Inclusion, Attendance & Safeguarding 2026/27: One Pupil-Safety Operating System

02 / Current position

Current position

England's full-year live attendance release reported 93.07% attendance for 2025/26. Absence was 6.93%, 0.06 percentage points higher than 2024/25 but 0.28 points lower than 2023/24. Persistent absence was 19.05%, up 0.35 points year on year. The gaps were material: absence was 13.64% for pupils with an EHC plan, 10.07% for SEN support and 5.80% for pupils with no identified SEN. It was 10.87% for FSM-eligible pupils and 5.26% for others. These Official Statistics are an indicative early indicator based on daily submissions and subject to revision.

The 2024/25 accredited exclusion statistics show a different but connected pattern. Suspensions fell 4% to 913,000 and permanent exclusions fell 9% to 9,900. Yet the primary suspension rate rose from 2.27 to 2.47. Suspension rates were 26.66 for FSM-eligible pupils, 26.45 for pupils with an EHC plan and 28.86 for pupils receiving SEN support, compared with 5.41 for non-FSM pupils and 6.78 for pupils with no identified SEN. Lower totals therefore do not remove the need to examine who loses learning, how often and what happens next.

Two strategic signals complicate planning. The Inclusive Mainstream Fund methodology requires schools receiving the fund to publish an inclusion strategy by 31 December 2026. Meanwhile, national pupil projections anticipate a 9.3% fall in the state-funded population between 2026 and 2031 while recording a 4.8% rise in pupils in state-funded and non-maintained special schools to 178,000 in January 2026. National projections are not local forecasts, but the combination makes local capacity and inclusion choices more consequential.

03 / What moved over summer

What moved over summer

04 / The missing middle

The missing middle

The gap between a national document and a credible local response is an operating sequence. Each school or trust should be able to trace seven steps:

• Classify the change. Record jurisdiction, publication date, effective date, evidence state and the exact local population affected.
• Translate it into a control. State what must or should happen, what remains optional, and what would count as failure.
• Name one accountable owner. Contributors can be many, but escalation cannot depend on shared ambiguity.
• Define the pupil-level evidence. Specify the register, plan, check, case note, timetable, decision or sample that shows the control works.
• Test connected effects. Check whether the action changes attendance, safeguarding, SEND delivery, behaviour, food, transport, digital access or off-site participation.
• Review distribution and experience. Examine who receives support, who does not, and what pupils and families report. A rising identified cohort can reflect better recognition, not worsening prevalence.
• Close or escalate. Set a review date and trigger. Completion of a policy document is not closure where practice evidence is missing.

The evidence pack should remain usable. A status ledger, cohort view, off-site register, inclusion benefit map and sampled control log can provide more assurance than disconnected policies.

05 / Connected effects: the off-site pupil test

Connected effects: the off-site pupil test

The canonical test for this Connected System is the pupil educated partly or wholly away from the school site. It exposes whether the surrounding systems genuinely connect.

This is an editorial inference from the cited interfaces, not a finding that every local arrangement is fragmented.

06 / Leadership decisions

Leadership decisions

Titles vary by organisation. Accountability must be locally explicit and should not be inferred from this table as a statutory allocation of roles.

07 / Three planning scenarios

Three planning scenarios

Base case: controlled implementation

Assumptions: September documents take effect as scheduled; known funding is used within existing allocations; local demand and off-site volume remain broadly stable; consultations remain undecided. Response: complete the control migration, establish the first 15-day data baseline, assure the 1 October census, and publish a costed inclusion strategy by 31 December.

Pressure case: more lost learning and weaker interfaces

Assumptions: persistent or severe absence rises locally, repeat suspensions concentrate, health or SEND provision is delayed, off-site hours become harder to verify, or catering/data capacity is insufficient for FSM changes. Response: move from aggregate monitoring to case-level reconciliation, protect same-day welfare checks, review reduced timetables and provision against plan, and escalate capacity choices to the board and local partners. This is a stress test, not a forecast.

Opportunity case: earlier support becomes visible

Assumptions: improved identification, inclusive teaching and family support reach pupils earlier; FSM take-up improves; off-site data are reconciled; funded inclusion activity has a clear benefit trail. Response: test whether pupil experience, attendance, lost days and reintegration improve, then retain or redirect activity based on evidence. Do not attribute change to one intervention without a credible design.

08 / Dates to watch

Dates to watch

Exact dates

• 1 Sep 2026: KCSIE 2026 and the revised EYFS frameworks come into force.
• 10 Sep 2026: scheduled NHS July mental-health statistics release.
• 18 Sep 2026: both England SEND consultations close at 11:59pm; local inclusion-formula expressions of interest are due that date.
• 1 Oct 2026: England autumn school census and end of the FSM eligibility-verification window.
• 28 Oct 2026: national autumn census return date, subject to earlier local deadlines.
• 30 Oct 2026: formal local inclusion-formula applications due.
• 31 Dec 2026: Inclusive Mainstream Fund school inclusion strategies due for publication.

Publisher windows and targets

• September 2026: DfE expects to announce the attendance-publication frequency review outcome.
• Autumn 2026: response on local SEND inclusion funding expected; the multi-agency information-sharing duty is expected to begin, with no exact date verified at cut-off.
• By March 2027: young-carer identification/support review planned; proposed monthly attendance cadence could begin.
• September 2030 earliest: possible EOTAS reform, only after policy decisions and parliamentary approval.

09 / Evidence boundary

Evidence boundary

• England's live attendance series is indicative, national and subject to reporting lag and register revision. The accredited 6 August release covers autumn 2025 only. They are not one interchangeable series.
• National SEND, FSM, attendance and exclusion associations do not establish causes or predict an individual pupil. Exclusion reasons can be multi-coded, and AP denominators require care.
• National pupil projections are not local place forecasts. The five-year horizon reflects fertility and migration uncertainty.
• NHS open referrals are not equivalent to unique pupils waiting, treated or in need. A 27 August quality notice affected the EIP68 measure and should not be generalised to every measure.
• Consultations are not current law, approved funding or a basis for budgeted income. Announced delivery windows are not exact commencement dates.
• Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland operate distinct legal and data systems. Comparative insights cannot be transposed as duties.
• A source-page update, translation or link addition is not automatically a substantive policy change. Publication, update, effective and data dates must remain separate.

10 / Monitoring next

Monitoring next

A material trigger should produce a source note, material update, revised conclusion, merge, or resolved/superseded status. Post-cut-off events remain forward watches until verified.