Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City: The Benefits of the Inclusive SEND Approach in the 1980s and 1990s
Introduction
During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City became nationally recognised for developing one of the most progressive and influential approaches to inclusion and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) in England.
At a time when much of the education system remained heavily dependent on segregated special-school provision, medical models of disability, and rigid categorisation of children, Nottinghamshire developed a radically different vision. The authority promoted a “Children First” philosophy which argued that children with SEND should, wherever possible, be educated within their local mainstream communities with support wrapped around them.
This approach was not simply an educational reform. It represented a cultural, professional, and financial transformation in how children, families, schools, and services understood inclusion.
Core Features of the Nottinghamshire Approach
Mainstream-First Philosophy- Children First
The authority promoted the idea that mainstream schools should ordinarily be able to educate children with SEND within their local communities. Rather than assuming that difference required separation, the system aimed to adapt schools so that children could belong, participate, and succeed alongside their peers.
This represented a major departure from traditional assumptions that many disabled children or children with learning difficulties “belonged elsewhere.”
Challenge to Deficit and Medical Models
Nottinghamshire increasingly viewed difficulties as arising not simply from the child, but from the interaction between:
• teaching approaches,
• school organisation,
• curriculum design,
• relationships,
• environment,
• and wider social expectations.
This early social-model understanding of SEND challenged the dominance of psychometric sorting, deficit labelling, and fixed assumptions about ability.
Reduction of Segregated Provision
The authority reduced reliance on separate special-school placements and developed support systems that travelled into mainstream settings. Specialist expertise became more mobile, collaborative, and preventative.
This shift helped schools build inclusive capacity rather than transferring responsibility elsewhere.
Shared Responsibility for Inclusion
A key principle was that all teachers were responsible for all children.
SEND was no longer viewed as the exclusive responsibility of specialists or isolated SEN departments. Mainstream teachers were encouraged to develop inclusive teaching practices, collaborative problem-solving approaches, and flexible responses to difference.
Multi-Agency and Community-Based Working
Educational psychologists, advisory teachers, social care, health professionals, families, and schools increasingly worked together to support children.
The focus shifted from managing placements to supporting participation, belonging, and local inclusion.
The Mainstream Support Group (MSG) Model
One of the most innovative aspects of the Nottinghamshire approach was the creation of Mainstream Support Groups (MSGs).
What MSGs Were
MSGs were clusters or networks of mainstream schools that collectively received resources, specialist expertise, and support in order to include children with SEND locally.
1. Instead of funding primarily following individual children into segregated placements, resources were redirected into mainstream systems.
2. MSG model ensured funding as well as support to mainstream was available without the need for a statement/EHCP
Outcomes:
The data impact: increased mainstream capacity meant that local specialist provision focused more on pupils with the most significant needs meaning big reduction in INMSS placements (in Notts from over 300 to 10)
Schools could access:
• advisory teachers,
• specialist staff,
• behaviour support,
• educational psychology input,
• training,
• outreach support,
• collaborative planning,
• and temporary enhanced provision.
The key innovation was:
funding inclusion capacity rather than funding segregation.
A Radical Funding Shift
At the time, most local authorities operated according to a deficit-based sequence:
1. identify a problem,
2. assess severity,
3. label or statement the child,
4. allocate additional funding or specialist placement.
Nottinghamshire partially reversed this logic.
The authority assumed that:
• many needs could be met in mainstream schools,
• support should be flexible and preventative,
• schools should collaborate rather than compete,
• and resources should strengthen inclusive systems rather than depend solely on statutory categorisation.
This reduced dependence on:
• formal labels,
• psychometric justification,
• medical categorisation,
• and adversarial funding processes.
Benefits of the Nottinghamshire Inclusive Approach
1. Increased Belonging and Participation
Children with SEND were more likely to remain within their local communities, friendship groups, and neighbourhood schools.
This strengthened:
• social inclusion,
• peer relationships,
• community belonging,
• and family participation in school life.
