EHCP review: check the plan’s wording in the review.
The review starts with whether the support is working. Alongside that, Sendix checks whether the plan is clear enough to deliver and review: it flags vague wording, shows the source behind each suggestion and leaves every decision to staff.
On a fictional plan. No pupil data, and nothing to sign.
To see the evidence before the meeting, read how an EHCP annual review comes together.
What does a finding look like?
A fictional plan. The provision doesn’t say who delivers it, so Sendix asks for the report it needs instead of guessing.
Outcome E2
Provision F2
Comes loose at “who delivers it?”
Need B3
Outcome E2
Provision F2
Comes loose at “who delivers it?”
Need · B3
A.M. experiences sensory overload in noisy environments. When overloaded, they can leave learning activities and require a predictable sensory regulation strategy to help them return to learning.
Outcome · E2
By the end of Year 6, A.M. will use an agreed sensory regulation strategy and return to a learning activity within ten minutes in four out of five recorded occasions.
Provision · F2, as written
A.M. will receive a 30-minute sensory regulation session once per week.
Who delivers it?
The plan doesn’t say. Sendix won’t guess: it asks for the report named in Section K.
Statutory guidanceSEND Code of Practice 2015, chapter 9, Section F: provision should normally be quantified, including the level of expertise. (opens the source in a new tab)
Fix once the evidence arrives · Occupational Therapy Assessment — May 2026 · you decide
A.M. will receive a 30-minute sensory regulation session once per week, delivered by an HCPC-registered occupational therapist, as the occupational therapy assessment recommends, with a written programme that class staff follow between sessions.
Drafted only once the report is in the file. Staff accept, edit or reject it.
Where the evidence is already in the plan, Sendix drafts the fix straight away: see one on the homepage.
See an EHCP checked on a call: book a 30-minute walkthrough (opens cal.com in a new tab)What does Sendix check in an EHCP?
It reads the plan and the file behind it: the reports, the child’s views and the review history.
- Section E outcomes
- Whether each outcome describes what the child will be able to do, not the service they’ll get, and is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound, with a starting point and a date to review it against.
- Section F provision
- Wording such as “as required” or “appropriate” that leaves the type, hours, frequency or level of expertise open, so nobody can tell what is owed or whether it happened.
- The thread from need to provision
- Each provision is read with the need in Section B and the outcome in Section E it serves, so a flag shows where the thread comes loose.
- The evidence for a fix
- A rewrite is drafted only from evidence already in the file. Where the evidence isn’t there, Sendix names the report it needs instead of guessing.
What is each flag based on?
Every finding names its basis and links to the source. The SEND Code’s “must” is a legal requirement; its “should” means the guidance must be considered and any departure explained. Some checks, such as whether an outcome has a starting point, are Sendix’s own and are labelled that way.
An EHC plan specifies the child’s special educational needs, the outcomes sought for them and the special educational provision they require.
LawChildren and Families Act 2014, section 37(2) (opens the source in a new tab)
The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision, and “specified” means specified in the plan.
LawChildren and Families Act 2014, section 42(2) and (6) (opens the source in a new tab)
The plan sets out the outcomes in section E and the special educational provision in section F, and each section must be separately identified.
Outcomes should be SMART. An outcome is “the benefit or difference made to an individual as a result of an intervention”, not a description of the service.
Statutory guidanceSEND Code of Practice 2015, paragraphs 9.61 and 9.66 (opens the source in a new tab)
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”.
Statutory guidanceSEND Code of Practice 2015, table “What to include in each section of the EHC plan”, Section F (opens the source in a new tab)
The local authority must review the plan within 12 months of making it, and then within 12 months of each review.
LawChildren and Families Act 2014, section 44(1) (opens the source in a new tab)
What do I take to the council?
- A tracked-changes document in Word
- Staff decide which wording suggestions become recommendations in the review report.
- Your recommendations, with their basis
- After an annual review, the school’s report must set out recommendations on any amendments required to the plan (SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 9.176). Each change you send carries the rule and the evidence behind it.
- The plan stays in force meanwhile
- Only the council can amend an EHCP, and it consults the family first (SEND Code of Practice, paragraphs 9.193 to 9.198). Until it does, staff keep delivering the provision as written.
Guides
- How to check an EHCP against the law and the Code: a SENCO's checklist
A section-by-section checklist for the EHCP your school has to deliver, based on the Children and Families Act 2014, the SEND Regulations 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice, and what to do when something is missing.
England · Updated · 7 min read
- Getting Section F specific: provision that can be delivered and checked
Section F is the part of an EHCP the local authority must secure. If it says 'access to' or 'as needed', nobody can tell what is owed, or whether it happened. Here is how to tighten it.
England · Updated · 6 min read
- What makes an EHCP outcome measurable
An outcome in Section E has to be something you can check at review. Here is what the law and the SEND Code of Practice actually ask for, with rewritten examples you can adapt.
England · Updated · 6 min read