Showing posts with label additional learning needs. Show all posts

Online safety, vulnerability and safeguarding for ALN & chronically unwell teens

Online Safety for ALN & Neurodivergent Young People | Learn Without Limits CIC

This article forms part of Learn Without Limits CIC’s participation in Safer Internet Day 2026, supporting families of disabled, chronically ill, neurodivergent, and home-educated children. Generic online safety advice does not adequately protect disabled, neurodivergent, or chronically unwell children because it does not reflect how they actually access the internet, education, or social spaces, we attempt to address the most common gaps below.

Why this matters

Chronically unwell, neurodivergent and disabled teens often rely on online spaces more than their peers. For many ALN home learners, the internet is where:

education takes place
friendships are maintained
independence is explored
isolation caused by illness, fatigue or exclusion is reduced

At the same time, these young people are more likely to depend on assistive technology such as screen readers, AAC, voice dictation, captions, smart assistants and AI tools.

These tools are essential. They are also rarely considered properly in mainstream safeguarding guidance.

Most online safety systems were designed for children who are:

neurotypical
sighted
typing rather than speaking
attending school daily
supervised through formal institutions

That is not the reality for many ALN and home educated children.

Understanding vulnerability without underestimating your child

Being vulnerable online does not mean being careless, immature or incapable.

Chronically unwell and ND teens may:

spend long periods online due to pain, fatigue or limited mobility
be awake and online at night when symptoms flare
rely on voice, text to speech or AAC rather than typing
struggle with social nuance, persuasion or hidden intent
interpret language very literally, including AI generated responses
seek connection during isolation or low mood

Safeguarding must be built around how a child actually lives and communicates, not how guidance assumes they do.

A critical reality check for elective home education families

In elective home education spaces, both online and offline, there is no formal regulation.

This includes:

home education groups
social meet ups
learning pods
clubs and activities
online group chats and forums

There is no requirement for:

DBS checks
safeguarding training
vetting of adults running groups
identity verification in online spaces

Parents often assume that because a group is described as educational, supportive or community based, it is inherently safe. That assumption can be dangerous.

It is important for parents to understand a well documented safeguarding pattern:

Many predators gain access to children by first gaining the trust of adult carers.

This may look like:

appearing helpful, knowledgeable or generous
offering support to overwhelmed parents
positioning themselves as experienced in SEN, trauma or behaviour
volunteering to run activities, clubs or online spaces
slowly normalising private communication with children

This is not about suspicion or panic. It is about recognising that trust must be built carefully and reviewed regularly, especially in unregulated spaces.

Assistive technology and safeguarding gaps

Screen readers and text to speech

The risk
Screen readers and text to speech tools read everything aloud once content loads. This means:

sexual, violent or extremist content may be spoken before a parent can intervene
preview text, comments and adverts may be read aloud even if links are blocked
abusive or explicit messages can be broadcast unintentionally

For some ND teens, auditory exposure can be more intense and harder to disengage from than visual exposure.

Why filters often fail
Most parental controls filter web pages, not spoken output. Accessibility narration operates outside standard filtering systems.

What helps

child specific device profiles
disabling auto read or auto play where possible
practising pause and stop speech commands together
sitting with your child when introducing new platforms

AAC and communication apps

The risk
AAC tools may:

store message history in the cloud
sync across devices linked to adult accounts
expose deeply personal thoughts if accessed by others
make a child’s communication style visible, increasing targeting risk

AAC users are also sometimes perceived as cognitively younger, which can increase vulnerability.

What helps

check where data is stored and who controls the account
avoid linking AAC tools to social media or shared emails
use device level locks even within trusted apps
role play what to do if someone asks for private information

Speech to text and dictation

The risk

background conversations may be captured unintentionally
sensitive medical or family information may be transcribed
drafts may auto save to cloud services
mis transcription can result in messages being sent accidentally

Chronically unwell teens often dictate when fatigued, which increases the likelihood of errors.

What helps

turn off auto send and auto save
review before sending as a fixed habit
dictate in quiet, supervised spaces
disable microphones when not actively in use

Voice assistants and smart speakers

The risk
Most generic parental controls, including Google SafeSearch and ISP level filters, do not reliably apply to voice activated searches.

