Anyone else using AI to get their child’s EHCP right

[EHCPWarrior]

Hi all,
I wanted to share something that has completely changed how I deal with the EHCP process, in case it helps other parents who feel overwhelmed.

I’ve been using AI (chatbots like ChatGPT, etc.) to go through my child’s reports, draft letters, and check the actual legal wording of their EHCP. It’s not perfect, but honestly, it’s been a game changer.

Here’s what I’ve found works:

1. Load the documents – I paste sections of reports, draft EHCP wording, or tribunal papers into the chatbot.
2. Ask it to explain the law – e.g. “What does para 9.69 of the SEND Code of Practice mean?” (Answer: provision must be detailed, specific, quantified.)
3. Spot the wording traps – AI highlights vague terms like “will access,” “regular support,” “as appropriate.” It explains why they’re not enforceable.
4. Rewrite clearly – I then ask it to turn that into quantified, enforceable wording: e.g. “T will receive 3 x 1 hour sessions per week from a qualified OT.”
5. Prepare responses – When the LA or school sends something woolly, I run it through AI to strip the fluff and draft a professional, firm reply.
6. Game theory – Sometimes I ask it to play devil’s advocate: “If the LA push back, what are their arguments? How do I counter them?”

Why this matters:
EHCPs often use vague language to save money. “Access” to support is NOT the same as “will receive” support. One word makes it binding. AI helped me understand and insist on that difference.

Cautions:

• Don’t paste personal data unless you’re confident in the system you’re using (think GDPR). Keep it to wording, drafts, or anonymised bits.
• Always cross-check with real legal advice if you’re heading to tribunal.
• AI won’t fight your case, but it can make you sharper, quicker, and much more confident.

End result for me:
I’ve gone from feeling lost in jargon to being able to quote the Code of Practice and challenge vague EHCP wording. AI doesn’t replace lawyers, but it gives parents a lot more power in the process.

Has anyone else tried this? I’d love to know if other parents have had the same lightbulb moment.

I used Ask Ellie. It's AI that's specifically trained on UK SEND legislation and policy.

The advantage to chatGPT is that you can upload the pdf’s directly to it and it reads them as a whole. Equally it learns about you within the chat. You can also upload the SEND code of practice and all the other bits to the chat. You might need the full version for long chats.

I havent but my LA are talking of using AI to write them. There's outrage locally, but I honestly cant see how it would make them any worse than they already are without mediation/tribunals

Our local authority have just said they won’t accept EHCP applications written by Chat GPT. I didn’t use it to write it but I did load in the refusal letter and asked it where it erred in law - that was very helpful.

If you are using AI, also consider a tool like Origin which scans for AI. You can adapt the language until it seems human again.

Also check it carefully. It’s like a bullshitting middle aged man at work. It can be totally wrong but does so with such confidence it’s hard to notice.

the LA can’t lawfully refuse or ignore an EHCP application just because a parent used AI in preparing it.

The law is crystal clear:

• Children & Families Act 2014, s.36(1) → “A request for an EHC needs assessment may be made by the child’s parent…”
• SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.11 → once that request is in, the LA must decide whether to assess and notify the parent within 6 weeks.
• Nowhere does the Act or CoP mention how the request must be written, or forbid use of tools like AI.

The LA cannot throw out or disregard a valid parental request because of its drafting method. What matters is the content, not the medium.

I use it to challenge the LA and school on bits of nonsense - it's worked well so far. No idea how an LA would tell or prove an ehcp application had been made using AI to help. Sounds like yet another way to try and put parents off.

AI might help some people, but it can also be a hinderance.

It makes up case law, misrepresents what case law says, makes up barristers names, makes up legislation, misrepresents the law, misunderstands case directions…

The content of EHCPs is based on the evidence. It can only tighten up the wording if the reports are not vague and woolly. If the reports are vague and woolly, they need improving first, which AI can’t do. Yet it doesn’t take this into account and tries to tighten up wording without it being based on the evidence.

I’ve heard the same – some LAs are trialling AI to draft EHCPs. Parents are understandably worried, but honestly, most plans are already so vague that it’s hard to see how an algorithm would make them much worse. The problem isn’t the typing, it’s the wording choices the LA insists on.

