Updated on
February 27, 2026
|
February 26, 2026
A practical SENCO guide to emotionally based school avoidance: Kearney's four-function model, week-by-week response plan, legal duties, EHCP evidence, and Ofsted 2025 expectations.
One in five children now has difficulties attending school regularly, according to the Department for Education. In 2018/19, persistent absence affected 10.9% of pupils. By 2022/23, that figure had risen to 21.2%. In autumn 2024/25, 33.3% of pupils with EHCPs were persistently absent. For SENCOs, emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) is no longer an exceptional case requiring specialist referral. It is a routine part of the caseload, and most schools lack a structured, legally defensible response framework.
This guide synthesises guidance from 48 UK local authority EBSA toolkits, the 2024 DfE statutory attendance guidance, the November 2025 Ofsted framework, and Kearney and Silverman's research evidence into one resource you can bookmark and return to. It is written for the SENCO coordinating the response, not the parent or the educational psychologist.
Emotionally based school avoidance describes a pattern of school non-attendance that is driven by emotional or psychological distress rather than deliberate truancy. The West Sussex Educational Psychology Service (2019) established the term as the preferred descriptor for UK settings, and a 2025 analysis of 48 UK local authority guidance documents found that 67% now use EBSA as their standard term (Taylor & Francis, 2025).
The term matters because it shapes professional response. "School refusal" implies choice. "Truancy" implies deliberate transgression. Neither is accurate for a child whose anxiety about attending school produces genuine somatic symptoms, panic attacks, or psychological shutdown. The SEND Code of Practice classifies significant anxiety as a social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) need, which carries specific legal obligations under the Children and Families Act 2014.
EBSA is also distinct from school phobia (a historical, largely obsolete term denoting specific phobic anxiety), separation anxiety (a diagnosable condition that may or may not be a factor in EBSA), and simple bereavement-related temporary absence. The table below maps these distinctions for practical use.
| Term | Definition | Key distinguishing feature | SENCO implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| EBSA / EBSNA | Emotionally driven non-attendance; anxiety or distress underlies avoidance | Present at home, distressed by school; no concealment | Treat as SEMH need; graduated approach, not sanctions |
| Truancy | Deliberate absence without parental knowledge | Parents unaware; pupil elsewhere during school hours | Attendance/safeguarding response; different legal pathway |
| School phobia | Historical term; phobic anxiety specifically about school environment | Specific, identifiable phobic triggers; now subsumed within EBSA | Treat as EBSA; phobia-specific CBT if EP confirms specific phobic component |
| Separation anxiety | Diagnosable anxiety disorder; distress at separation from attachment figure | Distress peaks at point of separation; present across settings | May co-exist with EBSA; CAMHS referral likely needed |
| Persistent absence (PA) | Missing 10% or more of sessions; includes all absence types | Statistical threshold, not a diagnosis or explanation | EBSA is one possible cause; needs individual assessment |
Kearney and Silverman (1990, 1993) proposed that school avoidance behaviour serves one of four distinct functions. Their model is the basis for the School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised (SRAS-R) and underpins most UK local authority assessment frameworks. Understanding the function before designing the intervention is the single most important diagnostic step a SENCO can take.
The four functions are: avoidance of stimuli provoking negative affect, escape from aversive social or evaluative situations, pursuit of attention from significant others, and pursuit of tangible reinforcement outside school. A pupil may present with more than one function, but one is typically primary.
| Function | What drives it | Classroom signs | First-line intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Avoidance of negative stimuli (ANA) | Anxiety provoked by specific school stimuli: noise, crowding, transitions, sensory overwhelm, particular lessons | Somatic complaints before specific lessons; panic at transitions; hypervigilance in corridors; distress during assemblies | Environmental modification; sensory audit; predictable routines; safe space access; gradual exposure to identified triggers |
| 2. Escape from social or evaluative situations (ESE) | Fear of humiliation, failure, peer judgement, or academic performance | Absence peaks before assessments, presentations, PE; refuses to read aloud; avoids group work; catastrophic thinking about mistakes | Anxiety management; cognitive restructuring; graded exposure to feared situations; low-stakes performance opportunities |
| 3. Pursuit of attention from significant others (PAS) | Separation distress; desire to remain with parents or caregivers | Distress peaks at separation, not throughout the day; settles once parent leaves; frequent calls home requesting collection; follows staff | Structured separation routines; attachment-based key adult; parent coaching; reducing secondary gain from staying home |
| 4. Pursuit of tangible reward outside school (PTR) | School offers less reinforcement than home: gaming, screens, freedom, comfort | No apparent anxiety; calm when absent; school environment experienced as inherently less rewarding; often denied by family | Contingency management; reduce home reinforcement; increase school engagement; strengthen school relationships |
The ANA and ESE functions are anxiety-driven and respond well to CBT-informed approaches, graded exposure, and environmental adjustment. The PAS function requires a family systems approach alongside school-based key adult work. The PTR function is the least common in clinically significant EBSA and involves a different intervention logic: reducing the relative reinforcement value of home while making school more attractive.
A practical diagnostic starting point is to note when the distress peaks. If distress is highest at the threshold of school and dissipates once the pupil is inside (or at home), you are likely seeing ANA, ESE, or PAS. If the pupil shows little apparent anxiety but simply prefers home, PTR is more probable. The SRAS-R questionnaire (available in child and parent versions from Kearney's original publications) gives a scored assessment of the primary function.
EBSA rarely presents fully formed. It escalates through identifiable stages, and the earlier you intervene, the shorter and less disruptive the reintegration pathway. The research literature distinguishes three clinical stages: emerging, developing, and entrenched (Lancashire EPS, 2023; Thambirajah et al., 2008).
