Response to the SEND White Paper from the SEND White Paper Inclusion Group.
Contents
Background2
Summary of Key Points3
1. Segregation vs. Genuine Inclusion4
2. Definitional Risks: The "Complex" Label4
3. Weakening of Legal Rights and Individualization5
4. Specific Barriers for AAC and AT Users5
5. Missing Elements of Success5
6. Accountability and Disincentives5
7. National Inclusion Standards (NIS)6
8. Why the White Paper will not deliver equality and inclusion6
Children with Down’s Syndrome8
Children and young people - pupils with PMLD and AAC users10
Reservations and Missed Opportunities Colin Newton16
Equalities and how much is the SEND White Paper be guided by the UNCRPD?19
Inclusive Good Practice established in English Schools from 1980s to around 2007.30
Reflections on Newham - Linda Jordan30
Nottingham and Nottingham City32
The Index for Inclusion39
The Reasonable Adjustment Project45
Will National Inclusion Standards turn mainstream Schools into inclusive Schools?48
Relational and Restorative Approaches Create Greater Inclusion Than Behaviourist Approaches in Secondary Education52
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54
Background
We are a group of Educational Inclusionists with personal experience of developing and implementing Inclusive Education in UK and abroad but mostly in England with jointly hundreds of years of practical experience as campaigners, Professionals-educational psychologists, teachers, administrators, disabled people and parents[some have had multiple roles].
We have been examining in detail the SEND parts of the White Paper and comparing them to our knowledge and experience of implementing inclusion in English schools. We are particularly keen on identifying structural barriers in the system and making practical suggestions for their amelioration, against the background of a Rights Based Approach contained in the UNCRPD and the Equality Act 2010.
Summary of Key Points
The following summary captures the key points raised by the White Paper Inclusion Think Tank. The participants express a shared concern that while the reforms claim to promote "inclusion," the underlying mechanisms may actually reinforce segregation and weaken legal rights.
1. We acknowledge the Government’s greater commitment to strengthening mainstream inclusion. This is long overdue. David Cameron’s declaration of the need to ‘remove the bias towards inclusion’ was unhelpful and in conflict with international trends (UNCRPD etc). The previous Government’s fixation on creating more special school places has done nothing to address the causes of the current SEND crisis and has added to current financial burdens
2. We are supportive of the idea that good quality mainstream provision for SEND should be standard and not dependent on statutory processes or the need for parental challenge
3. We would want to highlight the importance of preserving the rights of pupils with more complex difficulties to a mainstream education that meets their needs (subject to parental choice)
4. We recognise the need for financial sustainability in the system. Increasing spend on specialist provision adds to financial costs. Mainstream inclusion has financial as well as educational benefits.
5. We are not confident that the Government’s current proposals will be enough to achieve these goals
6. The declared policy aims for education are too narrow and don’t recognise or value relative progress or achievement
7. The proposed curriculum still contains too many constraints on teaching and learning
8. There is no clear definition of inclusion, which is not just about location but also quality and belonging
9. There is no clear description of what things will look like in 10 years’ time if reforms are successful, particularly in terms of levels of access to mainstream/continuing reliance on specialist schooling and pupil/family experience
10. Specialist provision packages/EHCPs are too strongly linked to specialist provision: there is lack of clarity about what mainstream pathways should look like for pupils with more significant needs
11. There is a lack of clear safeguards in the event of poor school attitudes to SEND, quality/level of provision/needs not being met. In the absence of these, there will be a continuing default to statutory processes
12. There are several issues for inclusion within the proposals as currently outlined:
a. Will they contribute to real change in mainstream inclusion or will developments just be ‘bolt-on’ to a system that is not inclusive by design?
b. Will mainstream access barriers remain for pupils with more significant needs? And, if so, could they get worse?
c. What is being done to increase parental confidence in the mainstream option so that children’s rights and needs can be better met in this environment ?
d. Will changes have sufficient impact or will parents feel left with the same challenges/dissatisfaction with diminished powers to seek redress?
e. Will they have sufficient impact on financial cost (particularly if there is only modest change to levels of usage of higher cost/specialist provision)?
1. Segregation vs. Genuine Inclusion
Many participants argue that the White Paper’s focus on expanding special schools and "inclusion bases" creates a two-track system.
• The "Specialist" Default: Critics argue that directing £3.7 billion toward special school places reinforces the idea that children with "complex needs" belong in separate settings rather than in supported mainstream classrooms.
• Segregated "Bases": There is a fear that new inclusion bases in mainstream schools will become "holding areas" or "separate classrooms" where children are isolated from their peers and taught a narrower curriculum by TAs rather than qualified teachers.
• Transition Rhetoric: The language suggesting children will "gradually" transition to mainstream classes is seen as evidence that "inclusion" is being treated as a reward for performance rather than a fundamental right.
• For children with the most complex needs special schools provide the right environment for children and young people to make meaningful progress and build independence. (White paper, p.49). This reinforces segregation rather than promoting a fully Inclusive Education system, where all children learn together in mainstream settings with appropriate support.
• • Investing £3.7 billion from now until 2030 to make buildings accessible, create new special school places, and tens of thousands of new places in inclusion bases in mainstream settings. (White paper, p. 13, SEND reform p.10) deeply problematic because a significant portion of the money is being directed toward expanding special schools and segregated places
• Reducing the impact of ill-health and medical appointments on attendance (White paper, p.68) risk focusing on attendance over meaningful participation, potentially overlooking the systemic barriers disabled children face in schools.
• (Alliance for Inclusive Education)
The public messaging about the School White Paper and the SEND Reforms is that they are about inclusive education. However, there are contradictory statements which demonstrate that either 1. The Advisory Group do not understand inclusion or 2. Have deliberately decided that ALL children does not mean ALL children.
There are several statements like “Schools must be places where every child is included, where they are supported and challenged to achieve and thrive – regardless of their needs or background” and yet “Specialist settings – including in early years, special schools, alternative provision, and specialist post-16 institutions – will play a dual role: delivering high-quality education for those with the most complex needs”. And even the inclusion bases to be established in mainstream schools will be segregated –“Inclusion bases will offer specialist support in mainstream schools and colleges so that more children get the opportunity to be educated in a local mainstream setting. For some children, this support will enable them to gradually transition to full participation in mainstream classes”.
2. Definitional Risks: The "Complex" Label
A major concern is the introduction of the term "complex needs" without a clear statutory definition.
• Gatekeeping: Participants fear "complex" will become a label used to justify refusing mainstream applications or steering families toward specialist settings without individual assessment.
• Narrative Shift: The label locates the "problem" within the child's characteristics rather than addressing the lack of system capability or workforce gaps.
3. Weakening of Legal Rights and Individualization
The shift toward standardized systems is viewed as a threat to the current legal framework.
• Standardized Packages: Moving from individually assessed provision to "Specialist Provision Packages" may eliminate bespoke support, making it harder for parents to secure specific, quantified, and enforceable provision.
• EHCP Accessibility: There is concern that the reforms will create higher thresholds for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), leaving children with moderate or "non-predictable" needs in a vacuum of support.
4. Specific Barriers for AAC and AT Users
CandLE highlights significant omissions regarding Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and Assistive Technology (AT).
• Curriculum Contradictions: While the paper promotes a "knowledge-rich" curriculum, it allows for "disapplication," which often unfairly excludes non-speaking or AAC users from high academic expectations.
• Inaccessible Assessment: National targets like the Year 1 Phonics Check are based on speech production; without AAC adaptations, non-verbal pupils are set up to fail regardless of their actual knowledge.
• Funding Gaps: The £1.6 billion "Inclusive Mainstream Fund" averages only £24k per school—insufficient to cover the specialist staff and technology required for true inclusion.
5. Missing Elements of Success
Participants identified several "missing links" that the White Paper fails to address:
• Lived Experience: The omission of disabled adults' voices in system design and training.
• Peer Support: A lack of focus on peer-mediated approaches (like "Circles of Friends") which foster social belonging.
• Person-Centred Planning: The failure to adopt proven methodologies like PATH or MAPs as dynamic alternatives to bureaucratic statutory processes.
• Workforce Training: Concerns that national CPD programs will not include specific training for inclusive pedagogy to support learners who have Down’s syndrome or AAC/AT expertise.
6. Accountability and Disincentives
The current accountability system (Ofsted/Performance Tables) is seen as inherently anti-inclusive.
• Structural Disadvantage: Schools that are highly inclusive or take on many pupils with SEND may see lower average test scores, potentially leading to lower Ofsted ratings and discouraging schools from being inclusive.
• Lack of Reward: Despite claims of "rewarding" inclusion, there are no clear mechanisms to support or celebrate schools that successfully include children with the highest barriers.
7. National Inclusion Standards (NIS)
As proposed in the 2026 Schools White Paper, will not genuinely transform mainstream schools into inclusive schools unless they are fundamentally redesigned around inclusive values, a social/humanrights model of disability, and wholeschool cultural change.
As written, the proposals risk reinforcing segregation, especially for disabled children labelled as having “complex needs”.
8. Why the White Paper will not deliver equality and inclusion
• It redefines inclusion in practice as “integration plus”, not rights-based inclusion. While the White Paper uses inclusive language, the proposals largely keep the existing school system’s structures and expectations unchanged, asking pupils to fit the system rather than requiring systemic reform.
• It builds segregation into the model via “complex needs” pathways. The proposed hierarchy (mainstream → bases/units → specialist packages → special/alternative provision) makes placement depend on assessed “complexity”, which the document argues amounts to separation on the basis of disability—contrary to full inclusion and equal participation with peers.
• It relies on a medical/deficit model rather than removing barriers. By locating the problem mainly “within the child” (impairment/need levels) and linking this to a continuum of provision, it underplays attitudinal, environmental and institutional barriers (bullying, inaccessible environments/communication, exclusionary rules and practices) that drive inequality.
• It does not commit to transforming curriculum, assessment, or accountability drivers that exclude. The paper is criticised for “tinkering” while leaving high-stakes testing, a narrow knowledge-heavy curriculum, and normative measures of success in place—pressures that incentivise exclusion, off-rolling, and unmet need.
• It risks entrenching unequal access through MAT-led, weakly accountable governance. The document argues reforms are shaped by multi-academy trust priorities and a system of competition and performance metrics, with insufficient democratic accountability and a tendency to discourage admission or retention of disabled pupils who may affect outcomes.
• Legal equality duties are underplayed or omitted. Beyond mentioning reasonable adjustments, the White Paper is criticised for not foregrounding key legal obligations (e.g., anticipatory reasonable adjustments, Public Sector Equality Duty, access planning duties) that should drive proactive equality and accessibility.
• Support is rationed and conditional, especially for those with the highest support needs. Resources and “packages” are presented as limited and likely concentrated in separate provision, meaning the children most at risk of isolation are least likely to receive support within mainstream settings.
• It lacks clear evaluative structure and enforceable benchmarks.The stated vision is described as too vague to measure against robust standards (e.g., UNCRPD General Comment No. 4), making it easier for systems to claim “inclusion” without delivering equal participation and outcomes.
• Evidence base and consultation are seen as partial. The document notes the inclusion advisory work drew heavily on academy submissions and did not fully incorporate local authority and sector-wide data, risking a policy that reflects “low-hanging fruit” (common SEND) rather than the full spectrum of needs.
• National policy still tolerates rights-limiting positions. The document highlights the UK’s interpretive declaration/reservations on UNCRPD Article 24 (education) as signalling continued acceptance of segregated education, undermining a genuine equality-and-inclusion settlement.
Summary Perspective: The Think Tank views the White Paper as an accurate diagnosis of a failing system but a collection of "insufficiently ambitious" solutions that risk entrenching medical-model thinking and institutional segregation.
Children with Down’s Syndrome
The Down’s Syndrome Association (DSA) has over 50 years’ experience supporting children and young people who have Down’s syndrome to learn, participate and thrive in their local communities. We know that successful mainstream inclusion is both possible and beneficial for pupils who have Down’s syndrome when the right conditions are in place. Yet our recent evidence (including an education survey undertaken last year – still to be formally published) shows that inclusion appears to be declining, particularly in secondary schools, and we are not convinced that the current SEND reforms address the core factors that make inclusion work.
1. Inclusion in mainstream settings is getting more difficult to achieve,
especially at secondary level. Families tell us that mainstream inclusion is becoming harder to secure, especially as children move into secondary education. Parents increasingly describe:
• mainstream schools discouraging applications or stating they “cannot meet need”
• a lack of confidence among secondary staff in adapting teaching
• a sense that specialist settings are becoming the default option for learners who have Down’s syndrome, especially at secondary school level.
