1 Statutory Duties Under KCSIE 2025
Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 (KCSIE 2025) places specific duties on schools regarding pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. These duties run alongside — and do not replace — the SEND Code of Practice 2015 and the Children and Families Act 2014.
KCSIE 2025: Core SEND Safeguarding Requirements
Accessibility of procedures (KCSIE 2025, para 41): Safeguarding procedures must be accessible to all pupils regardless of communication need. Schools must adapt processes for pupils who use AAC, Makaton, picture exchange, or non-verbal communication.
Never attribute to diagnosis (KCSIE 2025, para 224): Behavioural changes — withdrawal, aggression, self-harm, regression — must never be automatically attributed to a pupil's SEND label. Every concern must be assessed on its own evidence.
SEND-specific risk in assessments (KCSIE 2025, para 224): Every safeguarding concern assessment for a pupil with SEND must include SEND-specific risk factors. A pupil's diagnosis or EHC plan is relevant context, not a mitigating explanation.
Voice of the child (KCSIE 2025, para 19): All children — including those with significant communication needs — must be given an opportunity to express their views and feelings. Schools must use accessible formats, and the DSL must ensure this is documented.
Information sharing (KCSIE 2025, para 93): The Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR do not prevent sharing safeguarding information about SEND pupils. Concerns must be shared with appropriate professionals — including EHCP review teams, CAMHS, and MASH.
Online safety for SEND pupils (KCSIE 2025, Annex C): DSLs must ensure online safety education and filtering/monitoring provisions account for the additional vulnerabilities of pupils with SEND, including those who may be more susceptible to online exploitation or grooming.
SEND Code of Practice 2015
Chapter 10 requires multi-agency working for SEND pupils, including health, social care, and education. Where a SEND pupil has a welfare concern, practitioners across all agencies share responsibility for follow-up — including a duty to refer to children's social care under s.17 or s.47 Children Act 1989 where thresholds are met.
Children and Families Act 2014
Section 19 requires local authorities to have regard to the views, wishes, and feelings of children and young people with SEND and their families. For DSLs this means SEND pupils aged 16–25 in education must be included in safeguarding discussions, not just their parents or carers.
2 Vulnerable Learners: Who They Are
KCSIE 2025 identifies specific groups of pupils who may face additional safeguarding risk. DSLs must be aware that vulnerability is not a fixed label — it is contextual, cumulative, and can change rapidly. The presence of one or more of the following characteristics does not mean a child is certain to experience harm, but does mean heightened professional curiosity is warranted.
Children with SEND
Communication barriers, reliance on multiple adults, social isolation, and difficulty reporting abuse.
Children Looked After (CLA/LAC)
Multiple placements, fragmented education records, and complex attachment histories increase risk exposure.
Young Carers
Reduced school attendance, adult responsibilities beyond their developmental stage, limited peer contact.
Pupils with SEMH Needs
SEMH behaviours may mask or result from abuse; risk of misidentification as conduct disorder rather than safeguarding concern.
Pupils in Alternative Provision
Often already excluded or at-risk; reduced daily oversight compared to mainstream school; multiple site risks.
EAL / Newly Arrived Pupils
Language barriers impede disclosure; cultural norms around authority figures may deter reporting.
Previously Excluded Pupils
Gaps in education records and fractured professional relationships make ongoing risk assessment harder.
Children in Need (s.17)
Already on children's social care radar but may not have a CP plan; require active DSL involvement in review processes.
Missing Education / NEET Risk
Persistent absence or exclusion combined with SEND significantly elevates county lines, exploitation, and self-harm risk.
⚠️ Cumulative Vulnerability
Research consistently shows that risk factors accumulate non-linearly. A pupil who is SEND, looked after, and in alternative provision is not three times more at risk — the interaction of factors creates a compounding vulnerability that demands proportionate professional response (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026, Chapter 2).
3 Why SEND Increases Safeguarding Risk
Structural Factors
Personal care dependency: Children requiring intimate care from multiple adults face statistically higher exposure to physical and sexual abuse.
