In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, attention has focused on young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or behavioural challenges (see for example the Education Endowment Foundation’s accelerator fund). Yet, youth services have been cut by 70 per cent, support structures have been dismantled, and Ofsted inspections have failed to hold systems accountable for child outcomes. Far less consideration has been given to the support needs of their parents, particularly those struggling to secure appropriate educational provision. This lack of support, which predated the pandemic, has reached crisis point. Parents face a common scenario: their neurodivergent child refuses school, and they are ill-equipped to respond effectively (Connolly et al., 2023).
Parents need support not blame
Initially, parents may rely on familiar methods – coercion, bribery, reasoning – but these often fail. No parenting style, whether Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy or ‘gentle parenting’ is sufficient to address structural challenges. For example, gentle parenting emphasises empathy, respect and emotional connection, but it does not resolve systemic issues such as the lack of a SEND-appropriate curriculum or speech and language support. Moreover, parents cannot compel children to leave the house, but risk fines for non-attendance; and, when a child has complex needs and refuses school, support is largely non-existent.
‘Parents cannot compel children to leave the house, but risk fines for non-attendance; and, when a child has complex needs and refuses school, support is largely non-existent.’
Post-Covid, many parents also struggle with anxiety, depression or financial instability, reducing their capacity to support education. Even when EHCPs (education, health and care plans) exist, they are often inaccessible due to language barriers, lack of understanding, or absence of practical support.
Yet, despite working directly with vulnerable young people, parents remain unsupported by youth organisations. Youth workers are asked for help by children and families but are untrained in complex family interventions. However, some charities like All Child and HomeStart provide excellent services in specific areas but lack resources and specialised training for such challenges as four-year-olds with acute school refusal. Clinical support such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is theoretically available but burdened by an 18-month waitlist – too long for families in crisis.
A flawed education system
The education system is fundamentally flawed in that it remains rooted in 19th-century models designed to sort children into a binary labour market (Ball, 2021). Today’s global economy demands skills-based, critical thinking-oriented, digitally literate young people. Yet schools prioritise rote information acquisition over real-world skills. Tools like Google and AI surpass traditional learning methods, but the curriculum does not prepare students to navigate or critically evaluate these tools.
Moreover, teachers are not equipped to support students dealing with anxiety, trauma and emotional regulation challenges. Many lack sufficient professional development and face growing numbers of students with complex needs and shrinking support staff due to austerity-era budget cuts.
A system-wide focus for Ofsted
Ofsted, however, is failing to adapt. It has faced reputational damage, particularly after the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, which led to public outcry and calls for reform. Yet, although the recently updated (November 2025) Ofsted model evaluates children’s welfare, wellbeing and development, it still inspects institutions in silos. It does, however, employ professionals from education and social care. Teaching and learning are also evaluated, but the scope and focus of the framework does not adequately address support for parents or focus substantively on the quality of teacher–child relationships.
A more significant overhaul of Ofsted is needed. Instead of evaluating individual provisions, it should assess system-wide outcomes for children including health, emotional wellbeing, social development and education. Technological tools like AI could handle quantitative data analysis (attendance, academic progress, caseloads, and so on), freeing inspectors to focus on qualitative elements such as teacher–child relationships.
Indeed, evidence from the Excluded Lives research project led by Ingrid Obsuth shows strong adult–child relationships are key to successful outcomes for at-risk youth. Yet this factor is rarely prioritised or measured. Whether in schools, youth services or social care, the nature and quality of these relationships must become central to inspection and funding decisions.
A child-centred framework
Inspection regimes should view the system through the lens of the child. This means inspecting a system including youth justice, mental health and SEND provision – not in isolation but as interconnected elements impacting outcomes.
Ofsted might then focus on outcomes over compliance to become more grounded in a relational and holistic understanding that absorbs functions such as child health inspections currently under the Care Quality Commission.
Conclusions
To conclude, children and young people have been deprioritised in policymaking in England for nearly two decades. The time has come not for reform but for radical transformation – in how we educate, support and evaluate the lives and futures of young people in Britain.