This shift is not driven by the needs of children and young people who have Down syndrome changing, but by system pressures, workforce gaps and a lack of support for inclusion in mainstream schools. It represents a reversal of progress made over previous decades.
2. The new “complex” category risks undermining inclusion
The proposed reforms introduce a new categorisation of pupils as “complex”. While
intended to support planning, this label carries significant risks. Our concern is that
“complex” may become a gatekeeping term, used to justify:
• reduced access to mainstream placements
• assumptions that a child is unsuitable for mainstream without individual
assessment
• steering families towards specialist settings limiting expectations of what
mainstream schools can provide.
Families already report being told their child is “too complex” or “too difficult to include”. Embedding this label in national policy thereby risks formalising a narrative that some children are inherently incompatible with mainstream education, rather than recognising that inclusion depends on system capability, not child characteristics.
3. New “inclusion bases” risk becoming segregated spaces
We recognise the intention behind inclusion bases, hubs and resource provisions. However, without clear statutory national standards and accountability, these spaces risk becoming:
• holding areas for pupils labelled “complex”
• separate classrooms where children spend most of their time away from peers
• TA-led spaces with limited access to qualified teachers
• reduced expectation environments with narrower curricula.
Families already report that some existing units operate in this way. Inclusion bases must support inclusion, not replace it.
4. Legal rights to individual assessment and provision must be protected
Children and young people who have Down’s syndrome require individualised
assessment and provision tailored to their assessed individual needs, delivered by
professionals with expertise in Down’s syndrome and inclusive pedagogy. Families consistently report:
• delays and barriers in securing assessments
• missing or inadequate professional advice
• provision in EHCPs not being delivered
• repeated appeals and disputes simply to secure basic support.
The reforms risk weakening core legal protections by:
• shifting from individually assessed provision to standardised packages
• creating new thresholds for EHCPs based on undefined “complexity”
• reducing enforceability through new non-statutory plans
• limiting parental preference and weakening routes of appeal.
A rights-based framework is essential. Provision must remain specified, quantified and enforceable, and families must retain clear routes of redress when provision is not in place.
5. Key drivers of successful inclusion are missing from the reforms
Our evidence and experience show that inclusion for learners who have Down’s
syndrome depends on:
• person-centred planning and support for the child/young person to develop their self-advocacy skills
• skilled teachers with time to plan and adapt teaching based on an inclusive pedagogical approach
• SENCOs with capacity and authority to secure provision and to support professional development
• access to specialist professionals (SaLT, OT, EP) who have expertise and experience in supporting learners who have Down’s syndrome
• a flexible, broad and inclusive curriculum and assessment system
• whole school leadership committed to inclusion
• social inclusion and participation in the whole life of the school, including proactive support to develop friendships and relationships.
None of these enabling conditions appear to be adequately addressed in the current reforms. The SEND reforms must:
• protect legal rights to individual assessment and provision based on that assessment
• ensure assessments are carried out by professionals with expertise insupporting learners who have Down’s syndrome
• address the structural barriers to inclusion, including curriculum, assessment and workforce capability
• prevent the new “complex” label from becoming a barrier to mainstream inclusion
• ensure inclusion bases support inclusion, rather than becoming segregated
spaces
• reject standardised commissioning packages that cannot reflect individual
needs
• retain strong, enforceable rights and routes of appeal that are accessible to all
young people (including those with Learning disabilities) and their parents”.
Children and young people - pupils with PMLD and AAC users
CandLE’s response to the Governments White Paper: ‘Every Child Achieving
and Thriving’ An Overview This response has been written by Marion
Stanton, Head of Education CandLE Annamaria Madera, Deputy Head of
Education, CandLE
CandLE welcomes the White Paper’s commitment to greater inclusivity in
mainstream education, agreeing with its recognition that children with SEND should
have their needs met locally by well-trained staff, that too many are wrongly
excluded from mainstream settings, and that unmet needs lead to isolation,
disengagement, and long-term inequality. The paper rightly highlights the need for
ambitious expectations, early and flexible support, and a broader accountability
system that values inclusive practice. However, CandLE notes that low
expectations—particularly for pupils with PMLD and AAC users —and the routine
disapplication of the National Curriculum continue to undermine these aims, as does
the persistent delay and inflexibility of support for AAC users, who face significant
barriers in accessing appropriate support.
CandLE supports the White Paper’s proposals to improve accessibility, adaptive
teaching, assistive technology, and collaborative local SEND planning, while
emphasising that these commitments must be delivered equitably and without
undermining existing rights. The planned investment in accessible buildings and
assistive technology is welcome, but accessibility is already a legal duty, and AAC
and AT must be available consistently, without requiring children to “prove”
competence before receiving tools they need for learning. Training in adaptive
pedagogy must explicitly include adapting curriculum and instruction for AAC users.
Local SEND groupings must include specialist AAC, AT and complex-needs
expertise so that decisions are based on pupils’ needs rather than financial
constraints. Finally, while the White Paper endorses rights-based definitions of
inclusion, the continued ability to disapply the National Curriculum contradicts the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by creating a two-tier
system that excludes many disabled and nonspeaking pupils from equal access to
education.
Our Key Concerns: Concern 1: The underlying assumption that those with
‘complex needs’ will only be able to access individualised support within
specialist settings: The White Paper’s emphasis on strengthening mainstream and
specialist provision suggests a two-track system in which children with “the most
complex needs” are assumed to require special schools, yet this framing conflicts
with core principles of inclusive education and equality by locating the problem in the
child rather than in systemic barriers. It overlooks pupils whose needs cannot be
met in either mainstream or special settings and who require EOTAS, a statutory
entitlement that disappears entirely from the paper, leaving these children without
visibility in national planning, funding, or accountability. Without explicit recognition
of EOTAS, local authorities face reduced scrutiny, postcode inequalities deepen, and
pupils with the most complex needs risk being placed in unsuitable settings or
denied lawful provision, reinforcing a system designed around the majority rather
than upholding equal access and non-discrimination for all.
Concern 2: There is no suggested or agreed definitions of what is meant by
‘complex needs’, ‘inclusion’ or ‘common and predictable needs’ – even
though these terms form a central part in identifying which students and what
support they will receive under the new reforms. The White Paper’s
commitment to resourcing mainstream settings to meet “common and predictable
needs” while reserving EHCPs for pupils with “the most complex needs” introduces
ambiguity that risks inconsistent interpretation, budget-driven decision-making, and
reduced access to specialist support. Without clear definitions, “complex needs” can
be narrowed to limit eligibility for provision such as AAC, while “common and
predictable needs” can be broadened to push pupils into universal support even
when they require personalised, specialist input. This lack of clarity weakens the
enforceability of SEND law, creates loopholes that shift responsibility onto schools,
and increases the risk that cognitively able AAC users—who should access the full
National Curriculum in mainstream settings—are mislabelled as having “complex
needs” and diverted into special schools where academic pathways and
qualifications are limited and poorly aligned to their learning potential.
Concern 3: Contradictions in National Curriculum entitlement for all: The
White Paper promotes high expectations and universal entitlement to a “knowledge-
rich, broad, inclusive” National Curriculum, yet the government’s curriculum review
simultaneously allows schools to disapply that same curriculum for certain cohorts,
creating a fundamental contradiction that undermines genuine inclusion. While the
government asserts that all pupils should access the same ambitious curriculum, the
curriculum review permits adaptations or full disapplication, enabling unequal
access—particularly for AAC users, who are at risk of being misdirected due to
misunderstandings about their cognitive potential. This dual message frames
exclusion as acceptable practice, weakens the principle of a shared national
entitlement, and opens the door to erroneous disapplication’s, where pupils could
have accessed the curriculum with appropriate technology and adaptive teaching.
Concern 4: Insufficient SEND Funding to Deliver the Level of Inclusion the
Policy Promises The White Paper promises to equip schools for inclusion through
digital plans, better training, faster access to health professionals and continued
EHCPs for those with “the most complex needs,” but the funding attached is far too
small to achieve these aims, given that school spending per pupil has fallen
significantly in real terms and cost pressures continue to rise. The proposed
£1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund equates to only around £24,000 per school
per year—barely enough to fund a single full-time teaching assistant—raising
serious questions about how schools are expected to deliver meaningful inclusion,
early intervention, or specialist support. The gap between the scale of need and the
scale of investment means that promises of ending the postcode lottery and
restoring confidence in the system are unlikely to be realised without far greater,
sustained funding.
Concern 5: The paper assumes specialist expertise sits almost entirely within
mainstream schools/ special schools or health based services, which could
leave out whole areas of specialist knowledge. The White Paper proposes a
£1.8 billion “Experts at Hand” service to expand multi-agency support in mainstream
schools, but the scale of national shortages and high costs raises serious doubts
about whether this funding can deliver adequate coverage, particularly for pupils
with complex communication needs who require AAC and AT expertise that is not
explicitly included. By placing schools as the primary instigators of targeted support,
there is a real risk that specialist input will be overlooked, misidentified, or
constrained by budgets, especially if trusts assume expertise sits internally and fail
to access external specialists. Framing health-based professionals as the default
“experts” further sidelines essential non-clinical specialists such as AAC
practitioners and specialist teachers, creating uneven access and a postcode lottery
in who receives the right support at the right time.
Concern 6: The introduction of specialist support packages will eliminate
individualised support for students and narrowing access to the specialist
input some pupils need. The proposal to introduce nationally defined Specialist
Provision Packages marks a shift away from individually tailored, enforceable EHCP
provision toward cohort-based, pre-determined support, creating significant risks
where “complex needs” remain undefined and eligibility becomes tied to meeting
package criteria rather than actual need. This approach could undermine Equality
Act duties by failing to account for individual barriers, exclude children with
overlapping moderate needs who do not meet any single threshold, and reduce
parental influence over support decisions. It also assumes most pupils meeting
package criteria will be placed in specialist settings, contradicting the government’s
stated commitment to inclusion and disadvantaging cognitively able AAC users who
should access mainstream education and the full National Curriculum. Without
clarity on what each package contains, how bespoke provision will be secured, or
how AAC and AT needs will be recognised across packages, there is a real risk that
essential expertise will be overlooked, support will be standardised rather than
personalised, and families will lose agency in shaping provision for their children.
Concern 7: Who are the ‘independent experts panel’ who are making
decisions around Specialist Support? The White Paper proposes an
independent expert panel to develop National Inclusion Standards and new
Specialist Provision Packages, but it is unclear how members will be selected,
whether they represent the full range of SEND expertise, or whether essential
specialists—such as AAC and AT experts—will be included. Without broad, inclusive
membership and public consultation, the panel risks overlooking the needs of pupils
with the most complex communication and access requirements, particularly those
successfully supported in mainstream settings.
Concern 8: The proposed use of inclusion bases may lead to segregation as
opposed to true inclusion. Inclusion bases may expand provision, but they risk
becoming de facto segregated spaces when pupils with SEND are taught separately
or placed on alternative curricula, removing them from the mainstream offer the
White Paper claims to strengthen. This separation undermines the Equality Act duty
to ensure equal access to the same curriculum and opportunities, often leading to
lower expectations, reduced progression routes, and social isolation. Over time,
pupils placed in these bases can become increasingly detached from their peers
and from the National Curriculum, making reintegration harder and widening
attainment gaps rather than closing them.
Concern 9: The reforms claim to reward inclusion but instead systematically
disadvantage inclusive and high SEND schools The paper claims schools will be
“rewarded” for supporting pupils facing the highest barriers, but provides no detail on
what these rewards are, how “highest need” will be defined, or who will determine
the specialist support required, while also leaving unclear who will deliver the
promised SEND training and what expertise it will include. At the same time, the
new Ofsted framework expects schools judged “strong” to show above-average
results, creating a structural disadvantage for inclusive schools and those with high
proportions of SEND pupils, who may make excellent progress but are statistically
less likely to meet national averages. The requirement for “exceptional” schools to
demonstrate consistently high outcomes in national tests effectively excludes
special schools, alternative provision, and many inclusive mainstream schools from
ever being recognised as exceptional, embedding inequity into the accountability
system and potentially discouraging schools from admitting pupils with complex
SEND.
Concern 10: Will the SEND CPD programme include AT and AAC training? The
commitment to invest £200m in a national SEND CPD programme raises a key
question: will this training include Assistive Technology (AT) and Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC)? AT and AAC are essential for many learners with
complex communication and access needs, yet they are often overlooked in
mainstream training. Without explicit inclusion, the programme risks reinforcing
existing gaps in staff expertise and limiting pupils’ access to the tools they need to
learn and communicate.
