Inclusion is on everybody’s lips right now. From Ofsted to Government, the edu-sphere seems keenly aware we have a problem with SEND and inclusion. Survey after survey indicates that teachers and leaders want more training and resources in this area with Teacher Tapp data suggesting that 88% of teachers[1] surveyed are want more support for pupils with SEND.
There is ample data on the problem, the inequalities are wide and the gaps persistent. I haven’t seen a better analysis of the current state of the SEND system than this post by Peps Mcrea. In this, he cites that Pupils with SEND are five times more likely to be excluded from school, report lower wellbeing (EPI annual report). While wait times for EHCPs are through the roof, with only half being conducted within the statutory 20-week timeline, (2023), the funding for these plans is crippling both schools and Local Authorities. According to McRea’s research, high needs funding has increased by 58% in real terms but over half of school funding increases were absorbed by growth in high needs (2019-2024) and Local Authorities face an established £4.6 billion cumulative deficit by March 2026.
This bleak data illustration doesn’t begin to illustrate the lived reality for many young people and their families. Not to mention the distress that is laid at the SENDCos door (more on this in the final blog of this series).
For those of us who’ve been speaking from the sidelines on this for some time, this is a welcome moment in the spotlight. However, it also comes with some potential pitfalls. There are no quick fixes and no consensus as to the way forward . In this blog series, I try to unpack this a little, in a theoretical and practical way in order to suggest some ways that we might collectively move forward.
Whilst we can all point to the problem, I’m not sure there is consensus on what Inclusion actually means. To some inclusion, is just the opposite of physical exclusion (often leading to a narrow fixation on PEX figures as Ben Parnell eloquently points out in this blog here). For others it’s a catch all term for all the work being done try to reduce outcomes gaps for marginalised groups, lumping diverse and complex (though often interconnected) systemic inequalities together. Often, the term is used interchangeably with Special Educational Needs. Which, although we have a clear definition of thanks to the SEND Code of Practice (2015), and set out below, is in practice is as clear as mud.
Not only is how this definition is enacted extremely subjective- varying massively from school to school and exacerbated by the lack of access to specialist services (Educational and Clinical Psychologists). but all these definitions rely on the notion of separateness and or exclusion in their definitions. In philosophy and theology the term via negativa is used to refer to concepts that are more easily definable by their negative. I think we’re in this position when it comes to Inclusion. We are infinitely more familiar with the problem than a shared understand of what a truly inclusive system would look like. The Code’s definition relies on the notion of not being able to access facilities or making less progress than others and the other approaches narrow in on the marginalisation and exclusion. Arguably, in doing this we undermine the Inclusion we are trying to achieve by by structuring our thinking around deficit and separateness, “othering”.
- A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her. A child of compulsory school age or a young person has a learning difficulty or disability if he or she:
- has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age, or
- has a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions
I believe this vacuum of vision is dangerous. It leaves space for a cacophony of snake oil purveyors, to maintain “SEND expertise” like it is a dark art. Where they can offer magical solutions to schools and parents who are desperate and SENDCos overburdened with requests for referrals and specialist support, what could be termed the SEND industrial complex[2]. However, this way of thinking it also lets those not prepared to actually adapt the system off the hook. By pointing to the way that supposedly Inclusive approaches often place a glass ceiling on true Inclusion, it allows (some) schools and Trusts a ‘free pass’. Whereby, they not have to think deeply, seek the expertise or adapt, justifying their own position by maintaining ‘Inclusion is what we already do’. Neither approach actually serves the young people that need it the most.
I am not suggesting we get lost in the philosophy and forget the action but I do think we need an agreed starting point and some shared goals. The SEND data is stark and the projections gloomy. It is in all of our interests to get it right. This begins with having a proper shared conversation. Conversations that aren’t about blame or promoting existing interests and egos. Conversations, where people are prepared to take action and accountability. This cannot be a ‘software patch approach’[3] but something that enables meaningful change. Most critically, it needs to be a conversation that presents a positive vision for our most vulnerable young people. That moves beyond labels and deficit thinking.
This involves getting the right people around the table but it’s crucially, about listening. Only from a place of humility can we really understand the implications of our current ways of thinking on our ways of working and how this impacts the very children we want to include.
I studied Anthropology and at Uni I became kind of obsessed with the notions set out in a foundational essay by Eve Sedgwick (2002). Beautifully entitled, You’re So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is About You. The piece suggest that the traditional academic practice of reading is a paranoid one. What she means by that is that we are always looking for something to critique, rather than seeking common ground. This seems to be the standard operating model in the education discourse too.
Inclusion to me is about valuing diverse voices and the richness of the other. It is about building coalitions and recognising that we are greater than the sum of our parts. What if we believed we already had all the answers we just needed to get the right people together? In our system there are a diverse range of actors, young people, their families, classroom teachers, school, MAT and LA leaders, civil servants and government officials to name a few. Actors that are often polarised by perverse incentives, or lack of real listening. The IPPR is putting together a taskforce on Inclusion, which feels like a helpful starting point but I also think these conversations need to happen in localities.
I’m inspired by the work that organisations such as Whole Education do in this capacity. They don’t profess to have answers but what they are committed to is getting the right people round the table and creating the space for them to work together. I am exploring how might build local, in person Inclusion focused events that do that exactly that. If this is something you might be interested in being a part of do get in touch (on this platform or via LinkedIn).
Over the course of this series I will set out my stall, my vision for what Inclusion, high quality teaching, provision mapping and working with learners and families should look like and how we can support SENDCos in their leadership of these areas. Welcome debate, challenge, conversation and suggested next steps (particularly over an actual cup of tea).
[1] Of Primary School Teachers and 81% of Secondary School Teachers
[2] Increasingly so with Private Equity getting their hands on specialist schools, SEND is big business.
[3] Which purports to make change but is only done at surface level.
streamlinedsendco.com 