At the emerging stage, a pupil may attend inconsistently, produce somatic complaints on Sunday evenings, or request to leave school early. At the developing stage, avoidance becomes more frequent, distress more visible, and academic disengagement more pronounced. At the entrenched stage, the pupil may have been absent for weeks or months, family and school relationships are strained, and the gap between the pupil and peers widens daily.
| Stage | Attendance pattern | Behavioural indicators | Emotional indicators | SENCO action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerging | Occasional Mondays/Fridays; post-holiday dips; specific lesson avoidance | Repeated requests to go home; somatic complaints (headaches, stomach aches); tearfulness at drop-off | Mild anxiety; some reluctance; settles once engaged | Early monitoring; tutor check-ins; parental conversation; note pattern |
| Developing | 15-40% sessions missed; predictable trigger pattern; increasing frequency | Morning meltdowns; physical resistance; escalating somatic complaints; withdrawal from peers | Visible anxiety; low mood; fatigue; social withdrawal; academic disengagement | SENCO referral; start APDR cycle; assess function; consider EP referral |
| Entrenched | 50%+ sessions missed; full non-attendance common; weeks or months absent | Refuses to leave home; panic attacks; complete shutdown; family in crisis | Severe anxiety or depression; social isolation; significant academic regression | Multi-agency response; Section 19 consideration; EHCP needs assessment; CAMHS referral |
Three attendance patterns are particularly diagnostic: absence that clusters on Mondays and Fridays (suggesting the pupil finds transitions between home and school difficult), absence that spikes after holidays (consistent with anxiety that builds during unstructured time), and absence from specific lessons rather than whole days (pointing strongly to ANA or ESE functions). These patterns are worth recording explicitly in your assessment documentation because they will be asked about during an EHCP needs assessment.
The 15-day threshold is legally significant. Under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, the local authority has a duty to arrange suitable alternative education for pupils who cannot attend due to health reasons once absence has continued for 15 days. SENCOs need to know when they are approaching this threshold and what the notification procedure is in their LA.
The biggest gap in the existing EBSA literature is the absence of a structured timeline. Most guidance describes what to do but not when. The following six-week plan is drawn from Lancashire EPS (2023), Barnet (2024), and Oxfordshire EPS (2025) guidance frameworks.
When a concern is raised, the SENCO's first task is information gathering, not diagnosis. Meet with the class teacher or form tutor to establish the pattern: when did concerns start, what triggers have been observed, and what has already been tried. Make direct, low-key contact with the family using a support-first approach rather than a compliance-first tone. The DfE's "Working Together to Improve School Attendance" (2024) is explicit that early contact should feel collaborative, not punitive.
Check the pupil's file for any existing SEND documentation, previous EP involvement, or reported medical conditions. Begin recording attendance data in your APDR format from this point, even if you do not yet have a formal plan. Contemporaneous records written at the time carry significantly more evidential weight than retrospective accounts.
Use this period to assess the function of avoidance. The SRAS-R is available in parent and child versions and takes approximately 15 minutes each to complete. If you do not have access to the full instrument, the West Sussex EBSA risk and resilience factor checklist provides a useful structured alternative. For pupils where executive function difficulties may be contributing to avoidance, a brief classroom audit can help identify whether planning, inhibition, or emotional regulation demands are driving distress.
Gather the pupil's voice directly. Use a 1:1 conversation with a trusted adult, or a written tool if the pupil finds spoken disclosure difficult. Pupils with PDA profiles or high working memory difficulties may need alternative voice-gathering methods. Document everything: what the pupil said, how they presented, and what the trusted adult observed.
Consider whether to request EP involvement at this stage. If the case involves complex autism, a PDA profile, significant trauma, or if the function of avoidance is unclear, an EP consultation is warranted. Most LAs will consider an early consultation request reasonable at the developing stage.
With assessment complete, write an APDR plan using the Assess-Plan-Do-Review cycle. The plan should specify: the identified function(s), the pupil's named strengths and triggers, the specific adjustments being made, who is responsible for each element, and the review date.
Map your interventions to the primary function identified. Avoid generic anxiety support packages applied without regard to function. A pupil presenting with PTR function (finding home more reinforcing than school) will not benefit from sensory modifications designed for ANA. The table in the earlier section on Kearney's model provides the intervention mapping. Differentiation strategies used within the pupil's reduced timetable can help maintain engagement with curriculum content during the assessment and early intervention phase.
Write your initial APDR plan at this point and share it with parents. Multi-agency referrals, including CAMHS and school nursing, should be initiated now if not already in place. Document these referrals and their outcomes as part of your evidence base.
If the pupil has been significantly absent, full-time reintegration is almost never the right first step. A graduated return programme should start from whatever the pupil can currently manage (sometimes as little as one hour per week in a safe space) and increase in small, planned increments. Each step should be agreed in advance with the pupil and family, with explicit criteria for moving forward and explicit provision for stepping back if distress increases.
Identify a key adult: a named member of staff whom the pupil trusts, who has protected time for daily check-ins, and who can help the graduated return. The key adult role is not a teaching assistant deployment question. It is a relational intervention with a named, consistent person.
Review the APDR plan at no longer than six-weekly intervals. Review more frequently if the pupil's attendance changes significantly in either direction. At each review, ask: what has improved, what has not changed, what does the pupil say about the interventions, and does the plan need to change?
Document the outcome of every review meeting, including who attended, what was agreed, and any disagreements. This record becomes the evidence base for any future EHCP needs assessment request.
EBSA intersects with at least four pieces of legislation and statutory guidance. SENCOs who do not understand this framework risk both legal exposure for their school and poorer outcomes for pupils.
| Legal framework | Key duty | SENCO action | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education Act 1996, Section 19 | LA must provide suitable education when a pupil cannot attend due to illness or exclusion after 15 consecutive or cumulative days | Notify LA when threshold approaches; request alternative provision; document that school provision is no longer accessible due to health | Medical or EP evidence that attendance is not possible; school's record of attempts made |
| Equality Act 2010 | Anxiety meeting the disability threshold (substantial, long-term effect on normal day-to-day activities) triggers duty of reasonable adjustments | Document adjustments made; ensure they are not just planned but implemented; revisit if ineffective | Adjustment log; evidence of effect; any medical confirmation of disability status |
| SEND Code of Practice (2015) | SEMH is a recognised category of SEND; graduated approach applies; EHCP available where needs cannot be met through SEN support alone | Follow APDR cycle; document impact of SEN support; request EHCP assessment if SEN support insufficient | APDR records; evidence of provision and impact; pupil voice; parental views |
| DfE Attendance Guidance (August 2024) | Statutory guidance places EBSA within a support-first framework; penalty notices inappropriate where emotional factors are identified | Classify absence correctly; do not apply penalty notices to EBSA cases; use support plan, not prosecution pathway | Accurate attendance codes; support plan documentation; evidence of communication with family |
| Children Missing Education (CME) | Schools must notify the LA if a pupil's whereabouts become unknown or if home education becomes a concern | Maintain welfare contact; notify LA if contact is lost; do not remove from roll without LA agreement | Contact log; LA notification records; roll maintenance documentation |
On attendance coding: EBSA absences should be coded as illness (code I) where a medical or psychological basis has been established. Where the basis is not yet clear, use code O (other authorised). Do not use unauthorised absence codes as a pressure mechanism in EBSA cases where the emotional basis is documented. The 2024 School Attendance (Pupil Registration) Regulations updated coding requirements and SENCOs should review their LA's guidance on this.
