Section F: examples of weak (and strong) wording
Weak Section F wording like 'regular support' or 'access to' cannot be enforced. See real examples of weak vs strong provision and how to ask for changes.
Section F is the legally enforceable part of the plan: the council must secure the provision written there. That only works when the wording is specific. Weak wording is the single most common problem we see in drafts.
Weak vs strong
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| "Regular speech and language support" | "One hour of direct speech and language therapy weekly, delivered by a qualified therapist, for 12 weeks, reviewed each half term" |
| "Access to a quiet space" | "Access to a supervised quiet room at break and lunchtimes, available on request without question" |
| "Support from a TA as required" | "15 hours per week of 1:1 teaching assistant support, delivered in class" |
| "Where possible, work will be differentiated" | "All work differentiated to working level, planned weekly by the class teacher" |
Why it matters
"Regular" could mean daily or once a term. "Access to" doesn't guarantee anything is actually delivered. When it comes to enforcing Section F, unspecified provision gives the council room to deliver very little while claiming compliance.
How to fix it in your response
For each vague phrase, ask the council to specify: what the provision is, who delivers it, how often, for how long, and in what group size. You don't need to propose exact numbers if you don't know them — ask the council to specify them from the evidence.
The free checker highlights weak wording like this automatically and the paid response package writes the amendments for you.