Forced Resignation in Lancashire: A mother’s case and the human cost of denied school placement
Hannah Collins is one of many parents whose life changed when a suitable school placement could not be secured for her child. Living in Leyland, Lancashire, she endured a two-year wait for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her five-year-old son, a delay that made it impossible for her to remain in paid employment. Her story illustrates how the intersection of special needs, administrative backlog and insufficient local provision can lead directly to a forced resignation and long-term disruption to family income.
When administrators could not identify an appropriate specialist setting, Hannah and her family felt they had no option but to keep the child at home for safety reasons. The boy’s tendency to put non-food items in his mouth required continuous risk assessments and close supervision. For Hannah this meant daily caregiving that clashed with normal working hours. The consequence was a decision many parents dread: to quit a job in order to provide full-time care.
Key consequences observed in cases like Hannah’s:
- Loss of household income and financial insecurity.
- Professional setbacks and reduced future employability for the caregiver.
- Emotional and physical strain on family members providing round-the-clock care.
- Increased reliance on informal networks and community charities for respite and guidance.
These outcomes are not isolated. Across Lancashire, protests have highlighted the number of families who feel they have been failed by local SEND provision. At a recent demonstration, activists left rows of children’s shoes outside county hall to symbolise the young people who had been left without appropriate education. This visible form of protest underscores the human toll of policy gaps and administrative delays.
Examples and anecdotes: A mother from Clitheroe gave up work because transport was not arranged for her deaf-blind four-year-old, calling publicly for more council funding and better planning. Another parent, Sarah Longbottom from Rawtenstall, was fined for keeping her 11-year-old at home despite providing structured education, illustrating the legal and moral ambiguity many families face when mainstream schooling is inappropriate. Stories like these show how any single missing element in the support chain—from EHCP processing to specialist transport—can cascade into a full family crisis.
Parents often report having to choose between secure employment and ensuring their child’s immediate safety and developmental progress. That trade-off is at the heart of the debate about parental rights and the responsibilities of local authorities. Many families want the same thing: access to high-quality, timely educational support so caregivers can maintain both employment and a balanced home life.
To contextualise this locally-driven crisis, national authorities point to structural issues and ongoing reform efforts. The Department for Education acknowledges a troubled SEND system and cites listening sessions and policy work under the Schools White Paper as mechanisms to improve outcomes. Still, for families on the ground, these promises need to translate into faster EHCP decisions, better transport arrangements, and more specialist placements in the county.
Final insight: When school placements fail, the ripple effects extend beyond the child—affecting employment, wellbeing, and a family’s economic resilience.
How denied school placement affects parental rights, employment and work-life balance
Parental rights and employment are tightly coupled when a child has additional needs. The inability to find a suitable school placement forces many caregivers to make painful choices: reduce hours, take unpaid leave, or resign entirely. These are not hypothetical decisions; they are lived realities causing immediate financial hardship.
One clear pattern is that women disproportionately bear the burden. Research and anecdotal evidence repeatedly show that mothers step back from careers to manage care responsibilities, which compounds existing gender inequities in the labour market. In Lancashire, cases like Hannah’s echo a national trend where the SEND crisis contributes to women leaving the workforce, thereby affecting family incomes and career trajectories.
Employment consequences and work-life balance
When parents reduce working hours or leave their positions, several things happen:
- Short-term income drops increase reliance on benefits and charity support.
- Long-term career paths are disrupted, with lost promotions, pension contributions, and professional networks.
- Heightened stress and illness among caregivers leads to further absence from work.
Employers can play a positive role by offering flexible schedules, remote work where feasible, and compassionate absence policies. Yet, many workplaces remain ill-equipped to accommodate the complex schedules required for transporting children to specialist schools or attending multi-agency EHCP meetings.
Legal routes and parental rights: Parents have statutory rights linked to their child’s EHCP and local authority duties. When local systems fail to meet those duties, families can pursue internal complaint routes, mediation, or tribunal appeals. However, these processes take time and emotional energy—precious resources for families already stretched thin. Moreover, the legal landscape often expects parents to advocate vigorously, which can further disadvantage those with limited time or resources.
Here are practical steps parents have taken to protect employment and champion their child’s needs:
- Document every contact with the local authority and professionals.
- Seek early legal or advocacy advice about EHCP timelines and appeals.
- Negotiate flexible working or phased returns with employers before having to resign.
- Join parent groups to swap strategies and share childcare solutions or transport co-ops.
In parallel, the broader community and policy actors must recognise the link between education policy and labour market outcomes. National initiatives aimed at reducing dropouts and improving retention—like campaigns spotlighting vulnerable cohorts—should include provisions for supporting parental employment. For example, education organisations that track disruption, such as analyses on the risk of school exclusion and dropout, help frame interventions that could reduce the need for resignation.
Resources that address intersecting issues—school inclusion, childcare support and employment law—are critical. Parent advocates are increasingly pointing to international models where integrated services allow caregivers to work while children receive specialist support. Those models should guide local reforms.
Final insight: Securing stable school placements is essential not only for children’s development but also to protect parental employment and maintain a sustainable work-life balance.
Delays in EHCPs, SEND system strain and the push for meaningful education policy reform
The backlog of Education, Health and Care Plans is central to the crisis. Parents report waiting months or years for finalised plans, leaving children out of proper classes or stuck at home. Lancashire is one of multiple areas where demand outstrips local capacity, and that mismatch fuels a sense of injustice among carers and professionals alike.