Reduced timetables sit in a legally ambiguous position. They are not formally provided for in legislation, but they are widely used and referenced in DfE and LA guidance as a time-limited, transitional measure. The DfE expectation is that reduced timetables are temporary (most LA guidance suggests a maximum of eight weeks), time-limited, documented, agreed with parents, and accompanied by a plan for reintegration to full timetable. If a reduced timetable extends beyond eight weeks without review, the LA's Section 19 duty may have been triggered.
SENCOs often ask at what point EBSA warrants an EHCP needs assessment request. The answer is not defined by a specific absence threshold. It is defined by the question of whether the pupil's needs can be met through SEN support alone.
An EHCP needs assessment is appropriate when: the pupil has received at least two full APDR cycles of graduated SEN support; that support has not produced sufficient improvement in attendance or wellbeing; and there is credible evidence (from the school, EP, or medical professionals) that the pupil's needs are significant enough to require an EHCP to specify and fund provision.
EBSA can be the primary presenting need in an EHCP request. Anxiety severe enough to prevent school attendance constitutes a significant SEMH need under the SEND Code of Practice. The EHCP needs assessment process itself requires the LA to seek evidence from the school, the family, an EP, and any other professionals involved. The SENCO's role is to prepare a thorough school advice document that covers: the history of the EBSA, the APDR records, the outcomes of each intervention, the pupil's voice, and the family's views.
The evidence file for an EHCP request should include: all APDR records from SEN support, any EP reports or consultation notes, medical evidence (GP letters, CAMHS reports), attendance data with context, the pupil's own account of their experience, and evidence of reasonable adjustments made under the Equality Act. A request that lacks contemporaneous APDR documentation is significantly harder to argue.
Within an EHCP, provision for EBSA can include: specified hours of therapeutic support, a named keyworker, a graduated reintegration programme, alternative provision arrangements, and specific reasonable adjustments to the school environment. The annual review of an EHCP where EBSA is a factor should include current attendance data, progress against attendance targets, and an updated view from the EP.
At annual review, attendance targets in EHCPs need careful framing. A target of "full attendance" for a pupil in entrenched EBSA is not realistic and risks the review becoming adversarial. A better frame is: "X sessions per week, with a planned increment schedule reviewed each half-term." This is measurable, achievable, and demonstrates that the provision is working.
A graduated return is not simply a reduced timetable. It is a structured programme with named steps, explicit criteria for progression, and built-in flexibility. The research on graduated exposure (Kearney & Albano, 2004; Finning et al., 2019) consistently shows that avoidance maintains anxiety: the longer a pupil stays away from the feared situation, the more the anxiety consolidates. Gradual, supported exposure is more effective than prolonged absence followed by sudden full-time return.
The key principles of a graduated return are: start from what the pupil can currently manage (even if that is one hour in a quiet room), increase in small steps agreed in advance, ensure each step feels achievable, and never remove a step without explicit agreement with the pupil. The pace is determined by the pupil's distress levels, not by the school's desire to normalise attendance quickly.
A practical graduated return programme looks like this. In the first week, the pupil attends for one to two hours in a low-demand environment, ideally with the key adult. In the second week, the sessions increase in length and the pupil begins to access one or two lessons with low-anxiety factors (subjects they enjoy, small groups, trusted teachers). In weeks three and four, the timetable increases by one session per day, with each new addition planned and explained to the pupil in advance. By weeks six to eight, the aim is for the pupil to be accessing at least a half timetable independently.
The safe space is a physical resource that makes graduated return viable. It needs to be quiet, consistently available, supervised by someone the pupil trusts, and not used as a punitive or withdrawal space for other pupils. The pupil should know they can access it when distress levels become unmanageable, but with a clear expectation that they return to learning once regulated. Scaffolding strategies used by the key adult during safe space time can maintain curriculum engagement without the full demands of the classroom.
Two things consistently undermine graduated returns. The first is staff inconsistency: if the pupil encounters a different key adult, a changed room, or a broken agreement, trust collapses and the step is lost. The second is family dynamics: if the home environment continues to provide high reinforcement for staying home (games, screens, undisturbed time), the motivational gradient makes every step back into school harder.
The November 2025 Ofsted framework introduced the most significant changes to school inspection in a decade, including a restructured five-point grading scale and a new approach to attendance. Attendance is now absorbed into the behaviour and attitudes judgement rather than being assessed as a separate strand.
The key shift is this: inspectors are now required to understand the reasons behind absence data, not simply the numbers. A school with 18% persistent absence that can demonstrate clear, personalised support for every EBSA pupil is in a significantly stronger position than a school with 15% persistent absence that treats all absence as a compliance issue. The inspection toolkit (Ofsted, 2025) explicitly asks inspectors to examine whether "the school understands why pupils are absent and takes effective action to support their return."
Inspectors will look for: a clear and consistently applied attendance policy that distinguishes between different causes of absence; evidence that EBSA pupils are known, their needs understood, and support personalised; a key adult or pastoral system that demonstrates relational investment; and evidence that the school seeks to remove barriers to attendance rather than applying pressure disproportionate to the pupil's circumstances.
When an inspector asks about a specific pupil with high absence, you need to be able to walk them through: the nature of the difficulty, the assessment completed, the support in place, the involvement of family and other agencies, and the progress made. You do not need to demonstrate that the pupil now attends full-time. You need to demonstrate that the school's response is thoughtful, evidence-informed, and proportionate.
