Inclusion bases are unlikely to be the ‘silver bullet’ that ministers anticipate as part of their SEND reforms, according to a new report.
The study, from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), highlights an unequal distribution of SEND provision around the country, with schools in disadvantaged areas often taking in a disproportionate number of pupils with learning needs.
This meant that expertise is not being equally shared, and that some schools experience greater pressures in having to meet need. Schools were also developing a reputation locally as places where staff could “make it work”.
The study recommended that policymakers monitor the distribution of SEND pupils and take action in cases “where school intakes appear persistently unrepresentative of local need”.
And schools doing more for SEND children needed better funding, to make inclusion “sustainable rather than goodwill-based”.
Inequality of distribution
The latest report, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, builds on an earlier scene-setting report, which first revealed the inequalities in distribution of SEND children.
The new analysis comes as the government’s recent Schools White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, set out an expectation that every local mainstream school should meet a wider range of need, with legislation now planned through the proposed Education for All Bill.
However, this NFER study suggests that this ambition will be difficult to realise while pupils with SEND remain concentrated in a minority of primary and secondary schools.
If we want a genuinely inclusive system, responsibility for SEND cannot rest with a few schools
Drawing on national data, a survey of 800 SENCOs and school leaders, and in-depth school case studies, the research found that while some schools are developing deep expertise in inclusion, this concentration is creating unsustainable pressures.
It is also limiting the extent to which expertise in SEND is shared more widely across the system.
Push and pull factors
The NFER said this pattern was being shaped by both “pull” and “push” factors. Pupils with SEND are often drawn towards schools with established reputations and expertise in inclusion, while capacity pressures elsewhere can limit access in other schools.
Some schools may also be less willing to develop a reputation for inclusion or discouraging admissions of pupils with SEND.
At the same time as the number of pupils identified with SEND has risen sharply, from 14.4 per cent in 2015-16 to 19.5 per cent in 2024-25 (over 1.7 million pupils), fewer than one in five schools report that they can meet the needs of all pupils on their roll, highlighting a widening gap between demand and schools’ capacity to respond.
While rising prevalence means that all schools are increasingly likely to support a broader range of need, this demand is unevenly distributed, which can further exacerbate these capacity pressures.
The evidence also suggests that these high-SEND schools are more likely to serve disadvantaged communities, meaning that concentrations of SEND often overlap with other forms of educational and social disadvantage. This can compound pressures on staffing, pastoral support and school finances.
Scrutiny of admissions needed
The report suggests that inclusion bases are not a silver bullet for the SEND crisis.
Matt Walker, Principal Investigator and Senior Research Manager at NFER, said: “If we want a genuinely inclusive system, responsibility for SEND cannot rest with a few schools. It has to be something every school is expected – and supported – to do.
“Without that shift, the government’s ambition for mainstream schools to better meet a wider range of needs will remain difficult to deliver.”
Alice Reeves, Research Grants and Programmes Manager at the Nuffield Foundation, said: “Parents of children with SEND are often attracted to schools with strong reputations for inclusion, while other schools direct these pupils elsewhere due to capacity pressures or concerns about performance scores.
“Without better scrutiny of admission practices, it is unclear how the proposed reforms will address this perverse incentive and make inclusive education genuinely mainstream.”
Meanwhile, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “It is vital that schools educating pupils with additional needs are fully supported, and not inadvertently penalised for doing so.
“Both inspection arrangements and performance measures frequently undermine inclusive practice by focusing too heavily on narrow outcomes.
“Reform is required so that the progress, wellbeing and inclusion of all pupils is valued. Schools must be sufficiently resourced and funded to meet the needs of pupils with SEND.”