Concern 11: The paper promises a dedicated SEND practitioner in every Best
Start Family Hub, but it is unclear whether this will include expertise in AAC
and AT. National specialist AAC services are commissioned only for the most
complex cases, leaving many children with emerging or moderate needs without
support. Unlike mobility or hearing aids, AAC is not provided at a predictable
developmental stage, and services often delay provision until a child “shows
readiness,” despite strong evidence that early AAC use accelerates language
development. Without clear expectations around AAC/AT, Family Hubs risk
repeating the same gaps in early intervention. The wider population of students that
rely on AAC are currently funded by local provision and not through NHS AAC
Assessment centres (who only make provision for communication for the most
complex 10%). Funding for AAC as an Assistive Technology provision (AT) needs to
be available for all students who rely on or could benefit from AAC including the
most complex 10 %.
Concern 12: Phonics Focused- Accountability that disadvantages non-verbal
and AAC users. The ambition for 90% of children to meet the Year 1 Phonics
Screening Check is inherently unfair for non-verbal pupils and those with significant
communication difficulties, because the assessment measures speech production
rather than phonics knowledge, leaving AAC users unable to demonstrate skills they
may genuinely possess. Without alternative response modes—such as AAC, the
test places disabled pupils at a built-in disadvantage, conflicting with the Equality Act
duty to make reasonable adjustments and resulting in inaccurate data that can
shape curriculum pathways, expectations, and accountability measures for years.
Concern 13: Lack of AAC Specific Curriculum Adaptations in Proposed
“Evidence Led” Resources The paper promises “evidence led resources to
support curriculum adaptation for all children, including those with SEND,” page 27,
but it is unclear whether these adaptations will include the specific adjustments AAC
users require. Research shows that AAC users participate less and are often judged
as having lower ability when materials and routines are not adapted to their
communication mode.1 Standard teaching resources assume speech, rapid motor
responses, and typical language processing, which excludes many AAC learners.
Without AAC specific adaptations, pupils are disadvantaged not because of their
cognition, but because the learning environment is inaccessible.
Concern 14: The omission of AAC undermines the paper’s claims about the
importance of speech, communication and oracy The report places heavy
emphasis on speaking as the foundation of communication, confidence, and future
life chances, yet it makes no mention of AAC or pupils who cannot rely on speech,
despite the national curriculum review explicitly defining oracy to include nonverbal
communication, sign language, and AAC. By prioritising spoken language alone, the
paper overlooks the communication rights of nonverbal pupils, risks making AAC
users invisible in policy, training, curriculum design, and accountability, and
reinforces existing gaps in AAC provision. This omission sends the message that
AAC is optional rather than essential, creating a communication strategy that cannot
be equitable because it excludes the very tools many disabled pupils rely on to
communicate—and risks removing AAC expertise from the scope of specialist
provision altogether.
Concern 15: Key Stage 3 and 4 Attainment Expectations Ignore Long Standing
Curriculum Access Barriers for AAC Users The paper emphasises the
importance of strong English and maths outcomes at Key Stage 4 and introduces
new post-16 “preparation for GCSE” qualifications, but this focus comes far too late
for AAC users and pupils with complex communication or access needs, whose
barriers begin in the early years when curriculum materials, assessments, and
classroom routines are not adapted to their communication systems. Many have
already missed key curriculum content by Key Stage 3 due to disapplication,
inaccessible teaching, or lack of specialist support, making later expectations
unrealistic and reinforcing disadvantage. A system that assumes linear, age-based
progression overlooks the need for early, accessible, stage-based pathways and,
where necessary, well-resourced EOTAS provision to ensure these pupils can build
foundational literacy and access the full curriculum rather than being left
permanently behind.
Concern 16: ISP System Creates Plans on Paper Without Guarantees of
Expertise, Implementation, or Appeal Rights The plan to require digital Individual
Support Plans and give schools £1.6 billion to deliver early, flexible SEND support
places increasing responsibility on teachers to identify and meet complex needs, yet
most lack the specialist clinical, AAC, and assistive-technology expertise required to
make safe, lawful decisions. Without guaranteed access to specialist input, schools
risk misinterpreting needs, providing inappropriate support, or breaching legal
duties. Although schools must write and annually review Individual Support Plans,
there is no legal obligation to implement them and no right of appeal if they are
ignored, leaving pupils—especially those with complex SEND or AAC needs—
without enforceable protections and creating a significant accountability gap.
Concern 17: Pooling Budgets Could Deprioritise High Cost, Specialist Support
for Complex Needs Pupils Pooling funding across school groups may work for
common, lower-level needs, but it creates significant risks for pupils with complex or
highly individualised needs. These learners often require bespoke AAC, AT,
therapeutic and educational input, and intensive one-to-one support that cannot be
met through shared staffing or generic provision. When funding is pooled rather than
allocated to the individual, pupils with rare or specialist needs are less likely to be
prioritised, as their support is more expensive and benefits fewer children. This
model risks diluting or even removing the individualised, specialist provision that
complex needs pupils rely on.
Concern 18: The government’s heavy emphasis on attendance, risks
sidelining the needs of pupils with SEND, particularly those with medical
conditions who may not be able to meet rigid attendance expectations. The
target of raising attendance to over 94% treats attendance as the primary measure
of success, overlooking that many disabled pupils need flexible patterns, health-
related adjustments, or alternative provision, and risks disadvantaging them when
equality duties require education to adapt to the child. By framing medical
appointments and health needs as “lost learning time” to be reduced through same-
day consultations, on-site services, or pressure from health professionals, the
proposals imply that children’s healthcare should fit school schedules rather than the
other way around. This approach treats essential medical care as an attendance
problem, creating indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and placing
intrusive expectations on families, while ignoring the reality that pupils with chronic
conditions require rest, treatment, and fluctuating attendance without being
penalised.
CandLE recommends the following:
• Mainstream access to the National Curriculum must be guaranteed for all pupils,
including those with complex needs, and the ability to disapply it should be removed.
• Clear national definitions of complex needs, commonly occurring needs, and
inclusion are essential, alongside realistic funding that matches the White Paper’s
ambitions.
• AAC specialists, specialist teachers, inclusion experts, and AT professionals must
be explicitly included in both the “Experts at Hand” offer and the government’s
expert panel to ensure broad, accurate representation.
• Reasonable adjustments must remain universal rights, not dependent on ISPs or
EHCPs, and individualised provision must not be replaced by generic packages or
pooled funding that dilutes personalised support.
• Attendance policy should not penalise pupils with medical needs, and
accountability should value individual progress rather than narrow attainment
measures.
• The phonics screening check should be removed due to its discriminatory impact,
and AAC must be recognised as a core communication right, explicitly included
whenever policy refers to speech, communication, or oracy.
Reservations and Missed Opportunities Colin Newton
We welcome elements of the SEND White Paper, particularly its recognition of the deteriorating landscape for children who are disabled or who have complex special educational needs. The analysis accurately identifies increasing segregation, the expansion of specialist placements and alternative provision, and rising exclusion rates. The emphasis on belonging and the ambition to
establish national standards for inclusion are important and necessary.
However, the proposals lack the scale and ambition required to address these systemic challenges.
Continued Reliance on the EHCP System
The continued positioning of the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) as the “gold standard” remains a fundamental concern. While access may become more restricted, its status is simultaneously reinforced, increasing its desirability for families and perpetuating demand. This sustains a system in which parents and carers are driven toward statutory processes, while professionals remain engaged in resource-intensive, bureaucratic cycles with limited impact on lived outcomes. The White Paper does not offer a credible alternative to this legalistic model and risks entrenching the very inefficiencies it seeks to address.
Lack of a Clear Vision for Inclusive Mainstream Education
The document does not articulate a sufficiently bold or coherent vision for inclusive mainstream education. There is no clear commitment to ensuring that all children can attend their local school, regardless of need, supported by flexible, responsive provision. Without this, the system remains oriented toward managing difference through separation rather than transforming mainstream environments to accommodate diversity (Booth & Ainscow, 2011).
This stands in contrast to the long-established principles of inclusive education advanced by advocates such as Richard Rieser and Micheline Mason, who have consistently argued for systemic reform grounded in rights, participation, and the removal of structural barriers to inclusion.
Absence of Disabled Adult Contribution
The omission of disabled adults with lived experience is significant. There is strong precedent for their involvement in training, consultation, and system design, both in the UK and internationally.Their contribution is critical in shaping authentic and effective inclusive practice .
The work of Richard Rieser and Micheline Mason further demonstrates the transformative impact of centring disabled voices within education reform, particularly in challenging deficit-basedmodels and promoting inclusive, rights-based approaches. This absence within the White Paper represents a missed opportunity to ground reform in lived and critically informed experience.
Neglect of Peer Support Approaches
There is no reference to peer-mediated approaches, despite a substantial evidence base supporting their effectiveness. Strategies such as Circles of Friends and peer mediation have consistently demonstrated positive outcomes in participation, belonging, and social inclusion
Peer mediation schemes offer particular value across both primary and secondary settings. In primary schools, they support the early development of empathy, cooperation, and inclusive social norms. In secondary contexts, they are effective in addressing relational conflict, reducing bullying and supporting vulnerable students at risk of exclusion
Beyond individual impact, peer mediation contributes to whole-school culture by embedding shared responsibility, mutual respect, and collaborative problem-solving—conditions essential for sustainable inclusion. When combined with structured approaches such as Circles of Friends, these methods enable children and young people to become active agents in inclusion, rather than passive recipients.
This reflects a fundamental principle: children go to school to be included by their peers, not solely by adults.
Decades of work, including that of Colin Newton and Derek Wilson, have established scalable peer support models embedded within Educational Psychology Services across the UK . The omission of these approaches from the White Paper is both surprising and concerning.
Overlooking Person-Centred Planning
The absence of person-centred thinking and planning is a significant omission. Over the past 25 years, these approaches have become embedded within UK educational practice, particularly through the work of educational psychologists and multidisciplinary teams. Methods such as one- page profiles, PATH (Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope), and MAPs (Making Action Plans) are widely used and have demonstrated sustained impact in supporting children and young
people with complex needs
Critically, the work brought together in Person-Centred Planning Together by Colin Newton, Claire Darwin and Derek Wilson represents a substantial and practice-grounded contribution to the field. This work synthesises decades of applied experience in schools and services, offering both a theoretical framework and highly practical methodologies for implementing person-centred approaches at scale.
It demonstrates how planning can move from static, compliance-driven documentation toward dynamic, relational, and participatory processes. Importantly, it shows how children and young people—particularly those with the most complex needs—can be meaningfully involved in shaping their own futures when the right structures and facilitation are in place.
Despite this well-established evidence base and national reach, the White Paper makes no reference to person-centred planning as a viable alternative to existing statutory processes.
A reformed system could build directly on this body of work by replacing EHCPs and individual learning plans with annual, costed, person-centred planning processes. Such an approach would involve facilitated group planning events (e.g. PATH or MAP meetings), bringing together the child or young person, their family, peers, and relevant professionals to co-construct a shared, forward-
looking plan.
The advantages are clear:
• Direct participation and voice
• Clarity and accessibility
• Reduced conflict
• Dynamic and responsive planning
• Scalability across services
This body of work provides not only an alternative methodology, but a fundamentally different paradigm—one that aligns closely with the stated aims of reducing bureaucracy, increasing inclusion, and improving outcomes. Its omission from the White Paper represents a missed opportunity to draw on an established, evidence-informed approach that is already embedded in practice across the UK andinternationally.
Conclusion
While the SEND White Paper provides an accurate diagnosis of current failings, it does not propose solutions of sufficient ambition. It reinforces existing structures—particularly the EHCP framework—rather than advancing more inclusive, participatory alternatives.
Critically, it overlooks established, evidence-based practices including peer support, person-centred planning, and the contribution of disabled adults—central themes in the work of Richard Rieser and Micheline Mason.
Transformational reform requires a shift away from compliance-driven systems toward an inclusive model rooted in belonging, participation, and collaboration—where children are supported not only by services, but by their peers and communities.
Equalities and how much is the SEND White Paper be guided by the UNCRPD?Richard Rieser rlrieser@gmail.com
The 2026 White Paper, officially titled Every Child Achieving and Thriving, defines inclusive education as a fundamental shift toward ensuring all children—including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)—belong, achieve, and thrive in mainstream settings. (p 7/134 Send Reform putting children and young people first )
This is a very wide but welcome definition that comes from the Who is Losing Learning WILL coalition, aimed mainly at the laudable aim of giving socially disadvantaged children and young people more equality based on rising absenteeism, exclusions from harsh discipline policies and long running gaps in attainment between social classes.