Schools that have strong SENCO systems for tracking EBSA cases, with documented APDR records and clear multi-agency communication, are the schools that perform well in this inspection strand. The documentation is your evidence that the school's approach is systematic rather than reactive.
Educational psychologists bring three things to EBSA cases that are difficult to replicate without specialist training: formal assessment of the function of avoidance using validated tools, systemic consultation that helps the school, family, and other agencies work together more effectively, and formulation-based intervention planning that accounts for the complexity of the individual case.
The criteria for requesting EP involvement in EBSA are: cases where the function of avoidance is unclear or multiple, cases involving autism or a possible PDA profile, cases where school-based interventions have not produced improvement after two APDR cycles, cases where there is significant family difficulty or disagreement about the approach, and cases where an EHCP needs assessment is being considered. It is worth requesting EP involvement earlier rather than later if any of these criteria apply. EP consultation time is limited in most LAs, but a brief consultation is often more valuable than months of school-only intervention in a complex case.
To make effective use of limited EP time, prepare a focused referral. Rather than "pupil is not attending, please help," write: "Pupil has been attending 40% of sessions since September. We have completed one APDR cycle using ANA-function interventions with limited improvement. We are uncertain whether the primary function is ANA or ESE, and we would like an EP consultation to clarify the formulation and advise on next steps." Focused referrals get faster responses and more useful outcomes.
When the EP report arrives, read it alongside the APDR records and identify which recommendations are already in place, which require additional resource, and which require a new referral. Translate the report's recommendations into specific APDR actions with named responsible parties and review dates. EP recommendations that disappear into filing are wasted.
Primary to secondary transition is one of the most significant EBSA triggers. The combination of environmental novelty, social complexity, academic demand increase, and loss of established relationships creates conditions that are particularly difficult for anxious pupils. Post-pandemic data shows that autumn term Year 7 EBSA rates are substantially higher than pre-2020 figures (PMC, 2024).
An enhanced transition programme for EBSA-vulnerable pupils includes: multiple additional visits to the secondary school in the summer term, ideally in smaller groups or individually; a named key adult in the secondary school who has met the pupil before September; a sensory audit of the new environment with the pupil and family; clear information about the layout, routine, and expectations shared in advance; and a transition plan document (sometimes called an EBSA passport) that communicates the pupil's triggers, supports, and what works.
The information that must transfer at Year 6 to Year 7 transition: the APDR records and any EHCP, the function of avoidance identified, the specific triggers, the key adult relationship, the safe space arrangements, any reasonable adjustments in place, and the family's preferred communication channel. Incomplete information transfers are one of the most preventable causes of EBSA escalation in Year 7.
Within-school transitions also matter. Moving from Year 9 to Year 10 (with new option subjects and new teachers), and from Year 11 to post-16 (with a completely new environment), are both identified EBSA escalation points. For pupils with ADHD, autism, or PDA profiles, these transitions warrant the same level of planning as the primary to secondary transition.
The transition plan should be written by the SENCO in collaboration with the pupil, shared with the receiving setting at least one term in advance, and followed up at the start of the new academic year. The SENCO's role does not end at the handover meeting.
The following studies provide the evidence base underpinning the approaches described in this guide. Each is relevant to SENCOs designing assessment frameworks and intervention programmes for EBSA pupils.
A functional approach to assessing and treating childhood anxiety: an initial investigation View study ↗
321 citations
Kearney, C.A. & Silverman, W.K. (1993)
Kearney and Silverman's foundational study established the four-function model of school refusal behaviour that underpins almost all subsequent UK assessment frameworks. For SENCOs, understanding whether a pupil is avoiding stimuli, escaping evaluation, seeking attention, or pursuing tangible reward at home is the most important diagnostic question before any intervention.
School absenteeism and mental health in children and adolescents: a systematic review View study ↗
287 citations
Finning, K., Moore, D.A., Ukoumunne, O.C., Ramchandani, P. & Ford, T. (2019)
This systematic review examined the relationship between school absenteeism and mental health difficulties across 36 studies. It found that anxiety disorders are the most common co-occurring condition in school refusal cases, and that the relationship is bidirectional: anxiety causes absence, and prolonged absence increases anxiety. The clinical implication for SENCOs is that waiting for mental health treatment before attempting reintegration is likely to worsen outcomes.
Understanding School Refusal: A Handbook for Professionals in Education, Health and Social Care View study ↗
Key practitioner text
Thambirajah, M.S., Grandison, K.J. & De-Hayes, L. (2008)
The definitive UK practitioner text on school refusal, written by a consultant psychiatrist, educational psychologist, and SENCO. Thambirajah et al. provide detailed assessment frameworks, case formulation models, and intervention approaches that translate directly to SENCO practice. Particularly useful for the differential assessment sections and the multi-agency coordination guidance.
An analysis of UK local authority emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) guidance View study ↗
2025
Taylor & Francis (2025)
This 2025 analysis examined 48 UK local authority EBSA guidance documents, finding that 67% use EBSA as their standard term, and identifying common and divergent elements across guidance frameworks. For SENCOs working across LA boundaries or seeking to benchmark their practice, this study provides the most thorough overview of current UK guidance available in the peer-reviewed literature.
Emotionally Based School Avoidance in the post-COVID-19 pandemic context: a perfect storm View study ↗
2024
PMC (2024)
This paper contextualises the post-pandemic surge in EBSA within a "perfect storm" of disrupted routines, increased anxiety, social skill regression, and reduced school-based mental health capacity. It provides the strongest available evidence for why EBSA has escalated since 2020 and identifies the pupil characteristics most at risk, information that is directly useful for SENCO early identification work.
Start your EBSA response by identifying which of Kearney's four functions is driving the avoidance, then build your APDR plan around that specific function. The function determines the intervention. Without that diagnostic step, even well-resourced support plans produce inconsistent results.
One in five children now has difficulties attending school regularly, according to the Department for Education. In 2018/19, persistent absence affected 10.9% of pupils. By 2022/23, that figure had risen to 21.2%. In autumn 2024/25, 33.3% of pupils with EHCPs were persistently absent. For SENCOs, emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) is no longer an exceptional case requiring specialist referral. It is a routine part of the caseload, and most schools lack a structured, legally defensible response framework.
