Sort

• 12 Sep 2026

Other

|

Simple

Can't answer yes or no.:

Dear Mr S,

My observation is that there are two linked issues here: what must be identified in Section B, and what must then be specified in Section F. This is a general observation on the legal and professional framework rather than legal advice on the particular circumstances of your case.

Section B must specify all of the child’s special educational needs. Section F must then specify the special educational provision required to meet each and every need identified in Section B. The sequence matters: the need is identified first, followed by the provision required to meet it. That approach is reflected in The Learning Trust v MP [2007] EWHC 1634 (Admin), where the Court emphasised the importance of identifying the need before prescribing the educational provision to which it gives rise.

Section F must also do considerably more than describe provision in broad terms. Regulation 12 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 requires it to set out the special educational provision required by the child. In L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129, the issue was whether the provision was sufficiently specific and clear to leave no real doubt about what had been decided and what was required.

The SEND Code of Practice states that provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example by reference to its type, hours, frequency and the level of expertise required. Depending on the provision in question, the case law also points to matters such as staff qualifications and experience, the amount of 1:1 work, group size, and the frequency and duration of sessions.

In Worcestershire County Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal drew together the principles relating to specificity. An EHCP needs sufficient certainty for the parties to know what provision is required. There can be circumstances in which some professional flexibility is appropriate, but flexibility should not become a substitute for detail which can reasonably be given.

There are similar examples in B-M and B-M v Oxfordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 35 (AAC) and JD v South Tyneside [2016] UKUT 9 (AAC), where provision was criticised for being insufficiently clear or for leaving important matters to be determined later by the school.

I have also looked at the professional standards applying to educational psychologists. I have not identified anything in the HCPC standards which prevents an EP from giving specific or quantified recommendations where the evidence and their professional judgement support doing so.

The HCPC requires practitioner psychologists to work within their scope of practice, to understand and apply relevant legislation, policies and guidance, and to communicate professional opinions clearly. For educational psychologists specifically, the standards include formulating evidence-based interventions and choosing interventions appropriate to the service user’s needs and setting.

Where an EP is a member of the British Psychological Society, the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct is consistent with that approach. It emphasises competence, responsibility and integrity, including recognising the limits of professional competence and exercising appropriate caution in making professional claims.

Of course, an EP should not provide a degree of precision which cannot professionally be justified. There is also an important distinction between a professional restriction and the scope of the service an individual EP has agreed to provide. An EP’s terms may exclude Tribunal work or what they describe as “EHCP quantification”, but I have not identified any general professional prohibition on an EP giving specific or quantified recommendations.

In practical terms, I would be cautious about simply sending the report to the LA and asking it to fill in the missing detail. The LA is responsible for determining and specifying the provision in Section F, but that decision should have a proper evidential basis. If the report identifies the nature of the provision but does not address matters such as frequency, duration or group size, there is a risk that the same lack of specificity will find its way into the amended plan.

My suggested first step would therefore be to go back to the EP once more. I would explain that you are not asking them to draft the EHCP or undertake Tribunal work, but that you would like their recommendations, so far as the evidence and their professional opinion permit, to be capable of supporting properly drafted Sections B and F.

You might ask whether they can state more specifically the provision required to meet the identified needs. Depending on their opinion, that might include frequency, duration, whether the provision should be delivered 1:1 or within a defined group size, the level of expertise required, and any necessary review arrangements.

The aim is simply to ensure that the professional evidence provides a sufficiently clear basis for the provision which may ultimately appear in Section F and, where appropriate, is expressed with the degree of specificity and quantification contemplated by the legal framework.

If the EP is not willing or able to provide any further detail, it may then be worth considering supplementary professional evidence before asking the LA to amend Section F.

I hope this is of some assistance, and I look forward to reading other contributions.

Sean Kennedy

Relevant sources:

HCPC – Standards of Proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists
https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-proficiency/practitioner-psychologists/ 

HCPC – Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics
https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/ 

HCPC – Scope of Practice
https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/meeting-our-standards/scope-of-practice/what-is-your-scope-of-practice/ 

British Psychological Society – Code of Ethics and Conduct
https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsrep.2021.inf94 

 



Sean Kennedy

12 Sep 2026

This is helpful

|

Comment

Post