Â鶹ÒùÔº

England’s latest proposals for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) reform promise clearer national standards, earlier intervention and stronger accountability. Yet despite the reassuring language, these reforms fail to address the fundamental causes of the SEND crisis in England: a school accountability system that incentivises exclusion and a lack of sustained investment in inclusive mainstream provision. Without tackling these structural issues, reform risks remaining procedural rather than transformative.

At the heart of the problem is accountability. Schools operate within a high‑stakes performance system that measures success through narrow attainment metrics. Chief among these is , the headline secondary school accountability measure in England. Progress 8 compares pupils’ GCSE outcomes at age 16 with the national average outcomes of pupils who had similar prior attainment at age 11. While designed to recognise progress rather than raw attainment, it remains a comparative measure that ranks schools against one another and strongly shapes reputational standing, inspection outcomes and parental choice.

For readers unfamiliar with the English system, this matters profoundly. When school performance is judged through comparative metrics, there is a powerful incentive to manage pupil intake and exam entry in ways that protect headline scores. Pupils with SEND – who may have uneven progress profiles, require adapted curricula or encounter barriers during high‑stakes examinations – can be perceived as liabilities rather than learners to be supported. In practice, this can result in restricted access to the curriculum, pressure towards alternative provision, managed moves, or, in some cases, implicit messages to families that a school ‘cannot meet’ a child’s needs.

These dynamics are not accidental. As Parrish (2024) argues, accountability frameworks such as Progress 8 and the EBacc shape institutional behaviour by rewarding standardisation and predictability over inclusion. The SEND reforms leave these metrics largely untouched, missing a crucial opportunity to redefine what constitutes school success. Inclusion remains inspected and discussed but is not structurally rewarded.

‘The SEND reforms leave current metrics largely untouched, missing a crucial opportunity to redefine what constitutes school success.’

Recent changes to Ofsted’s inspection framework, with an increased emphasis on inclusion, are welcome in principle. However, if attainment data continues to underpin judgments, league tables and trust expansion, inclusion risks remain a graded virtue rather than a determinant of institutional success. Schools ultimately respond to the incentives that matter most.

A similar misalignment is evident in the renewed focus on pupil attendance. Updated statutory guidance emphasises tighter monitoring and enforcement, yet for many SEND pupils, persistent absence reflects unmet need rather than disengagement. Sensory overload, anxiety, unsuitable curricula and insufficient support all contribute to attendance difficulties. Addressing these issues requires flexible provision, specialist input and staff capacity – not simply compliance measures. Without tackling causes, enforcement can further fracture already strained relationships between schools and families.

Underlying all of this is funding. The National Audit Office has warned that the current SEND system is financially unsustainable, with rising deficits placing several local authorities at risk of insolvency (NAO, 2024). While capital investment in specialist placement is politically attractive, it does little to strengthen mainstream inclusion. Inclusive education is resource‑intensive: it relies on specialist teachers, protected special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) time, therapeutic services, staff training and adapted environments. These require sustained, recurrent funding, not short‑term initiatives.

Framing the SEND crisis primarily as a question of rising demand – more education, health and care plans (EHCPs), greater complexity, post‑pandemic pressures – obscures a more uncomfortable truth. When accountability systems penalise complexity, schools are incentivised to externalise it. Off‑rolling, suspensions, restricted timetables, and increased reliance on alternative provision are not system failures at the margins; they are rational responses to incentives.

Meaningful reform would reverse this logic. It would make inclusion central to how schools are judged and valued. Measures such as retention, progress from starting points, equitable access to the curriculum, post-16 destinations, and the experiences of SEND learners and families could form part of a more balanced accountability framework. Such changes would cost less than continually expanding specialist provision and would support children to remain in their local schools, communities and peer groups.

England does not need more dashboards, templates or guidance documents. It needs a school system that structurally enables – and rewards – schools to include, support and value SEND learners. Until accountability and funding are aligned with this ambition, SEND reform will continue to treat symptoms rather than causes. Our children deserve better than that.

References

National Audit Office [NAO]. (2024). Support for children and young people with special educational needs.

Parrish, A. (2024). Policy tug of war: EBacc, Progress 8 and MFL in England. Journal of Education Policy, 39(5), 718–735.