What should a school check in a draft EHCP?

Read across the sections

Ask whether the provision explains what is required, who will deliver it, how often and with what relevant expertise or resources. Flag phrases such as 'access to' or 'as required' where they leave the actual entitlement unclear.

Check that current advice is represented accurately and that differences or omissions are explained. List corrections by section with supporting evidence. School comments contribute to the statutory process; they do not replace the parent or young person's opportunity to respond to the draft. Use the actual notice for response arrangements.

Make the wording usable

Good draft plan wording should help a teacher, SENCo, family and professional reach a similar understanding. Prefer observable descriptions and concrete examples to labels on their own. Where there is uncertainty, say what is known, what remains unclear and how support will be reviewed.

Use evidence proportionately. A standardised score may clarify part of a learning profile, while observation, work samples, consultation and the pupil’s own account may explain how that profile affects everyday functioning. No single source should automatically outweigh all others. Where home and school accounts differ, record the difference and explore context rather than forcing an artificial agreement.

Keep the pupil and family at the centre

Explain the process in accessible language and make space for the child or young person and their family to identify priorities. Their views do not replace professional evidence, and professional evidence does not replace their lived experience. The strongest planning brings these perspectives together and makes disagreements visible rather than quietly editing them out.

For pupils who find formal meetings or abstract questions difficult, gather views in another way: familiar adults, photographs, rating scales, observation, choices, communication systems or short conversations over time. Record how the views were obtained so readers understand the context.

A worked example

The SENCo reads the draft from Section B to E to F, highlighting each need and checking that it has a relevant outcome where appropriate and sufficient provision to address it.

Review quality as well as completion

Do not judge the work simply by whether a form has been completed. Check for internal consistency. Needs described in one section should not disappear from the rest of the planning. Outcomes should be meaningful to the pupil’s education and development. Provision should be sufficiently clear to implement. Review arrangements should generate information that can support the next decision.

For schools in England, the SEND Code of Practice and Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 provide the central statutory framework. Local procedures and forms vary, but they should be used within that national framework. Schools should distinguish clearly between statutory requirements, local administrative preferences and good-practice suggestions.

What does the evidence and statutory framework tell us?

The SEND Code of Practice emphasises person-centred planning, the participation of children, young people and parents, coordinated assessment and clear links between needs, outcomes and provision. The Children and Families Act 2014 sets the legal framework for EHC assessments and plans, including duties concerning specified special educational provision. The SEND Regulations set out further procedural requirements. These sources should be checked when a question turns on a statutory deadline or duty rather than relying on local custom.