The Concept
The SEND Code of Practice (9.69) says provision should be "detailed and specific" and "normally quantified."
Vague wording:
- Leaves room for interpretation
- Makes it harder to enforce
- Often results in less provision being delivered
If two people could reasonably disagree about what the wording means, it's too vague.
Common Vague Phrases
| Vague | Problem |
|---|---|
| "Access to..." | Doesn't mean they'll receive it |
| "As required" | Who decides when it's required? |
| "Regular" | Daily? Weekly? Monthly? |
| "Appropriate" | According to whom? |
| "Support with..." | What kind? How much? |
| "Opportunities to..." | Not the same as provision |
| "When needed" | Who decides when it's needed? |
Examples
Vague:
"Regular access to a quiet space when needed"
Specific:
"Access to the sensory room for 15 minutes at the start of each lesson transition, supervised by a trained TA"
Vague:
"Support with handwriting"
Specific:
"Occupational therapy programme for handwriting, delivered by class teacher following OT guidance, 10 minutes daily"
Why It Matters
When provision is vague, schools can argue they're meeting it with minimal delivery.
"Access to OT support as required" could mean:
- Weekly sessions with an OT
- Or one consultation per year
Specific wording is enforceable. Vague wording isn't.
What Aubis Does
Red Pen scans your EHCP and highlights:
- Phrases that are vague or unquantified
- Provision that doesn't specify who delivers it
- Wording that could be interpreted multiple ways
AiMapping shows when the original report recommendation was more specific than what's in the EHCP.
Aubis shows. You decide.