麻豆淫院

Inclusive mainstream education is the phrase at the heart of the UK government’s special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) reforms. The government’s is of schools^[1] fortified with better access to specialists, increased training for staff, support plans for all children who need them, and inclusion bases for those requiring extra support. But can all schools feasibly deliver on this vision when they have vastly different proportions of children with SEND? And does the government have a plan to address this inequity?

Disparities in SEND prevalence mean that schools are operating under very different pressures and that pupil experience can vary widely depending on where a family lives. Evidence from research funded by the Nuffield Foundation suggests that the variation is driven by differences in both pupil profile and SEND identification practice.

finds that, in 2024/25, primary schools in the top quartile for pupils with education, health and care plans (EHCPs)^[2] had more than six times as many such pupils as those in the bottom quartile, a ratio which narrows only slightly for secondary schools. Interviews with local authorities, school leaders and parents suggest that this pattern is the result of a ‘magnet effect’, where schools perceived as offering good support for pupils with SEND attract more pupils with similar needs. On the flip side, some schools are reportedly reluctant to admit pupils with SEND because of capacity constraints or concerns that it will harm their performance statistics – as one council representative commented: ‘They’re thinking about the impact that a child might have on their data, their next inspection.’ It is important to note that, while Ofsted now assesses schools’ inclusion practices, admissions are not within its remit.

‘Some schools are reportedly reluctant to admit pupils with SEND because of capacity constraints or concerns that it will harm their performance statistics.’

With regard to SEND identification practices, Nuffield-funded showed that the school a child attended was more important than any characteristic of that child in determining whether they were identified as having SEND. This points towards substantial differences in identification practice between schools, meaning that whether a child with a given needs profile will be identified with SEND becomes a postcode lottery. Soon-to-be-published findings from the aforementioned NFER project shed further light on this, indicating that schools with higher proportions of pupils with SEND tend to carry out more thorough, data-driven assessments than those with fewer.

This evidence of variation in identification practices chimes with the accounts of parents, who having to battle to get schools to recognise their children as having SEND, especially where needs are less visible or disruptive. The capacity of special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs),^[3] many of whom are stretched to the point of overwhelm, is a key factor here. One part-time SENCO interviewed by NFER admitted that there would be more children on her SEN register if she worked full-time, and this kind of rationing is also elsewhere.

The government’s proposals represent substantially increased expectations for schools in relation to inclusion, many of which will fall most heavily on SENCOs. Without an adequate increase in SENCO capacity, there is a risk that this additional workload could further disincentivise identification, leaving some children without the support they need and exacerbating tensions between parents and schools, potentially leading to a rise in complaints, parental disengagement, and even withdrawal of children from school.^[4]

The government’s consultation acknowledges the absence of a (p. 10) and the reliance of many schools on poor quality identification tools. The proposed National Inclusion Standards would provide schools with (p. 40), including some currently being developed with £4 million in research grants awarded by UK Research and Innovation.

However, it is not yet clear how the government will ensure that all schools use these new tools consistently. Given capacity constraints, especially on SENCO time, and the dilution of local authority control over schools, achieving this consistency could be challenging.

It is also unclear how widely felt the stated benefits of mainstream inclusion will be if the large disparities between schools in terms of their proportions of pupils with SEND are allowed to persist.

[1] ‘Schools’ is used here as shorthand for all educational providers from early years settings to colleges for students aged 16–19.

[2] An education, health and care plan (EHCP) is England’s legal document outlining the education, health and social care support that is to be provided to a child or young person who has SEND.

[3] A special educational needs co-ordinator, or SENCO, is a teacher who is responsible for the special educational needs of the children in a school. All schools in England are required to have them.

[4] Recently published recommends extending the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to cover complaints about the SEND support provided by schools in order to take the pressure off the parent–school relationship.