03/09/2026
From today, schools are explicitly told that suicidal ideation can be a safeguarding concern.
So what happens when distress is still treated as an attendance problem?
Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 comes into force today, 1 September 2026.
It is statutory guidance for schools and colleges in England, and the Mental Health section in Part One was “substantially updated” as part of the 2026 revisions.
Paragraph 47 now explicitly tells all staff:
“mental health problems can, in some cases, develop into safeguarding concerns.”
It specifically names self-harm, suicidal ideation and risk of su***de.
That matters.
Because for some children, particularly autistic children with a Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) profile, the journey towards being unable to attend school may already have involved significant and escalating distress.
And this is not theoretical for me.
This is my story too.
It’s one of the reasons I am pushing for change in education and Local Authority practice.
Because there is something profoundly difficult about parenting a child who wants to learn, wants to belong, wants an education, but whose nervous system can no longer manage a school based environment.
And when that reaches suicidal ideation, the conversation changes completely.
In January, I produced a SEND White Paper scrutiny briefing on su***de risk, PDA and Local Authority safeguarding failure. It was written to inform scrutiny of the Government’s forthcoming SEND reforms and was sent to my MP, who confirmed that it had been forwarded to the relevant Minister.
It raised concerns about children whose distress in education escalates into self-harm and suicidal ideation, particularly autistic children with PDA profiles, and about the danger of interpreting nervous-system distress as behavioural non-compliance.
It specifically raised concerns that misinterpretation can lead to inappropriate placements, escalating distress and crisis.
That briefing was not an abstract policy exercise, it came from lived experience, and from hearing the same story from countless PDA families.
Children who are not refusing education.
Children who are not choosing failure.
Children who often desperately want to learn.
But whose distress is mistaken for defiance and treated through a behavioural lens.
More pressure.
More consequences.
More attendance demands.
More attempts to make a child comply.
When what may actually be needed is reduced threat, safety, flexibility, autonomy, trusting relationships and sometimes a different route into education outside of a school building.
Amelia Green’s 2024 research reflects this too. PDA children described guilt, shame, fear and being unable to make themselves attend. Some described self-harm and suicidal ideation. Her findings showed children who wanted to learn but were unable to access school safely.
That distinction between won’t and can’t matters enormously.
KCSIE 2026 bringing mental health more firmly into the safeguarding conversation is progress.
But safeguarding cannot only begin when a child reaches crisis.
We have to recognise what came before it:
The escalating distress, the loss of capacity, the unmet need, the absence, the inappropriate environment.
And this matters enormously as SEND reform moves forward.
For many children, education outside school is not giving up on education. It is what makes education possible.
So while the DfE are changing recognition of mental-health risk, we must also protect Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) and other routes to education outside school.
Because safeguarding isn’t just recognising suicidal ideation at crisis point while weakening the educational route that finally allows a child to feel safe enough to learn.
We now need to make sure SEND reform protects the children who cannot safely access school too.
Links in comments:
• Amelia Green 2024 research
• Dfe KCSIE 2026
• EOTAS consultation open until 18 September 2026