Voice assistants:

bypass visual safeguards
provide summarised spoken answers without context
leave no visible search trail
allow private exploration of risky topics

For ND teens who prefer voice access, this can become an unsupervised route online.

What helps

restrict assistants to music, timers and weather
disable web search, messaging and purchasing
keep smart speakers out of bedrooms
review voice histories together calmly

Captions and auto translation

The risk
Auto captions and translations can:

distort tone and intent
remove safeguarding cues
normalise harmful language
misrepresent discussions of abuse or self harm

ND learners who rely on captions may miss warning signs that others hear.

What helps

watch new content together initially
discuss tone and subtext
favour moderated platforms for younger teens

AI tools and emotional risk

AI tools can support learning, organisation and communication. They can also:

reflect harmful ideas without challenge
feel emotionally validating in ways that replace human support
blur boundaries between tool and relationship
give unsafe health or mental health advice

When AI output is read aloud using assistive technology, emotional impact can increase.

Safeguarding approach

frame AI clearly as a tool, not a friend
keep use task based and time limited
no AI chats overnight or in bedrooms
regularly ask what the AI helped with today

Gaming safety insert for ALN children and teens

Online games are not just games. They are social spaces, chat platforms and communities with minimal identity verification.

A recurring safeguarding risk reported by parents and taken seriously by police is adults pretending to be children in online games and groups. This has occurred on platforms including Roblox, as well as in supposedly moderated group chats.

In some cases, the adult:

builds trust over time
encourages secrecy
moves conversations into private chat
introduces sexualised or coercive behaviour
attempts to arrange an in person meeting

Why this works

This risk does not rely on children being reckless. It relies on:

children trusting child labelled spaces
avatars, role play and private chat
moderation that is reactive rather than preventative
isolation or loneliness
parents assuming moderation equals vetting

Gaming rules that genuinely protect children

No private chat with unknown people
Children should not private message or voice chat with anyone unless parents know the other child’s parents.

Shared space gaming
Gaming should take place in living areas, not bedrooms. Adult presence disrupts grooming behaviour.

Voice chat boundaries
No voice chat late at night. No voice chat with unknown players. Headsets only when adults are nearby.

Closed groups are safest
The lowest risk setup is closed groups where:

every child is known
parents have each other’s contact details
at least one adult actively moderates

Delaying smartphones is protective
Many families choose basic phones for emergencies and delay smartphones until mid to late teens. This is a safeguarding decision, not a social failure.

What children should be taught clearly

Some adults pretend to be kids online
Anyone asking for secrets is a warning sign
If someone suggests meeting up, tell an adult immediately
You will never be in trouble for telling

Red flags parents should take seriously

pressure to keep secrets
requests to move chats to other platforms
sudden emotional attachment to an online friend
secrecy around gaming or devices
mention of meeting in person
gifts or in game currency being offered

Trust your instincts. If something feels wrong, it usually is.

If something goes wrong

You do not need certainty to act.

Immediate danger, call 999
Online grooming or exploitation, report to CEOP
https://www.ceop.police.uk/Safety-Centre/
Non emergency concerns, call 101
Report within the platform and keep evidence

Parents can report on behalf of their child. Early reporting helps protect other children too.

Non negotiable protections that matter

No screens in bedrooms
Devices used in shared spaces
Layered technical controls combined with adult supervision
Open conversations without fear or punishment

No filter replaces an informed, present adult.

Safer Internet Day 2026

Learn Without Limits CIC is participating in Safer Internet Day 2026 on 12th February 2026. We will be running an online Zoom workshop for parents focusing on online safety, disability, assistive technology, and safeguarding in home education spaces.

Details on how to join our event will be published on our website:
https://learnwithoutlimitscic.org

Safeguarding disclaimer

This article is provided for general information and parental support only. It does not replace professional safeguarding advice, police guidance or statutory intervention.

Learn Without Limits CIC does not investigate safeguarding concerns and cannot act as a reporting body. If you believe a child is at risk:

contact emergency services immediately if there is danger
report concerns to CEOP or the police
follow local safeguarding procedures

We encourage early reporting, calm action and support for children without blame.

Final reassurance for parents

Elective home education and disability spaces rely heavily on trust. Trust must be built slowly, reviewed regularly and never assumed.