AI could actually be useful if it forced LAs to stick to the law – e.g. para 9.69 of the Code of Practice, which says provision must be detailed, specific and quantified. The danger is they’ll just train it on their existing templates (“will access,” “as appropriate,” “regular”), which are deliberately vague. Then you just get the same bad plans, faster.

Parents still need to check every line, because “access” ≠ “receive,” and “regular” could mean once a term. AI won’t fix that unless it’s trained to write enforceable plans.

In the meantime, families using AI to check their letters/refusals are actually a step ahead. The law doesn’t care how you write the request – just that it’s made, and the LA has 6 weeks to decide.

You’re right — AI can definitely get things wrong if you let it “make up law” or rely on it blindly. I’d never trust it for case law or legislation without checking myself.

Where it is useful is as a kind of first-pass filter:

• Spotting vague wording (“will access,” “regular,” “as appropriate”).
• Explaining what the SEND Code of Practice actually says (and then I always double-check the paragraph).
• Drafting a professional-sounding email that I can then adapt into my own voice.

You’re also right that the reports matter most. If the OT/SALT/EP report is woolly, the EHCP will be too. AI won’t magically fix that. But what it can do is flag the woolliness and give you the confidence to go back to the professional and ask them to quantify things properly.

For me, the value isn’t in replacing lawyers or experts, but in being an amplifier of insight — it speeds up my understanding, helps me see patterns, and makes me braver in asking the right questions.

So I’d say: AI is a tool, not a substitute. It can help parents get sharper and more confident, but you still need solid evidence and your own judgment.

I put my child's existing ehcp and supporting reports in and said improve this and it did

The existing ehcp is so poor that AI is much better.

I still had to read an amend and cross check but it saved hours.

It also suggested really sensible outcomes compared to 'make a friend"

And when I said for it to suggest support for a specific setting, it gave good ideas.

Im yet to take it to our emergency review to see the reaction but I was so overwhelmed it really clarified my thinking.

It isn’t about whether parents let it make up things. It does. That isn’t the parents letting it.

You may not be relying on it without checking, but many do.

LA saying “we won’t accept AI letters” is like saying they won’t accept one typed on a laptop — total nonsense, the law says 6 weeks, not “6 weeks unless we don’t like your font.”

Yes it is very useful to be given a reminder on the limits and dangers of AI.

Just to say — the reason I posted about using AI wasn’t to claim it’s perfect, but to show the power it can have for parents and to start a debate. I really value people pointing out the pitfalls too — because if we share what works (and what doesn’t), we can all get better at using it safely.

The more we learn together, the more confident parents will be in challenging vague EHCP wording and making sure our kids get what they’re actually entitled to.

Fearfulsaints that’s exactly it. My experience is the same — AI doesn’t replace me, but it amplifies me. I put in an existing EHCP and reports, asked it to suggest improvements, and what came back was miles clearer than the LA draft.

Like you, I had to amend and cross-check, but it saved hours and gave me outcomes that actually made sense (instead of the classic vague “make a friend” target). When I asked it to suggest provision for a specific setting, it offered practical, realistic ideas.

For me, that’s the value: when you’re overwhelmed, it clarifies your thinking. It’s an amplifier of insight — you still have to steer it, but it gives you a head start that the LA doesn’t expect you to have.

I’d be fascinated to hear how your emergency review goes with those AI-polished outcomes in hand — I bet the reaction will be interesting!

In true sen world style the emergency review is at the end of November, but i will come back and say how it went.

Thanks OP this is really helpful. I’m struggling a lot with doing this type of work. I find it very challenging to compare line by line multiple reports to the LA draft and to hold on to the detail in my head to compare them. It feels as though is deliberately made to be an overwhelming process for parents.

My LA deliberately merges sections B,E, F on the draft EHCP for example. so I’ve also had to restructure the whole document in a way that I hope they won’t reject but to do that simple thing even means finding other LA examples and comparing them. I had have to ask for extra time to work on it because I’m so stressed out by potentially getting it wrong and feel the responsibility for it is completely on me as the non expert. The caseworker said that they do it that way because it’s easier for parents to understand- (but that could also make the section F unenforceable sooo..) you get the picture.

