What is “inclusive education”, and why does it matter? We have, perhaps, never been in a better position to ask ourselves this question.

The recent Schools White Paper sets out a clear ambition: “All schools will provide a high-quality and inclusive education within the resilient structure of a strong trust, sharing expertise, resources and support to help teachers and leaders deliver better outcomes for children.”

Alongside this, the SEND (special educational needs and disability) Green Paper marks an enormous opportunity to define a vision for inclusion. It states the need “to restore families’ trust and confidence in an inclusive education system, with excellent mainstream provision that puts children and young people first”, and create “a system that is financially sustainable and built for long-term success”.

In both statements, the word “inclusive” is key. This is a major step for a system that has shunned the idea of inclusivity in recent years.

In my view, any recalibrated SEND system must make inclusion integral to school improvement and, indeed, central to the infrastructure of the entire school system. To do this, major change is needed.

So, how do we achieve this? There is global context at work here. According to Unesco’s Incheon Declaration (2015), inclusion is foundational for quality education.

There are also some excellent international examples, both in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Review of Inclusive Education in Portugal (2022) and in a paper by Mel Ainscow, ”Promoting inclusion and equity in international education” (2020), published in the Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policy.

For instance, Portugal’s reforms ended their dependency on diagnostic labelling (one that our own education, health and care plan process maintains) and established a legal framework requiring all children’s needs to be supported at a regular school level.

Local multidisciplinary teams are responsible for all students having access to, and participating effectively in, education.

Meanwhile, Italy closed its special schools as far back as 1977 and made exclusion as a punishment illegal.

Finland, so often referenced as one of the most innovative countries for education, has improved its Programme for International Student Assessment ratings each year, largely by focusing on improving the lowest performing quintile and supporting the most vulnerable in schools.

These examples are not perfect but they do provide valuable evidence as we shape responses to the Green Paper consultation, and strongly suggest that change must have inclusion as a central strategy.

So, what do we need now? Policies based on clearly defined and shared definitions of inclusion would help. A whole-school approach is also essential, as are evidence-informed strategies that remove barriers and maximise what Ainscow refers to as the “presence, participation and achievements” of all children.

At the same time, leadership of SEND must be distributed across the whole school; providing the right support must become everybody’s business.

Of course, widening participation will require us to upskill teachers and improve their confidence. Here, Ainscow suggests pedagogies that are based around inquiry rather than those that are answer led.

As well as more explicit SEND and inclusion content in the early career framework and national professional qualifications, modelling of inclusive teaching needs to be at the heart of school improvement.

There is much we can learn from international evidence and experience. Ainscow’s research suggests that inclusion as a principle for educational reform “can provide a pathway to excellence”. Let’s hope this is listened to as the review moves forward.

Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders