Against the backdrop of continued uncertainty over the future of EHCPs, a report has found schools are responsible for forcing many children with SEND out of the system through inflexible policies and failure to identify and meet needs early enough.
The Ofsted and Care Quality Commission (CQC) report focuses specifically on children with SEND of compulsory school age who are:
- not on any school roll at all, or
- on roll but not attending some or all of the time
That includes children who are electively home educated (EHE), children missing education (CME), flexi-schooled, on part-time timetables, severely absent (50%+), in unregistered (non-school) alternative provision (AP), or receiving Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS).
Inspectors visited six areas: Luton, Manchester, North Lincolnshire, Somerset, Southwark, and West Berkshire, selected for factors including data, intelligence and variety of context. It’s also based on more than 700 survey responses of parents, children, and practitioners in these areas. The visits looked at how the areas supported children with SEND out of school, but didn’t make any evaluation about provision or check legal compliance.
How many children are out of school?
In the last decade, there’s been a significant increase in numbers of children out of school, particularly since the pandemic. As many parent carers know, much of this isn’t voluntary: their children have not been able to find a suitable place, have been “encouraged” to home educate by their last school, have been excluded, or have been unable to attend through anxiety and other ill health.
Department for Education data shows between academic years 2021/22 and 2023/24, children in “elective” home education increased by nearly a third to 153,300, and children who were “missing” from education (CME) by more than half, to 149,900.
“Elective” means children who do not have EOTAS (Education Other than at School) or provision from the LA because they are too ill to go to school. It includes those who educate at home for philosophical reasons. CME includes children who don’t have a school place or who have an “unsuitable education”, including those children for whom LAs are trying to find a suitable place. However, other than genuinely philosophical home ed, many children in either category have been provided with little to no provision from the local authority, leaving parents to manage as best they can. Often this means unwillingly giving up work, even when they can ill-afford it. Research from the Children’s Commissioner found children with SEND were disproportionately likely to become CME
“The true number of children not in school is likely to be much higher than official statistics suggest. This is in part due to the fluid nature of this cohort, as some children will move in and out of the education system, sometimes several times in the same year. Furthermore, we know there are children who have never been on a school roll and are therefore unknown to local services. For example, the Education Policy Institute estimated that the true number of children missing education during the 2022/23 academic year was approximately 2.5 times higher than the DfE figure of 117,100.”
Beyond the classroom: the experiences of children with SEND who are not in school, Ofsted/CQC, December 2025
Why are children not in school?
The survey responses from children found half were not in school because of a lack of support from “practitioners” (it’s not clear which kind of practitioners), while a third reported they couldn’t go to school through a lack of health provision.
They cited bad experiences from schools being “scary” or noisy, and from feeling upset, worried or stressed about school. Bullying was another reason. Poor mental health, especially anxiety, as well as being unwell were also mentioned. Other reasons included a “relationship breakdown” between some children and their school, and believing their school did not care about them, want them, or understand their needs. Some said they didn’t want to go back, others said they would if the right support was in place, because they liked their friends and teachers, or wanted to get qualifications for the future.
There is also a lack of understanding about flexi-schooling, where children are both taught at home and attend school part-time. However, a school’s offer doesn’t always meet what a parent anticipates.
What do parents think?
“[Parents] reported that the fight to get suitable support for their child has led to them feeling exhausted and has impacted on their family and personal lives, such as maintaining employment.”
Parents and carers reported having to “work tirelessly to access support for their child.” Being able to advocate for their children was seen by parents as a “key strength and driver in accessing appropriate support,” by both families and practitioners. Practitioners noted inequity of access to support for parents who couldn’t advocate, including for reasons such as parents’ own mental health needs, SEND or language barriers. This is one of the reasons why, in our 80 practical recommendations for fixing SEND, we believe bringing back Independent Supporters is key to supporting parents in the EHCP process. This is backed by a finding in the report, “In one area, it was reported that families having a trusted and accessible professional to help navigate the system supports children’s improved attendance at school.”
EOTAS and part-time timetables
EOTAS (s61 of the CFA), is part of an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP)—a package of education outside of school that can be set up when being in an educational setting would be inappropriate. It’s not that common, but inspectors heard that more families are asking for it—unsurprising given a lack of specialist provision. They found “wide variation in the ways that EOTAS packages are used, the quality of these packages and the quality of oversight applied by local area partnerships.”