This guide synthesises guidance from 48 UK local authority EBSA toolkits, the 2024 DfE statutory attendance guidance, the November 2025 Ofsted framework, and Kearney and Silverman's research evidence into one resource you can bookmark and return to. It is written for the SENCO coordinating the response, not the parent or the educational psychologist.
Emotionally based school avoidance describes a pattern of school non-attendance that is driven by emotional or psychological distress rather than deliberate truancy. The West Sussex Educational Psychology Service (2019) established the term as the preferred descriptor for UK settings, and a 2025 analysis of 48 UK local authority guidance documents found that 67% now use EBSA as their standard term (Taylor & Francis, 2025).
The term matters because it shapes professional response. "School refusal" implies choice. "Truancy" implies deliberate transgression. Neither is accurate for a child whose anxiety about attending school produces genuine somatic symptoms, panic attacks, or psychological shutdown. The SEND Code of Practice classifies significant anxiety as a social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) need, which carries specific legal obligations under the Children and Families Act 2014.
EBSA is also distinct from school phobia (a historical, largely obsolete term denoting specific phobic anxiety), separation anxiety (a diagnosable condition that may or may not be a factor in EBSA), and simple bereavement-related temporary absence. The table below maps these distinctions for practical use.
| Term | Definition | Key distinguishing feature | SENCO implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| EBSA / EBSNA | Emotionally driven non-attendance; anxiety or distress underlies avoidance | Present at home, distressed by school; no concealment | Treat as SEMH need; graduated approach, not sanctions |
| Truancy | Deliberate absence without parental knowledge | Parents unaware; pupil elsewhere during school hours | Attendance/safeguarding response; different legal pathway |
| School phobia | Historical term; phobic anxiety specifically about school environment | Specific, identifiable phobic triggers; now subsumed within EBSA | Treat as EBSA; phobia-specific CBT if EP confirms specific phobic component |
| Separation anxiety | Diagnosable anxiety disorder; distress at separation from attachment figure | Distress peaks at point of separation; present across settings | May co-exist with EBSA; CAMHS referral likely needed |
| Persistent absence (PA) | Missing 10% or more of sessions; includes all absence types | Statistical threshold, not a diagnosis or explanation | EBSA is one possible cause; needs individual assessment |
Kearney and Silverman (1990, 1993) proposed that school avoidance behaviour serves one of four distinct functions. Their model is the basis for the School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised (SRAS-R) and underpins most UK local authority assessment frameworks. Understanding the function before designing the intervention is the single most important diagnostic step a SENCO can take.
The four functions are: avoidance of stimuli provoking negative affect, escape from aversive social or evaluative situations, pursuit of attention from significant others, and pursuit of tangible reinforcement outside school. A pupil may present with more than one function, but one is typically primary.
| Function | What drives it | Classroom signs | First-line intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Avoidance of negative stimuli (ANA) | Anxiety provoked by specific school stimuli: noise, crowding, transitions, sensory overwhelm, particular lessons | Somatic complaints before specific lessons; panic at transitions; hypervigilance in corridors; distress during assemblies | Environmental modification; sensory audit; predictable routines; safe space access; gradual exposure to identified triggers |
| 2. Escape from social or evaluative situations (ESE) | Fear of humiliation, failure, peer judgement, or academic performance | Absence peaks before assessments, presentations, PE; refuses to read aloud; avoids group work; catastrophic thinking about mistakes | Anxiety management; cognitive restructuring; graded exposure to feared situations; low-stakes performance opportunities |
| 3. Pursuit of attention from significant others (PAS) | Separation distress; desire to remain with parents or caregivers | Distress peaks at separation, not throughout the day; settles once parent leaves; frequent calls home requesting collection; follows staff | Structured separation routines; attachment-based key adult; parent coaching; reducing secondary gain from staying home |
| 4. Pursuit of tangible reward outside school (PTR) | School offers less reinforcement than home: gaming, screens, freedom, comfort | No apparent anxiety; calm when absent; school environment experienced as inherently less rewarding; often denied by family | Contingency management; reduce home reinforcement; increase school engagement; strengthen school relationships |
The ANA and ESE functions are anxiety-driven and respond well to CBT-informed approaches, graded exposure, and environmental adjustment. The PAS function requires a family systems approach alongside school-based key adult work. The PTR function is the least common in clinically significant EBSA and involves a different intervention logic: reducing the relative reinforcement value of home while making school more attractive.
A practical diagnostic starting point is to note when the distress peaks. If distress is highest at the threshold of school and dissipates once the pupil is inside (or at home), you are likely seeing ANA, ESE, or PAS. If the pupil shows little apparent anxiety but simply prefers home, PTR is more probable. The SRAS-R questionnaire (available in child and parent versions from Kearney's original publications) gives a scored assessment of the primary function.
EBSA rarely presents fully formed. It escalates through identifiable stages, and the earlier you intervene, the shorter and less disruptive the reintegration pathway. The research literature distinguishes three clinical stages: emerging, developing, and entrenched (Lancashire EPS, 2023; Thambirajah et al., 2008).
At the emerging stage, a pupil may attend inconsistently, produce somatic complaints on Sunday evenings, or request to leave school early. At the developing stage, avoidance becomes more frequent, distress more visible, and academic disengagement more pronounced. At the entrenched stage, the pupil may have been absent for weeks or months, family and school relationships are strained, and the gap between the pupil and peers widens daily.
| Stage | Attendance pattern | Behavioural indicators | Emotional indicators | SENCO action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerging | Occasional Mondays/Fridays; post-holiday dips; specific lesson avoidance | Repeated requests to go home; somatic complaints (headaches, stomach aches); tearfulness at drop-off | Mild anxiety; some reluctance; settles once engaged | Early monitoring; tutor check-ins; parental conversation; note pattern |
| Developing | 15-40% sessions missed; predictable trigger pattern; increasing frequency | Morning meltdowns; physical resistance; escalating somatic complaints; withdrawal from peers | Visible anxiety; low mood; fatigue; social withdrawal; academic disengagement | SENCO referral; start APDR cycle; assess function; consider EP referral |
| Entrenched | 50%+ sessions missed; full non-attendance common; weeks or months absent | Refuses to leave home; panic attacks; complete shutdown; family in crisis | Severe anxiety or depression; social isolation; significant academic regression | Multi-agency response; Section 19 consideration; EHCP needs assessment; CAMHS referral |
Three attendance patterns are particularly diagnostic: absence that clusters on Mondays and Fridays (suggesting the pupil finds transitions between home and school difficult), absence that spikes after holidays (consistent with anxiety that builds during unstructured time), and absence from specific lessons rather than whole days (pointing strongly to ANA or ESE functions). These patterns are worth recording explicitly in your assessment documentation because they will be asked about during an EHCP needs assessment.
