There's a single word doing more damage in SEND meetings than any other.
It isn't budget. It isn't threshold. It isn't capacity.
It's should.
"The school should provide…"
If you've ever read an EHCP, a Section F, or a SEND tribunal decision, you'll have seen this word. Should be supported. Should have access to. Should be considered for. It sounds firm. It sounds like a commitment. It sounds like the system has your back.
It isn't, and it doesn't.
Should is not legally binding. Must is.
Tribunals have been clear about this for years — "opportunities for" was ruled "vague, meaningless and unenforceable" by the Upper Tribunal in 2018. Vague provision can't be secured. Specific provision can.
That's the whole game. One word, one letter different, and a child either gets the support they need or doesn't. Should be provided with movement breaks means a teacher might offer one if there's time. Must be provided with movement breaks means it's a legal duty and the school is in breach if they don't.
Most parents don't know this. Most teachers don't know this. Plenty of SENCOs don't know this. The local authorities writing the plans absolutely know this, which is why so many EHCPs come back full of shoulds.
How a single word costs a child their afternoon
Let's call him Daniel.
Daniel, ten years old, autistic, sensory processing differences. His EHCP says he should have access to a quiet space when he becomes overwhelmed. His teacher is supportive but new. The classroom is loud. He starts to spiral around 11:30am most days. By 12:15 he's hiding under a desk. By 12:30 he's been removed from the classroom for "disruptive behaviour." By the end of the term he's missed forty hours of learning and the school is talking about a managed move.
If the EHCP had said must have access to a quiet space, the school would have a legal duty to provide one. The teacher could request it. The SENCO would have to organise it. The local authority would be in breach if it wasn't there.
Because it said should, none of that happens. Daniel carries the shame. His parents carry the failure. The school carries nothing.
This is not a hypothetical. This is what most of my clients walk through the door with.
Why this matters even if your child doesn't have an EHCP yet
Every word in a SEND document is doing work. The vague ones are doing the most work — against you.
Watch for:
- should (not binding)
- will be considered (no commitment)
- where appropriate (subject to interpretation)
- as needed (judged by whom?)
- strategies will be in place (which strategies? when? how often?)
- access to (passive — access does not mean delivery)
- opportunities for (still passive, and ruled unenforceable in case law)
- ongoing support (no specifics)
Replace with:
- must (legally binding)
- will be provided with
- daily, at [time]
- delivered by [named role]
- for [duration]
- measured by [outcome]
The difference between a useful EHCP and a piece of expensive paper is specificity. Specified, quantified, named. If a piece of provision can't be measured, it can't be enforced. If it can't be enforced, it doesn't exist.
What the law actually says
The Children and Families Act 2014, Section 42, places a duty on local authorities to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHC plan — which is what Section F is for. Not aim to secure. Not try to provide. Secure.
That duty only bites if Section F is written in language that can actually be secured. Should cannot be secured. Must can.
The SEND Code of Practice (paragraph 9.69) is even clearer: "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…"
Read it twice. It's a paragraph parents and SENCOs can wave at local authorities and ask: show me where this plan meets that bar. Most plans don't.
What to do with this
If you have an EHCP for a child, take it out today and read Section F. Highlight every should, where appropriate, as needed, and access to. Then ask: who delivers this? When? For how long? Who measures whether it's happening?
If you can't answer those questions from the document itself, the document isn't doing its job.
If you're at draft EHCP stage, push back on every vague word. Ask for must instead of should. Ask for named provision, named delivery, named frequency. Local authorities will resist this because specific provision is expensive and enforceable. Resist back. The plan you sign is the plan you have to live with for years.
If you're a SENCO reading this, you already know. Pass this post to a parent who doesn't.
How I help
I run unbarrier.audit — a service for parents and schools who have an EHCP or Section 7 advice and want a clear, plain-language read of whether it actually does what it claims to do. I read it. I mark every vague word. I tell you what's enforceable and what isn't. I write you a list of the changes that matter most.
No legal jargon. No 60-page reports. Just a clear document that tells you what you're holding and what to do next.
If you want a conversation about whether it's right for you, book a free 20-minute call.
Should is not provision. Must is provision. The whole system runs on the difference. Name it out loud.
— Nici x