There is little in law that dictates what can be part of an EOTAS package, so LAs get to choose what they will allow—typically some form of tutoring, or activities funded via a personal budget. The report finds that, where EOTAS work well, support and activities are responsive to a child’s needs. In one area visited, the virtual school service maintains oversight of EOTAS, helping parents manage the EHCP personal budget, and quality-assuring activities such as horse riding, community gardening or singing therapy, to fit around medical needs.
However, because none of this is sufficiently set out in statutory guidance, inspectors found personal budgets can lead to differences of opinion with families over suitability and control.
“We found a wide array of activities commissioned as part of EOTAS packages, with typically little understanding of how they contribute to children’s educational outcomes. More often than not, we found that professionals responsible for different elements of EOTAS provision work in isolation and do not routinely meet to review children’s progress or the ongoing suitability of the packages. In some cases, these children have not had an annual review of their EHC plan. We found other examples where there was no quality assurance process to ensure that the EOTAS package reflects the aspirations of the child or will result in them receiving an effective education. In one local area, leaders from across the partnership told us that there is no agreed understanding of the minimum requirements of an EOTAS package or what should be in its scope. Indeed, we heard that some schools believe that they can still support some or all of a child’s needs effectively without the need for an EOTAS package but, despite this, an EOTAS package is still put in place.”
Part-time timetables were found to be inconsistent, with varying levels of oversight. Area leaders reported an ‘accountability gap’ saying they do not have the levers or capacity to ensure part-time timetables are in place as short a time as possible, meeting statutory guidance.
Another concern was parents sharing information online about EOTAS (or EOTIS) that was not always appropriate. It is always our advice that, while Facebook groups can offer invaluable peer support, make sure you only act on legally-backed information. This is why SNJ always ensures our information is written by lawyers. Find our EOTAS information here, and from IPSEA here.
Early identification not early enough
“We heard that a lack of early identification and corresponding support to meet needs leads to some children having poor rates of attendance or leaving school altogether. This is exacerbated by transitions between phases of education. We heard how, in the early years, unidentified and unmet needs result in some children not being ‘school ready’. For example, they may have underdeveloped social, communication or self-care skills. Leaders in one area noted that this issue is sometimes classified as ‘SEND’ but is rather due to gaps in children’s learning that could be managed with appropriate school support. Parents, professionals and leaders reported that, for some children, not being ‘school ready’ results in a delay attending primary school. When children are moving to secondary education, unidentified and unmet needs in primary schools lead to wider challenges emerging or escalating. This is linked to the difference between secondary schools and primary schools, such as the size of the school, the structure, curriculum and behavioural demands.”
Inspectors found local areas consistently missed chances to spot needs and put support into place early enough. This included delays in waiting lists for neurodiversity assessments, as well as for CAMHS and occupational and speech and language therapies. A large majority of parents/carers and half the practitioners said children couldn’t get the health support they needed, leading to escalating needs and, in some cases, children not being able to attend school: “Indeed, we found that there are a significant number of children with known or emerging neurodevelopmental needs who are not in school”. However, by not being in school, children can also miss out on any mental health support teams and school-based therapies (if there are any).
This is not going to improve, given the barriers being put in place by local ADHD/autism services for profiling, and the current pause in Right To Choose referrals. Frankly, it’s frightening.
School leaders also blamed this on the reduction in Sure Start centres providing early help services on lack of children are less likely to have their needs identified quickly and accurately. However, we hope Labour’s new announcement of Best Start Family Hubs, providing community SEND services, will improve this. This is a glimmer of hope in an otherwise dark landscape.
“As part of the government’s pledge to roll out Best Start Hubs in every local authority next year, councils are being tasked with recruiting an all-new dedicated SEND practitioner in every hub to provide direct, family-facing support that has been missing for too long…
Government Best Start Hub announcement
“…by 2028, Best Start Family Hubs will act as a one-stop shop for the whole community – offering parents a range of support, including a menu of proven interventions, from child-focused speech and language sessions for toddlers to specialist parent and baby groups…”
Complex needs not well met
Inspectors found some schools were not equipped to meet the needs of all their pupils with more complex medical and behavioural needs. There is a lack of training and “a particular lack of understanding of neurodevelopmental needs and the impact of trauma and poor mental health on children’s learning and/or wellbeing. This results in children’s needs escalating and leading to reduced attendance or to them leaving school.”
