Working together in collaboration to achieve the best outcomes for young people.
There is a strong and growing recognition that working in partnership across schools, families, and services leads to the best outcomes for young people. Government guidance and legislation, from Keeping Children Safe in Education (Department for Education [DfE], 2024a) to the SEND Code of Practice (Department for Education & Department of Health, 2015) and Working Together to Improve School Attendance (DfE, 2024b), all highlight the importance of collaboration.
Despite this, families and professionals often describe barriers to achieving meaningful partnership. Parents of young people with SEND report experiences of being blamed, distrusted, or left to navigate complex systems alone (Adams et al., 2021). The rise in SEND tribunals highlights systemic difficulties: in 2023, appeals increased by 40%, with over 95% of cases ruled in favour of parents (Ministry of Justice, 2023). This suggests not only individual struggles but structural barriers to effective collaboration.
Professionals also face significant challenges. Education Support (2024) found that 43% of staff reported an increase in complaints from parents, and 33% experienced more verbal abuse. 70% said conflict with parents negatively affected their wellbeing. At the same time, 69% of school staff reported feeling they receive “little or no support” from wider public services such as CAMHS, NHS, or social care, with 85% saying this negatively affected young people’s wellbeing.
Partnership is therefore vital but also difficult to sustain. Building it requires trust, respect, and shared responsibility in systems where everyone (families, schools, and professionals) is under intense pressure.
Government guidance such as Working Together to Improve School Attendance (DfE, 2024) rightly highlights the importance of schools and families working in partnership to remove barriers. However, in practice, the drive to improve attendance can sometimes slip into a compliance-first approach. National campaigns and policy priorities often frame absence as a parental failing or a predictor of poor outcomes, which can leave families feeling blamed rather than supported.
Research shows that absence is strongly linked to wider factors such as SEND, poverty, health needs, and trauma (Children’s Commissioner, 2023; Education Policy Institute, 2022). Focusing only on attendance figures, without addressing these underlying issues, risks overlooking what is really happening for a young person. It can also make it harder for schools and families to build the trust and openness needed for genuine collaboration.
The impact is significant:
Together, these findings show how top-down, compliance-driven approaches can make collaboration harder, while also failing to resolve attendance difficulties.
At the same time, national guidance emphasises a support-first approach, shared responsibility and multi-agency working. Across the country, schools and local partners are already strengthening systems for early identification, regular communication with families, and coordinated support around individual barriers. Common features of this support-first approach include:
These practices align with the principle that attendance improves most when relationships are strong, barriers are understood, and families feel respected and part of the solution.
Mutual understanding and partnership refer not only to collaboration between schools and families, but also across professionals and services. While individual practitioners often make a significant difference, systemic barriers make consistent partnership difficult. These challenges are well documented across research, inspection reports and lived experience from young people and families.
Staff workload, pressure and limited reflective time: Teachers and leaders are working under sustained workload and accountability pressures. Teacher wellbeing is at an all-time low, with 78% of staff reporting being stressed at work and workload cited as the primary driver (Education Support, 2023). Parents in our Barriers to Education (2024) survey frequently noted that staff seemed “too stretched to listen” or “unable to adapt because of other pressures.” Young people similarly commented that teachers were “too busy to notice when I was struggling.” In this climate, it is harder for staff to have the reflective space and supervision needed to remain curious, attuned and relational across large caseloads.
Wider pressures on families and professionals: The lingering effects of the pandemic and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis have increased stress across school communities. Families reported struggling with the costs of transport, uniform and food. One parent wrote: “We can’t afford the bus fare every day, and the school doesn’t understand.” Research corroborates this: housing insecurity has increased (Shafan-Azhar & Bottomley, 2024), while poverty and food insecurity are rising (Burtonshaw & Dorrell, 2023; Lucas & Julius, 2024). Schools have stepped in to support families in poverty, but at a time of reduced budgets this increases strain on staff and supporting services, resulting in higher thresholds for referrals and long waiting lists; please see Timely Response. These wider pressures make it harder for compassionate partnership to be sustained.
Conflicting priorities across agencies: Different agencies are accountable to different measures. Schools are judged on attendance and attainment data, while health services operate within appointment quotas and clinic availability. Parents describe being caught in the middle: “My child could only see the consultant in school hours. The school marked her absent and I felt blamed.” Attendance incentive schemes that reward whole-class presence risk further stigmatising young people with health conditions who must miss time for medical reasons.
Misunderstandings about roles and remits: Schools may ask families for medical letters to authorise absence, but GP contracts make clear they are not obliged to provide them (BMA, 2022). Long waits for CAMHS mean specialist confirmation is often unavailable. Parents in our survey reported being “asked for letters we could never get.” Misunderstandings also extend to commissioning boundaries: some services are funded only for time limited or narrow activities, leaving families trapped between agencies, or having support or service involvement end too soon. For example, rare paediatric conditions may only be diagnosed in specialist NHS trusts, not locally; mental health interventions such may need to take place in school and/or only be available for 6-8 weeks, when it may take this time to build a trusting relationship. These mismatches frustrate both families and professionals.
