The roots of the special needs system in England
The system in England for supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has its roots in the 1978 Warnock Report which recommended the ‘integration’ of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The concept of integration did not require schools to make fundamental changes and what resulted was a ‘dump and hope’ model of assimilation rather than a fundamental transformation of the education system to meet the needs of children with disabilities. During the 1990s, the language of integration shifted to ‘inclusion’. The concept of inclusion requires a transformation of the structures that underpin the education system – the curriculum, assessment system, learning environment and teaching, to meet the needs of the child. It places an onus on schools to meet proactively the needs of the child through processes such as adaptive teaching and reasonable adjustments. Warnock (2005) later argued that the concept of inclusion in practice lacked clarity, resulting in some children being permanent outsiders, even though they are included in mainstream schools.
Why has the government introduced the SEND reforms?
It is nearly 50 years since the 1978 Warnock report and there is widespread evidence that the SEND system in England is not working well. Over the last decade the number of children with SEND has surged from 1.3 million to 1.7 million and demand for Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) far outstrips the available funding. EHCPs are designed for children and young people with the most severe needs and provide a legal entitlement to additional support and funding. These plans are funded by local authorities which receive a funding allocation from central government. The demand for EHCPs has placed pressure on cash-strapped local authorities. Too many applications for EHCPs are rejected by local authorities, resulting in costly tribunals where local authority decisions are often overturned in favour of parents who are made to fight to secure an EHCP for their child. Consequently, too many parents have lost confidence in local authorities to make decisions, and the increased prevalence of SEND has resulted in a model which is economically unsustainable.
What do the proposals say?
The SEND reforms, outlined in the White Paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving (DfE, 2026a), are designed to ‘put children and young people first’. The proposals include significant government funding in SEND to the tune of £7.1 billion. There are plans to roll out a national training programme to support all staff in schools, colleges and early years settings, to introduce new National Inclusion Standards, to develop new Inclusion Bases in mainstream schools and to implement new layers of support for children with SEND, including enhanced multi-agency working. There is a clear direction of travel which focuses on mainstream schools becoming more inclusive. In addition, it is predicted that EHCPs will be removed from some children when the child’s needs are reviewed at significant transition points.
What are the issues?
The White Paper offers a definition of inclusion from the Institute for Public Policy Research (2025) which states that inclusion is ‘all staff supporting the learning, wellbeing and safety needs of all children, so that they belong, achieve and thrive’ (p.9). In our view, inclusion is deeply political and requires wider systemic changes to the education system. In the absence of structural change, teachers are limited in what they can achieve, particularly given that the curriculum is not inclusive and the assessment system effects exclusion. We therefore welcome definitions of inclusion which imply structural transformation.
Although a recent rapid evidence review by Antalek et al. (2025) outlines several approaches for supporting learners with SEND, the SEND review appears to be tinkering with the current system rather than changing it fundamentally. Inclusion and transformation are two sides of the same coin. There is a great deal of new terminology to get to grips with, but the reforms assume that the current education system is fit for purpose. The new White Paper does not offer a radical shake up of the school curriculum. There is a continued emphasis on a knowledge rich curriculum, raising aspirations and raising academic standards in oracy, reading, writing and mathematics. The term ‘standards’ is mentioned 86 times and there is explicit reference to high standards and inclusion being two sides of the same coin, despite tensions between the two being highlighted across several decades in academic literature (inter alia Ashworth, Bloxham and Pearce, 2010; Nnamani and Lomer, 2023). The SEND White Paper (DfE, 2026a) mentions ‘attainment’ 82 times and there is a continued focus on the use of norm-referenced assessment. Twenty years ago, Ainscow, Booth and Dyson (2006) argued that ‘Whilst in principle higher standards of attainment are entirely compatible with inclusive school and educational system development, the standards agenda has concentrated on a narrow view of attainment’ and, unfortunately, little has changed.
