SEND不在校 审查发现 早期识别 服务衔接
英国在 2025 年做了一次针对特殊教育需求儿童的专项审查，报告在 2025 年 12 月 11 日上线。它关注的不是考试成绩，而是已经离开学校名册、或者长期无法全日制到校的孩子。审查由学校督导机构 Ofsted 与医疗和社会照护质量委员会 CQC 联合完成，用的是地区 SEND 督查框架下的主题访问。报告里既有官方数据，也有孩子、家长与从业者的原话。对准备送孩子去英国读书的家庭来说，这份文本解释了一件事：体系在哪个环节最容易掉链子。很多学生以为失学只是个别家庭的意外，读完全文会发现它有相当清晰的结构性原因。
The review published in December 2025 looked at children with special educational needs and disabilities who are not in school, rather than at exam results. It was carried out jointly by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission through thematic visits under the area SEND inspection framework. The report combines official data with the words of children, parents and practitioners, and it shows where the system most often loses contact with a child.
一、审查主体与发布时间：Ofsted 与 CQC 的主题访问
这份报告的名字是《Beyond the classroom》，2025 年 12 月 11 日在 gov.uk 上公布。访问指引由 Ofsted 在 2025 年 1 月先行发布，写明这一轮只查一个问题：地方伙伴关系如何照顾不在校的 SEND 儿童。督查队伍 2025 年走进 6 个地方区域，与教育、健康和社会照护三方的从业者坐下来谈。问卷一共回收 701 份，填写者包括孩子本人、家长与照护者、以及一线的专业人士。审查不做合规判定，也不把发现归到某一个地方的名下。报告结尾同时给国家政府和行业提了建议。很多学生以为这类文本只是写给学校看的，其实家长也能直接读正文，里面大量描述来自家庭自己的陈述。
The report is called Beyond the classroom and was published on gov.uk on 11 December 2025. Ofsted issued the guidance for the visits in January 2025, setting out a single question: how well local area partnerships look after children with SEND who are not in school. Inspectors visited six local areas during 2025 and surveyed children, parents, carers and practitioners, collecting 701 responses in total. The findings carry no judgement about compliance in any one area, and the report ends with recommendations for national government and the wider sector.
二、界定不在校：义务教育年龄、SEND 与不在名册
报告里说的不在校，要同时满足三个条件。孩子要有特殊教育需求或残疾，要在义务教育年龄之内，而且不在任何一所学校的名册上。指引特意把范围写成这三项叠加，避免把普通缺勤的统计混进来。已经持有 EHC 计划的孩子算在内，正在接受 SEN 支持的孩子也算在内。曾经接受 SEN 支持、后来离开名册的孩子同样进入这次审查。刚离校不到半年的孩子也在范围内。正在等待诊断评估的孩子一并纳入。很多学生以为不在校就等于辍学，其实弹性课表、部分时间课表、以及安排在校外的教育，都可能落进这个范围。
The review defines children not in school narrowly, using three conditions at once. A child must have SEND, be of compulsory school age, and not be on the roll of any school. That covers pupils with an EHC plan, pupils receiving SEN support, and children who were on SEN support before leaving a roll within the last six months. Children waiting for a diagnostic assessment are included as well. Flexi-schooling, part-time timetables and education arranged away from a school can all fall inside this definition.
三、人数起点：SEN 与 EHC 计划的官方统计
理解这份报告，先看两组官方数字。据 gov.uk 在 2026 年 6 月发布的 SEN 统计，英格兰有特殊教育需求的学生超过 180 万，比上一年多了 91,400 人。持 EHC 计划的学生占全部学生的 6.0%，接受 SEN 支持的有 1,319,780 人，占 14.8%。小学阶段有 19.4% 的学生属于这两类，中学是 17.6%。公立替代性教育机构内的比例高达 84.9%。独立学校以及独立特殊学校是 26.3%。需求类型上，EHC 计划最常见的是自闭症谱系障碍，SEN 支持最常见的是言语、语言与沟通需要。持 EHC 计划的学生里有 57.8% 留在主流学校。
Two sets of official figures frame the report. SEN statistics published on gov.uk in June 2026 show more than 1.8 million pupils in England with special educational needs, 91,400 more than a year earlier, with EHC plans covering 6.0% of pupils and 1,319,780 pupils, or 14.8%, on SEN support. The share reaches 84.9% in state-funded alternative provision and 17.6% in secondary schools, and autistic spectrum disorder is the most common primary need among pupils with a plan. Just under six in ten pupils with an EHC plan are educated in mainstream schools.
