The call for an increase in mainstream inclusion for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is - on the face of it - a very noble and sensible pursuit for many reasons.
In theory more children will be able to attend their local school and will be visible and engaged in their community. Pressure will be reduced on an already oversaturated specialist sector.
And, frankly, it’s cheaper: at a time when high-needs budgets have spiralled to a £4.65 billion overspend, there is an unequivocal need to create an affordable and sustainable specialist offer. Thus the drive to avoid high cost (compared with mainstream) specialist placements.
Very few would want to argue against any of that. However…
Mainstream inclusion and special schools
There is a difference between building a more inclusive mainstream system and seeking to respond to an acute SEND issue by starving the specialist sector of much-needed investment.
The government’s announcements on SEND - in the absence of any policy detail - point to the latter. Has there been any assessment of the consequences for the system now and the children, families and schools that need a solution to today’s problems?
The by education secretary Bridget Phillipson at the Centre for Social Justice on her pursuit of even higher academic standards suggests not. It ignored how the move to high-stakes accountability has made for an inhospitable and unsustainable environment for many vulnerable learners.
So the government has a conundrum. How can it be seen to retain a focus on high academic standards while truly addressing those environmental issues that have played their part in creating the SEND crisis?
Culture eats strategy for breakfast - and educational culture is intrinsically shaped by the schools’ accountability systems enforced by government policy.
No investment
This sits at the heart of the narrative we have on SEND. We still have no news on the new (free) special and alternative provision (AP) schools announced by the previous government, but whispers abound that these are being cancelled or refashioned into integrated resources.
Even though special schools and AP are bursting at the seams, government ministers appear happy to leave that problem to worsen.
When the Department for Education announced £740 million in capital funds for councils to increase SEND support in December 2024, the whole narrative was bent around the need for specialist provision in mainstream. Special and AP schools were notable only by their complete absence.
There is no objective evidence that integrated resources are better than specialist schools. I know schools that host these, and some mainstream heads do a fantastic job of ensuring that they are led and managed well.
There are also others where the quality of education is poor. Where children are contained and maintained. Where the extent of inclusion is limited to geography - creating the pretence of a more inclusive offer whilst the reality is base tokenism.
It is, however, often a cheaper option, where councils can place children at lower cost, with admission approaches sitting outside the statutory guidance that governs special and AP schools’ commissioning arrangements. Maybe that’s why they’re being pushed so forcefully.
This government has talked about the need for all children to thrive. Special and AP schools exist for a reason, and families are almost universally happy with the support their children receive in these schools and how they thrive in the face of difficult experiences previously.
The grim reality is that families will have to continue to legally challenge decisions to get these placements in future, which just perpetuates the cycle of frustration.
In England during the 2000s we had a hugely successful teenage pregnancy programme. Importantly, it didn’t reduce teenage pregnancy by cutting the number of midwives so that teenage mothers had access to less acute care and support.
There was an investment in prevention alongside an investment in world-class midwifery and post-natal care and support. Why don’t we learn from the things we do well as a public sector?
Currently, almost half of the high-needs overspend is accounted for by placements in the independent sector.
As such, there remains an increasing risk that these providers will continue to grow at an eye-watering pace while the government neglects state special and AP schools, hoping for increased mainstream inclusion at a time when parental confidence is at an all-time low and schools are being faced with more accountability on attainment and progress.
So, while, yes, we need a more consistently inclusive mainstream offer across our school system, that cannot come at the expense of having a fairly funded and adequately resourced specialist sector. One does not - and cannot - negate the need for the other.
Warren Carratt is the CEO of Nexus Multi-Academy Trust
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