The 15-day threshold is legally significant. Under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, the local authority has a duty to arrange suitable alternative education for pupils who cannot attend due to health reasons once absence has continued for 15 days. SENCOs need to know when they are approaching this threshold and what the notification procedure is in their LA.
The biggest gap in the existing EBSA literature is the absence of a structured timeline. Most guidance describes what to do but not when. The following six-week plan is drawn from Lancashire EPS (2023), Barnet (2024), and Oxfordshire EPS (2025) guidance frameworks.
When a concern is raised, the SENCO's first task is information gathering, not diagnosis. Meet with the class teacher or form tutor to establish the pattern: when did concerns start, what triggers have been observed, and what has already been tried. Make direct, low-key contact with the family using a support-first approach rather than a compliance-first tone. The DfE's "Working Together to Improve School Attendance" (2024) is explicit that early contact should feel collaborative, not punitive.
Check the pupil's file for any existing SEND documentation, previous EP involvement, or reported medical conditions. Begin recording attendance data in your APDR format from this point, even if you do not yet have a formal plan. Contemporaneous records written at the time carry significantly more evidential weight than retrospective accounts.
Use this period to assess the function of avoidance. The SRAS-R is available in parent and child versions and takes approximately 15 minutes each to complete. If you do not have access to the full instrument, the West Sussex EBSA risk and resilience factor checklist provides a useful structured alternative. For pupils where executive function difficulties may be contributing to avoidance, a brief classroom audit can help identify whether planning, inhibition, or emotional regulation demands are driving distress.
Gather the pupil's voice directly. Use a 1:1 conversation with a trusted adult, or a written tool if the pupil finds spoken disclosure difficult. Pupils with PDA profiles or high working memory difficulties may need alternative voice-gathering methods. Document everything: what the pupil said, how they presented, and what the trusted adult observed.
Consider whether to request EP involvement at this stage. If the case involves complex autism, a PDA profile, significant trauma, or if the function of avoidance is unclear, an EP consultation is warranted. Most LAs will consider an early consultation request reasonable at the developing stage.
With assessment complete, write an APDR plan using the Assess-Plan-Do-Review cycle. The plan should specify: the identified function(s), the pupil's named strengths and triggers, the specific adjustments being made, who is responsible for each element, and the review date.
Map your interventions to the primary function identified. Avoid generic anxiety support packages applied without regard to function. A pupil presenting with PTR function (finding home more reinforcing than school) will not benefit from sensory modifications designed for ANA. The table in the earlier section on Kearney's model provides the intervention mapping. Differentiation strategies used within the pupil's reduced timetable can help maintain engagement with curriculum content during the assessment and early intervention phase.
Write your initial APDR plan at this point and share it with parents. Multi-agency referrals, including CAMHS and school nursing, should be initiated now if not already in place. Document these referrals and their outcomes as part of your evidence base.
If the pupil has been significantly absent, full-time reintegration is almost never the right first step. A graduated return programme should start from whatever the pupil can currently manage (sometimes as little as one hour per week in a safe space) and increase in small, planned increments. Each step should be agreed in advance with the pupil and family, with explicit criteria for moving forward and explicit provision for stepping back if distress increases.
Identify a key adult: a named member of staff whom the pupil trusts, who has protected time for daily check-ins, and who can help the graduated return. The key adult role is not a teaching assistant deployment question. It is a relational intervention with a named, consistent person.
Review the APDR plan at no longer than six-weekly intervals. Review more frequently if the pupil's attendance changes significantly in either direction. At each review, ask: what has improved, what has not changed, what does the pupil say about the interventions, and does the plan need to change?
Document the outcome of every review meeting, including who attended, what was agreed, and any disagreements. This record becomes the evidence base for any future EHCP needs assessment request.
EBSA intersects with at least four pieces of legislation and statutory guidance. SENCOs who do not understand this framework risk both legal exposure for their school and poorer outcomes for pupils.
| Legal framework | Key duty | SENCO action | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education Act 1996, Section 19 | LA must provide suitable education when a pupil cannot attend due to illness or exclusion after 15 consecutive or cumulative days | Notify LA when threshold approaches; request alternative provision; document that school provision is no longer accessible due to health | Medical or EP evidence that attendance is not possible; school's record of attempts made |
| Equality Act 2010 | Anxiety meeting the disability threshold (substantial, long-term effect on normal day-to-day activities) triggers duty of reasonable adjustments | Document adjustments made; ensure they are not just planned but implemented; revisit if ineffective | Adjustment log; evidence of effect; any medical confirmation of disability status |
| SEND Code of Practice (2015) | SEMH is a recognised category of SEND; graduated approach applies; EHCP available where needs cannot be met through SEN support alone | Follow APDR cycle; document impact of SEN support; request EHCP assessment if SEN support insufficient | APDR records; evidence of provision and impact; pupil voice; parental views |
| DfE Attendance Guidance (August 2024) | Statutory guidance places EBSA within a support-first framework; penalty notices inappropriate where emotional factors are identified | Classify absence correctly; do not apply penalty notices to EBSA cases; use support plan, not prosecution pathway | Accurate attendance codes; support plan documentation; evidence of communication with family |
| Children Missing Education (CME) | Schools must notify the LA if a pupil's whereabouts become unknown or if home education becomes a concern | Maintain welfare contact; notify LA if contact is lost; do not remove from roll without LA agreement | Contact log; LA notification records; roll maintenance documentation |
On attendance coding: EBSA absences should be coded as illness (code I) where a medical or psychological basis has been established. Where the basis is not yet clear, use code O (other authorised). Do not use unauthorised absence codes as a pressure mechanism in EBSA cases where the emotional basis is documented. The 2024 School Attendance (Pupil Registration) Regulations updated coding requirements and SENCOs should review their LA's guidance on this.