The White Paper goes on to declare “Within this, it is crucial we go further to deliver inclusion for children with SEND. In doing so, we will be guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”.
“Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and the environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences.” General Comment No.4 Inclusive Education UNHCOHR 2016, para11
The definition of inclusion from paragraph 11 of the General Comment no 4 is much more comprehensive and far reaching than any quoted in the White Paper. Should this not be the guide?
The benefit of inclusion for those with SEND is given as a reason in the White Pasper “The evidence is compelling: children and young people learning alongside their peers has proven academic and social benefits for all children” p11-13 /134. It has been known for many years, though the DFE has now only recently decided to claim this with their policy shift towards inclusion.
As Bridget Phillipson Sec of State for Education put it in the Guardian as the White Paper was launched “ Challenging that children with SEND have been let down over and over by the education system over the last 10 years, she held out an inclusive vision where:-
“Children and young people with Send will spend time in classrooms with their peers, experiencing enrichment and stretch, with a specialist area down the corridor for the points in the day when a smaller group would better meet their needs.”
Bridget Phillipson explained further what she means by inclusive education on Secretary of State’s Speech 9th March
“A future in which all children with SEND get the rights they deserve…
the right to be included in their local schools… the right to enjoy exactly the same high standards and expectations that we have for other children.
And, colleagues, we get there through inclusive mainstream. More children educated at a great local school… with their friends, close to their family, a core part of their local community. And to those who say that inclusion in our schools will come at the cost of high standards… I say: you are wrong. The evidence proves it.
My department has looked at English and maths GCSE results for children with SEND. And those children do better in mainstream schools than specialist schools.
Inclusive mainstream can offer children with SEND the precious opportunity to go on to live a rich and fulfilling adult life. And research also shows that, when they learn alongside their peers… children both with and without SEND tend to do better, both academically and socially. Because inclusion and high standards… it’s not one or the other, it’s both. These are the changes in our schools that I want to work hand-in-hand with you to deliver”
This understanding lacks specificity and structure against which the process can be evaluated against. Compare this to the definition of inclusive education produced by the UNCRPD Committee General Comment No 4 on Article 24 Inclusive Education
“8. In accordance with article 24 (1), States parties must ensure the realization of the right of persons with disabilities to education through an inclusive education system at all levels, including preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary education, vocational training and lifelong learning, extracurricular and social activities, and for all students, including persons with disabilities, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others.”Gen Comment No 4 para 8
The White Paper puts forward a system where the degree of complexity of the needs of the disabled young person will largely determine whether they are educated in a local mainstream school or a special school or alternate provision. This in not inclusion. Often it is those characterised with complex need who are already the most isolated and socially not connected to their peers. This is a ‘medical model’ approach linking a hierarchy of impairment to a spurious hierarchy of provision. Children with every degree and type of impairment have been successfully included in mainstream. It is about values. This is not to say that mainstream has been failing many disabled children. This is not about the children. It is about the lack of staff training, inappropriate curriculum and the pressure for results, that has made disabled children, young people and their families refugees from mainstream with the soring costs this entails.
9. Ensuring the right to inclusive education entails a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal educational environments to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to removing the barriers that impede that possibility. It involves strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. It focuses on the full and effective participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those who, for different reasons, are excluded or at risk of being marginalized. Inclusion involves access to and progress in high-quality formal and informal education without discrimination. Inclusion seeks to enable communities, systems and structures to combat discrimination, including harmful stereotypes, recognize diversity, promote participation and overcome barriers to learning and participation for all by focusing on the well-being and success of students with disabilities. It requires an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy and the mechanisms for financing, administering, designing, delivering and monitoring education”. General Comment No 4 para 9.
This vision of inclusion is not represented in the White Paper. For example transforming the culture, policy and practice such as altering the high stakes testing that exists with the Labour Governments’ support. The largely unaltered narrow and knowledge based National Curriculum, which the recent Review is not for fundamentally changing and although thew White Paper talks of developing additional programs and method will still remain as it is. No alternate emphasis on vocational routes or alternative forms of assessment such as continuous course based. The commitment to removing barriers is partial, as it will not extend to those with complex needs.
“10. Inclusive education is to be understood as: (a) A fundamental human right of all learners. Notably, education is the right of the individual learner and not, in the case of children, the right of a parent or caregiver. Parental responsibilities in this regard are subordinate to the rights of the child; (b) A principle that values the well-being of all students, respects their inherent dignity and autonomy, and acknowledges individuals’ requirements and their ability to effectively be included in and contribute to society; (c) A means of realizing other human rights. It is the primary means by which persons with disabilities can lift themselves out of poverty, obtain the means to participate fully in their communities and be safeguarded from exploitation.3 It is also the primary means of achieving inclusive societies; (d) The result of a process of continuing and proactive commitment to eliminating barriers impeding the right to education, together with changes to culture, policy and practice of regular schools to accommodate and effectively include all students”. General Comment No 4 para.10
Where the young person is educated, is the right of the child and not the parents which is not recognised in the White Paper.
The White Paper recognises that barriers that impede progress should be tackled. However, the barriers in-line with the UNCRPD are beyond the child, in their environment, attitudes to them, rules applied to them, communication systems offered to them, methods of teaching used for their learning and ways of assessing their learning. In the short term, these come under the reasonable adjustment duty owed to all disabled children prior to and when they first attend the setting or school. In the longer term implementing the Public Sector Duty (149 Equality Act) and Schedule 8 Access Planning Duty. There is no mention of these legal requirement other than reasonable adjustments in the White Paper.
“11. The Committee highlights the importance of recognizing the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion. Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form. Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular impairment or to various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities. Integration is the process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions with the understanding that they can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions. Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and the environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organization, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion .”
The White Paper relies largely on segregation for children and students with complex needs and does not recognise that a proportion of these can make academic progress in mainstream schools with the right communication and IT support as pointed out by Candle AAC.“Because for non-verbal Augmented and Alternative Communication users it is only too easy to misdiagnose a student who has average intelligence as one who has PMLD, with a supposed IQ level of under 20”. But even if students do have learning difficulty this is not a fixed quantum but changes on the environment and peers they are surrounded by.
The definition above of inclusion, which is part of the jurisprudence of Article 24 of the UNCRPD. This means it can be relied upon if a court case is brought. Though the UNCRPD has not been incorporated into English Law. In Scotland and Wales the Parliaments want to incorporate the UNCRPD, but the UK Government will not allow it because it still has reservations. With the expressed view to have an inclusive system in the White Paper, the Government have at least have it as their objective after 10 years , but instead they say they hope by 2035 to return to around the current level of EHCPs-5% which presumably means around 200,000 in separate special provision.
The problem with the rhetoric of Secretary of State and the White Paper is it is not backed up by the DfE Expert Advisory Group on inclusion. Made up largely of Multi Academy Trust headteachers and chaired by Tom Rees of Ormiston Trust who is now appointed as Chair of the Expert Group on Inclusion. Inclusion in Practice made a call for evidence last Spring and in Summer published their report based on an analysis of submissions highlighting pockets of effective and evidence informed practice coming from 165 submissions from 820 academy schools and 7,600 schools represented by local authorities. The call invited schools, colleges, multi-academy trusts, to share their experiences and approaches to inclusive education, with a focus on supporting learners with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Data from local authorities, and sector organisations were not included in the analysis.
“In a system navigating a complex and challenging funding backdrop, the report details how a number of schools and trusts are successfully organising practice, professional development and resources to strengthen support for all children. The five emerging principles of promising practice identified are:
1.Knowing children well, early and often. The foundation of inclusive practice is balancing knowledge of individuals, alongside knowledge of their barriers to learning. Schools are investing time in getting to know children early, particularly at points of transition, and being anticipatory as well as reactive in planning support that will help them succeed.
2.High quality and evidence-informed teaching practice. Inclusion starts with expert teaching. When this is embedded consistently and paired with early, targeted support for children, more learners stay in class and make progress.
3.Coherent and expert targeted support. Expert and evidence-informed targeted support is organised in clear and structured systems so schools can ensure support is available when needed, and that responsibilities are well understood. Graduated models are enabling earlier, more coordinated responses across settings.
4.Strengthening inclusion through relationships and partnerships. Inclusive schools do not work in isolation. Strong relationships based on trust with families, local authorities, and external services help create coherent and consistent support for children.
5.Inclusion as a strategic and shared responsibility. Leaders see inclusion as a core priority and principle across their settings, not a separate system. When responsibility is shared and guided by a clear ethos, schools align planning, development, and accountability to drive consistent, inclusive practice.”
These become the White Paper Reform Principles of Early, Local, Fair, Effective and Shared
If one reads the Case Studies and examples in their report ‘Inclusion in Practice Emerging Insights’ these have clearly played a key part in determining the strategy in the White Paper. Calls for Universal Provision, Individual Support Plans, Mandatory Inclusion policies, Targeted, Targeted Plus (often supported in Bases) and EHCPs for those with complex needs who will be on 1 of 7 Specialist Provision Packages. These will largely be provided in separate special provision, so not inclusion. They are an attempt to provide mainstream schools with greater flexibility of provision. The aim is to reduce the national budgetary pressure caused by failure of the mainstream, which has led to increasing numbers of EHCPs- a large minority of which name special provision.
The examples focus on flexibility and early interventions not waiting for time laden bureaucratic processes, but the nature of the impairments discussed and the needs addressed reflect a general view that these are mainly children with Autism and ADHD or Emotional Behavioural Mental Health needs. The strong impression is that those involved in the Expert Group on Inclusion are focussed on getting to the low hanging fruit of children with commonly occurring SEND in their schools and making mainstream schools more habitable for them. Many parents may say what is wrong with that ?
This pragmatic approach is the starting rather than operating from the principled of defining values “involv(ing) a process of systemic reform leading … to provid(ing) all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and the environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences” General Comment 4.
It is based on the notion that inclusion is increasing the numbers of children and young people with SEND being effectively educated in mainstream schools and this can be brought abought by tinkering with the current school system. Perhaps using the UNCRPD definitions in General Comment No 4 this approach could best be categorised as Integration plus, given the conditionality built into it!
Why Integration Plus?
Because the unmentioned, but clear principle in the White Paper is that the structure of the school system, as it is, is to be maintained in developing inclusion.
The approach throughout is normative. Those whose impairment cannot be accommodated in the ‘normal range’ of outcomes because of lack of progress academically or being unable to operate to normative behaviour expectation ( with support), will be tracked with evidence to show they have ‘complex needs’ and should be educated outside the mainstream. Can not be included.
This normative approach has been strongly reinforced by the Multi Academy Trusts and the apparatus of organisations that have grown up around them. It needs to be remembered that the Academy experiment was started by Labour, but massively increased by the Coalition and Tory Governments of 2010 to 2024 . It is based on the metric of academic exam results on an elitist and knowledge based reformed National Curriculum, which fails many children with SEND and those from deprived backgrounds. The Multi-Academy Trusts have introduced business management techniques into running schools and currency of success is normative assessment. Set up in frustration by national politicians in exasperation at Local Authorities schools slow response to ‘school improvement’ being able to educate effectively educate the whole cohort, but the irony is that these schools have led to a greater class based performance gap, more absentism and loss of interest in education.
In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or the rest of Europe this experiment was not introduced and slowly these school systems are moving towards inclusive practice. The White Paper aims to bring all schools into the academy framework with Local Authority School Academies.
In a genuinely inclusive system the metric would move from normative to progress on a much wider range of outcomes such as happiness, emotional intelligence, friendships and social relationships, creativity, practical skills as well as knowledge for life alongside basic skills and an academic path for those suited to it. This would involve self-assessment and peer assessment as well as continuous and formative assessment and greater status to vocational and skills-based assessment.
The focus would not be on the within child barriers to learning as appears the case in the White Paper, but on removing barriers of attitude manifesting as bullying, name calling and social isolation; environment by creating full access and a diversity of learning spaces in and out of the building and fully accessible IT and language systems and removing barriers within the institution in admission, exclusion and getting all polices and practices to be fully inclusive, remembering the anticipatory nature of the reasonable adjustment duty.
Increasingly, many families of children with intellectual impairments such as Down’s Syndrome, or complex needs such as cerebral palsy seeking placement in mainstream schools, have been told, unlawfully, that the ‘school cannot meet need’. As the White Paper says it respects parents right to a mainstream school placement, but does not say how this will be safeguarded in an increasingly normative school system where ‘national experts’ who it appears be will be drawn from this normative approach will determine the package to meet their child’s needs.