Without a fundamental transformation of the curriculum and the assessment system, the education system will continue to fail those learners who cannot reach the normative standards. Inclusion was intended to transform the education system radically but, so far, this has not been achieved. The education system reflects the principles of neoliberalism where Education is viewed by the regulators and policy makers as a route to academic qualifications and employment. As Dan Goodley (2007: 322) articulated nearly twenty years ago, ‘Academic excellence is troubled by those who might never be capable of (nor interested in) such achievements’ and it is these learners who are likely, in our view, to experience exclusion.
The ‘SEND Reform’ consultation document (DfE, 2026b) mentions the term ‘needs’ 434 times. However, we submit that this emphasis on needs is indicative of a deficit model which suggests that something is lacking in the child. This ‘within-child’ view of disability is reflective of the medical model which shifts the problem away from the education system and places it firmly with the child. Gary Thomas and Andrew Loxley problematised the term ‘needs’ in 2007 in their foundational text, Deconstructing Special Education. They questioned whether needs are situated with the child or the education system and its imperative to produce compliant, neoliberal learners. When needs are located with the child, some learners are viewed as problematic to the neoliberal cause and assigned labels which result in forms of Othering. Some are excluded because they do not fit neatly into the mould of the neoliberal learner. Focus on needs rather than rights results in the child being viewed as deficient and in need of being fixed. In this case, the need for a more socially just curriculum and assessment system is not considered, resulting in a lack of critical engagement with the concept of inclusion.
We argue that the failure of policy makers to interrogate inclusion critically, or to engage with the academic literature and associated theories of inclusion means that Every Child Achieving and Thriving (DfE, 2026a) has not done justice to inclusion as a concept. We suggest that one way of advancing inclusion in education is to move away from a norm-referenced model of assessment, which inevitably results in separating out those who succeed and those who fail. Those who fail are likely to be the most vulnerable children, including those with SEND. A one-size-fits all curriculum is also unlikely to be suitable for all learners. The current proposals seem to us to represent a model of integration rather than inclusion because there are no plans for fundamentally transforming the education system. Addressing these deeper-level structural factors rather than tinkering with the current model would take us a step closer to inclusion.
References
- Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Abingdon: Routledge.
- Antalek, C., Castro-Kemp, S., Dixon, F., Esposito, R., Hayton, J., Herbert, E., Kamenopoulou, L., Kolak, J., Loyd, D., Roberts, A., Romualdez, A.M., Somerville, M.P., Taha, J., & Tunks, F. (2025) Cross-cutting themes in identifying, supporting and collaborating for children and young people with SEND: A rapid evidence review. RR1546. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68d6580c9ce370a7e0a0fd29/Cross-cutting_themes_in_identifying_supporting_and_collaborating_for_children_and_young_people.pdf
- Ashworth, M., Bloxham, S., & Pearce, L. (2010) Examining the tension between academic standards and inclusion for disabled students: the impact on marking of individual academics’ frameworks for assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 35(2): 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903062864
- Department for Education (2026a) Every Child Achieving and Thriving. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69972c02bfdab2546272c007/Every_child_achieving_and_thriving_print_ready_version.pdf
- Department for Education (2026b) SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First. Government Consultation. London: Department for Education. https://consult.education.gov.uk/send-strategy-division/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-firs/supporting_documents/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-first-print-ready-version-1pdf
- Goodley, D. (2007) Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3): 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701238769
- Institute for Public Policy Research and The Difference (2025) Who is losing learning? Finding solutions to the school engagement crisis. https://www.ippr.org/articles/who-is-losing-learning-solutions
- Nnamani, G. & Lomer, S. (2024) ‘What is the Problem Represented to Be’ in the educational policies relating to the social inclusion of learners with SEN in mainstream schools in England? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24: 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12692
- Thomas, G. and Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Warnock, M. (1978) Special Education Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Youth. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20101007182820/http:/sen.ttrb.ac.uk/attachments/21739b8e-5245-4709-b433-c14b08365634.pdf
- Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A New Look. Salisbury: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain Publications.
Find out more about UON’s Education and Teacher Training courses.