Children were less likely to experience the social isolation often associated with segregated placements.
2. Reduced Stigma and Labelling
Because support was increasingly attached to systems rather than rigid diagnostic categories, children were less likely to be defined solely by labels.
The approach promoted:
• dignity,
• participation,
• strengths-based thinking,
• and recognition of individual differences.
This helped challenge assumptions that disability or difficulty automatically implied separation.
3. Earlier and More Flexible Support
The MSG model enabled schools to access support before difficulties escalated into crisis.
Rather than waiting for lengthy assessment procedures or formal statements, schools could access collaborative support more flexibly.
This improved:
• early intervention,
• preventative practice,
• responsiveness,
• and problem-solving.
4. Stronger Mainstream School Capacity
Investment in mainstream systems increased schools’ ability to respond to a wider range of needs.
Schools developed:
• inclusive teaching practices,
• collaborative consultation,
• differentiated curriculum approaches,
• behaviour support strategies,
• and shared professional learning.
This contributed to long-term organisational development rather than isolated individual interventions.
5. Greater Professional Collaboration
The Nottinghamshire approach encouraged professionals to work together rather than in isolated specialist silos.
Educational psychologists, teachers, advisory staff, parents, and other agencies increasingly engaged in:
• joint planning,
• consultation,
• collaborative problem-solving,
• and systemic thinking.
This strengthened relationships across services and reduced fragmented responses.
6. More Efficient and Preventative Use of Resources
The MSG funding model attempted to shift investment away from expensive crisis-driven or segregated systems toward preventative mainstream support.
By building local inclusive capacity, the authority aimed to:
• reduce unnecessary specialist placements,
• intervene earlier,
• support children locally,
• and create more sustainable systems.
7. Influence on National Inclusion Policy
Many ideas associated with later national SEND reforms reflected principles already present within Nottinghamshire’s approach.
These included:
• graduated response models,
• delegated SEND funding,
• locality-based partnerships,
• person-centred planning,
• participation and co-production,
• collaborative consultation,
• and provision-led approaches rather than diagnosis-led systems.
The authority therefore became influential in shaping later inclusion thinking across England.
Long-Term Intellectual and Professional Influence
The Nottinghamshire approach helped create fertile ground for later developments in inclusive practice across the East Midlands and nationally.
This included work connected to:
• person-centred planning,
• anti-labelling approaches,
• collaborative consultation,
• solution circles,
• Circle of Adults,
• and systemic inclusion methodologies.
Thinkers and practitioners associated with this tradition, including Tony Dessent, Peter Gray, Derek Wilson, Colin Newton and colleagues, continued to develop models that emphasised:
• relationship-centred practice,
• collective responsibility,
• problem-solving around the child,
• and strengthening the capacity of ordinary systems to include everybody.
Challenges and Criticisms
The approach was not without controversy.
Critics argued that:
• mainstream schools were not always sufficiently prepared,
• some children continued to require specialist intensity,
• funding could become disconnected from individual entitlement,
• and inclusive ideology sometimes moved faster than available resources.
Some parents feared that inclusion could be used primarily as a cost-saving strategy through the reduction of specialist provision.
These tensions continue to shape SEND policy debates today.
Conclusion
The Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City inclusion approach of the 1980s and 1990s represented one of the most ambitious attempts in England to redesign the culture, funding systems, and professional practices surrounding SEND.
Its significance lay not only in promoting mainstream inclusion, but in attempting to transform the entire structure of support around children and families.
The approach challenged:
• segregated assumptions,
• deficit models,
• rigid categorisation,
• and narrowly specialist ownership of SEND.
Instead, it promoted a vision in which:
• mainstream schools changed to accommodate children,
• support was collaborative and flexible,
• inclusion was everybody’s responsibility,
• and children with SEND belonged within their local communities.
Many principles that are now embedded within modern inclusion discourse were being explored in Nottinghamshire decades earlier, making the authority one of the most historically significant examples of inclusive educational reform in England.