四、规模对照：严重缺勤与完全失学数据
缺勤数据说明了问题的体量。据教育部官网 2026 年 3 月发布的 2024/25 学年统计，整体缺勤率是 6.8%，比上一年的 7.2% 有下降。持续缺勤指缺课超过 10% 的课次，比例约为 18%，仍比疫情前高出约 8 个百分点。严重缺勤指缺课超过一半，比例升到 2.4%，人数超过 17.5 万。持 EHC 计划的学生严重缺勤率从 6.85% 升到 7.5%。接受 SEN 支持的学生是 4.5%。没有识别出 SEN 的学生只有 1.2%。同一个学年里，有 34,700 名儿童完全没有接受任何教育。
Absence data show the size of the problem. Figures for 2024/25 published by the Department for Education in March 2026 put overall absence at 6.8%, down from 7.2%, while severe absence, meaning half or more of sessions missed, rose to 2.4% and involved more than 175,000 pupils. Severe absence reached 7.5% for pupils with an EHC plan and 4.5% for those on SEN support, against 1.2% for pupils with no identified SEN. In the same year 34,700 children were not in education at all.
五、孩子的描述：支持不足与健康服务缺位
报告把孩子的话放在很靠前的位置。问卷里超过一半的孩子说，他们没有从从业者那里得到足够支持来帮助自己到校。超过三分之一的孩子说，自己需要的健康服务没有到位。孩子给出的原因很具体：学校让人害怕、太吵，在校感到难过、担心或压力大，还有遭受欺凌。心理健康问题尤其是焦虑，以及身体疾病或健康需要，也被反复提到。一部分孩子说，他们与学校的关系已经破裂。他们觉得学校不在乎自己、不想要自己、也不理解自己的需要。有的孩子说，只要支持到位就愿意回去。
Children's own accounts come first in the report. More than half of the children surveyed said they do not get the support they need from practitioners to help them attend school, and more than a third said health services do not give them the help they need. They described schools that feel scary or noisy, feelings of worry and stress, bullying, anxiety and medical needs, and in some cases a breakdown in their relationship with school. Others said they would return if the right support were in place.
六、家长的感受：居家教育往往出于被迫
家长与照护者的描述集中在一点：为孩子找支持像一场长期消耗。报告说，家长普遍感到必须不停争取，才能在复杂的 SEND 体系里拿到服务。居家教育在多数情况下不是家长的首选，而是学校无法满足孩子需要之后被迫接受的结果。问卷中近四分之三的家长不同意「不在校的 SEND 儿童能获得满足需要的健康服务」这一说法。持同样看法的从业者约占一半。很多学生以为换个学校就能解决问题，实际情况是学位与支持都在排队。常见的错误是把转学当成万能钥匙，孩子离开名册时连原本的支持也一起失去。
Parents and carers described having to fight for support. The report says home education was usually not a choice but a consequence of schools being unable to meet a child's needs, and that families feel they must campaign constantly inside a complex system. Almost three quarters of parents and carers, and about half of practitioners, disagreed that children with SEND who are not in school can access health services that meet their needs. Losing a school place often means losing the support that came with it.