Key thinking that led to the focus on barriers disabling those with long term impairments.
Over many years of struggling for a Rights based approach towards us the Disabled People’s Movement: (your disabled children grown) managed to get the world to shift to adopting thinking developed by us in reaction to negative treatment, discrimination, being treated as objects of charity, often shut away from mainstream society in segregated institutions and school. The reason for such treatment was in part to make us normal through specialist treatment and education and in part out of fear. This barbaric and inhumane treatment did not work in most cases. Instead, the Disabled People’s Movement developed a critique of this medical model as denying us agency, subjecting us to the whims of professionals who do not experience the world as we do and calling their practice scientific. Disabled people supported by allies, who can be parents, community or professionals, through our struggles for equal rights have established that attitudinal, environmental and institutional barriers are our problem and that we are subjects with rights. The Social Model and Human Rights approach requires this transition from Medical to Social Model Thinking .
This paradigm shift lies at the heart of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UNCRPD. The approach was applied to schools by Rieser and Mason that led to the Alliance for Inclusive Education and to a whole range of resources and training by Disability Equality in Education who from 1998 to 2005 were supported by Government Grants. Although new Labour Government started in 1997 with a highly supportive policy to Inclusive Education, by 2006 Lord Adonis, Schools Minister could say to the Education Select Committee ‘We as a Government have no policy on inclusion’.
It appears the reasons for this were two-fold: Inclusion was opposed by a growing lobby of special schools who were worried about their future and a minority of parents and secondly the Government itself who were focused on attainment data and thought disabled children depressed outcome data in mainstream. With the change of Government in 2010 David Cameron backed by the Liberal Coalition was ‘against the bias to Inclusion’ and Michael Gove’s curriculum reforms left out many disabled students in assessment and accessible content. The growth of competition was encouraged, based on a currency of exam results. Many new emerging academies discouraged admission of disabled students and gradually the expertise there had been in mainstream schools was increasingly lost.
The UNCRPD approach was ratified by the British Government in June 2009. One of its 8 principles is inclusion and another is accessibility. For political reasons the UK Government entered Interpretive Declaration and a Reservations against Article 24 which are still in place from the UK Government . The first changes the UK’s definition of a ‘general education system’ to include segregated education:-
“The United Kingdom Government is committed to continuing to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff, which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children. The General Education System in the United Kingdom includes mainstream, and special schools, which the UK Government understands is allowed under the Convention.” (Interpretative Declaration on Education – Convention Article 24 Clause 2 (a) and (b))
The second reserves the UK’s right to send disabled children to special schools outside their local area:
“The United Kingdom reserves the right for disabled children to be educated outside their local community where more appropriate education provision is available elsewhere. Nevertheless, parents of disabled children have the same opportunity as other parents to state a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated.” (Reservation: Education – Convention Article 24 Clause 2 (a) and 2 (b)).
These remain in place despite a supposed move to inclusion now with the White Paper! They should be withdrawn now.
How much of Article 24 of UNCRPD is aligned with the White Paper Reforms?
Article 24 of the UNCRPD covers Education
‘1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning directed to:
a. The full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
b. The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
c. Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society’.
The White Paper represents a move to a more inclusive education system, but it is only seeking to get numbers of the those in separate special schools down to where they were in 2006 after 10 years. We have already pointed out the significant evidence that special schools are less effective at preparing disabled young people for employment, social life and academic achievement than inclusive mainstream schools.
‘2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:
a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability’;
The complex need formulation and the expectation that most of those awarded the seven packages of resources will be placed in separate provision away from mainstream peers means this will be on the basis of disability.
‘b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live’;
This will not be complied with, as the system being adopted is based on rationing of more expensive provision based on generic views of experts working from a deficit model. Back in 1994 myself and Micheline Mason in ‘Altogether Better’ contrasted the fixed geographic continuum model of provision based on the medical model with the constellation of services model supporting the inclusion of the disabled child or young person. See Diagrams 1 +2 below.
‘c) Reasonable accommodation of the individual's requirements is provided’;
These will be provided, but they will be limited to those with more commonly occurring needs and conditions. Whereas legally all disabled children and students are entitled to them asap.
‘d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education’;
Under the White Paper suggestion at the universal level disabled children and young people will receive support but increasingly as they move up from Targeted to Target Plus to Specialist Support, this is increasingly more likely to be in separate rooms and the resource bases, and then as specialist it will specify the provision as alternate provision or special school so mainly not within the general education system (though parents can still express a preference for mainstream, though schools confound this wish by saying they cannot meet need).
‘e) Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion’.
The resource bases or units could fit in here but the phrase about maximizing academic and social development can be linked to effective teaching but also intentional building of relations with peers, so those who are placed in these bases do not become socially isolated.
‘3. States Parties shall enable persons with disabilities to learn life and social development skills to facilitate their full and equal participation in education and as members of the community. To this end, States Parties shall take appropriate measures, including:
a) Facilitating the learning of Braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication and orientation and mobility skills, and facilitating peer support and mentoring;
b) Facilitating the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community;
c) Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children, who are blind, deaf or deafblind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development’.
As Sign Language is a recognised UK Language every effort needs to be made to provide sign language with a group of signing peers in the mainstream school. Specialist teachers are not mentioned in the White Paper , but the most useful method of developing good inclusive practice is to have centrally employed advisory teachers for inclusion, with expertise for different impairment groups to develop and alter whole school and individual practice.
‘4. In order to help ensure the realization of this right, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education. Such training shall incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, educational techniques and materials to support persons with disabilities’.
The training mentioned in the White Paper for school staff is all focussed on expertise around meeting different needs. It is also not very useful in changing the ethos of the school to being more inclusive, supportive and responsive to disabled children and students to have disability equality training delivered by trainers with lived experience of the oppression and discrimination disabled people face. It is very important for schools to recruit, train and promote disabled teachers and staff to act as positive role models and create a more disability friendly school welcoming of difference.
‘5. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. To this end, States Parties shall ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities’.
The proposals on transition may help, but there is a need for different forms of assessment other than GCSEs to enable many more disabled students, more of whom are languishing in the NEET (Not in Employment Education and Training) category. Vocational routes should be opened up much more, especially for disabled students with social emotional and mental health and learning difficulty. Apprenticeships and Job Experience also need to provide for Disabled Students to a much greater extent.
Conclusions
To demonstrate how far the UK Government is away from the General Progress on Incliusive Education with its proposals for Integration plus examine Prof Mel Ainscow’s review for UNESCO on the 30th Anniversary of the Salamanca Statement 2024.
“Six recommended actions have emerged from international efforts to move policy and practice forward informed by the Salamanca Statement. In summary, these are as follows:
•Action 1: Establish clear definitions of what is meant by inclusion and equity in education. Fail to do this either in the Inclusion Advisory Group or White Paper
•Action 2: Use evidence to identify contextual barriers to the participation and progress of learners. Only partially addressed
•Action 3: Ensure that teachers are supported in promoting inclusion and equity.
Only partially addressed but the training will be normative and not based on values and Human Rights of Inclusion
•Action 4: Design the curriculum and assessment procedures with all learners in mind.
Failed to take seriously as tinkering with existing exclusionary Curriculum and Assessment system
•Action 5: Structure and manage education systems in ways that will engage all learners. Failed as leave segregation in place and build it into an ongoing part of the structure and spend resources on an outreach system from this phase which is largely inappropriate to mainstream.
•Action 6: Involve communities in the development and implementation of policies for promoting inclusion and equity in education. Consultations have been inadequate and not gone back to basics. Too many things are not challengeable.
Inclusive Good Practice established in English Schools from 1980s to around 2007.
Reflections on Newham - Linda Jordan
As those of us involved in the world of SEND are preparing for yet another set of changes to the SEND system, I wonder how many reviews there will need to be before it is finally accepted that proper inclusive education is the only rational system for ensuring that all of our children are nurtured, supported and challenged so that they find their passions, enjoy life and feel that they belong in the world.
Surely those involved in the creation of yet more “reforms” to the SEND system, are embarrassed to be having the same conversations that have been going on for over100 years.
My 43-year-old daughter who has Down syndrome, went from nursery to primary school to secondary school to college and had an amazing education which has ledto her leading a gloriously ordinary life. She works, has her own flat, is married, hasa large circle of friends and a great social life. Her nursery, schools and college were
high performing, judged by Ofsted to be outstanding and were in the top 5 percentile nationally in terms of academic attainment. My daughter’s peers across Newham had similar experiences and show the impact that inclusive education has on the rest of life.
In Newham, in 1986, the Council decided to implement the 1981 Education Act positively and enable all children to go to their local neighbourhood schools. Over a period of ten years, all education settings were supported to develop inclusive pedagogy so that all children could learn together in mainly mixed ability classes. From the mid-1980s, all young children started in their local nursery. A learningsupport service was created and alongside the Educational Psychology service and the school inspection service, provided training, in class support and academic rigourto the development of inclusive environments and inclusive pedagogy.
Seven special schools closed during this time. As the approach to inclusive education grew and developed, more parents wanted their children to go to their local neighbourhood schools. Through co-production, parents of children at the special schools, designed the provision they considered their” ideal world” version of what they wanted for their children. Resourced schools were created for thosechildren with the highest support needs as some parents wanted the staff who knew their children to move with them. Several schools volunteered to become resourced schools:
• Two primary schools and two secondary schools to include children with profound and multiple needs
• One primary and one secondary school to include deaf and hearing-impaired children.
• Two primary and two secondary schools to include children with learning disabilities and autism
Resourced schools do not have “units.” The intention was for children to a) Be part of a mainstream class or tutor group and b) Spend the maximum time possible in mainstream lessons.
The additional resources meant that the schools were able to employ specialists as well as receiving support from local support services.
Newham became internationally known as a lead education authority in the inclusion of children and young people with high support needs.
It has been heartbreaking to see the national changes to the education system over the last 15 years or so. The 2014 changes to the national curriculum, a move away from differentiated inclusive pedagogy and academisation have all but destroyed the system that was being created during the 80s and 90s.
There seems to be no justification for what has happened. There are national statistics showing that many more children are attending special schools and many others are without a school place, have mental health challenges or are refusing to go to school. The current proposed reforms will not achieve change because the fundamental barriers are not being addressed.
What needs to happen?
1. There needs to be an analysis of why the Children and Families Act 2014 has not been implemented and why there is not an accountability framework that could have dealt with this.
2. The purpose of special schools needs to be clarified. It is not good enough to say that they are for children with “the most complex needs”. There is no such legal category and it is a subjective concept. In law, all parents (and children from the age of 16) have a right to express a preference for a mainstream school, regardless of their disability or other differences. The Equality Act requires schools to anticipate being able to include pupils who have disabilities they have not supported before.
3. Inclusive pedagogy should be a priority. There is plenty of evidence from the 1980s and beyond of the benefits of teaching children with differences together and how this improves outcomes for all.
4. The development of a national structure of support for schools focused on inclusive ethos and pedagogy.
5. Specialist teachers, teaching assistants, psychologists, social workspecialists, therapists and other health professionals to provide support to schools to develop confidence and effective practice.
6. A coherent approach to initial teacher and other training that assumesinclusion for all.
7. Promote the inclusion of ALL children – not in separate rooms, but inclassrooms alongside their peers.
Nottingham and Nottingham City
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.
Instead of funding primarily following individual children into segregated placements, resources were redirected into mainstream systems.
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:
• identify a problem,
• assess severity,
• label or statement the child,
• 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.
Colin Newton, Derek Wilson and Peter Gray.
The Index for Inclusion
INDEX FOR INCLUSION: THE INDEX PROCESS & SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CYCLE Authors team led Tony Booth & Mel Ainscow
This very popular school self evaluation tool was used by many hundreds of schools to develop their inclusive practice. It was also translated to 41 languages and used in more than 70 countries. It was based on the social model of disability and sopught to identify barriers.
The Index is a set of materials to support schools in a process of inclusive school development. It is about building supportive school communities which foster high achievement for all students.
The process of using the Index is itself designed to contribute to the inclusive development of schools. It encourages staff to share and build on their existing knowledge and assists them in a detailed examination of the possibilities for increasing learning and participation for all their students.
