Section 19 of the Education Act: the LA duty most parents don't know about

Your child has not been at school for six weeks. The attendance officer has rung twice. The SENDCO has emailed the weekly worksheets. The EHC needs assessment has been requested. CAMHS has a 14-month waiting list. The school says they are doing everything they can. The local authority says they are not yet involved.

Somewhere underneath all of that is a duty that has already started: the duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996. Almost no parent knows it exists. When you cite it, the conversation changes.

The statute is short and the words matter. It is worth reading once in the original.

• “Shall make arrangements.” Not may. Not should. Shall. A duty, not a power.
• “Suitable education.” Defined elsewhere in the Act as suitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude and any SEN.
• “Or otherwise.” The reason a child cannot attend can be any reason. The duty is not limited to medical or excluded children.

That last phrase, “or otherwise,” has been consistently interpreted by the courts to mean what it says. A child who cannot attend because of anxiety, EBSA, autism-related distress, sensory overwhelm, family circumstances, or any other reason is covered.

The duty applies whenever a child of compulsory school age would not otherwise receive suitable education for any period. The threshold for “any period” has been clarified in practice.

Some local authorities act faster; some drag their feet. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has repeatedly held that LAs cannot delay s.19 provision while alternative arrangements are investigated. The duty bites once the child is out of suitable education.

Triggers in practice:

• Exclusion (permanent or fixed-term over 5 days).
• Medical absence (illness preventing attendance).
• Anxiety-related school avoidance (EBSA) where the child cannot attend.
• Awaiting a placement, for example a child with an EHCP whose named school does not yet have a place available.
• Reduced timetable that has gone on too long without a return-to-full-time plan (see our piece on reduced timetables).
• Pregnancy and parenting for school-age young people.
• Bullying where the child cannot return safely.

Suitable is a legal term with content. It is not whatever the LA happens to be able to provide.

The Education Act 1996 defines suitable education, for these purposes in section 19(6), as efficient education suitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the child may have.

In practice this means:

• Age-appropriate: Year 7 work for a Year 7 child, not Year 3 work.
• Ability-appropriate: a child achieving above national average needs work pitched accordingly.
• Addresses the SEN: where the child has an EHCP, the s.19 provision should align with Section F or with the child's known support needs.
• Covers the curriculum: English, maths, sciences, the rest. Not just “a few hours of tutoring.”
• Reasonable in extent: an hour a week of online tutoring for a child out of school for months is not suitable.

Section 19 education must be full-time unless the LA considers part-time to be in the child's best interests for medical reasons, mental health included. A 2013 amendment (Education Act 1996, s.19(3AA)) made this explicit. The default is full-time. Part-time is permissible only if:

1. The LA considers (a formal decision, with reasons),
2. that for reasons relating to the physical or mental health of the child,
3. it would not be in the child's best interests for full-time education to be provided.

“We can't resource full-time” is not on that list. Resource constraints are not a lawful basis for part-time s.19 provision.

The bit that catches LAs out: where they have provided two hours a week of online tutoring because that is what was easy to commission, and the child is otherwise in good health but anxious, the provision is unlikely to satisfy s.19. The LA must justify any part-time arrangement on health grounds, with reasons recorded.

The LA chooses how to discharge the duty. The options are broader than parents often realise.

• A place at a different school. Sometimes the right answer is a new placement, and the LA can secure one.
• Hospital schools and medical pupil referral units (PRUs) for children with significant medical or mental health needs.
• Pupil referral units (PRUs) for children who have been excluded.
• Alternative provision (AP) commissioned by the LA from third parties, often charities, specialist providers or online schools.
• Home tuition, sometimes 1:1 with a qualified teacher, sometimes online learning programmes.
• Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) for children with EHCPs whose named placement is EOTAS. EOTAS is a recognised legal status; see Cognus and similar guidance.
• A bespoke package combining several of the above.

A clear, specific letter triggers the LA's duty in writing. Most LAs respond when this letter lands.

A template you can adapt and send today

To: [LA SEND email address; copy in the SENDCO and headteacher]

Subject: Section 19 Education Act 1996 duty, [child's name], DOB [date]

Dear [Officer name / SEND team],

[Child's name] has been unable to attend [school] since [date]. The reason is [anxiety / EBSA / medical / autism-related distress / exclusion / pending placement]. They have therefore been without suitable education for [X weeks].

Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, the local authority has a duty to arrange suitable full-time education for children of compulsory school age who would not otherwise receive it. I am formally requesting that the LA arrange suitable education for [child] without further delay.

I attach [letter from GP / CAMHS / specialist where available]. I am also pursuing [EHC needs assessment / placement review] in parallel.

Please confirm in writing within 10 working days: (i) that the s.19 duty is accepted, (ii) what suitable education the LA is arranging, and (iii) the start date for that provision.

Yours sincerely, [your name]

Keep a copy. Send it by email, and consider posting a hard copy recorded delivery as well for the substantial cases.

The letter, before it goesSix weeks out of school

Five responses come back more often than any others. The case law and the statutory guidance answer all five.

If the LA persists in refusing, the routes are: complaint to the LA, complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which has issued many maladministration findings on s.19 failures, and in stronger cases judicial review or a SEND Tribunal complaint where the issue links to an EHCP.

The two duties run alongside each other. Knowing the difference helps you push on both at once.

The pragmatic move: where your child has been out of school for more than 15 working days, trigger s.19 today, even if the EHCNA is in progress.

Three things, and the first is the one that puts the duty in writing.

If you want help drafting it, a Remarkable Minds SEND specialist will sit with you for an hour, help you write the letter to the LA, gather the supporting evidence, and plan the next steps. Find a specialist (£60 for a 60-minute video call).

The sources behind every claim in this article.

• The statute. Education Act 1996, section 19.
• IPSEA guidance. IPSEA, support when a child is out of school.
• DfE statutory guidance. DfE, Alternative provision statutory guidance; Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs.
• Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. LGSCO repeatedly issues maladministration findings on LA failures under s.19. Useful searches: “section 19 education” on the lgo.org.uk decisions database.
• EOTAS as an option. Cognus, EOTAS and the law; Ed Yourself, EOTAS resources.
• Free SEND advice. IPSEA; SOSSEN; your local SENDIASS.

This article is general information about the SEND statutory framework, not legal advice. It has been reviewed by a UK SEND specialist but does not replace input from IPSEA, SOSSEN, your local SENDIASS, or a SEN solicitor.