Communication barriers: Children who cannot verbally communicate or who have limited vocabulary may be unable to disclose abuse, or their disclosures may be misinterpreted.
Compliance training: SEND provision that emphasises adult compliance ("good sitting", "good hands") may inadvertently train children to accept unwanted physical contact.
Social isolation: Pupils in specialist settings or SEND units may have limited peer networks outside school, reducing informal protective disclosure routes.
Systemic Factors
Diagnostic overshadowing: When behaviour changes are attributed to a child's SEND label rather than investigated as potential safeguarding indicators — the leading systemic failure in SEND CSPRs.
Carer stress: Families supporting children with complex SEND may face increased domestic stress, financial hardship, and social isolation — all of which correlate with increased abuse and neglect risk.
Multi-agency gaps: EHCP processes and CAMHS waiting lists can create periods of reduced professional oversight — particularly dangerous for pupils with SEMH and challenging behaviour.
Under-reporting: NSPCC estimates 72% of abuse experienced by disabled children goes unreported — far higher than the already-high general population under-reporting rate.
4 Alternative Provision: DSL Duties
Alternative provision (AP) includes pupil referral units (PRUs), hospital schools, AP free schools, and commissioned placements at independent providers. KCSIE 2025 places clear duties on commissioning schools — not just the AP provider.
Before the Placement — Commissioning School Duties
- → Verify the AP setting has appropriate safeguarding policies and a named DSL (KCSIE 2025, para 124)
- → Confirm all staff working with the pupil have appropriate safer recruitment checks and DBS clearance
- → Ensure the pupil's safeguarding information (including any CP plans, CIN status, EHC plans) is transferred securely to the AP DSL before the placement starts
- → Agree a protocol for referrals — including who contacts MASH if a concern arises during the placement, and within what timeframe the commissioning school is notified
- → Agree attendance notification: the AP provider must inform the school the same day if the pupil does not attend, is absent, or leaves early without explanation
During the Placement — Ongoing Oversight
- → The host school DSL remains the single point of contact for statutory safeguarding processes (s.17/s.47 referrals, CP conferences, LAC reviews)
- → Maintain regular contact with the AP DSL — at minimum at the frequency specified in your commissioning agreement
- → The pupil should remain on the host school's safeguarding register and be included in any school-wide concern monitoring processes
- → Any AP concern must be documented in the host school's safeguarding system — not left solely with the AP provider
AP-Specific Risk Factors
Why AP pupils face heightened risk:
- Many are placed because of existing complex difficulties
- Smaller, less structured environments with less peer oversight
- Staff may be less familiar with individual pupil's baseline behaviour
- Risk of normalising non-attendance ("they always miss sessions")
Exploitation risk in AP:
- County lines recruiters actively target PRU and AP pupils
- AP pupils are 3× more likely to become NEET (DfE, 2023)
- Gaps between sessions create unsupervised time
- Peer networks in AP may include older young people with gang affiliations
5 SEMH-Specific Risks
Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) is the fastest-growing SEND category in England, accounting for the largest primary need group among pupils in pupil referral units and AP settings (DfE, 2024). SEMH difficulties can be both a consequence of abuse and a risk factor that increases vulnerability to further harm.
KCSIE 2025 does not define SEMH in isolation — rather it emphasises that mental health concerns can be an indicator of abuse or neglect, and that DSLs must be alert to this possibility rather than treating SEMH as a clinical matter separate from safeguarding.