Good safeguarding is:

calm
proportionate
realistic
responsive to how your child actually lives and communicates

If this article feels long, it is because families of disabled and chronically unwell children are rarely given the full picture.

Presence, boundaries and early reporting protect far more effectively than fear.

Sources and further reading

UK Safer Internet Centre
https://www.saferinternet.org.uk
Safer Internet Day 2026
https://saferinternet.org.uk/safer-internet-day/safer-internet-day-2026
CEOP Safety Centre
https://www.ceop.police.uk/Safety-Centre/
NSPCC, online safety for children with additional needs
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/online-safety/
Ofcom, children’s media use
https://www.ofcom.org.uk
Office of the Children’s Commissioner
https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Blog is an official publication of Learn without Limits CIC

When Everyone Is Acting Rationally, and Children Are Still Harmed

Well-being, welfare, and unintended system effects for ALN children in Wales

What happens in complex public systems when every individual actor is behaving rationally within their role, yet the collective outcome still harms the very people the system was designed to protect?

This is not a question of intent. It is a question of system design.

In Wales, a deliberately well-being-centred legislative framework is now intersecting with new statutory mechanisms introduced through the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill [1], [2]. While these mechanisms are intended to improve oversight and safeguarding, they also change how judgement, discretion, and relationships operate in practice. This has particular significance for children with Additional Learning Needs, whose educational outcomes depend heavily on stability, trust, and effective collaboration between families and professionals.

The issue is not whether children should be protected. The issue is how systems behave when pressure, process, and philosophy collide.

Rational actors and predictable system effects

In the ALN context, all key actors are responding rationally to the pressures they face.

Practitioners are managing safeguarding duties, attendance expectations, professional guidance, and increasing caseloads. Their rational response is to prioritise defensibility, compliance, and timely escalation.

Schools are balancing inclusion, safety, staffing constraints, and accountability. Their rational response is to escalate concerns when risk feels unmanaged or provision unsustainable.

Local authorities are operating under statutory duties, inspection pressure, and finite resources. Their rational response is to standardise processes, reduce variation, and evidence oversight.

Parents are responding to unmet need, distress, and exhaustion. Their rational response is to protect their child, avoid punitive pathways, and seek stability wherever possible.

None of these behaviours are unreasonable in isolation. Harm emerges when system design converts reasonable individual behaviour into collective failure.

Welfare and well-being as organising principles

To understand the current pressure point in Wales, it is important to distinguish between welfare and well-being as organising principles for children’s services.

A welfare-led system is primarily concerned with protection from harm and threshold-based intervention. Its core questions are whether a child is safe, whether statutory thresholds are met, and whether duties have been discharged. It relies on monitoring, escalation, and procedural compliance. Once minimum standards are met, the system often considers its role complete.

A well-being-led system asks broader questions about lived experience, participation, development, and long-term outcomes. It prioritises prevention, proportionality, relational working, and tolerance of complexity. Rather than asking whether a child is safe enough, it asks whether the child is able to live and learn well over time.

This is not a softer standard. It is a more demanding one.

The Welsh legislative direction

Wales has made a sustained and deliberate decision to embed well-being at the heart of children’s services. This is reflected in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 [3], the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 [4], and the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, supported by the ALN Code for Wales [5], [6].

Together, these establish a policy environment that emphasises partnership with families, professional judgement, and prevention before enforcement. Over time, this approach has shaped both professional culture and parental expectations.

Relationships as delivery infrastructure for ALN

For children with ALN, effective educational support relies on relationships. The most visible is the parent and teacher relationship, but in practice this extends to ALNCos, inclusion teams, therapists, educational psychologists, social workers, and local authority officers.

Where these relationships function well, escalation is less likely and outcomes improve. Where they fracture, outcomes deteriorate quickly. Relationships are not incidental. They are delivery infrastructure.

Welsh professional culture has historically treated partnership with families as the default unless and until clear safeguarding thresholds make this impossible, such as in cases of neglect, domestic abuse, addiction, or serious risk [11]. This has created a shared expectation that dialogue and collaboration precede enforcement.

What currently works in practice

Much of what works well for ALN children in Wales is not written explicitly into statute. It exists in professional discretion, sequencing of support, and time allowed for stabilisation.

