Supporting students, Legislation and policy, Products and services, Discussion & collaboration

EHCP writing: an art or a science?

In this post we delve into some of the scenarios that call for a high level of judgement and nuanced decision-making when writing EHC plans, and why specific training is so important.

Feb 19, 2025

Enhance EHC

Like Be the first to like this

When undertaking EHCP writing for the first time, one of the most common pieces of feedback we receive from writers is that they didn’t expect it to be so difficult.

It’s a unique task, requiring a writer to adhere strictly to the legal requirements, not take liberties in interpreting or paraphrasing the professional advice and follow precise house styles and structures. At the same time, writers also need to have the creativity and discernment to select the most appropriate information, become a detective in negotiating puzzles within the advice and make the draft flow as a coherent whole.

Understanding the legislation and the Code of Practice is only the first step: a lot of basic plan writing training operates on the assumption that the writer has gold-star quality professional advice with which to work. However, the Code provides little (if any) guidance for situations where advice is unclear, or cases are complex. Despite the high degree of analysis and problem-solving involved, there is also often an assumption that plan writing is formulaic and simply involves tasks of collating and summarising that could be replicated by digital software.

In this post we delve into some of the scenarios that call for this high level of judgement and nuanced decision-making within plan drafting, and why specific plan writer training is so important.

Dealing with conflicts

A common occurrence is to find that two (or more!) reports include contradictory (or seemingly contradictory) information. For example, when faced with one piece of advice that says that a child speaks in single words only, and another that says they can join words to make two- or three-word phrases, how do you, as a plan writer, decide what to include in the plan? There are a few things to look at to decide:

What are the dates of the reports? This may answer the question easily, as the child may just have progressed between the two (although you would need to take into account the context, as it’s also possible they may have regressed, in some circumstances).
What authority/experience does the advice writer have? For example, you might prioritise the Speech and Language Therapist’s advice about something to do with language, or you might take into consideration the fact that the school see the child every day, as opposed to a medical professional who has seen the child only once for a short assessment.
Is the information definitely a conflict? For instance, saying ‘they speak in single words’ and ‘they speak in short phrases’ is not necessarily a conflict, as they may do both at different times.
Does any of the rest of the advice support one or other statement? If you have three reports saying one thing and one saying another, then you would probably go with the former.
Are there any other clues or factors that might help make a decision? For example, any indication that some of the text is inaccurate / about a different child etc.

If, after considering all the information, it is still not clear which is correct, then you might consider stating the conflict within the advice (e.g. ‘The Speech and Language Therapist states that…. However, the Educational Psychologist states that…’) – and flag for this to be followed up before the plan is issued.

Inaccuracies and ambiguities

In any given case, there are likely to be some errors and/or inaccuracies in the advice that need identifying and correcting. Some of these may be obvious, and therefore straightforward to fix, such as advice using the wrong pronouns for the child, or the wrong name. However, in cases like these, it’s important to read the information in context – is it only the name/pronouns that are wrong, or is the report actually for a different child?

Some errors are more subtle, and require you to be looking out for inconsistencies or something that ‘doesn’t feel right’. For example, perhaps a diagnosis is dated before the reported date of the referral, or an annual review is listed as having been carried out in the future: some detective work is necessary to work out what dates are likely to be correct. One common typo is to say that a child/young person ‘is now able to do X’ as opposed to ‘not able to do X’, or vice versa. Noticing this requires you to be paying attention to details: holding a picture of the advice in your mind and being on the look-out for unusual phrasing.

Another example would be errors that have come from speech-to-text software used by advice writers, such as ‘improve her electricity skills’, instead of ‘improve her literacy skills’, or ‘difficulty managing his oceans’ rather than ‘emotions’. On first glance it appears nonsensical, but with context, and the knowledge that this kind of software is sometimes used, it becomes possible to work out what is meant.

Amendments

The most common issues when processing amendments to plans following annual review are:

not having sufficient relevant new information to fully update the plan
not having any indication of whether information currently in the plan is still relevant.

You must therefore exercise significant judgement in deciding what information to leave in and what information to remove. Factors to consider include:

1. Is there any new information that contradicts something in the old plan or insinuates that something is no longer relevant? If so, you would remove this information – and note if this resulted in there being no description of need for a particular area that still has outcomes/provision, for further investigation.

