1:1 Support in an EHCP: How to Get a Teaching Assistant Specified and Funded

The most common fight after an EHCP is issued is about the teaching assistant. Either the EHCP doesn't specify one at all, or it does but the school's TA is covering four children simultaneously while your child's plan says "1:1 support." The school says this is fine. It is not — if the EHCP specifies 1:1 provision, that means 1:1, not 1:4.

Understanding how support staffing should be specified in an EHCP and what happens when it isn't is essential before you accept a final plan.

How 1:1 Support Gets Into an EHCP

The EHCP's Section F (Special Educational Provision) must specify the support your child needs, including the staffing ratio. For some children, 1:1 support from a Teaching Assistant (TA) for specific activities or across the school day is the provision that makes inclusion possible.

However, EHCPs rarely arrive with clear 1:1 staffing specifications. Local authorities prefer vague language that gives schools flexibility — which, in practice, means freedom to stretch a TA across multiple children. Common Section F wording that is inadequate includes:

• "Adult support to access learning"
• "TA support as appropriate"
• "1:1 support during literacy activities" (without specifying the amount)
• "Access to support as and when required"

None of these phrasings are enforceable. "As appropriate" and "as and when required" leave the decision entirely to the school's discretion. The SEND Code of Practice requires Section F provision to be specific, detailed, and quantified.

What Adequate Specification Looks Like

For 1:1 TA provision to be enforceable, the EHCP should specify:

• Hours per week of 1:1 adult support (e.g., "20 hours per week of 1:1 Teaching Assistant support")
• The activities during which 1:1 support is required (e.g., "across literacy and numeracy sessions, transitions between lessons, and unstructured social times")
• The qualifications of the person providing it (e.g., "delivered by a Teaching Assistant with specific training in autism/ADHD/dyslexia support")
• Whether support is 1:1 exclusively or whether small group support is permissible for some activities (e.g., "1:1 during literacy; small group of no more than 3 during other curriculum subjects")

If the EHCP you receive does not contain this level of specificity, you should formally challenge it before it is finalised. During the draft EHCP stage (after the assessment and before the final plan is issued), you have the right to request amendments to Section F. Submit your proposed changes in writing within the 15 working days you are given to respond to the draft.

If the final EHCP still contains inadequate specification, you have the right to appeal Section F content to the First-tier Tribunal (SEND).

The £6,000 Threshold and Why It Matters

In England, schools are expected to meet the cost of SEN provision up to a notional budget of £6,000 per pupil per year from their delegated SEN budget. Above this threshold, the local authority is expected to contribute through the EHCP's allocated top-up funding.

Local authorities sometimes refuse to specify 1:1 TA support on the grounds that it should be funded from within the school's £6,000 threshold. This is often a manipulation of the system — the threshold is a notional indicator for where LA top-up funding kicks in, not a ceiling on the provision a child can receive. If the evidence shows that a child requires 1:1 support that costs more than £6,000 to deliver, the EHCP must specify it regardless of cost.

The key counter-argument is: need drives provision, not budget. The legal test for Section F is what provision is necessary to meet the child's educational needs and achieve their outcomes. If the EP, SALT, and parental evidence collectively support 30 hours of 1:1 TA support per week, cost is not a ground for refusing to specify it.

The UK Assessment & Evaluation Guide includes a section specifically on Section F specification and TA provision, including template language for challenging vague EHCP wording and a guide to running an appeal where 1:1 support has been refused or under-specified.

When the School "Shares" Your Child's TA

Even when an EHCP clearly specifies "25 hours of 1:1 Teaching Assistant support," many schools deploy the TA across multiple children to maximise staffing efficiency. The TA rotates around several EHCP children, providing support to your child for perhaps half of the specified hours.

This is a breach of the EHCP. The EHCP is a legally binding document. If it specifies 25 hours of 1:1 support, the school must provide 25 hours of 1:1 support. Sharing a TA across children may be a necessary reality of resource-constrained schools, but it is only lawful if the EHCP specifies shared support.

What to do:

1. Request a meeting with the SENCO and ask them to explain, in writing, how the TA allocation specified in the EHCP is being delivered
2. Observe the school's provision through your parent right to request monitoring information
3. If the provision is not being delivered as specified, write formally to the SENCO and headteacher citing the EHCP as a legally binding document
4. If the school does not rectify the provision, make a formal complaint through the school's complaints procedure
5. If the school complaint is unsuccessful, escalate to the local authority
6. If the LA fails to ensure compliance, refer the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as a failure to secure the provision specified in the EHCP

The Debate Around 1:1 TA Support

There is a genuine debate in SEND literature about the effectiveness of 1:1 TA support. Research (including the Teaching and Learning Toolkit's analysis of TA interventions) has found that poorly deployed TAs can reduce independence in students rather than building it, and that some students learn more effectively with well-designed small group or classroom-embedded support.

This debate is real and worth engaging with honestly. When arguing for 1:1 support, frame the case around what your specific child's assessment evidence shows they need — not simply the assumption that more adult support is always better. An EP report documenting that your child requires a specific level of adult proximity to self-regulate, begin tasks, and maintain safety is a much more persuasive basis for 1:1 provision than a general assertion.

If the LA cites the research debate to refuse 1:1 support, the counter-argument is that the research applies to poorly designed TA deployment — and that your child's specific profile, documented by qualified professionals, requires the specific level of support specified in the report.

Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland

In Wales, TA provision in an IDP must be specified in the same way — vague commitments in an IDP are not enforceable. SNAP Cymru can assist with challenging inadequate IDP content.

In Scotland, support staffing for children with CSPs must be specifically described. Given the very low number of CSPs relative to children with ASN, most Scottish children with TA needs will be supported through non-statutory planning — which is less easily enforced but still requires the school to demonstrate it is meeting the child's needs.

In Northern Ireland, Statement Part 3 must specify the full educational provision including support staffing. If a Statement specifies 1:1 support, that provision is binding on the school and the Education Authority.

See more United Kingdom guides →