For example, where consent is required for deregistration from special schools, current practice typically allows several weeks for planning and coordination. This enables continuity of NHS services such as speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy to transition calmly into the home environment [6], [10]. Refusal of consent is rare and usually well justified.

This is not goodwill in a sentimental sense. It is informed professional judgement exercised close to the child.

What the new legislation changes

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces statutory Children Not in School registers, formal information duties on parents, defined procedural timeframes, and closer integration with School Attendance Orders [1], [7], [9].

Individually, these measures are rational. Collectively, they re-engineer where judgement sits in the system.

When discretion is replaced by duty, systems rely less on relational flexibility and more on procedural compliance.

The displacement of professional judgement

Under current Welsh practice, escalation decisions are shaped by professionals who know the child and family, with enforcement typically used as a last resort after attempts at stabilisation and support.

Under a more prescriptive statutory framework, judgement is increasingly constrained by procedural triggers, statutory timelines, and information completeness. Delay itself becomes a risk. Context is flattened into compliance. Judgement does not disappear, but it is pushed earlier, higher, and further away from the child.

Why ALN children are particularly exposed

Children with ALN are disproportionately affected by these shifts. Their needs are complex, often non-linear, and frequently expressed behaviourally. In trigger-led systems, distress can appear as non-cooperation, recovery periods can appear as delay, and parental protection can appear as resistance.

As a result, enforcement may occur sooner and on narrower grounds, reducing opportunities for relational repair and increasing system stress for families and professionals alike.

A cultural and philosophical clash

The Bill, as introduced through Westminster, is rooted in an English welfare philosophy that emphasises thresholds, monitoring, and enforcement as safeguarding tools [7], [8]. Welsh children’s services, by contrast, have been deliberately shaped around a well-being philosophy that treats relationships, lived experience, and long-term outcomes as central to safeguarding.

When welfare-led mechanisms are layered onto a well-being-led system, system behaviour changes even where intent does not. This clash plays out structurally, systemically, and at the level of school and home.

Design questions rather than ideology

If safeguarding is to be strengthened without increasing harm, system design must retain proportionality, contextual judgement, relational capacity, and space for prevention.

These are not ideological demands. They are design criteria.

Closing reflection

Safeguarding does not fail because people stop caring. It fails when systems prioritise certainty over proportionality and compliance over context.

When everyone is acting rationally and harm still occurs, the system rather than the individual is where attention must turn.

References (IEEE style)

[1] UK Parliament, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Bill 11, Session 2024 to 2025. [Online]. Available: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3519

[2] Welsh Government, Legislative Consent Memorandum: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Senedd Cymru, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.senedd.wales/legislation/legislative-consent-memoranda

[3] Welsh Government, Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2014/4/contents

[4] Welsh Government, Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2015/2/contents

[5] Welsh Government, Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2018/2/contents

[6] Welsh Government, Additional Learning Needs Code for Wales, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.wales/additional-learning-needs-code

[7] Department for Education, Children Not in School: Draft Statutory Guidance, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-not-in-school-draft-guidance

[8] Department for Education, Elective Home Education: Guidance for Local Authorities, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elective-home-education

[9] UK Parliament, Education Act 1996, sections 437 to 443. [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/contents

[10] Welsh Government, Elective Home Education Guidance for Local Authorities, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.wales/elective-home-education-guidance-local-authorities

[11] Welsh Government, Keeping Learners Safe: Safeguarding Guidance, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.wales/keeping-learners-safe

Attendance warnings, fines and prosecution in Wales: what parents need to know

(especially if your child has Additional Learning Needs)

Important disclaimer
Learn Without Limits CIC is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
This article is for general information and guidance only, based on Welsh and UK legislation, statutory guidance, and publicly reported cases.
It should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent legal advice.
Parents facing enforcement action, fines, or prosecution may wish to seek specialist legal or advocacy support.

1. The legal duty to secure education in Wales

The starting point in law is section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which applies in Wales.

The Act states:

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
(Education Act 1996, section 7)

Two points matter legally and are often misunderstood:

The duty is to secure suitable education, not attendance at any cost.
Regular school attendance is one lawful way of meeting the duty, but it is not the only way.

However, this is still a parental duty, and failure to meet it can carry serious legal consequences if the statutory tests are met.