2. What kind of need is being described, how old is the old information and what age is/was the child/young person?

In other words, is the reason the annual review attendees haven’t mentioned it in the new advice more likely to be:

They are just taking it as a given (e.g. for a child/young person with severe learning difficulties, the fact that they have delayed expressive and receptive language skills is going to still be the case, but the annual review probably wouldn’t bother restating this), or
It’s no longer an issue, so not worth mentioning (e.g. a child was five at the time of the old plan and having some difficulties with toileting – if they’re now ten and the annual review hasn’t mentioned this, then it’s almost certainly because this has resolved and is no longer an issue).

3. If there is no need described in the new advice for an area that previously included a need, then any new information around outcomes/provision may give you some evidence as to whether the need persists.

For example:

If the annual review report indicates that the outcome for that area is achieved and hasn’t provided a new one, then we might assume this is no longer a need;
If the annual review report says (or insinuates) that there are no changes to be made to the outcomes/provision (or gives new outcomes/provisions for this area) then you may assume that it’s still a need and leave it in from the old plan, flagging that there was no up-to-date information so that this can be followed up.

4. What level of detail is the information in the old plan, and therefore how likely is it to still be relevant?

Sentences such as ‘He has moderate difficulties with his expressive language’, ‘She has difficulty staying on task and is easily distracted’, ‘They have some difficulty interacting with peers’ or ‘He lacks danger awareness’ are all much more likely to be applicable for several years than sentences like ‘She does not yet know number bonds to ten’, ‘They cannot yet follow instructions with two key words’ or ‘He cannot stay on task for longer than two minutes’. So, you might decide to remove the very specific wording, but leave in sufficient general wording to indicate that there is a need in this area.

5. What will the parents’/young person’s experience be on reading the amended plan?

For instance, if the previous plan contained a large amount of Quality First Teaching provision, whilst this is not legally required in the plan (and many Local Authorities would regard including it as poor practice), you might consider how the parents would feel for large quantities of provision to be suddenly removed from the plan. If a case worker/coordinator has explained the situation and reassured parents that their child will not lose any entitlement to support as a result, then that’s a different matter, but removing this information without appropriate explanation/support is likely to be distressing.

Similarly, if the previous plan has been through the tribunal process, and the wording has been agreed, then you might be more cautious with amendments, in situations where the information in the plan is not ‘incorrect’ in a legal sense, but perhaps is not in keeping with house styles or understood best practice.

Other exceptions

There will always be other exceptions to the ‘normal’ rules, particularly in cases that are complex or contentious. Plan writing is not formulaic or a simple case of putting the right sentence under the right heading, and it’s important to remember the end goal: to produce a legally compliant, comprehensive, accurate, clear and accessible document.

It can be easy to get hung up on house rules (and it’s indeed important to strive for consistency where possible!), but there will always be occasions where a piece of information that wouldn’t ‘normally’ be included feels vitally important, in order to be clear and give the full picture. This level of judgement requires plan writers to receive specialist training and the opportunity to interact with a wide variety of different cases.

Enhance EHC offers a unique online EHCP writing training option that combines learning material rooted in legislative requirements and good practice guidance, with practical plan writing assignments and access to instructor feedback. You can explore EHCP writer courses and download an information pack here.

Enhance EHC

Enhance EHC is the go-to solution for developing better education, health and care plans (EHCPs). We offer specialist EHCP writing services, training and resources to help everyone involved to meet statutory deadlines, improve quality and consistency of plans, and develop their knowledge and skills.

Enhance EHC’s range of EHCP solutions are underpinned by a wealth of experience and specific expertise. Established in 1996, we have produced over 190,000 EHC plans (previously SEN Statements), gained oversight of best practice across the country through our work with over two-thirds of Local Authorities (LAs) in England, and trained hundreds of EHCP writers.

How we help

We have been supporting LAs across England with writing EHCPs (/SEN Statements) since 1996. By providing flexible EHCP writing support, SEND teams are able to better manage variable workloads and dedicate their time to supporting families and working directly with schools and other professionals.

Writing an EHCP is a specialised task that requires specific training. Our EHCP support offerings have therefore grown over the years to include CPD accredited online training courses for a wide range of professionals, including:

LA SEND teams
Schools
SEND support organisations
Individual plan writers
Education/health practitioners involved in EHC Needs Assessments

Courses range from requesting assessments and writing statutory advice, to drafting high-quality EHC plans – all of which are ideal for workforce development, new staff induction, ongoing professional development, and/or retraining for a career in SEND.

We also believe in sharing good practice information and guidance for all involved in the EHCP process, which we do through our various guidance and resources, including EHCP Knowledge Hub articles, educational resource packs and free downloadable guides.