When SEMH May Signal a Safeguarding Concern
- ! Sudden onset of anxiety, depression, or dissociation in a previously settled pupil
- ! Self-harm that increases in frequency or severity, or changes method
- ! Persistent refusal to attend school, particularly after weekends or school holidays
- ! Hyper-sexualised behaviour or age-inappropriate sexual knowledge
- ! Aggression or violence towards peers — especially if a sudden or escalating change
- ! Expressions of hopelessness, worthlessness, or suicidal ideation
- ! Significant regression in developmental skills or previously acquired communication
SEMH as a Gateway to Exploitation
Pupils with SEMH needs are disproportionately targeted by exploiters and groomers because:
- ▶ Low self-esteem makes them responsive to flattery and "love bombing" by grooming adults
- ▶ Social isolation creates unmet needs for belonging that criminal networks exploit
- ▶ Impulsivity associated with ADHD/conduct difficulties can be exploited in county lines recruitment
- ▶ Risk-seeking behaviour may be misread as choice rather than groomed compliance
- ▶ Previous exclusions reduce trusted adult contacts who might notice early warning signs
DSL Response to SEMH Concerns
Immediate
- Conduct a welfare check — do not rely on third-hand reports
- Check attendance and recent absence patterns
- Review previous concerns or historical contacts with social care
Within 24–48 hours
- Speak to the pupil using accessible format (visual, key worker)
- Contact parents/carers unless this would increase risk
- Consult with MASH if threshold indicators present
Ongoing
- Ensure SEMH concern is on the safeguarding system — not just SENCO records
- Review at each EHCP annual review with social care present where relevant
- Do not close a SEMH concern solely because CAMHS is involved
CAMHS is not a safeguarding referral
Referring a pupil to CAMHS does not discharge the DSL's safeguarding duty. If a threshold s.47 or s.17 concern exists, a referral to children's social care must be made in parallel. CAMHS and social care have distinct and non-interchangeable functions. A CAMHS waiting list does not reduce safeguarding risk during the waiting period.
6 Warning Signs by Disability Type
The following indicators require professional curiosity and, where threshold criteria are met, a referral to children's social care. No single indicator is diagnostic — patterns and changes from baseline are key.
Possible abuse indicators:
- Sudden increase in meltdowns or rigid rituals without environmental trigger
- New self-injurious behaviour or escalation of existing self-injury
- Withdrawal from trusted adults or previously preferred activities
- Sexualised play or statements that are atypical for the pupil
- Unexplained physical marks on sensory-seeking body areas
Assessment considerations:
- Do not attribute all changes to puberty or a new school transition
- Use the pupil's own communication system to explore concerns
- Access an intermediary if criminal investigation becomes likely
- Social naivety may mask ongoing exploitation — check peer networks
Possible abuse indicators:
- Unexplained injuries in areas typically covered or managed by carers
- Fear or distress around a particular adult, transport, or care routine
- Deterioration in physical presentation beyond expected condition
- Medical appointments missed without explanation by carers
- Reluctance to return home at end of school day
Assessment considerations:
- Work with the pupil's medical team to understand typical physical presentation
- Check transport logs — patterns of absence or late arrival
- Review all carers' DBS status, especially informal carers
- Screen for emotional neglect alongside physical abuse
Possible abuse indicators:
- Disclosure that is fragmented, non-linear, or repeated in different contexts
- Behavioural regression inconsistent with known developmental trajectory
- Excessive compliance, people-pleasing, or inability to say "no" to adults
- Age-inappropriate sexual behaviour or language beyond expected understanding
- Fear responses around specific adults, transport staff, or locations
Assessment considerations:
- Never dismiss fragmented disclosures as "confused" without investigation
- An ABE-trained intermediary should support any police interview
- Check whether pupil is on any county lines watch lists
- Carer support needs assessment may be required via s.17 pathway
Possible abuse indicators:
- New or escalating violence towards peers in a previously manageable pupil
- Unexplained cash, possessions, or change in lifestyle
- Persistent exclusions or missing education without adequate explanation
- Online risk behaviours — sharing location, contact with strangers
- Substance use beginning or escalating, especially during school absences
Assessment considerations:
- Distinguish between ADHD impulsivity and groomed compliance
- Risk of county lines or criminal exploitation is high for this group
- Check whether behaviour follows a pattern (weekends, term-time vs holidays)
- Apply the Continuum of Need to calibrate response level
7 DSL Checklist for SEND Pupils
Use this checklist to audit your school's current SEND safeguarding arrangements. This can form part of your Ofsted readiness review or annual safeguarding audit.