Busy schools, large classes and a lack of quiet areas had a negative impact, especially on children with sensory needs. While some schools managed to make reasonable adjustments to the environment (as per law), others did not—sometimes through choice, sometimes through lack of resources or building type. “This leads to children’s needs escalating and occasionally to them leaving school.”
Not enough specialist provision and unsuitable transport
No one will be surprised at the finding of insufficient special school and alternative provision places, leading to children in inappropriate settings, whose needs cannot be met. Parents also identified a need for more AP, access to EOTAS packages and online learning.
School transport has been in the news a lot lately (and not in a good way). This report found that transport doesn’t always meet the needs of the child, which can impact their learning and their families. Attendance was also impacted by staffing changes, delays, long journey times and sudden changes to arrangements. Additionally, delays in securing SEND transport mean children missing school for long periods.
Strict behaviour policies
This week’s safeguarding report into Mossbourne Federation schools starkly highlighted the harm caused by strict behaviour policies on children with SEND. Parents in our community find these kind of inflexible policies are not uncommon in academies. This Ofsted/CQC report backed this, finding punitive behaviour models, and inconsistency in behaviour management and understanding children’s needs.
Some schools, particularly secondary, did not implement reasonable adjustments sufficiently, with parents reporting schools not following health practitioners’ advice or enabling access to learning.
While the report stopped short of making recommendations about reasonable adjustments for behaviour, it is already law; one that is routinely ignored.
Returning to school
“We found many positive examples of local area partnerships working together to help children with SEND return to and remain in full-time education. However, we consistently heard that once a child is no longer in school it can be very difficult to help them to return to school.”
The inspectors heard positive stories of both registered and unregistered alternative provision (when well used) to help children back into mainstream education—but there isn’t enough provision to go around. Effective use of the 3-tiered model of AP can also help to support children back into school or to support children with SEND to remain in school.
Hospital schools were also praised for supporting children with some of the most complex medical needs. Outreach services, such as home tutoring,
Recommendations:
The report makes six recommendations, many of which support the controversial Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill now going through parliament:
- Department for Education:
- Prioritise working with local partnerships so children’s emerging needs are identified early and accurately to help more children stay in school
- In the upcoming Schools White Paper, set a clear expectation that schools keep children with SEND in full-time education where it’s in their best interests
- The Department for Education
- Lead on developing guidance for the appropriate use of EOTAS, with minimum expectations and examples of best practice of different types of arrangements.
- This should include how local area partners work with parents and carers to ensure that children’s educational, health and social care needs are met.
- Department for Education:
- Resolve the lack of consistency in how in-year admissions are coordinated across the country.
- Find best practice of LAs successfully coordinating in-year admissions that can be used to develop guidance for a better understanding of expectations.
- DfE and NHS England should:
- Provide the resources and training to local areas needed for a genuine, individual, needs-led approach in schools, including for children without a diagnosis or an EHCP, to help children with SEND stay in mainstream education, when this is in their best interests.
- Local area partnerships (LAs and ICBs) should:
- Prioritise clear and robust information-sharing processes about children with SEND who are not in, or at risk of leaving, school
- All local health services should always be an important and involved partner in this
- Local area partnerships should:
- Ensure all children with SEND who are not in school receive coordinated education, health and social care support,
- This should ideally be with a named lead professional from health, social care or education who knows the child and their family well and who should hold key responsibilities for the coordination of services.
The report acknowledges rising need, overstretched services and limits on what local areas can do alone. But it also shows that where partnerships share information, plan early, and work together, children can stay in or return to education.
Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.
Key Content
Also read:
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- Navigating constraints: Why a former PCF chair thinks the current model is missing the mark for families
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- What might the SEND reform proposals mean for specialist tutors, alternative provision and EOTAS?
- When Home-to-School Transport Doesn’t Fit: The Reality of Section 19 EOTAS
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms - September 9, 2026
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
