Solving the SEND crisis: how are children with SEND supported when they are not in school?

In 2025, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) visited six local areas to review the arrangements that local area partnerships have in place for children with SEND who are not in school. Their recently published report, ‘Beyond the classroom: the experiences of children with SEND who are not in school’ ('the report') sets out the key findings from this review.

How many children with SEND are not in school?

The report highlights a significant rise in the number of children not attending school in England over the past decade, with year-on-year increases accelerating since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Department for Education (DfE) data shows that between the 2021/22 and 2023/24 academic years, the number of children electively home educated (EHE) grew by nearly a third to 153,000. Over the same period, DfE data shows the number of children missing education (CME) increased by more than half to 149,000. 

Although the data does not provide a specific breakdown for children with SEND, research by the Office of the Children's Commissioner found that these children are disproportionately likely to become CME. 

The report also states that the true number of children not in school is likely to be considerably higher than official statistics suggest.

Why are children with SEND not in school?

The report identifies several factors contributing to children with SEND being out of school:

1. Late identification of needs: when children's needs are not identified early, these needs often escalate, making engagement with education increasingly difficult over time.  
2. Barriers to accessing support: parents and carers consistently reported feeling that they must work tirelessly to access support for their child and that there are many barriers and hurdles to navigate in a complex SEND system. They reported that home education is not usually a choice - it is something they feel forced to do because they don't believe that schools can meet their child's needs.
3. Limited school capacity and resources: not all schools are equipped to meet the needs of every pupil, particularly those requiring significant support. There are insufficient special school places and alternative provision as well as delays in securing dedicated transport for children with SEND.
4. Inflexible policies and practices: some schools were found to have policies and approaches that do not adequately support children with SEND. Examples include rigid behaviour policies, inflexible curriculum expectations, and failure to implement reasonable adjustments effectively. 

Local area partnership oversight 

The report emphasises that when a child leaves the school system, local area partnerships must have robust oversight to ensure their education, health and care needs are met. 

The report found that the quality of oversight by local area partnerships varies significantly. This is largely because they don't always have a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities and don't have the capacity to maintain oversight once a child is no longer in school. Local authority partners typically have a stronger grasp of responsibilities for children who are EHE than for those who are flexi-schooled, on part-time timetables, placed in unregistered alternative provision or receiving education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) packages.

While schools and local authorities generally have strong information sharing processes for children not in school, the report found that health partners are often absent from these arrangements. A common barrier is that different information management systems cannot share information with each other. Health leaders noted that timely sharing of information enables them to adopt more flexible approaches, ensuring children not in school can still access health services that meet their needs.

The report also highlights long delays in accessing health support and assessments. Many services that children with SEND rely on when attending school regularly - such as mental health support teams, occupational therapy or speech and language therapy - are often unavailable once they leave the school roll. Access to therapies and needs assessments is inconsistent, and parents and carers frequently bear the primary responsibility for organising appropriate health provision, placing considerable strain on their families.

How do local authority partnerships support children with SEND to remain or return to school? 

The report stresses the importance of ensuring all relevant partners are informed and that a clear plan is put in place to help children return to school.

It notes that maintaining positive relationships between individuals and partner agencies is key to supporting children with SEND to remain or transition back into full-time education. Multi-agency working is most effective when services are coordinated early, once a child's needs are identified.

The report highlights the critical role of well-managed transitions, such as moving from primary to secondary school. It notes that when all relevant partners work together and provide the right support, children are more likely to have their education, health and social care needs met, helping them to settle quickly and stay in education. 

It also found that, when used appropriately, alternative provision can support children with SEND back into mainstream education. However, demand for alternative provision is increasing, and availability remains limited.

Conclusions and recommendations

Overall, the report concludes that while strong joint working at a local level can lead to improved outcomes, some challenges extend beyond the control of individual local area partnerships. It therefore makes the following recommendations for both national government and the sector:

1. DfE should work with local area partnerships to ensure children's emerging needs are consistently identified early and accurately, helping more children stay in school.
2. DfE and NHS England should provide local area partnerships with resources and training to help schools adopt a needs-led approach.
3. DfE should develop guidance for appropriate use of EOTAS arrangements, setting minimum standards, sharing best practice, and outlining how local area partners should work with parents and carers to meet educational, health, and social care needs.
4. Local area partnerships should establish clear and robust processes for sharing information. Health services - including primary care, universal services and urgent care - should always be involved.
5. Local area partnerships should ensure all children with SEND who are not in school receive coordinated support. Wherever possible they should appoint a lead professional from health, social care or education who knows the child and family and takes responsibility for coordinating services.
6. DfE should address inconsistencies in how admissions are coordinated once the school year has started by identifying best practice and developing guidance so all local area partnerships understand what is expected of them and can replicate effective models.

What next?

It remains to be seen whether the forthcoming Schools White Paper will incorporate any of these proposals as part of the detailed SEND reforms expected soon. 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.