I have total lack of trust in the LA because of how shifty they are at every interaction and all that I have found that’s minimising and not legal in their drafting. All of that really helps the LA as well because of the extra time it takes parents to check each thing they’ve said and done. It’s best much in their interest to chuck in as many bear traps as they can.

I’ve clearly led a sheltered life in some ways I didn’t expect how a local authorities could so consistently not follow the law in their work and have found working with them in that dynamic really tricky.

Provision should be based on a child’s needs not written for a specific setting.

😂 Only in SEN world can “emergency” mean “see you in three months.” Looking forward to the update — hope by then they’ve managed to find the right diary page!

You’re not imagining it — merging B, E + F is a classic LA trick to make Section F unenforceable. It’s exhausting on purpose. I’ve found AI helps as an amplifier of insight — keeps me on top of the detail

So simply upload each of the reports, OT, SaLT Ed Psych and any others you have. Download a copy of the SEND code of practice in PDF and put that in. Upload your EHCP file from the LA. It’s then how you ask the questions. 1st pass where are the inconsistencies with the reports and the EHCP. Copy the response to a document. 2nd Question how does this EHCP compare to a gold standard one? 3rd Question what do I need to do to improve it? Again copy the response into another document. Finally retype your draft and upload it to the AI and compare again against your original files. And the advice from the AI. Get it to rate it again…. Spot where you have made any errors. It’s the same approach legal teams use to get to a final draft. Caution though, just because you redraft the LA doesn’t have to accept or make the changes. That’s when you end up at tribunal. The easiest one to get through is the “will receive “. As they know they will lose that at tribunal as there is well established case law on that. Even if the ai gets that changed it will be transformative across SEND provision.

I understand that. I've been very successful at tribunal before.

But realistically needs vary in different settings and there can be more than one way to meet a specific need.

OT could be delivered one way at one setting and another way at another and my experience is ehcps only list one way not all the possible ways.

My child's setting is a fairly unique specialist provision that he is ageing out of and therefore things he would need different setting arent in his ehcp currently as he does not need them to access learning there.

It isnt about writing it for a specific setting. It was about ideas to help me clarify my thinking of what could be possible for my son to actually access the next options based on the reports we had.

@Fearfulsaints using it for ideas is very different to using it to help propose amendments. SEP should be based on a child’s SEN not written to fit a specific setting. ‘For a specific setting’ is the wording the OP used. EHCPs absolutely can state more than one version of SEP. Using it only for ideas is totally different.

Ive found it really helpful for ideas.

I'd actually really love some examples of how several versions of a sep could look, as i think this is needed. If you have any tips of what to do id be very grateful. I know you from other sen threads and you are always giving solid advice.

My child's 'need' is for strong proprioceptive and interoceptive input, especially push pull activitues' thats consistent across all settings. Currently his school is a farm so they arrive, do farm chores, then lessons are very practical and involve lifting and the onsite OT designs a lot of it with the teachers. So they might say this maths lesson could involve lifting weights as part of measurements. Then they do horseriding for pe. So nothing is seperated out. Its just onsite ot does ot basically!

His next options arent on a farm, but are very different to each other and dont have onsite ot.

That makes total sense – you’re absolutely right to be thinking ahead about how provision translates when the setting changes. At the moment your son’s OT needs are being met beautifully because they’re embedded in the school day (farm chores, horse riding, lifting as part of lessons). The risk is that if it’s not written into the SEP/EHCP, it all disappears at the next placement.

What you want to avoid is the LA writing something vague like “DS needs regular proprioceptive activities”. That’s unenforceable. A stronger version would spell out:

• Frequency (e.g. “every 45–60 mins” or “3x daily for 10 mins”),
• Type of activity (push/pull, weight-bearing, heavy work),
• Integration into lessons (carrying, lifting, using resistance bands in maths/science/PE),
• Professional oversight (OT to design/review and train staff).

If you can, ask your current school/OT to list the activities he does now and how often. That gives you a baseline to argue: “This is what he needs to regulate, so the same level must be replicated in his next school, regardless of setting.”

That way, instead of being seen as “nice extras” because he happens to be on a farm, they become his statutory provision.

Try describing into AI what he currently does , you could even copy your post above and tell it you need 4 options for a EHCP see what you get. Then refine them.