The Index involves a process of school self-review on three dimensions concerned with inclusive school cultures, policies and practices. The process entails progression through a series of school development phases. These start with the establishment of a co-ordinating group. The group works with staff, governors, students and parents / carers to examine all aspects of the school, identifying barriers to learning and participation, deciding priorities for development and sustaining and reviewing progress. The investigation is supported by a set of indicators and questions that require schools to engage in a deep and challenging exploration of their present position and the possibilities for moving towards greater inclusion.
The DfEE sent the Index to all schools in England in March/April 2000.
The Index Process and the School Development Planning Cycle
Dimension A: Creating inclusive CULTURES
1.Building community
2.Establishing inclusive values
Dimension B: Producing inclusive POLICIES
1.Developing a school for all
2.Organising support for diversity
Dimension C: Evolving inclusive PRACTICES
1.Orchestrating learning
2.Mobilising resources
Inclusion in Education Definition
•Inclusion in education involves the processes of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools.
•Inclusion involves restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the diversity of student in their locality.
•Inclusion is concerned with the learning and participation of all students vulnerable to exclusionary pressures, not only those with impairments or those who are categorised as ‘having special educational needs.’
•Inclusion is concerned with improving schools for staff as well as for students.
•A concern with overcoming barriers to the access and participation of particular students may reveal gaps in the attempts of a school to respond to diversity more generally.
•All students have a right to an education in their locality.
•Diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome, but as a rich resource to support the learning for all.
•Inclusion is concerned with fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and communities.
•Inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in society.
Addressing Barriers and Resources
Who experiences barriers to learning and participation in the school?
What are the barriers to learning and participation in the school?
How can barriers to learning and participation be minimised?
What resources are available to support learning and participation?
How can additional resources be mobilised to support learning and participation?
The Index Process
Phase 1Starting the Index process (half a term)
Setting up a co-ordinating group
Raising school awareness about the Index
Exploring the knowledge of the group
Preparing to use the indicators and questions
Preparing to work with other groups
Phase 2Finding out about the school (one term)
Exploring the knowledge of staff and governors
Exploring the knowledge of students
Exploring the knowledge of parents / carers and members of local communities
Deciding priorities for development
Phase 3Producing an inclusive school development plan (half a term)
Putting the Index into the school development plan
Putting priorities into the school development plan
Phase 4Implementing developments (ongoing)
Putting priorities into practice
Sustaining development
Recording progress
Phase 5Reviewing the Index process (ongoing)
Evaluating developments
Reviewing work with the Index
Continuing the Index process
Some Examples of School Priorities from the Index
oAuditing the school to feed into development plan
oDeveloping strategies, through curriculum, to improve students’ self-esteem.
oIntroducing staff development activities for making lessons more responsive to diversity.
oEstablishing management and career structure for learning support assistants.
oImproving all aspects of access in the school for students and adults with disabilities.
oDevising a staff development programme that focused on understanding students’ perspectives.
oPromoting positive multicultural attitudes in school to help counter racism amongst some students and their families.
oArranging collaborative training for learning support assistants and teachers.
oDeveloping ways to encourage more collaborative learning amongst students.
oReviewing a school’s anti-bullying policy.
oImproving the induction process for new students.
oImproving communication between home and school by working with parents / carers.
oAddressing the perception that the school has a bad reputation amongst local communities.
oNottinghamshire have produced a CD Rom on the work on intentionally building relationships.
The Dimensions, Sections, Indicators & Questions
Dimension A: Creating inclusive CULTURES
Building community - Establishing inclusive values
This dimension is about creating a secure, accepting, collaborating, and stimulating community in which everyone is valued, as the foundation for the highest achievements of all students. It is concerned with developing inclusive values, shared between all staff, students, governors and parents / carers that are conveyed to all new members of the school. The principles, derived within inclusive school cultures, guide decisions about policies and moment-to-moment practice so that the learning of all is supported through a continuous process of school development.
Dimension B: Producing inclusive POLICIES
Developing a school for all - Organising support for diversity
This dimension is about securing inclusion at the heart of school development, permeating all policies, so that they increase the learning and participation of all students. Support is considered as those activities, which increase the capacity of a school to respond to student diversity. All forms of support are brought together within a single framework and are viewed from the perspective of students and their development rather than school or local education authority administrative structures.
Dimension C: Evolving inclusive PRACTICES
Orchestrating learning - Mobilising resources
This dimension is about making school practices reflect the inclusive cultures and policies of the school. It is concerned with ensuring that classroom and extra-curricular activities encourage the participation of all students and draw on their knowledge and experience outside school. Teaching and support are integrated together in the orchestration of learning and the overcoming of barriers to learning and participation. Staff mobilise resources within the school and local communities to sustain active learning for all.
INDEX FOR INCLUSION – INDICATORS
Dimension A – Creating Inclusive CULTURES
A.1 Building Community
A.1.1Everyone is made to feel welcome.
A.1.2Students help each other.
A.1.3Staff collaborate with each other.
A.1.4Staff and students treat one another with respect.
A.1.5There is a partnership between staff and parents/carers.
A.1.6Staff and governors work well together.
A.1.7All local communities are involved in the school.
A.2 Establishing Inclusive Values
A.2.1There are high expectations for all students.
A.2.2Staff, governors, students and parents/carers share a philosophy of inclusion.
A.2.3Students are equally valued.
A.2.4Staff and students are treated as human beings as well as occupants of a ‘role.’
A.2.5Staff seek to remove all barriers to learning and participation in school.
A.2.6The school strives to minimise discriminatory practices.
Dimension B – Producing Inclusive POLICIES
B.1 Developing a School for All
B.1.1Staff appointments and promotions are fair.
B.1.2All new staff are helped to settle into the school.
B.1.3The school seeks to admit all students from its locality.
B.1.4The school makes its buildings physically accessible to all people.
B.1.5All students, new to the school, are helped to feel settled.
B.1.6The school arranges teaching groups so that all students are valued.
B.2 Organising Support for Diversity
B.2.1All forms of support are co-ordinated.
B.2.2Staff development activities help staff to respond to student diversity.
B.2.3 ‘Special needs’ policies are inclusion policies.
B.2.4The Code of Practice is used to reduce the barriers to learning and participation for all students (The Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs – DfES 2001)
B.2.5Support for those learning English as an additional language is co-ordinated with learning support.
B.2.6Pastoral and behaviour support policies are linked to curriculum development and learning support policies.
B.2.7Pressures for disciplinary exclusion are decreased.
B.2.8Barriers to attendance are reduced.
B.2.9Bullying is minimised.
Dimension C – Evolving Inclusive PRACTICES
C.1Orchestrating Learning
C.1.1Lessons are responsive to student diversity.
C.1.2Lessons are made accessible to all students.
C.1.3Lessons develop an understanding of difference.
C.1.4Students are actively involved in their own learning.
C.1.5Students learn collaboratively.
C.1.6Assessment encourages the achievements of all students.
C.1.7Classroom discipline is based on mutual respect.
C.1.8Teachers plan, review and teach in partnership.
C.1.9Teachers are concerned to support learning and participation for all students.
C.1.10Learning support assistants are concerned to support learning and participation for all students.
C.1.11Homework contributes to the learning of all.
C.1.12All students take part in activities outside the classroom.
C.2 Mobilising Resources
C.2.1School resources are distributed fairly to support inclusion.
C.2.2Community resources are known and drawn upon.
C.2.3Staff expertise is fully utilised.
C.2.4Student difference is used as a resource for teaching and learning.
C.2.5Staff develop resources to support learning and participation
The Reasonable Adjustment Project
From 1981 onwards with the introduction of the new perspectives inclusive practice increased coming to a high point between 1997 and 2004/2006. The Warnock Report in 1978, followed by the 1981 Education Act, radically changed the conceptualisation of special educational needs. It introduced the idea of special educational needs (SEN), "statements" of SEN, and an "integrative"—which later became known as "inclusive"—approach, based on common educational goals for all children regardless of their abilities or disabilities: namely independence, enjoyment, and understanding. The Warnock framework remained firmly in place through the 1990s. During the 1980s and 1990s there was a considerable decline in the number of children in special schools and a gradual increase in the proportion of children both identified as having special educational needs (SEN) and given statements of SEN .
In the 1997 Green Paper Excellence For All Children Meeting Special Educational Needs, the new Labour Government gave public support to the UN statement on Special Needs Education 1994 which "calls on governments to adopt the principle of inclusive education" and "implies a progressive extension of the capacity of mainstream schools to provide for children with a wide range of needs". By doing so, it "aligned the English education system for the first time with the international movement towards inclusive education. This, in many ways, was a remarkable move. The Government [...] positioned itself at [...] the forefront of thinking in the field and all seemed set fair for the rapid development of an education system that would be a world leader in terms of inclusion."[
The 1997 Labour Government inherited the existing SEN framework and sought to improve it through the SEN And Disability Act (SENDA) 2001, and the 2004 SEN Strategy Removing Barriers to Achievement which claimed to set out "the Government's vision for the education of children with SEN and disability". This Government have also substantially increased investment in SEN By 2006 at the Select Committee the Government was reversing its strong position on inclusion.
The period from 1980’s to 2000’s led to many innovative pockets of inclusive practice. When the 2001 Education Amendment Act was introduced Schools in England were expected to make Reasonable Adjustments for disabled students and children. One project that sought to collect examples of good practice was the Reasonable Adjustment Project. Filmed in 2003/2004 and led by Richard Rieser; this film project recorded 5.5 hours of good practice of making reasonable adjustments in 40 mainstream schools and 1 special school. These were in 28 Local Authority Areas and comprised 18 primary schools, 3 nursery schools 17 Secondary school and 1 special schools. These were selected from a survey sent to 10,000 schools with 550 schools volunteering to share their good practice. The examples demonstrate continuing inclusive education with a wide variety of disabled pupils with different impairments The project carried out interviews with school leaders, SENCOs teachers, support staff, parents, and pupils and from the more than 300 interviews. There was some clear agreement on the factors that led to an environment and whole school practices in which schools were able to make the necessary adjustments for disabled students and children both individual and collectively. The film clips were organised Teaching Approaches and Learning Styles and the Deployment of Staff and Resources. These are two sections which primarily focus on individual adjustments. Ethos and Process and Curriculum and Planning illustrate how schools have incorporated the making of reasonable adjustment into wider school thinking.
“Key Factors in schools to make Reasonable Adjustments in schools-
The Reasonable Adjustment Project worked in 41 schools across England and identified a number of factors that lead to good reasonable adjustments being made:-
• Vision and values based on an inclusive ethos. An inclusive vision for the school, clearly articulated, shared, understood and acted upon effectively by all, is an important factor in enabling staff to make reasonable adjustments.
• A ‘can do’ attitude from all staff. The attitude of staff is fundamental to achieving successful outcomes for disabled pupils. Where staff are positive and demonstrate a ‘can-do’ approach, barriers are more easily overcome.
• A pro-active approach to identifying barriers and finding practical solutions. Actively identifying barriers as early as possible and exploring solutions using a practical, problem-solving approach has led schools to identify more effective reasonable adjustments.
• Strong collaborative relationship with pupils and parents. Schools that are effective at making reasonable adjustments recognize that parents and pupils have expertise about living with an impairment and will be a major source of advice. Pupils can also be the best judges of what is effective. They can be good advocates for what worked well for them.
• A meaningful voice for pupils. Schools are more likely to make effective reasonable adjustments where there are strong consultative mechanisms in place for all pupils and where peer support is well developed.
• A positive approach to challenging behaviour. Combined with an appropriate curriculum and a variety of learning activities, a positive approach to managing behaviour can enable pupils to take charge of their own behaviour and support others in taking charge of theirs. Many schools identified the importance of peer support strategies and of mentoring schemes in developing a positive approach to challenging behaviour.
• Strong leadership by senior management and governors. Strong school leadership that sets a cler direction, promotes positive outcomes for disabled pupils, deploys the resources of the school to support teachers in identifying and removing barriers and keeps progress under review, makes for school that are more effective at making reasonable adjustments.
• Effective staff training and development. Where staff training and development is given a high priority it can ensure that staff have the understanding, knowledge and skills required to make reasonable adjustments for a range of disable pupils.
• The use of expertise from outside the school. Other agencies supplement and complement what a school can provide on its own. The schools drew on wide range of expertise beyond the school from local schools, units and support services, from different statutory agencies; and from voluntary organizations.
• Building disability into resourcing arrangements. Building disability considerations into everything a school does, including the way it deploys its resources, enables everyone in the school to make reasonable adjustments.
• A sensitive approach to meeting the impairment specific needs of pupils. A sensitive approach protects the dignity of disabled pupils particularly, but not only, in relation to meeting medical and personal care needs.
