This study examines whether early indicators of emerging special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) vulnerability are observable within routine school experience prior to crisis-level participation breakdown, and how such signals are interpreted within school systems. Drawing on retrospective case analysis, it explores the timing, character and organisational interpretation of early warning signs embedded within apparently successful participation. This study aims to deepen understanding of how hidden vulnerability develops over time and to inform earlier, more responsive approaches to identification and support in mainstream education.
This study uses a retrospective qualitative case-based design, drawing on anonymised assessment material generated through routine professional practice. Four cases of pupils aged 12–15, whose participation in mainstream education deteriorated to school refusal or withdrawal, were purposively selected. Data sources included semi-structured parental interviews and school documentation. These were analysed using cross-case reflexive thematic analysis to reconstruct participation trajectories and identify early indicators of vulnerability, as well as how these were interpreted within school systems prior to escalation.
Findings indicate that early indicators of vulnerability were typically observable within routine school experience but embedded within apparently successful participation. Outward competence, reliance on contextual scaffolding and discrepancies between home and school presentation appeared to contribute to these signals being normalised or interpreted as typical development. Crisis may therefore be understood as reflecting the point at which compensatory participation becomes unsustainable, often during transition to secondary education. The results suggest that delayed recognition may stem less from the absence of observable and more from organisational interpretations shaping how competence and need are understood.
This study draws on a small number of retrospective cases derived from practice-generated assessment material, and findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than generalisable. Retrospective reconstruction may be influenced by recall and documentation constraints. However, the study highlights the need for prospective research examining how early indicators of vulnerability are documented and interpreted in real time, and suggests that identification frameworks should consider sustainability of participation, environmental fit and effort, rather than attainment or behaviour alone.
This study draws on a small number of retrospective cases derived from practice-generated assessment material, and findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than generalisable. Retrospective reconstruction may be influenced by recall and documentation constraints. However, the study highlights the need for prospective research examining how early indicators of vulnerability are documented and interpreted in real time, and suggests that identification frameworks should consider the sustainability of participation, environmental fit and effort, rather than relying solely on attainment or behaviour.
This study suggests that delayed recognition of hidden vulnerability may contribute to escalating distress, school avoidance and reduced access to education for some pupils with emerging SEND. Earlier identification of participation strain may reduce the likelihood of crisis, exclusion or long-term disengagement, thereby supporting more equitable educational experiences. Improving how schools interpret early signals of need may also have wider social benefits, including enhanced wellbeing, more sustained participation in education and reduced longer-term demand on specialist services.
This study contributes to the literature by examining the period preceding crisis-level participation breakdown, focusing not only on pupil characteristics but also on how early signals are organisationally interpreted within school systems. By reconstructing trajectories from routine assessment material, it highlights how vulnerability can remain embedded within apparently successful participation, and how contextual scaffolding and compensatory functioning may contribute to delayed recognition. The study offers a novel perspective by linking masking-informed theory with institutional decision-making, providing practically relevant insight into how early indicators may be visible yet not acted upon in mainstream education.
