School leaders are faced with moral dilemmas every day, but the dilemmas around special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) can be some of the most egregious.
Take a headteacher who is worried about exam outcomes. Should her Sendco encourage more children with SEND to attend an open day for Year 6 transition? Or does attainment trump inclusion? The system is at odds with itself at present, and this needs to change.
Encouragingly, the government has talked about putting inclusion at the centre of education. The crisis has been acknowledged, and there are significant moves afoot: Professor Becky Francis is leading the curriculum review, saying it will be “very focused on inclusion”, and Ofsted has been briefed with identifying a metric for inclusion.
But I would argue that what we need is a paradigm shift in how we think about SEND. And to do that we need structural change. Here are five areas where it would be transformational.
A new approach to SEND
Equity by design
Firstly, we currently consistently have almost one-third of young people not achieving the expected outcomes at key stage 4, and 40 per cent not achieving expected outcomes at KS2. The national data on children identified as having barriers to learning builds a worsening picture of poor outcomes, poor attendance and poor wellbeing.
Ask any parent of a child with SEND if they think their child was thought about in recent legislative changes on attendance. The government must be clear and consistent on whether it wants these children to succeed.
One way of doing this would be with a new Department for Education task force to ensure that when a new policy is developed, marginalised pupils are a first thought rather than the last. By putting them first across all policy briefs, we would have a chance of making equitable policies.
Inclusion by design - or better still, equity by design - is fundamental to a system-wide approach.
Taking a holisitic view
Second, we’ve focused for too long on siloed and interventionist policy solutions as answers: constant and specific investments for improvement of accountability for the pupil premium, or more money for SEND coming with more accountability for schools. These highlight the wrong aspects of the system.
When the mechanics of change are so insular and targeted, we get unintended and inequitable outcomes. We must deal with the systemic causes of the problem, not the symptoms.
Recognising intersectionality
Thirdly, the system is failing those children who face the greatest barriers. They aren’t a collection of labels - “pupil premium” or “SEND” or “LAC” or “young carers” - they are young people of value with hopes and dreams. The labels we assign them are not simply stigmatising, they are occluding the right support being delivered at school and system level.
Let’s stop trying to fix the children and instead fix the system by supporting policy design that recognises intersectionality.
Connected thinking
Fourth, just as the SEND label has led to the “othering” of children by their peers, we see the exact same systemic behaviour where SEND is perceived to be a problem to be fixed in a silo rather than a fundamental part of the wider education landscape. This is epitomised in the previous government’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan.
Its failure to look comprehensively at the connection with behaviour policy, attendance, accountability and curriculum risks minimal impact from investment.
Practical application
Fifth, a criticism often thrown at inclusion is that the term means different things to different people, but I would argue that this is a red herring. Defining inclusion should be a benefit in bringing schools together to develop a shared understanding. Whether we mean participation, engagement, accessibility, equity or belonging, the shared endeavour of setting an inclusive vision is positive for every organisation.
It is, however, only the first step. A definition should not be the focus. How we actually do inclusion is what should interest the sector.
We are on the edge of the diving board, poised to either take a dive toward inclusive education or belly flop into policymaking that sees a single lever for change as the answer to the SEND emergency. What we need is for the government to recognise that this will take all parts of the education system working in unison.
Far better to frame this first step around systemic ambition for a fairer system, one that is equitable. I would love a vision for all policy briefs to aspire to children’s safety, belonging and success at school and see inclusion as the means, not the goal.
Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders
For the latest research, pedagogy and classroom advice, sign up for our weekly Teaching Essentials newsletter
