of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (The SEND Regulations 2014). This means section B must specify all of your child or young person’s SEN that were identified during the EHC needs assessment. 

It is very important to make sure section B contains all of your child’s SEN. If some needs are missing from section B, or are not described correctly, this could result in your child not receiving the provision they require for their needs.  

There is a lot of case law about the contents of EHC plans. Case law is made up of decisions made by higher courts and Upper Tribunal, which must be followed by local authorities (LAs) and the SEND Tribunal. A lot of these cases were decided under the old SEN legal framework, and refer to statements of SEN which have now been replaced by EHC plans. They are still relevant because the legal duty to specify SEN and special educational provision in an EHC plan is identical under the old and new systems. We mention some cases on this page and you can find more detail about them on our case law page. 

R v The Secretary of State for Education and Science ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377 confirms that: 

• section B of an EHC plan must set out all of a child’s SEN that were identified during the EHC needs assessment. 

• section F of an EHC plan must specify the provision required to meet each of the needs identified in section B, whether that provision was to be made by the LA or by the child’s school. 

What should be in section F (special educational provision)? 

The law says an EHC plan must specify the provision a child or young person requires. This is set out in section 37(2)(c) CFA 2014 and SEND Regulation 12(1)(f). This means section F must contain special educational provision to meet all of the SEN specified in section B of the EHC plan. The only relevant issue is whether the provision is required to meet the child’s needs (not whether resources or services are locally available).  

The law says that health or social care provision which ‘educates or trains’ a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision, instead of health or social care provision. This is set out in section 21(5) CFA 2014. This means that section F can include therapy provisions, provided they ‘educate or train’ (which usually means they teach your child to do something for themselves as opposed to doing something for them), even if they are being delivered by services like the NHS. 

This can include occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy and you can see a helpful decision about this in the case London Borough of Bromley and Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Others, QBD and CA (1999) ELR 260.  

Paragraph 9.74 of the SEN and Disability Code of Practice 2015 (the Code)  states that “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.”  

In the case DC & DC v Hertfordshire County Council (SEN) [2016] UKUT 0379 (AAC), the judge gave some helpful examples of therapy which might be considered to be special educational provision. These included systems which teach a child or young person coping strategies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness training. 

Where therapy has been included in section F, because it educates or trains, the related need must be included in section B as a special educational need. 

If provision is specified in section F, it must be provided and your LA has the ultimate legal duty to make sure that it is. This is set out in section 42(2) CFA 2014.    

How specific should the provision in section F be? 

Provision in section F should 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”. This was confirmed in case L v Clarke and Somerset CC [1998] ELR 129. 

The decision in this case is reflected in paragraph 9.69 of the Code which says that provision set out in an EHC plan 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. 

LL and MM v Telford and Wrekin Council (SEN): [2026] UKUT 129 (AAC) clarified that the name of a hub could be included in Section F, where that  is needed to make sure the provision reasonably required is specific enough, but this will not always need to happen – it will depend on the facts in the individual case.

It is very important that your/your child’s EHC plan sets out very clearly the provision which must be delivered. If the words used in the plan are unclear or ‘woolly’, it is possible the special educational provision will not be delivered in the right quantity or by the right person. Vague words and phrases such as: 

• ‘regular’ 

• ‘access to’ 

• ‘opportunities for’ 

• ‘would benefit from’ 

• ‘as appropriate’ 

• ‘is recommended’, and 

• ‘a high level of’ 

are not specific enough because they do not create a legal commitment to provide a definite type or amount of provision. It is even possible provision worded in this way will not be provided at all.  

If the professional reports or other evidence do not clearly state your/your child’s needs and the specific provision required to meet them, you should ask the relevant professional to clarify this so that specific details can be included in the EHC plan. You can find out more information on what advice and information must be gathered during an EHC needs assessment, and what this advice must contain on our page about what happens in an EHC needs assessment.  

Two cases in 2020 reviewed the existing case law and set out some general principles about how specific an EHC plan needs to be. These cases were: 

• Worcestershire CC v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC), and  

• LB Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC  

These cases confirmed that: 

• An EHC plan is a free-standing legal document and everyone should be able to rely on it.  

• If there is a dispute, the EHC plan must be clear what the LA is required to provide.  

• Where details of the provision can reasonably be provided, they should be.  

• A degree of flexibility may be appropriate, in some cases, to meet a child’s needs, but this will not normally be necessary – it depends on the circumstances of the individual case.  

• These cases do not justify vague or unclear EHC plans.  

Can provision be left for the school to decide? 

No – the EHC plan must make clear what support your child or young person needs. It is not enough for the LA to leave everything up to the school. This is set out in C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and London Borough of Greenwich [1999] ELR 5. 

Can section F specify a funding band instead of specifying provision? 

An EHC plan can refer to bands or funding agreements, but not instead of properly specifying special educational provision.  

Banding is a way for LAs to allocate levels of top-up funding for securing special educational provision for those children and young people with EHC plans. These are not statutory arrangements (meaning they have no legal weight) and each LA will have its own way of allocating funding.  

Remember, the law says your LA must secure all the special educational provision in your/your child’s EHC plan. Therefore, your LA must make sure that the funding allocated to the EHC plan is enough to do so. Your LA remains ultimately responsible for making the provision if the school cannot or will not do so and disagreements over funding between an LA and a school should never be a reason for you/ your child going without special educational provision This was set out in case R v Oxfordshire County Council ex-parte Pittick [1996] ELR 153  

Your LA cannot tell you that provision required by your child is ‘beyond their funding level’. Any banding should be allocated once your child’s special educational provision has been determined and not the other way around.  

Can the LA change the provision once it’s in section F?  

If your LA wants to change the level or type of provision in your child’s EHC plan, it must follow the legal process for amending the EHC plan. Amendments should be based on evidence and made in consultation with you.  Some decisions on this topic you may find helpful to read are: 

• E v Rotherham MBC [2002] ELR 266, [2001] EWHC Admin 432, and 

•  N v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135).   

If your LA changes the EHC plan and you disagree with this, you can appeal to the SEND Tribunal.  

If the LA changes or removes provision without formally amending the EHC plan, you should take action. Our page on enforcing your EHC plan has helpful information on this.  

Remember, you can find more detail about the above cases on our case law page. 

If you haven’t been able to find the answer to your question on this page or in our EHC plan checklist, our FAQs on EHC needs assessments and plans contain further information about what should be contained in an EHC plan.