□ Policy & Procedures
- □ Child protection policy explicitly references SEND pupils and communication adaptations
- □ Safeguarding procedures are available in accessible formats (easy read, visual, Makaton)
- □ All staff trained on diagnostic overshadowing and how to challenge it
- □ DSL and SENCO meet at least half-termly to review combined SEND/safeguarding caseload
- □ SEND section in safer recruitment policy covers personal care, transport staff, and external providers
□ Individual Pupils
- □ Every EHCP includes a safeguarding-aware risk section updated at annual review
- □ Each SEND pupil has a named trusted adult they can approach to disclose a concern
- □ Communication passports include what signs of distress look like for each pupil
- □ Online safety measures are calibrated to the pupil's developmental level, not chronological age
- □ Pupils in AP placements are reviewed by the DSL at minimum every half-term
□ Multi-Agency Working
- □ MASH referral processes are accessible and documented for pupils who communicate non-verbally
- □ CAMHS referral does not result in the safeguarding concern being closed or downgraded
- □ Safeguarding information is shared proactively with receiving schools at transition, not on request only
- □ Police/social care ABE processes are understood — school knows when to request an intermediary
□ Culture & Training
- □ All SEND support staff (TAs, care workers) receive annual safeguarding training, not just annual refreshers
- □ Staff feel confident raising concerns about SEND pupils without fear of being told "it's just their SEND"
- □ Complaints from SEND parents about care quality are reviewed by the DSL for safeguarding relevance
- □ A low-level concerns procedure is in place and understood by all adults working with SEND pupils
8 Referral Pathways & Who to Call
Immediate Danger
If a SEND pupil is at immediate risk of harm:
999
Police / Ambulance — always the first call where life is at risk
Safeguarding Referral
For s.17 / s.47 child protection referrals:
Local MASH
Contact your local authority's Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub — same-day for urgent concerns
NSPCC Helpline
0808 800 5000
For professionals with concerns about a child — free, 24/7, includes SEND-specific guidance
Childline (for the child)
0800 1111
Free, confidential — trained counsellors can support SEND children who self-refer. Online chat option available.
CEOP (online abuse)
ceop.police.uk
Report online grooming or CSAM — SEND pupils are disproportionately targeted online
Referral Pathway for SEND Pupils
- 1
Record the concern — using your safeguarding system (not SENCO files alone). Date, time, exact words used by the pupil, observed behaviour. Do not tidy up the disclosure.
- 2
DSL consultation — within the same day for moderate/high concerns. The DSL must review whether SEND-specific factors affect threshold assessment.
- 3
Consult MASH — if any doubt about threshold, call MASH for a professional consultation. This does not constitute a formal referral but is documented. The Communication Disability Network notes MASH consultations are especially important for SEND pupils due to disclosure complexity.
- 4
Formal referral if threshold met — complete the local authority referral form. Note the pupil's SEND, communication needs, and any reasonable adjustments required for any subsequent ABE interview.
- 5
Follow up in writing within one working day — send a written record to MASH confirming the referral (KCSIE 2025, para 71). Retain a copy on the school's safeguarding system.
- 6
Notify parents only if safe — where parental notification would not put the child at greater risk. For SEND pupils, this assessment must include whether parents are part of the safeguarding concern.
Related Safeguarding Resources
Key Statutory References
- Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 (KCSIE 2025), paras 19, 41, 71, 93, 122–126, 224, Annex C
- Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026, Chapter 2 (Threshold Framework)
- SEND Code of Practice 2015, Chapter 10 (Education, Health and Care)
- Children and Families Act 2014, s.19 (Participation)
- Children Act 1989, s.17 (Child in Need) and s.47 (Child Protection)
- Equality Act 2010, s.20 (Duty to make reasonable adjustments)
- Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR (Information sharing in safeguarding)