2. What attendance letters mean in practice

Most attendance letters sent by schools or local authorities are administrative.

They are usually issued to:

notify parents of attendance concerns
request engagement or meetings
warn that enforcement action may follow

At this stage:

no criminal offence has been proven
no fine has yet been issued
no prosecution has started

That said, attendance letters are important.
Failure to respond or engage can later be relied upon by a local authority as evidence that a parent did not take reasonable steps.

3. Fixed Penalty Notices (attendance fines) in Wales

The legal basis

Attendance fines in Wales are governed by the Education (Penalty Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2013.

These regulations allow a local authority to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for unauthorised absence.

Key legal facts parents should understand:

Penalty notices are discretionary, not automatic.
They are intended as an alternative to prosecution, not a replacement for the law.
Paying a penalty notice usually prevents prosecution for the same period of absence.
Failure to pay may lead the authority to consider prosecution for the underlying attendance offence, not for non-payment itself.

A penalty notice is not a criminal conviction.

4. Welsh Government guidance on enforcement

Welsh Government guidance makes clear that enforcement should not be the default response.

The Attendance Framework for Wales states that legal intervention should be:

“used sparingly, consistently, and only where other approaches have failed.”
(Welsh Government, Attendance Framework for Wales)

The guidance also stresses the importance of understanding why a child is not attending school, rather than relying solely on attendance percentages.

Although guidance is not law, local authorities are expected to have regard to it when making decisions.

5. When fines may be inappropriate

Welsh Government guidance and established practice indicate that penalty notices are often inappropriate where absence relates to:

disability or long-term illness
emotional distress or trauma
unmet Additional Learning Needs
unsuitable or unsafe school placements
situations where the school itself has said it cannot safely meet a child’s needs

It is important to be clear that guidance does not create immunity from enforcement.
These factors do not automatically prevent fines or prosecution, but they are highly relevant to whether enforcement is reasonable and proportionate.

6. Additional Learning Needs and attendance

Under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 and the ALN Code for Wales, children with ALN are entitled to additional learning provision that meets their needs.

The ALN Code states:

“A child has additional learning needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for additional learning provision.”
(ALN Code for Wales)

If required provision is not in place, or the placement cannot meet the child’s needs, non-attendance may reflect system failure rather than wilful parental neglect.

This does not remove parental responsibility, but it is directly relevant to how attendance enforcement should be approached.

7. When schools say a child is “unsafe”

If a school states that a child is:

unsafe when dysregulated
unable to cope in the school environment
a risk to themselves or others

this raises serious questions about:

suitability of the placement
safeguarding responsibilities
reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010

A local authority may still pursue attendance action, but parents are entitled to challenge the fairness and logic of enforcement where the school itself says it cannot safely educate the child.

8. When non-attendance becomes a criminal offence

The offence

Prosecution for non-attendance occurs under section 444 of the Education Act 1996.

A court must be satisfied that:

the child failed to attend school regularly, and
the parent failed to secure attendance without reasonable justification.

Section 444(1A) applies where a parent knows their child is failing to attend regularly and fails to act.

Welsh prosecutions under this section do take place.
Parents have been prosecuted in magistrates’ courts following sustained periods of unauthorised absence.

Reasonable justification

Section 444 provides a defence where there is reasonable justification.

Evidence of:

illness
disability
unmet Additional Learning Needs
unsuitable provision
significant emotional distress

may be relied upon, but the burden is on the parent to evidence this.
This is why early engagement, written responses, and record keeping are so important.

9. What parents should do to protect themselves legally

Do not ignore letters or visits.
Lack of engagement can increase risk.
Respond in writing, explaining:
- why your child is absent
- what needs are unmet
- what provision is missing or unsuitable
Keep evidence, including emails, medical letters, school statements, and IDP paperwork.
Reframe the issue as provision, not refusal to attend.
Seek advice early if enforcement escalates.

10. Common misconceptions corrected

“Attendance fines are automatic.”
They are discretionary.

“A fine means a criminal record.”
Only a court conviction does.

“ALN prevents prosecution.”
ALN is legally relevant but does not create immunity.

“Nothing happens if letters are ignored.”
Ignoring contact can significantly increase legal risk.