Reduced timetables sit in a legally ambiguous position. They are not formally provided for in legislation, but they are widely used and referenced in DfE and LA guidance as a time-limited, transitional measure. The DfE expectation is that reduced timetables are temporary (most LA guidance suggests a maximum of eight weeks), time-limited, documented, agreed with parents, and accompanied by a plan for reintegration to full timetable. If a reduced timetable extends beyond eight weeks without review, the LA's Section 19 duty may have been triggered.
SENCOs often ask at what point EBSA warrants an EHCP needs assessment request. The answer is not defined by a specific absence threshold. It is defined by the question of whether the pupil's needs can be met through SEN support alone.
An EHCP needs assessment is appropriate when: the pupil has received at least two full APDR cycles of graduated SEN support; that support has not produced sufficient improvement in attendance or wellbeing; and there is credible evidence (from the school, EP, or medical professionals) that the pupil's needs are significant enough to require an EHCP to specify and fund provision.
EBSA can be the primary presenting need in an EHCP request. Anxiety severe enough to prevent school attendance constitutes a significant SEMH need under the SEND Code of Practice. The EHCP needs assessment process itself requires the LA to seek evidence from the school, the family, an EP, and any other professionals involved. The SENCO's role is to prepare a thorough school advice document that covers: the history of the EBSA, the APDR records, the outcomes of each intervention, the pupil's voice, and the family's views.
The evidence file for an EHCP request should include: all APDR records from SEN support, any EP reports or consultation notes, medical evidence (GP letters, CAMHS reports), attendance data with context, the pupil's own account of their experience, and evidence of reasonable adjustments made under the Equality Act. A request that lacks contemporaneous APDR documentation is significantly harder to argue.
Within an EHCP, provision for EBSA can include: specified hours of therapeutic support, a named keyworker, a graduated reintegration programme, alternative provision arrangements, and specific reasonable adjustments to the school environment. The annual review of an EHCP where EBSA is a factor should include current attendance data, progress against attendance targets, and an updated view from the EP.
At annual review, attendance targets in EHCPs need careful framing. A target of "full attendance" for a pupil in entrenched EBSA is not realistic and risks the review becoming adversarial. A better frame is: "X sessions per week, with a planned increment schedule reviewed each half-term." This is measurable, achievable, and demonstrates that the provision is working.
A graduated return is not simply a reduced timetable. It is a structured programme with named steps, explicit criteria for progression, and built-in flexibility. The research on graduated exposure (Kearney & Albano, 2004; Finning et al., 2019) consistently shows that avoidance maintains anxiety: the longer a pupil stays away from the feared situation, the more the anxiety consolidates. Gradual, supported exposure is more effective than prolonged absence followed by sudden full-time return.
The key principles of a graduated return are: start from what the pupil can currently manage (even if that is one hour in a quiet room), increase in small steps agreed in advance, ensure each step feels achievable, and never remove a step without explicit agreement with the pupil. The pace is determined by the pupil's distress levels, not by the school's desire to normalise attendance quickly.
A practical graduated return programme looks like this. In the first week, the pupil attends for one to two hours in a low-demand environment, ideally with the key adult. In the second week, the sessions increase in length and the pupil begins to access one or two lessons with low-anxiety factors (subjects they enjoy, small groups, trusted teachers). In weeks three and four, the timetable increases by one session per day, with each new addition planned and explained to the pupil in advance. By weeks six to eight, the aim is for the pupil to be accessing at least a half timetable independently.
The safe space is a physical resource that makes graduated return viable. It needs to be quiet, consistently available, supervised by someone the pupil trusts, and not used as a punitive or withdrawal space for other pupils. The pupil should know they can access it when distress levels become unmanageable, but with a clear expectation that they return to learning once regulated. Scaffolding strategies used by the key adult during safe space time can maintain curriculum engagement without the full demands of the classroom.
Two things consistently undermine graduated returns. The first is staff inconsistency: if the pupil encounters a different key adult, a changed room, or a broken agreement, trust collapses and the step is lost. The second is family dynamics: if the home environment continues to provide high reinforcement for staying home (games, screens, undisturbed time), the motivational gradient makes every step back into school harder.
The November 2025 Ofsted framework introduced the most significant changes to school inspection in a decade, including a restructured five-point grading scale and a new approach to attendance. Attendance is now absorbed into the behaviour and attitudes judgement rather than being assessed as a separate strand.
The key shift is this: inspectors are now required to understand the reasons behind absence data, not simply the numbers. A school with 18% persistent absence that can demonstrate clear, personalised support for every EBSA pupil is in a significantly stronger position than a school with 15% persistent absence that treats all absence as a compliance issue. The inspection toolkit (Ofsted, 2025) explicitly asks inspectors to examine whether "the school understands why pupils are absent and takes effective action to support their return."
Inspectors will look for: a clear and consistently applied attendance policy that distinguishes between different causes of absence; evidence that EBSA pupils are known, their needs understood, and support personalised; a key adult or pastoral system that demonstrates relational investment; and evidence that the school seeks to remove barriers to attendance rather than applying pressure disproportionate to the pupil's circumstances.
When an inspector asks about a specific pupil with high absence, you need to be able to walk them through: the nature of the difficulty, the assessment completed, the support in place, the involvement of family and other agencies, and the progress made. You do not need to demonstrate that the pupil now attends full-time. You need to demonstrate that the school's response is thoughtful, evidence-informed, and proportionate.
Schools that have strong SENCO systems for tracking EBSA cases, with documented APDR records and clear multi-agency communication, are the schools that perform well in this inspection strand. The documentation is your evidence that the school's approach is systematic rather than reactive.
Educational psychologists bring three things to EBSA cases that are difficult to replicate without specialist training: formal assessment of the function of avoidance using validated tools, systemic consultation that helps the school, family, and other agencies work together more effectively, and formulation-based intervention planning that accounts for the complexity of the individual case.