Nationally, the Department for Education has admitted the system inherited structural problems and has engaged in listening sessions to inform a Plan for Change. These sessions have included parents, schools and sector experts. But meaningful reform needs to move beyond consultation toward robust resourcing—more specialist placements, faster assessment pathways, and workforce development that equips staff to teach learners with complex needs.
What effective reform would include
Policymakers and practitioners often propose a multifaceted approach:
- Investment in specialist school places and enhanced mainstream inclusion support.
- Streamlined EHCP timelines with guaranteed interim provisions while assessments are completed.
- Better transport solutions so children can access placements without parents having to give up work.
- Comprehensive training for teachers to reduce exclusion and improve classroom differentiation.
Case studies from other contexts show progress is possible. For example, local authorities that piloted rapid response teams to fast-track complex cases reduced waiting times and allowed more parents to remain employed. In addition, cross-sector partnerships—combining health, education and social care budgets—helped create coordinated packages of support rather than fragmented services.
There are also technological and systemic challenges. Debates in 2025 around the role of technology in education caution against over-reliance on AI tools without addressing accessibility and bias—issues explored in pieces discussing AI shortcomings in education. Any policy that scales digital interventions must be matched by tailored human support for children with complex communication needs.
Parents and campaigners have been strategic in lobbying for concrete outcomes: reduced EHCP waiting periods, improved mediation services, and better accountability when authorities fail to act. These demands are increasingly embedded in public demonstrations and national days of action, which strengthen the political imperative for reform.
To build momentum, advocates recommend documenting local success stories, sharing them across regions, and using evidence to press for national policy changes. Transparent data on placements, waiting lists and outcomes can focus reform efforts on what works.
Final insight: Reforming SEND provision requires systemic investment, clearer timelines for EHCPs, and policies that keep families economically secure while children receive the specialist education they need.
Child advocacy, community action and practical steps for families navigating placement denial
Advocacy plays a crucial role when official systems stall. In Lancashire, parents organised visible actions—placing children’s shoes outside county council buildings—to symbolise every child without a suitable provision. That activism draws attention to systemic failures and encourages collective solutions, but families also need tangible tools to manage their immediate situations.
Practical advocacy actions families can take:
- Form or join local parent groups to share resources and evidence for appeals.
- Use formal complaint channels, and if necessary, pursue tribunal appeals with documented evidence.
- Engage local councillors and MPs to escalate delays affecting multiple families.
- Partner with charities and community organisations to access short-term respite and specialist tutors.
Parent groups often pool expertise on navigating the EHCP process, writing effective needs statements, and specifying placement requirements. Collective action can also influence education policy locally by presenting aggregated data to decision-makers. In many cases, coordinated pressure has moved administrations to prioritise certain cases or pilot alternative transport schemes.
Community-level responses also include shared transport, volunteer respite networks, and collaborative fundraising for specialist equipment. These stopgap measures mitigate immediate risks while advocates press for longer-term systemic change.
International comparative resources can be informative. Analyses of how displaced populations continue education under strain show creative models for maintaining continuity of learning—useful when local provision fails. For example, resources examining education in regions affected by conflict or displacement highlight the importance of flexible, community-based learning hubs that offer tailored support. See pieces on education for traumatized children and education in displacement contexts for approaches that emphasise resilience and community engagement.
Advocates also recommend documenting the cost of inaction. Families compile financial impact statements—lost earnings, additional childcare costs, and health expenses—to underscore that investing in timely placements is cost-effective in the long run. Such evidence strengthens cases for reallocating budgets toward quicker EHCP processing and more specialist places.
Final insight: When systems fail, organised advocacy and community strategies can protect children’s rights and keep pressure on authorities to deliver timely school placements.
Local solutions and national lessons: models to prevent forced resignation and improve special needs education
To prevent future cases like Hannah’s, we must look at scalable local solutions and national policies that support both children and caregivers. Successful models combine timely assessment, transport provision, employment support and integrated services. These elements, when combined, protect a family’s economic stability and ensure the child receives appropriate education.
Effective components of local models:
- Rapid-response EHCP units that produce interim plans within statutory short timescales.
- Dedicated transport funding and routes for specialist placements to avoid parents having to drive long distances daily.
- Employer engagement programmes that encourage flexible work patterns for carers.
- Cross-sector commissioning so education, health and social care budgets align around the child’s needs.
Examples elsewhere show the value of innovation. In some regions, community hubs and blended learning approaches reduce the immediate need for specialist schools by delivering high-quality outreach support. International projects that expand educational access under constrained circumstances—like targeted campaigns to reach children at risk of dropping out—offer transferable lessons. See relevant analysis on the risk of mass dropout and local strategies, such as those explored in urban reform case studies like Detroit education strategies, to understand how systemic redesign can benefit marginalised learners.
There is also an employment angle. Programmes that help employers understand caregiving responsibilities and adapt roles can keep more parents in work. Nationally, advocates propose incentives for organisations that demonstrate inclusive policies and support for staff with caring responsibilities. In parallel, targeted child-care support—highlighted by policymakers—can reduce the proportion of caregivers forced into resignation.
Finally, research and practice must remain connected. Piloting innovative approaches, measuring outcomes, and sharing results across local authorities create a learning ecosystem that can accelerate improvements. Stakeholders should document successes and failures openly so that best practices spread more quickly.
Final insight: Combining prompt EHCP action, reliable transport, employer flexibility and cross-sector funding prevents forced resignations and secures better futures for children with special needs.
Further reading and resources include analyses of regional special needs crises and targeted programs for inclusion, such as discussions about special needs services in different regions and funded international efforts like the global education fund initiatives, which demonstrate how focused investment and strategy can expand access and protect families against the need for forced resignation.