11. Key legislation and guidance parents can quote

Education Act 1996, sections 7 and 444
Education (Penalty Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2013
Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018
ALN Code for Wales
Welsh Government Attendance Framework

Related guidance: acting early to reduce escalation

If you are at an early stage, or have not yet received a fine or prosecution notice, you may also find this earlier guidance helpful:

Attendance guidance for families in Wales: understanding your options and acting early
https://learnwithoutlimitscic.blogspot.com/2026/01/attendance-guidance-for-families-in.html

That article focuses on:

early engagement with schools and local authorities
practical steps to reduce escalation
documenting unmet need and support requests
keeping attendance concerns from becoming enforcement matters

It is designed to sit alongside this article, not replace it.

Final note

Attendance enforcement in Wales is real, serious, and legally grounded.
It is also required to be fair, proportionate, and informed by a child’s needs.

Parents are not powerless, but accuracy, engagement, and evidence matter.

IDP Series: How to Request an IDP in Wales

How to Request an IDP in Wales

Part of the Learn Without Limits CIC IDP Series

Under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, every child or young person with Additional Learning Needs (ALN) is entitled to an Individual Development Plan (IDP).

But parents often tell us they feel confused about when to request an IDP, how to do it, and which support level they should be asking for. Schools sometimes talk about “universal provision”, “IEPs” or “IHPs”, and it isn’t always obvious how these fit into the ALN system.

This guide sets out the legal position clearly — including the critical point that support must be based on educational needs, NOT diagnosis — and includes a legally correct IDP request letter for both schools and local authorities.

1. Support Is Based on Needs, Not Diagnosis (The Law Is Unambiguous)

Schools sometimes tell parents:

“We can’t give support without a diagnosis.”
“We are waiting for CAMHS/paediatrics before we can open an IDP.”
“We don’t have evidence until you get a report.”

This is unlawful.

Exact Legal Quotation:

The ALN Code for Wales 2021 states:

“A person has ALN if he or she has a learning difficulty or disability arising from a barrier to learning or participation, regardless of whether a diagnosis has been made.”
— ALN Code for Wales 2021, Paragraph 2.4

This is one of the most important legal protections parents have.

What this means in practice

A diagnosis is not required for support.
Waiting lists cannot be used as a reason to delay an IDP.
Schools must base decisions on needs observed in the classroom, transitions, regulation, communication, sensory access, or learning progress.
Parents’ evidence carries full legal weight.

ALN is triggered by educational need — not paperwork.

2. Universal Provision, IEPs, IHPs — What’s What?

Universal Provision

Support that every school must provide from their own resources, including:

Differentiated teaching
Reasonable adjustments (Equality Act 2010)
Sensory/communication strategies
EBSA support
Behaviour/regulation approaches
Short-term intervention groups

Universal Provision is not ALN. If needs persist despite it — or if the needs are significant at the outset — the child is likely to require an IDP.

IEP – Individual Education Plan

Not a statutory document under the ALN Act.
Schools may use them internally, but they cannot replace an IDP.

IHP – Individual Healthcare Plan

For medical needs only.
Not educational.
An IHP cannot substitute for an IDP when the child also has learning, sensory, communication, or regulation difficulties.

3. Home–School Communication Book: A Critical Piece of Evidence

A daily or weekly communication book is one of the most effective ways to gather evidence for ALN decision-making. It is particularly important when:

Behaviour differs between home and school
A child masks at school
Regulation challenges emerge after school
Fatigue, meltdowns, or shutdowns occur later in the day
Homework, sleep, eating, or anxiety deteriorate after school

A communication book helps identify patterns, triggers, and unseen needs.

Use the book to record:

Dysregulation after school
Emotional crashes
Behaviour linked to transitions
Sleep and eating patterns
Recovery time needed
Episodes pointing to sensory overload or masking

Schools must consider all evidence, including that provided by parents. The ALN Code explicitly states that a child's needs must be understood across environments, not just in the classroom.

⬇ Below is the link to our article on masking.

https://learnwithoutlimitscic.blogspot.com/2025/11/why-so-many-disabled-children-mask-at.html

4. Who Can Request an IDP?

Under Section 21 of the ALN Act, an IDP request can be made by:

A parent
A young person (over 16)
A school
A local authority
A health body (e.g., speech therapy, CAMHS, paediatrics)

The request must be considered within statutory timeframes.

