Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026: Key reforms and initial reflections 

‘‘Staying Close’’ support is a Department for Education funded program providing tailored support to young people leaving residential care to live independently. 

The Act mandates that local authorities provide “Staying Close” support to care leavers up to age 25. Specifically, councils must now assess whether young people up to the age of 25 need ‘staying close’ support and provide it where their welfare requires it. 

This support may include help with housing, physical and mental health, relationships, education or training, access to employment, and wider participation in society. Councils must also publish clear information about how they support care leavers as they transition into adulthood, strengthening transparency and accountability.

Local authorities will have a clearer legal responsibility to promote and support sibling relationships for children in care. 

This reflects growing recognition of the role sibling contact plays in emotional wellbeing, identity, and placement stability.

The Act introduces Regional Care Co‑operatives (RCCs), enabling groups of local authorities to jointly plan and commission children’s social care placements.

However, we are concerned about potential unintended consequences. In particular, there is a risk that smaller providers could be pushed out of the market, as they are less able to compete with large, profit‑driven organisations that benefit from economies of scale. This risks further distancing the care market from its core purpose: delivering stable placements and good outcomes for children who cannot live with their families.

The Act also gives government new powers to intervene where profits in the children’s social care market are considered excessive, alongside enhanced financial oversight of the largest providers whose collapse would significantly disrupt services. 

While these powers are welcome, restricting them to children’s homes and excluding supported accommodation leaves a rapidly expanding part of the system outside effective regulatory control.

Ofsted will now be able to issue fines for breaches of the Care Standards Act, including operating unregistered children’s homes.

While quicker enforcement action is positive, fines alone will not resolve the issue. Children continue to be placed in illegal or unsuitable settings because there are not enough safe, regulated alternatives. 

Without investment in appropriate provision, children – particularly those in supported or illegal accommodation – remain exposed to weaker protections and heightened risk of harm..

The Act establishes a new statutory deprivation of liberty placement aimed at reducing reliance on emergency High Court orders and bringing more cases under formal legal safeguards.

In principle, greater structure and oversight are welcome. However, the creation of new forms of “relevant accommodation”, without clear definitions, raises serious concerns about accountability, regulation and the standard of care children will receive.

A decision to deprive a child of their liberty under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 reflects extreme vulnerability and risk. Secure children’s homes are specifically designed, regulated and staffed to meet the needs of children at the highest level of risk.

Expanding alternative arrangements risks legitimising inappropriate placements rather than addressing the urgent need for sustained investment in specialist secure provision.

Every local authority area must now establish multi‑agency child protection teams, bringing together social workers, police, health professionals and education services to lead child protection work.

The Act also strengthens duties around information sharing between safeguarding partners and enables the development of a unique identifier for children across services. 

This has the potential to improve coordination and help professionals work together more effectively to safeguard children.

New regulations will govern how councils use agency social workers, aiming to improve stability, skills and continuity within the children’s social care workforce.

The Act also reinforces family group decision‑making, requiring councils to hold meetings with families before applying for care or supervision orders where appropriate. A welcome addition is the duty to consider children’s wishes and feelings in these processes.

However, the success of many reforms depends on whether children are genuinely supported to express their views and whether those views meaningfully influence decisions. This highlights the importance of independent advocacy. 

We are concerned about the continued delay in publishing the revised National Standards for Advocacy Services. These standards were expected to clarify when advocacy should be proactively offered. Their publication, alongside adequate funding, is essential if the rights outlined in the Act are to be realised in practice.

The requirement for free breakfast clubs in every primary school is a positive step. The government expects significant savings from the introduction of free breakfast clubs which ministers argue will also support attendance and readiness to learn. 

Although education settings are named as “relevant partners” for safeguarding, they are not placed on an equal footing with social care, health and police. This represents a missed opportunity to strengthen joined‑up safeguarding arrangements.

The Act also addresses attendance, teacher standards, and the oversight of unregistered education settings. 

A new “children not in school” register will require local authorities to record all children educated outside mainstream settings, including those who are home educated. The intention is to help councils identify children who are not attending school, enabling earlier support and improved safeguarding. 

Parents who wish to withdraw their child for home education will be required to attend a formal meeting with the local authority (initially through pilot areas). These meetings will be used to share information, explore reasons for withdrawal, and identify any additional needs. 

Local authorities will also be required to collect data on the reasons for home education, such as bullying or issues related to SEND. Parents of children subject to child protection plans or attending special schools will need to seek consent from the local authority before withdrawing their child to home educate, and consent may be refused where suitable alternative arrangements are not in place.

Consent requirements and mandatory meetings may feel punitive and restrictive for families already under significant pressure, particularly those experiencing emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA). The assumption that school attendance is always in a child’s best interests risks oversimplifying the complex factors that drive EBSA, potentially increasing stress and leading to longer‑term harm. 

Local authorities will need to adopt a holistic and supportive approach to working with families to ensure these measures do not become compliance‑focused or undermine trust. At the same time, improved data collection on home education has the potential to offer valuable insights into the drivers of EBSA and wider systemic issues. To be effective, this information must be shared and used to inform proactive policy and practice improvements, rather than becoming a box‑ticking exercise.

Further provisions aim to restrict children’s access to harmful online content, reform children’s data protections, and introduce a ban on smartphones in schools.

The Children’s Commissioner will engage with government on the practical implications of the ban, while stressing that responsibility for online safety must continue to rest with those who design and profit from digital platforms.