七、早期识别：神经发育评估与治疗的等待
识别太晚是报告里反复出现的线索。孩子的情况发现得晚，需求就会升级，之后重新进入教育更难。家长与从业者都提到神经发育评估的等待名单很长，包括自闭症与注意缺陷多动障碍的评估。心理健康服务、职能治疗与言语语言治疗同样存在延迟。孩子在等待中被耗掉一段时间，然后离开学校。报告发现，已知或疑似有神经发育需求的孩子里，不在校的人数相当可观。学校方面会说这些孩子缺少早期支持，健康方面会说转介量太大。常见的错误是先把行为问题当成纪律问题处理，等评估结果出来，孩子已经缺课一整个学年。
Late identification runs through the findings. When needs are not spotted early they escalate, and re-engaging with education becomes harder. Parents and practitioners reported long waiting lists for neurodevelopmental assessments such as autism and ADHD, and delays in mental health services, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. The result is a significant number of children with known or emerging neurodevelopmental needs who are not in school at all.
八、学校能力：员工培训与感官环境
报告没有把责任全部推给家庭。它写得很直接：不是所有学校都有能力满足所有学生的需要。需要在医疗照护、自理或行为支持上得到大量帮助的孩子，遇到的困难最大。员工培训不足被反复提到，尤其是对神经发育需求、创伤经历以及心理健康如何影响学习的理解。学校领导层普遍表示人手与资源不够。有从业者举例说，人手紧张时，连孩子离开教室去安静角落休息都没办法照看。孩子、家长与专业人士都批评校舍环境，指出楼大体量大而拥挤、班额偏大、缺少安静空间。
The report does not place the blame on families. It states plainly that not all schools are equipped to meet the needs of all their pupils, particularly where children require a high level of support with medical interventions, self-care or behaviour that challenges. Staff training gaps were raised repeatedly, especially around neurodevelopmental needs, trauma and mental health. School leaders consistently reported a shortage of capacity and resources, while children and parents criticised large, crowded buildings, big classes and a lack of quiet spaces.
九、离校之后：服务中断与转介证据要求
离开名册之后，支持常常中断。报告指出，孩子在校时依赖的心理健康支持团队、职能治疗与言语语言治疗，一旦离开学校名册就不再可用。不同地区的治疗与需求评估可及性差别很大，这与地方委托安排有关。有的地方把不在校儿童列为优先，服务反而更快。有的地方只服务在册学生。转介环节还有一道门槛：职能治疗、教育心理与神经发育路径通常要求由正在与孩子工作的从业者提供材料，比如老师。对长期不在校或从未入学的孩子来说，这类第一手证据根本不存在。常见的错误是家长独自递交材料，却不知道缺少哪一份专业意见。
Support often stops when a child leaves a school roll. Services that children relied on while in school, such as mental health support teams, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, are frequently unavailable once they are off roll. Access varies with local commissioning, so some areas prioritise children not in school while others serve only pupils on roll. Referrals for occupational therapy, educational psychology and neurodevelopmental pathways usually require evidence from a practitioner working with the child, which is a real barrier for children who have been out of school for a long time or have never attended.
十、两条法定路径：1996 年教育法第 19 条与 2014 年第 61 条
报告背后的法律框架值得单独看清。1996 年教育法第 19 条要求地方当局为因疾病、开除或其他原因无法获得适当教育的义务教育年龄儿童安排教育。这条义务不要求孩子先有 EHC 计划。安排形式可以是家庭辅导、线上课程、替代性教育，或者几种混用。2014 年儿童与家庭法第 61 条是另一条路径，适用于已有 EHC 计划的孩子与年轻人，由计划把具体安排写进 F 部分。使用第 61 条时，I 部分通常不填写学校名称。两条路径的救济方式也不一样。第 61 条的内容可以上诉到 SEND 一审法庭，第 19 条一般只能走投诉或司法审查。很多学生以为拿到 EHC 计划就自动有了校外教育安排，其实还要满足「在机构内提供不合适」这一门槛。
The legal framework behind the report deserves separate attention. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who cannot receive it because of illness, exclusion or other reasons, and no EHC plan is needed for that duty. Section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 works differently: it applies to children and young people with an EHC plan, records the provision in Section F and normally leaves Section I blank. Provision under section 61 can be challenged line by line at the SEND Tribunal, while section 19 disputes usually go through complaints or judicial review.