Hierarchical dynamics in meetings and decision-making: Parents often describe multi-agency meetings as adversarial. One parent said: “It felt like decisions were already made before I walked into the room.” Bronfenbrenner (1979) noted that while parents hold broad authority in a young person’s life, within education systems their agency is curtailed. Teachers too can feel blamed for circumstances beyond their control. These power imbalances make shared formulations harder to achieve and erode trust on all sides.
Bias and communication barriers: Research shows patterns of selective partnership, where families who align with school expectations are more readily engaged (Vincent, 2017). Working-class families and those with SEND are more likely to feel unheard (MacLeod et al., 2017). Families with English as an additional language face language and cultural barriers, with one parent saying: “No one explained what the meeting was about, we just nodded.” The Bell Foundation (2020) highlights how lack of interpreters and cultural brokerage can compound these challenges.
Fragmented information-sharing and limited coordination time: Parents often reported “telling our story again and again to different people who don’t talk to each other.” Incompatible IT systems, diary pressures and commissioning boundaries make holistic, joined-up planning difficult. These barriers are particularly acute at transition points, such as moving from primary to secondary school or when a young person’s needs change.
System pressures in SEND: Demand for EHCPs and specialist placements far exceeds capacity. Parents describe “fighting for years” to secure provision. Tribunal data shows over 95% of appeals succeed, indicating a mismatch between assessed need and provision (Ministry of Justice, 2023). This erodes trust and places strain on families and schools alike.
Over-reliance on exceptional individuals: Families and young people often highlight the difference made by a single practitioner who “went the extra mile.” One young person said: “My SENCO listened when nobody else did, she saved me.” These acts matter enormously, but they are not sustainable substitutes for system-wide changes that work for all young people.
The impact of past experiences on partnership: Parents and professionals often come to meetings carrying the weight of previous difficult interactions. For parents, this can mean arriving in survival mode, while professionals, already working within overstretched systems, are likely to be managing their own pressures and the emotions that can come with these. It is not uncommon for parents to have faced similar challenges to their young people and have a history of unsupported needs. This can mean that these partnerships frequently begin in the context of unprocessed experiences and therefore, understandable, heightened emotions. Careful and sensitive support is all the more important in building genuine trust and mutual understanding.
Taken together, these factors create an environment where partnership is fragile. While the commitment of individuals is clear, systemic and cultural changes are required to make collaboration the norm rather than the exception
When partnership is fragile, it is easy for schools, families, and services to slip into defensive positions and patterns of blame. Yet the evidence shows that most difficulties arise not from a lack of care or effort, but from pressures and systems that constrain what people can do. We believe that a different understanding is possible—one that begins from the assumption that everyone is trying their best within the circumstances they face.
Families bring lived expertise about their children’s experiences: what triggers anxiety, what strategies work, what has already been tried. Professionals bring training, resources, and a wider view of systems and opportunities. Neither perspective alone is enough. Lasting solutions emerge when these forms of expertise are valued equally and when responsibility is genuinely shared.
This shift means moving from a compliance-led model to a curiosity-led one. Instead of asking, “Why won’t this child attend?” the question becomes, “What is getting in the way, and how can we work together to remove those barriers?” This reframing allows conversations to become less adversarial and more collaborative. It recognises that people may hold differing perceptions of the same circumstances, and that for each person, their reality is valid, so needs to be acknowledged and understood. This opens space for creativity, compassion, and the tailoring of support to what matters most for each young person and family.
Research along with our own work has highlighted the following 3 key messages:
When families and professionals work together as equal partners, outcomes improve. In contrast, when families feel excluded or pressured into compliance, trust breaks down and attendance difficulties intensify.
Families hold vital knowledge about their young person’s barriers and strengths. Professionals bring expertise, training, and resources. Only when both are valued equally can partnership lead to creative, tailored solutions that meet a young person’s real needs.
Trust is the foundation of effective partnership. When families are listened to, believed, and treated with respect, collaboration flourishes.
Parents in our surveys highlighted that being heard and believed often mattered as much as the specific intervention offered. Trust enables families to share openly about barriers such as mental health, anxiety, or financial stress; issues that may otherwise be hidden or misinterpreted.
Young people’s difficulties with attendance are often complex, involving health, SEND, trauma, and socio-economic factors. No single service can address these alone. A coordinated multi-agency approach is vital.
Families in our surveys frequently described the distress of being referred from one agency to another, having to repeat their story multiple times, and waiting months or years for support. In contrast, when services aligned, families felt held in a “circle of support” that gave them confidence and reduced stress:
“[Attendance] cannot solely be the preserve of a single member of staff, or organisation, it must be a concerted effort across all teaching and non-teaching staff in school, the trust or governing body, the local authority, and other local partners.”
Families and professionals agree that the way forward lies in empathy, partnership, and shared responsibility:
At its heart, partnership is about recognising that all parties are usually doing their best, under pressure, to work towards a shared goal: enabling young people to thrive and access meaningful education. From this shared perspective, collaboration becomes a process of joint problem-solving and co-production, not one of blame or hierarchy.