The criteria for requesting EP involvement in EBSA are: cases where the function of avoidance is unclear or multiple, cases involving autism or a possible PDA profile, cases where school-based interventions have not produced improvement after two APDR cycles, cases where there is significant family difficulty or disagreement about the approach, and cases where an EHCP needs assessment is being considered. It is worth requesting EP involvement earlier rather than later if any of these criteria apply. EP consultation time is limited in most LAs, but a brief consultation is often more valuable than months of school-only intervention in a complex case.
To make effective use of limited EP time, prepare a focused referral. Rather than "pupil is not attending, please help," write: "Pupil has been attending 40% of sessions since September. We have completed one APDR cycle using ANA-function interventions with limited improvement. We are uncertain whether the primary function is ANA or ESE, and we would like an EP consultation to clarify the formulation and advise on next steps." Focused referrals get faster responses and more useful outcomes.
When the EP report arrives, read it alongside the APDR records and identify which recommendations are already in place, which require additional resource, and which require a new referral. Translate the report's recommendations into specific APDR actions with named responsible parties and review dates. EP recommendations that disappear into filing are wasted.
Primary to secondary transition is one of the most significant EBSA triggers. The combination of environmental novelty, social complexity, academic demand increase, and loss of established relationships creates conditions that are particularly difficult for anxious pupils. Post-pandemic data shows that autumn term Year 7 EBSA rates are substantially higher than pre-2020 figures (PMC, 2024).
An enhanced transition programme for EBSA-vulnerable pupils includes: multiple additional visits to the secondary school in the summer term, ideally in smaller groups or individually; a named key adult in the secondary school who has met the pupil before September; a sensory audit of the new environment with the pupil and family; clear information about the layout, routine, and expectations shared in advance; and a transition plan document (sometimes called an EBSA passport) that communicates the pupil's triggers, supports, and what works.
The information that must transfer at Year 6 to Year 7 transition: the APDR records and any EHCP, the function of avoidance identified, the specific triggers, the key adult relationship, the safe space arrangements, any reasonable adjustments in place, and the family's preferred communication channel. Incomplete information transfers are one of the most preventable causes of EBSA escalation in Year 7.
Within-school transitions also matter. Moving from Year 9 to Year 10 (with new option subjects and new teachers), and from Year 11 to post-16 (with a completely new environment), are both identified EBSA escalation points. For pupils with ADHD, autism, or PDA profiles, these transitions warrant the same level of planning as the primary to secondary transition.
The transition plan should be written by the SENCO in collaboration with the pupil, shared with the receiving setting at least one term in advance, and followed up at the start of the new academic year. The SENCO's role does not end at the handover meeting.
The following studies provide the evidence base underpinning the approaches described in this guide. Each is relevant to SENCOs designing assessment frameworks and intervention programmes for EBSA pupils.
A functional approach to assessing and treating childhood anxiety: an initial investigation View study ↗
321 citations
Kearney, C.A. & Silverman, W.K. (1993)
Kearney and Silverman's foundational study established the four-function model of school refusal behaviour that underpins almost all subsequent UK assessment frameworks. For SENCOs, understanding whether a pupil is avoiding stimuli, escaping evaluation, seeking attention, or pursuing tangible reward at home is the most important diagnostic question before any intervention.
School absenteeism and mental health in children and adolescents: a systematic review View study ↗
287 citations
Finning, K., Moore, D.A., Ukoumunne, O.C., Ramchandani, P. & Ford, T. (2019)
This systematic review examined the relationship between school absenteeism and mental health difficulties across 36 studies. It found that anxiety disorders are the most common co-occurring condition in school refusal cases, and that the relationship is bidirectional: anxiety causes absence, and prolonged absence increases anxiety. The clinical implication for SENCOs is that waiting for mental health treatment before attempting reintegration is likely to worsen outcomes.
Understanding School Refusal: A Handbook for Professionals in Education, Health and Social Care View study ↗
Key practitioner text
Thambirajah, M.S., Grandison, K.J. & De-Hayes, L. (2008)
The definitive UK practitioner text on school refusal, written by a consultant psychiatrist, educational psychologist, and SENCO. Thambirajah et al. provide detailed assessment frameworks, case formulation models, and intervention approaches that translate directly to SENCO practice. Particularly useful for the differential assessment sections and the multi-agency coordination guidance.
An analysis of UK local authority emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) guidance View study ↗
2025
Taylor & Francis (2025)
This 2025 analysis examined 48 UK local authority EBSA guidance documents, finding that 67% use EBSA as their standard term, and identifying common and divergent elements across guidance frameworks. For SENCOs working across LA boundaries or seeking to benchmark their practice, this study provides the most thorough overview of current UK guidance available in the peer-reviewed literature.
Emotionally Based School Avoidance in the post-COVID-19 pandemic context: a perfect storm View study ↗
2024
PMC (2024)
This paper contextualises the post-pandemic surge in EBSA within a "perfect storm" of disrupted routines, increased anxiety, social skill regression, and reduced school-based mental health capacity. It provides the strongest available evidence for why EBSA has escalated since 2020 and identifies the pupil characteristics most at risk, information that is directly useful for SENCO early identification work.
Start your EBSA response by identifying which of Kearney's four functions is driving the avoidance, then build your APDR plan around that specific function. The function determines the intervention. Without that diagnostic step, even well-resourced support plans produce inconsistent results.
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/ebsa-school-refusal-senco-guide#article","headline":"EBSA and School Refusal: A SENCO's Complete Guide","description":"A practical SENCO guide to emotionally based school avoidance: Kearney's four-function model, week-by-week response plan, legal duties, EHCP evidence, and...","datePublished":"2026-02-26T19:23:39.953Z","dateModified":"2026-02-26T19:24:25.873Z","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Paul Main","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","jobTitle":"Founder & Educational Consultant"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Structural Learning","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409e5d5e055c6/6040bf0426cb415ba2fc7882_newlogoblue.svg"}},"mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/ebsa-school-refusal-senco-guide"},"wordCount":4722},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/ebsa-school-refusal-senco-guide#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Blog","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/blog"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"EBSA and School Refusal: A SENCO's Complete Guide","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/ebsa-school-refusal-senco-guide"}]}]}