Regular critical review and evaluation at pupil level, at departmental level & at school level ensure that:
• Progress is monitored; Successes and failures are shared and inform the next steps; The views of pupils and their parents are sought and incorporated into reasonable adjustments that the school makes.
• The availability of role models and positive images of disability. Where schools use a range of opportunities to provide disabled role models, both children and adults, this can boost the self-esteem of disabled pupils and have a positive effect for all pupils. This can be supported by positive images of disabled children and adults in pictures, books and a range of materials used in the school.
The process of making reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils or reasonable accommodations, as it is known in other parts of the world. RAP found that all school visited had started by making adjustments for individual disabled pupils, but as time went on these had become more generalized and built into school policies and procedures. It was also apparent that the more experienced teachers became at making such adjustments the more they incorporated it into their day-to-day practice and the more prepared they were to welcome children with different impairments into their class.”
Since this project has been completed many of these schools have been revisited in the last 22 years and little trace of the inclusive practice identified remains.
The later years of the Labour Government from 2007 to 2010 and the subsequent Coalition and Tory Government had a ‘Bias against Inclusion’, Introduced the Academies Act with SEND only as an after-thought and revised and narrowed the National Curriculum dropping continuous assessment and course work, putting emphasis on knowledge-based examinations. All these things, together with the introduction of an ‘internal market’ based on exam results and increased levels of bullying of disabled children have led to more disabled children dropping out of mainstream and an acceleration of numbers in special schools to the highest in UK History.
Will National Inclusion Standards turn mainstream Schools into inclusive Schools?Richard Rieser World of Inclusion www.worldofinclusion.com
The 2026 Schools White Paper, "Every Child Achieving and Thriving," ( February 2026), proposes National Inclusion Standards to define high-quality SEND practice by 2028. These standards aim to create consistent, "expected" levels of support in mainstream settings, supported by a digital library of resources and a £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund.
Key Aspects of the National Inclusion Standards (italics are the authors comments on the sources quoted).
‘Purpose: To define, for the first time, the "ordinary available" support that should be present in every mainstream school to improve consistency nationwide.
This should include the anticipatory reasonable adjustments to policies and practices e.g trips, behaviour, medical support, assessment, curriculum, discipline, anti bullying, attendance, exclusion, admissions, inclusion base ground rules and ISPs/EHCPs monitoring.
The School Accessibility Policy covering the school Environment, Curriculum and assessment and alternatives format to written English.
A record of Governors /Trustees carrying out their Section 149 duties towards disabled people e.g. with regard to disabled people have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; anti bullying, intersectionality.
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; additional teaching.
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. How disability equality is brought into the curriculum
The range of reasonable adjustments that can be made for teaching and learning for the commonly occurring impairments found amongst students at the school e.g. adjustments to timetable, length of time in lessons, amount of homework, where sit in the classroom, use of buddies or peer mentors, scribing, how teaching assistants should be deployed and their role, small groups and use of low arousal rooms or sensory rooms, differentiation and diversification of the curriculum.
‘A national digital library of high quality identification tools and provision leading to shared nationally consistent understanding of the best evidence to support those with SEND and effective interventions. (p.39/134)’. There are a lot of good practice examples and guides produced between 1997 and 2010 that should be included, if necessary, updated in this.
This section of the White Paper then identifies 3 focus areas.
‘Reasonable adjustments for disabled children and students (p.40/134).’
Material from the Reasonable Adjustments project should be repackaged and produced as guidance for schools. The EHRC should be given extra responsibility to provide guidance and like HSE be able to challenge schools and colleges not carrying out the duty of reasonable adjustment.
‘National Training (41/134)’.
The inclusion training could be organised by a committee of staff in liaison with parents and trustees/governors to give more buy in from staff. It would be helpful to have three extra training days over the three years. The development of the school’s Inclusion Strategy could also be part of this strategy. The DFE should circulate to schools a wide range of potential trainers including disabled people’s organisations.
Role of SENCO -Special needs Co-ordinator’, a teacher who is trained and has time released from teaching to lead on developing inclusion and the workforce (43/134).’
It is good they envisaged to be more of a leader with routine clerical work being carried out by an auxiliary. They should be part of the Senior Leadership Team and receive adequate remuneration to their level of Seniority. It is important that the SENCO has oversight of any bases and support staff. In a large school they can have several specialist teachers and a large team of Teaching Assistants. The Senco should also play a key role in the content of staff training and the development of ISPs and School Inclusion Strategy/Policy.
The Proposals constitute a 10-year, phased plan for reforming special educational needs and disability (SEND) support, heavily focusing on building capacity within mainstream education.
Inclusion: “Our approach to inclusion is guided by the definition set by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which focusses on breaking down barriers to learning and participation. (40/134) This is to be delivered through layers of support. Three types of extra support, which may be provided to children and young people with higher support needs. These are called Targeted, Targeted Plus and Specialist. Individual Support Plans (ISPs) will be a record of a child or young person's barriers to learning and of the provision in place to overcome those barriers. The practice will be guided by National Inclusion Standards.
There are a number of problems with this approach as presented.
Work carried out for more than 30 years seeking to develop an approach to implementing inclusive education in mainstream schools, demonstrates that it has first to be based on inclusive values and be developed with an understanding in line with paradigm shift that lies at the heart of a human rights approach to disability and a shift from a medical model approach to a social model approach. See the development of early thinking applying these ideas to English schools and others around the world from 1990 to 2016.
The White Papers says to deliver inclusion for disabled children they will be guided by UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) [p.7/134].
‘The principals of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities which cover education (Article 24) follows decades of work by the United Nations to change attitudes and approaches to persons with disabilities. It takes to a new height the movement from viewing persons with disabilities as “objects” of charity, medical treatment and social protection towards viewing persons with disabilities as “subjects” with rights, who are capable of claiming those rights and making decisions for their lives based on their free and informed consent as well as being active members of society.
The eight guiding principles apply to education and we need to measure any standard of inclusion as to how they support these principles
a.Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons’.To label some children as having “complex needs” and although recognising parents continuing right to choose mainstream as the White Paper does, to assume most with complex needs will have their needs met in segregated special schools is a major flaw in thinking.
b.‘Non-discrimination’ The Layers of Support (p267/134) assumption that the only place for those with Specialist packages of Support will be special schools or provision in mainstream bases goes against the UNCRPD insistence on inclusion. For example: a blind student with cerebral palsy and ADHD. Complex needs but with the right support their needs can be accommodated in mainstream, but are likely to be pushed out of mainstream as too difficult or support too expensive.
c.‘Full and effective participation and inclusion in society’. Though there is a commitment to bring down the numbers in specialist provision over 10 years in WP; being placed only with peers with similar impairments in specialist provision will not encourage effective participation in society. Evidence (p13/134)
d.‘Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity’. Zero tolerance behaviour policies that do not allow for reasonable adjustments in many mainstream schools, especially MAT chains, contradict this principle. The Anti Bullying Alliance has consistently pointed out that bullying to disabled students and those with SEND in mainstream and special is highest amongst those with protected characteristics. Schools need to include an understanding of disability as an equality issue under the Equality Act Section 149 duties.
e.‘Equality of opportunity’. Complex needs are conditions requiring intensive, specialized support, exceeding standard school provision. This sounds like a ‘medical model’ form of exclusion and will mean a big pressure to move those identified with complex needs to the provision identified, rather than developing inclusive practice for them in the mainstream school in their locality
f‘ Accessibility’ Accessibility applies not just to the built environment, but the media, print and digital environment as well as curriculum and assessment. It is not an optional extra as the White Paper treats it. Under the Equality Act 2010 (Schedule 10), schools and local authorities have a statutory duty to create and implement three-year accessibility plans. These plans must strategically improve access for disabled pupils regarding the curriculum, physical environment, and written information and is largely honoured in the breach. ‘Schools are failing legal duties on accessibility plans, says report’. ALLFIE’s initial research indicates that most local councils in England do not monitor how many schools have Accessibility Plans, as this is not a legal requirement. There is also no requirement for schools or academies to share this information with OFSTED.
g. ‘Equality between men and women’
h.’Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities’ (Principles of the Convention) WP does not identify Disabled Children as they are is a denial of their rights. Throughout most of the White Paper they are identified as SEND except on the section on Reasonable Adjustments ( 40/134). Then this rather interesting formulation comes “Many children and young people with SEND will have a disability under the definition set out in the Equality Act 2010. This definition does not require a formal diagnosis, only that “a physical or mental impairment has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect” on the ability to do normal daily activities. This offers statutory protection, requiring settings to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled children and young people do not face substantial disadvantage. Settings should therefore consider reasonable adjustments based on any needs a child or person may have that meet this definition of disability”. On this basis certainly all those whose impairing condition leads to them needing additional support would count as having a ‘substantial’ negative effect.
So it can be seen despite claiming the proposed thinking and reforms come from an alignment with the UNCRPD, they are considerably at odds with the Principles.
Conclusion.
The failure of the authors of the White Paper to define the dynamic process of inclusion and also to move away from internationally established principles means that much of the work leading to the National Inclusion Standards will be flawed.
Relational and Restorative Approaches Create Greater Inclusion ThanBehaviourist Approaches in Secondary Education
By Colin Newton, Derek Wilson and Ali Carr (May 2026)
Behavioural psychology has significantly influenced secondary education in the
United Kingdom, particularly through behaviour management systems based on
rewards, sanctions, compliance routines, and reinforcement. These approaches,
rooted in behaviourist theory, aim to shape observable behaviour through external
consequences. In many schools this has led to highly structured systems involving
detentions, isolation rooms, behaviour points, public tracking systems, and zero-
tolerance discipline policies. Although behaviourist approaches can produce order,
predictability, and short-term compliance, progressive UK educational psychologists
increasingly argue that relational and restorative approaches create more genuinely
inclusive educational environments.
The central criticism of behaviourist systems is that they often reduce complex
human behaviour to compliance and rule-following. Behaviour is interpreted primarily
as an individual choice requiring correction or reinforcement. This perspective can
overlook the emotional, developmental, social, and contextual factors influencing
adolescent behaviour. In contrast, relational and restorative approaches understand
behaviour as communication shaped by relationships, attachment, trauma,
neurodiversity, emotional regulation, and social belonging. Rather than focusing
primarily on controlling behaviour, relational models focus on understanding,
connection, co-regulation, and repairing harm.
This critique can be understood through the lens of the Social Model of Disability,
which takes the view that people’s experience of disability arises not from their
individual impairments but from societal barriers that restrict participation.
Behaviourist approaches tend to operate from the contrasting Medical Model
perspective, locating the ‘problem’ within the individual child and seeking to modify
their behaviour through external consequences. Relational approaches, by contrast,
align more closely with the Social Model: they direct attention towards the school
environment, relationships, and systems, asking how these create or remove
barriers to participation for all young people.
The distinction between the social model and the medical model has major
implications for inclusion in secondary education. Behaviourist systems frequently
rely on exclusionary practices such as detentions, internal isolation, suspensions,
and permanent exclusion. Research in the UK has consistently shown that these
sanctions disproportionately affect vulnerable groups including autistic pupils,
students with ADHD, looked-after children, pupils with social, emotional and mental
health needs, and some minority ethnic groups. Critics argue that rigid compliance
systems can unintentionally criminalise neurodivergence, trauma responses,
emotional dysregulation, or communication difficulties. A student who struggles to sit
still, manage sensory overload, regulate emotions, or process instructions quickly
may be interpreted within a behaviourist framework as defiant or disruptive rather
than needing support.
The evidence for this is stark. The DfE’s own data shows that pupils with SEN
support are six times more likely to be permanently excluded than their peers without
SEND, and those with an EHCP are more than four times as likely. The most
commonly recorded reason for both suspension and permanent exclusion - cited in
over half of all cases - is persistent disruptive behaviour. This is itself a behaviourist
framing: it describes what a child does, without necessarily asking why. It locates the
problem in the child rather than in a school system that may not be meeting their
needs.
Internal exclusion, including the use of isolation rooms or booths, is a particularly
concerning example of this. Unlike suspensions, there are no national rules
governing when or for how long isolation can be used, making it largely hidden and
unregulated, and educational psychologists frequently report working with young
people who have ‘failed isolation’ (as was recently described by a pupil) and with a
consequence of further days in internal exclusion, often for many consecutive days.
A recent large-scale study in England found that one in twelve pupils reported being
placed in isolation at least once a week, often for more than a full school day
(Thornton et al., 2025). Children with an EHCP were more than twice as likely to be
isolated as their peers. Rather than preventing more serious sanctions, schools with
higher isolation rates tended also to have higher suspension rates, suggesting that
removing children from the classroom does not address the underlying difficulties.
