A federal judge ordered the District government yesterday to try again to make a comprehensive plan to educate mentally and physically handicapped children in the city. He said the plan had developed at his "equest and presented to him yesterday was "vague and lacking in specificity."

U.S. District Judge Joseph C. Wady accepted the plan yesterday. But he made it clear that he regarded it only "as a statement of policy," and not the detailed plan he had ordered to carry out the city's special education requirements. He gave the city until Oct. 15 to come with the new plan.

Although city attorneys asserted that the plan was the best they could drait under the circumstances. Waddy said it did not even provide the basic of how a parent of a handicapped child could learn about the program.

"When are you going to have a plan the court cap understand and enforce?" Waddy asked at one point, waving the four-to-five inch thick submission in his hand.

The judge jukewarm endorsement of the proposal followed testimony by a special master he had appointed in the case. The master, Dr. Oliver Hurley, said the plan did not contain recommendations he had made.

Hurley called the submission a plan to plan" instead of a detailed guide on how the city will educate handicapped.

Waddy said the city's attempt to educate the children was still "fragmented" because the School Board and the Human Resources Department are not cooperating [LINE ILLEGIBLE][PARAGRAPH ILLEGIBLE] [PARAGRAPH ILLEGIBLE]

Waddy ridiculed Splitt's assertion that the plan was cleared and that "an educated person" could read and understand it. The judge pointed out that the parents of handicapped children might not be able to comprehened the length documents.

"We think we're doing a good job and trying to do better job." Splitt said.

Hurley said in his testimony that there were several specific recommendation he had made concerning the special education system here that appeared to have been ignored by the city in the proposal.

I didn't think it that the plan went far enough" the Georgia education said. "On the policy level, I think the plan addresses the problems. But many are not policy questions, but rather questions of implementation."

Attorneys for the Mental Health should appoint an outside consultant to draw up the plan he wants, or to appoint a monitoring commitee to aid in the drafting of the plan.

In the meantime, the attorneys argued. Waddy should reject the plan altogether until the city can draw up a proper one.

Waddy refused saying the "policy statement" filed by the city was better than no plan at all.

But he added the next proposal submitted by the city must be such the "the court can evaluate what the plan is to carry out the policy" and it must be in "readable form."