十一、关键过渡点：Year 6 升 Year 7 与插班学位
报告也记录了让支持真正起作用的地方做法。Year 6 升 Year 7 被点名为风险最高的过渡点。孩子在这个节点最容易不再到校，或者被永久开除。有一个地方用出勤数据找出最可能脱离教育的孩子，在 Year 6 给他们配成人导师。该地区 Year 7 离开教育的人数因此明显下降。小学阶段离开教育的人数在上升，另一个地方与私立、志愿及独立幼儿园合作，提前训练员工识别言语与沟通需要。插班学位是另一个难点：地方当局没有权力指令属于自己招生主体的学校，比如 academy，在学年中接收没有 EHC 计划的孩子。
The report also records local practice that works. Year 6 to Year 7 is singled out as the transition where children with SEND are most at risk of leaving education or being permanently excluded. One area uses attendance data to identify those most at risk and assigns them adult mentors in Year 6, which significantly reduced the number leaving education in Year 7. Another works with private, voluntary and independent nurseries to spot speech and language needs earlier, while finding an in-year school place stays hard because local authorities cannot direct academies to admit a child without an EHC plan.
十二、与 2026 年改革的衔接：白皮书与不在校登记册
审查结果落在 2026 年启动的一轮改革上。政府 2026 年 2 月 23 日提交议会的白皮书提出用分层支持和个别化支持计划改造现有体系。同一轮咨询开放到 2026 年 5 月 18 日。教育部另行就校外的特殊教育安排发起咨询，把第 19 条下的安排称为替代性教育，把第 61 条下的安排称为 EOTAS，术语与路径分开。方案设想让不适合专门教育包的孩子回到第 19 条的安全网，安排有时限，并且尽量与学校保持联系。2026 年 4 月获得御准的儿童福祉与学校法把弹性课表安排下的孩子列入不在校儿童，并设立登记册。截至 2026 年 9 月，登记册相关条款仍没有启动令。
The findings land alongside a wider reform programme. A white paper laid before Parliament on 23 February 2026 sets out layered support and individual support plans, with consultation running until 18 May 2026, and the Department for Education consulted separately on provision away from school. That second consultation separates alternative provision under section 19 from EOTAS under section 61 and treats the section 19 route as a time-limited safety net. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which received royal assent in April 2026, brings flexi-schooling into the children not in school group and creates a register, and those clauses had not been commenced by September 2026.
十三、家长可核对的时限：疾病申报与 20 周计划
报告之外的实操时限同样有用。2024 年 8 月 19 日起生效的出勤法定指引要求学校在孩子因疾病记为缺勤、且预计连续或累计缺 15 个学日时，向地方当局提交疾病申报。这份申报是地方当局判断第 19 条义务是否被触发的入口之一。EHC 需求评估有法定时限。地方当局收到请求后 6 周内决定是否评估，评估开始后 20 周内必须发出最终计划。EHC 计划可以延续到 25 岁。对计划内容有异议，可以在规定期限内向 SEND 一审法庭上诉。很多学生以为疾病申报会自动带来教学安排，实际上家长往往需要主动写信给地方当局并要求安排。错得最多的是等到期末才开始处理，时限因此被拖长。
Practical deadlines matter as much as the findings. Statutory attendance guidance in force since 19 August 2024 requires schools to make a sickness return to the local authority when a pupil is recorded as absent for illness and is expected to miss 15 school days, consecutively or cumulatively. EHC needs assessments follow statutory timescales: a local authority must decide within six weeks whether to assess, and must issue a final plan within 20 weeks of the request. Plans can continue to age 25, and disputes about their content can go to the SEND Tribunal.
牛津高阶英汉双解词典 第10版 商务印书馆¥168📱 去京东购买京东精选需要一对一辅导？Need One-on-One Tutoring?
A-Level / GCSE / IB / KS2-KS3 全科辅导
16621398022 同微信
Visit aleveler.com
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图