Isolated pupils reported lower sense of belonging, poorer relationships with teachers,
and reduced mental wellbeing.
There is also growing evidence that punitive approaches do not achieve what they
set out to do. A systematic review found limited evidence that disciplinary behaviour
management strategies improve behaviour or academic outcomes, and increasing
evidence of harm to mental health and wellbeing (Dickson et al., 2024). For pupils
with SEND, the picture can be actively counterproductive. Behaviours that arise from
sensory overload, emotional dysregulation, or communication differences are
routinely interpreted as defiance, triggering sanctions that increase distress and
further damage the relationships that those pupils most need. The result is a cycle in
which unmet needs trigger behaviours which lead to consequences which, in turn,
deepen exclusion - all without the underlying need ever being addressed.
Relational educational psychologists challenge behaviourist interpretations by
arguing that behaviour must be understood contextually rather than morally. Instead
of asking, “How do we stop this behaviour?” they ask, “What is this behaviour
communicating?” This shift reflects attachment theory, trauma-informed practice, and
developmental psychology. Influential figures such as John Bowlby emphasised the
importance of secure relationships for emotional regulation and learning, while
relational practitioners argue that students are more likely to engage positively when
they experience trust, emotional safety, and belonging within school.
Restorative approaches deepen this relational perspective by transforming the
understanding of discipline itself. Traditional behaviourist systems usually ask what
rule has been broken and what punishment is deserved. Restorative practice instead
asks who has been harmed, what needs have emerged from the conflict, and how
relationships can be repaired. Accountability therefore becomes relational rather
than purely punitive. Students are encouraged to reflect on the impact of their
behaviour, listen to others, take responsibility, and actively repair harm. This
approach seeks not only to manage behaviour but also to develop empathy,
emotional literacy, and social responsibility.
A major reason relational and restorative approaches are considered more inclusive
is that they prioritise belonging over exclusion. Behaviourist systems often operate
through conditional belonging: students remain accepted so long as they comply with
behavioural expectations. When they fail, removal and exclusion become common
responses. Relational and restorative approaches attempt to preserve connection
even during conflict. Students are still held accountable, but they are not positioned
as outsiders or permanently labelled as “problem students.” This is particularly
important during adolescence, when identity formation, peer relationships, and social
belonging are developmentally central.
Relational approaches also recognise that many adolescents require co-regulation
rather than punishment. Behaviourist systems often assume students can
independently regulate behaviour if consequences are sufficiently clear. However,
progressive educational psychologists argue that students affected by trauma,
anxiety, attachment difficulties, ADHD, autism, or chronic stress may lack mature
self-regulation capacities. In such cases punitive sanctions may escalate distress
rather than improve behaviour. Relational schools therefore emphasise emotionally
available adults, de-escalation, emotional literacy, and supportive relationships that
help students gradually develop regulation skills.
One good example of the shift from a behavioural to a relational approach has to do
with our definition of what it means to be ‘fair’ when responding to rule-breaking.
Typically ‘fair’ means everyone gets the same - this is the behavioural, linear, no
room for argument definition. What we often bump into this definition
when we recommend doing something differently for an individual child - as a given
reason why a reasonable adjustment can’t be made by a school - it wouldn’t be ‘fair’.
In this context, it is more useful to define ‘fair’ as everyone gets what they need’ -
not what they want or what everyone else has. Thus it is ‘fair’ for a particular child to
sit on a cushion or on the floor to participate, others may want this too (‘it’s not fair’)
but they don’t need to do it to participate so they don’t get to do it. No doubt
individual class teachers will need to debate this expanded definition with the class
as a whole, but ultimately I do think other pupils will recognise that some will need
different arrangements from others and will therefore accept this definition. Equally
part of our work is to give Headteachers access to scripts that they might not
otherwise have arrived at when promoting inclusive practice in their schools. I think
this script is usable by Heads when they want justify treating a particular student
differently.
Furthermore, relational and restorative approaches are generally more adaptable to
neurodiversity and SEND. Behaviourist systems often prioritise standardisation and
uniform compliance, whereas relational approaches allow greater flexibility and
individual understanding. Students who experience sensory difficulties,
communication differences, or emotional dysregulation are less likely to be punished
for behaviours connected to disability or unmet needs. Instead, schools are
encouraged to adapt environments, relationships, and expectations to support
participation. This reflects a broader inclusive principle that the school itself must
adapt to diverse learners rather than simply demanding that learners conform to rigid
systems.
Another important difference concerns student voice and participation. Behaviourist
systems are typically hierarchical and adult-directed, with rules imposed from above
and students expected to comply. Relational and restorative approaches increase
inclusion by giving students opportunities for dialogue, reflection, mediation, and
collaborative problem-solving. Students become participants in school community
rather than passive recipients of discipline. This can strengthen engagement, trust,
and responsibility, particularly for students who may otherwise feel alienated from
education.
However, behaviourist approaches are not entirely without value. Supporters argue
that clear routines, predictable boundaries, and consistent consequences can create
safe and orderly learning environments. Some teachers also argue that relational or
restorative systems can become inconsistent, time-intensive, or difficult to sustain
under pressures of accountability and large class sizes. Most contemporary schools
therefore use hybrid approaches combining structure and boundaries with restorative
conversations, trauma-informed practice, and relational pedagogy.
Nevertheless, progressive UK educational psychologists generally maintain that relational and restorative approaches create greater inclusion because they preserve connection rather than sever it, interpret behaviour developmentally rather than punitively, and recognise the importance of belonging, emotional safety, and participation in learning. Inclusion is therefore understood not simply as physical presence in school, but as meaningful membership within a supportive educational community. From this perspective, schools become not merely institutions of behavioural control, but relational environments designed to support human development, dignity, and participation for all students.
References
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume I: Attachment. London: Penguin.
Bomber, L. M. (2007). Inside I’m Hurting: Practical Strategies for Supporting Children
with Attachment Difficulties in Schools. London: Worth Publishing.
Carpenter, B. (2020). A Recovery Curriculum: Loss and Life for Our Children and
Schools Post Pandemic. Birmingham: Evidence for Learning.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
227–268.Department for Education (n.d.) Fast Track Data Table (Suspensions and
Permanent Exclusions. Explore Education Statistics: https://explore-education-
statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/6705c12c-18e9-4667-9517-
08deaa7729f8
Department for Education. (2024). Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions in
England. London: DfE.
Dickson, K., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Fletcher, A., & Hinds, K. (2024). Disciplinary
behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on studentpsychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307688
Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.
Rogers, C.(1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Thornton, E., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2025). Lost learning: Prevalence,
inequalities and outcomes of internal exclusion in mainstream secondary schools.
British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70049
Thorsborne, M., Blood, P. (2013). Implementing Restorative Practices in Schools: A Practical Guide to Transforming School Communities. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining Restorative. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for
Restorative Practices.
Wearmouth, J., McKinney, R., Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative Justice in Schools:
Theoretical Opening and Practical Possibilities. Educational Research, 49(4),
421–434.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority. (2023). Neurodiversity, SEN and School
Inclusion, Exclusion and Absence. West Yorkshire Combined Authority.
neurodiversity-research-2023.pdf
Williamson, B. (2019). Policy Networks, Performance Metrics and Platform Markets: Charting the Expanding Data Infrastructure of Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794–2809.
Newton, C., & Mahaffey, H. (2008). Restorative Solutions: Making It Work.
Nottingham: Inclusive Solutions UK Ltd.
Conclusions
The SEND White Paper Inclusion Group welcomes the SEND White Paper and its commitment to increasing inclusive education. However, we have a number of reservations that will need seriously addressing if there is to be a real and effective development of inclusive education for disabled young people and children and those with SEND in England.
We note the failure to define inclusive education which points to confusion and a risk of revision. The UK Government for purposes of international aid defines Inclusive Education (2018) based on the United Nations UNCRPD Article 24.
“Inclusive education for disabled children is the practice of educating all students, regardless of ability, together in mainstream, age-appropriate classrooms. It adapts the education system to the child, rather than requiring the child to adapt to the system, removing barriers to participation and providing necessary support”.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6eb77340f0b647b214c599/374_Implementing_Inclusive_Education.pdf
We find a wide disparity between what is in Article 24 of the UNCRPD and the White Paper and very little correspondence between the principle in General Comment No 4 of the UNCRPD Committee and the proposals in the SEND White Paper.
Based on this, the following approaches in the SEND White Paper are problematic:-
i)The medical model approach to children with complex needs mostly having their needs met in special schools denies the lived experience and current inclusive practice towards a wide variety of disabled young people especially those with PMLD and AAC needs, those with Moderate Learning Difficulty such as those with Down’s Syndrome and those with a wide variety of complex needs who with adjustments can access and succeed in the mainstream;
ii)The reduction of children and parents Right to appeal to Tribunal on the EHCPs to determine provision and placement with its replacement with 7 packages of support determined by panels of experts and lists of Local Authority providers;
iii) The failure to recognise that the Anticipatory Duty to Reasonable Adjustments applies for all disabled children & students from the moment of their admission to the school is determined
iv) The encouragement of the formation of more segregated SEND Units in mainstream rather than more flexible and inclusive resource bases and the development of whole school inclusion policies and practices;
v) Failure to recognise Local Authority teams of Specialist Inclusion Teachers are crucial in the formulation support. The proposals put great emphasis through ‘Experts at Hand’ i.e .speech therapists and educational psychologists.
vi) The intention to make all Local Authority Schools into Academy MATs which are too geographically varied and often too large and no more effective than Local Authority existing schools;
vii) Placing the main responsibility for the success of inclusion on teachers without changing the exam factory testing ethos, enhancing school funding, lost since 2010, nor diversifying the Curriculum and Assessment arrangements to provide for the access needs of all learners. In addition the amount of Inclusive Pedagogy Training being suggested is totally inadequate.
xi ) Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on learning from past inclusive practice successes in English Schools :-
a) Learning from different models such as 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;
b) the use of the self-assessment tool Index for Inclusion;
c) the inclusive organisation and practice developed in Newham from the 1980’s to 2010 which demonstrates the benefits of Inclusive education to the whole cohort of disabled young people;
d) the use of pedagogy based on identifying and diminishing structural barriers as developed by Disability Equality in Education which was led by disabled equality trainers and funded by the Government from 2000 to 2008 that was independently evaluated showing change in pedagogic practice;
e) Work such as the Reasonable Adjustment Project that showed the development of a wide rang of successful individual and collective adjustments for young disabled people in 40 schools.
f) The development of person centred tools such as Circles of Friends, MAPS and PATH which have been shown to be more successful than normative approaches of regulating behaviour.
g) Progressive UK educational psychologists generally maintain that relational and restorative approaches create greater inclusion because they preserve connection rather than sever it, interpret behaviour developmentally rather than punitively, and recognise the importance of belonging, emotional safety, and participation in learning. Inclusion is therefore understood not simply as physical presence in school, but as meaningful membership within a supportive educational community. From this perspective, schools become not merely institutions of behavioural control, but relational environments designed to support human development, dignity, and participation for all students.
x) There needs to be an analysis of why the Children and Families Act 2014 has not been implemented and why there is not an accountability framework that could have dealt with this.
xi). The purpose of special schools needs to be clarified. It is not good enough to say that they are for children with “the most complex needs”. There is no such legal category and it is a subjective concept. In law, all parents (and children from the age of 16) have a right to express a preference for a mainstream school, regardless of their disability or other differences. The Equality Act requires schools to anticipate being able to include pupils who have disabilities they have not supported before.
xii). Inclusive pedagogy should be a priority. There is plenty of evidence from the 1980s and beyond of the benefits of teaching children with differences together and how this improves outcomes for all.
xiii) The development of a national structure of support for schools focused on inclusive ethos and pedagogy.
xiv). Specialist teachers, teaching assistants, psychologists, social work specialists, therapists and other health professionals to provide support to schools to develop confidence and effective practice.
xv). A coherent approach to initial teacher and other training that assumes inclusion for all.
xvi). Promote the inclusion of ALL children – not in separate rooms, but in classrooms alongside their peers.
xvii) The changes being put forward will not work without a major uplift in funding for schools that are still being impacted by 16 years of budget reductions which have particularly hit the retention of all staff and the numbers and professionalism of vital support staff.
Richard Rieser Convenor SEND White Paper Inclusion Group
World of Inclusion Ltd Tel 07715420727 rlrieser@gmail.com
2