A different understanding means building cultures where these conditions are the norm, not the exception. It requires:
With these elements in place, mutual understanding and partnership stop being fragile ideals and start becoming everyday practice.
Trust grows from empathy, validation, and recognition of experience. Families need to know they are not alone. Local support groups, online communities, and open communication with practitioners can all help families feel heard. For professionals, acknowledging families’ prior experiences is key: mistrust often comes from years of repeating stories without receiving meaningful support.
A SENCO in an alternative provision reflected:
Trust takes time, but it creates the conditions for curiosity, honesty, and collaboration.
Partnership means recognising that no single professional or family has all the answers.
Encouraging a culture where it is acceptable to seek second opinions, share decision-making, and draw on others’ expertise reduces pressure and strengthens outcomes. When families are included as equal partners, they often help identify solutions that are both creative and workable. Person Centred Planning Tools create space for this type of collaborative problem solving. See [link resources page].
Shared responsibility builds mutual respect, reduces defensiveness, and ensures that plans are genuinely co-produced rather than imposed.
Professionals need to feel safe to work differently. Trauma-informed supervision, reflective spaces, and leadership that supports relational practice can create this safety. Without it, staff may default to compliance-driven approaches or defensive decision-making.
Collaboration can feel risky in systems that revolve around certainty and control—but staff who feel supported are more likely to sustain curiosity, compassion, and flexibility.
Professionals also describe how reflective supervision, supportive leadership, and joined-up systems enable them to practice in ways that build trust rather than conflict. As one teacher put it:
Working in isolation is unsustainable. Schools benefit from sharing best practice, pooling resources, and building wider networks with community organisations, charities, and local services.
This helps to create holistic responses that address not only attendance but the wider issues (such as housing, transport, or health) that shape a young person’s ability to engage in education. Community-level partnerships also reduce the burden on overstretched individual schools.
Families and schools often struggle because services’ remits are unclear or inconsistent. Services should set out clear information on their websites, with Local Authorities ensuring Local Offer pages are up-to-date, transparent, and accessible.
Clarity about what each service can and cannot provide, along with referral pathways, helps families and professionals make informed decisions and reduces the cycle of repeated referrals and waiting lists.
Meaningful partnership does not always mean that difficulties will be resolved. Sometimes, progress looks different than expected.
One parent shared:
Recognising the value of healing, trust-building, and wellbeing, even when formal learning is limited, can be a powerful step forward.
To address systemic gaps, consultation between services must begin at the commissioning stage. Shared planning, joint data systems, and integrated referral processes can reduce duplication, ease the burden on families, and support earlier, more effective intervention. Working groups across Local Authority and health services are a useful way to collaborate and develop shared guidance and support pathways.
Barriers to Education. (2024). Parent and pupil survey on attendance barriers: Findings summary. [Internal report].
Bell Foundation. (2020). Parental engagement of EAL families in children’s learning. The Bell Foundation. https://www.bell-foundation.org.uk
British Medical Association. (2022). Standard General Medical Services Contract in England 2022/23. BMA. https://www.bma.org.uk
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Burtonshaw, C., & Dorrell, J. (2023). Engaging parents in education: A whole school approach. Routledge.
Child of the North. (2024). Children at the margins: Addressing attendance barriers in the North. Health Equity North & N8 Research Partnership. https://www.n8research.org.uk
Children’s Commissioner. (2023). Voices of England’s missing children: Children failed by the system. Children’s Commissioner for England. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk
Department for Education. (2024a). Keeping children safe in education. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Department for Education. (2024b). Working together to improve school attendance. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Department for Education, & Department of Health. (2015). Special educational needs and disability (SEND) code of practice: 0 to 25 years. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
Education Policy Institute. (2022). Absence and persistent absence in England’s schools. EPI. https://epi.org.uk
Fletcher, A. J., & Muñoz, D. (2015). Shaping student success: The role of collaborative partnerships. School Community Journal, 25(2), 69–88.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643
Linehan, C. (2023). Parents, partnerships, and education: Building inclusive practices. Sage.
Lucas, J., & Julius, A. (2024). The power of co-production in education. Policy Press.
MacLeod, G., Pirrie, A., & McCluskey, G. (2017). Parents of excluded students: Their perspectives on engagement with schools. Pastoral Care in Education, 35(3), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2017.1358295
Ministry of Justice. (2023). Special educational needs tribunal statistics. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Pearpoint, J., O’Brien, J., & Forest, M. (1998/2010). PATH & MAPS: Person-centred planning tools. Inclusion Press.
Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationships and academic achievement: A developmental perspective. Routledge.
Shafan-Azhar, T., & Bottomley, J. (2024). Schools and parents: Building relational trust. Routledge.
Square Peg. (2021). Square Peg: Supporting children who struggle with school attendance. Square Peg. https://squarepeg.community
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Timpson, E. (2019). The Timpson review of school exclusion. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Vincent, C. (2017). Parenting priorities and practices: Parental involvement in children’s education in England, 2005–2015. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
Share your idea, experience or resource to help inspire change, support others and show what really works in breaking down barriers to education.
Unfortunately we are unable to give advice/support on individual cases.