5. When to Apply to the School vs the Local Authority

A. If the child is ON ROLL at a school

➡️ Your request must go to the school first.

The school ALNCo decides whether the child has ALN and whether an IDP is required.

If the school refuses or delays, parents then apply to the local authority.

B. You can apply DIRECTLY to the Local Authority when:

1. The child is Electively Home Educated (EHE)

LA is responsible for ALN decisions.

2. The child is not currently on roll

For example:

Placement breakdown
Deregistered
Permanently excluded
Transition between settings

3. The learner is in FE college

LAs handle IDPs for post-16 learners.

4. The school has refused, delayed, or stated they cannot meet need

Parents may go directly to the LA for a statutory decision.

6. What to Include in an IDP Request

You do not need a diagnosis.
You do not need professional reports.
You do not need proof beyond doubt.

Under the Act, you only need to demonstrate that your child may have ALN.

Include:

Examples of difficulties
Universal Provision attempted
Home evidence (communication book, dysregulation patterns, masking)
Any reports you have (optional)

7. IDP Request Templates

📄 TEMPLATE 1 — Request to SCHOOL

Subject: Request for ALN Consideration and IDP (Section 21, ALN Act 2018)

Dear [Headteacher/ALNCo],

I am making a formal request under Section 21 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 for my child, [Name, DOB, Year], to be considered for an Individual Development Plan (IDP).

Under the ALN Code, identification of ALN is based on educational needs, not diagnosis. The Code states:

“A person has ALN… regardless of whether a diagnosis has been made.”
— ALN Code for Wales 2021, para 2.4

My reasons for believing my child has ALN include:

[Insert needs/difficulties]
[Impact on learning, well-being, regulation, sensory access, behaviour]
[Universal Provision already attempted]
[Patterns recorded via home–school communication book]

Please confirm:

When the ALN consideration process will begin
The statutory decision date
The date of the next meeting

Kind regards,
[Your Name]

📄 TEMPLATE 2 — Request to LOCAL AUTHORITY

Subject: Request for ALN Consideration and IDP (Section 21, ALN Act 2018)

Dear [LA ALN Team],

I am requesting that the LA consider whether my child, [Name, DOB], has Additional Learning Needs and requires an IDP.

I am applying directly to the LA because:

☐ My child is Electively Home Educated (EHE)
☐ My child is not on roll
☐ My child is in FE
☐ The school has refused or is unable to meet need
☐ Other reason: _________

As the ALN Code states:

“A person has ALN… regardless of whether a diagnosis has been made.”
— ALN Code for Wales 2021, para 2.4

My request is based on observed educational needs, including:

[Insert details]
[Home evidence / communication book patterns]
[Impact on learning, regulation, participation]

Please confirm the initiation date and statutory timeframe.

Kind regards,
[Your Name]

___________________________________________________________________________________

When to Request an IDP (Including Statutory Timescales)

Situation	Request To	Legal Basis	Statutory Timescale
Child on roll at a mainstream or special school	School	ALN Act s.21	35 school days for the school to decide whether the child has ALN and whether an IDP is required.
Electively Home Educated (EHE)	Local Authority	ALN Code Ch.10	12 weeks (LA must reach a decision on ALN and produce an IDP if needed).
Child has no school place (excluded, deregistered, between settings)	Local Authority	ALN Act	12 weeks for an ALN decision and IDP completion.
Learner in Further Education (16–25)	Local Authority	ALN Act & Code	12 weeks for ALN decision and IDP production.
School refuses or delays and parent escalates	Local Authority	ALN Code Ch.12	LA must respond “without delay” and complete the ALN decision and IDP within 12 weeks.
Needs clearly beyond school resources (e.g., specialist placement needed)	Local Authority	ALN Code	12 weeks, unless an exception under the Code applies (rare).

Notes for Accuracy

35 school days applies only to school-led IDP consideration.
12 weeks applies to all LA-led cases (EHE, FE, no placement, escalations, complex needs).
Holidays pause the 35-day school clock but do not pause the 12-week LA clock unless a statutory exception is met.
The LA must act “without delay” when taking over from a school (Code 12.25).