Grappling with SEND in Education

The debate surrounding educational inclusion in England has intensified in recent years as concerns have grown regarding the experiences of pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), disadvantaged learners, and other vulnerable groups. In his article What Ofsted inspectors really think about inclusion (Newman, 2026), Matt Newman argues that inspectors are increasingly using professional judgement and contextual understanding to evaluate inclusion rather than relying solely on attainment outcomes. While this represents a positive shift, significant questions remain regarding whether inspection frameworks adequately capture the lived experiences of SEND pupils and whether schools are being held sufficiently accountable for inclusive practice.

This article critically examines Newman’s arguments through the lens of contemporary SEND research, inclusion theory, educational policy, and accountability literature. It argues that although Ofsted’s movement towards a broader understanding of inclusion is welcome, further development is needed if inspection frameworks are to accurately evaluate the educational experiences of pupils with SEND. Recommendations are provided for policymakers, school leaders, SENCOs, and classroom teachers to strengthen inclusive practice beyond compliance and towards genuine educational equity.

Introduction

Inclusion has become one of the defining educational issues of the twenty-first century. The concept extends beyond simply placing children with SEND into mainstream classrooms. True inclusion concerns participation, belonging, achievement, wellbeing, independence, and access to meaningful learning opportunities (Ainscow, 2020).

The publication of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DHSC, 2015) reinforced the principle that children with SEND should be educated alongside their peers wherever possible. However, numerous reports suggest that significant challenges remain.

The recent report by the Education Select Committee (House of Commons, 2024), findings from the National Audit Office (2024), and research from the Education Policy Institute (Hutchinson et al., 2023) all highlight concerns regarding:

• Rising levels of SEND need.
• Increasing exclusions.
• Attendance difficulties.
• Mental health challenges.
• Inadequate funding.
• Variable quality of provision.

Against this backdrop, Newman’s article provides valuable insight into how Ofsted inspectors themselves view inclusion and accountability.

His central argument is that inspections have evolved beyond simple data analysis and now attempt to evaluate the broader realities faced by schools serving vulnerable communities.

This represents a significant development. However, whether current inspection arrangements are sufficiently sensitive to the complexity of SEND remains open to debate.

The Strengths of Newman’s Position

Moving Beyond Data-Driven Judgements

One of the strongest aspects of Newman’s argument is his recognition that attainment data alone cannot accurately evaluate inclusion.

Research consistently demonstrates that pupils with SEND often make substantial personal, social, emotional, behavioural, and independence gains that may not be reflected in examination outcomes (Norwich, 2023).

For example:

A pupil with autism may improve emotional regulation, reduce anxiety, develop friendships, and increase classroom participation, without showing dramatic improvements in standardised assessments.

Similarly, pupils with ADHD, Developmental Language Disorder, Down syndrome and Moderate Learning Difficulties, may achieve educational progress that traditional attainment measures struggle to capture (Dockrell et al., 2022).

Newman’s assertion that inspectors consider the following:

• leadership decisions,
• classroom practice,
• pupil voice,
• school culture,

These, alongside outcomes reflects current understanding that inclusion is multidimensional.

This aligns with Booth and Ainscow’s (2016) Index for Inclusion, which argues that inclusive schools should be evaluated by the following, rather than examination performance alone:

1. Inclusive cultures.
2. Inclusive policies.
3. Inclusive practices.

Recognition of Context

A second strength is the acknowledgement that schools operate within highly diverse contexts.

Research has repeatedly demonstrated strong relationships between deprivation, SEND prevalence, attendance difficulties, safeguarding concerns, and educational outcomes (EEF, 2024).

Schools serving disadvantaged communities often support disproportionate numbers of pupils with:

• Speech and Language Needs.
• Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs.
• Autism.
• Trauma-related difficulties.

These factors can significantly influence attendance, attainment and behaviour.

The acknowledgement that inspectors should understand local context reflects recommendations from the Education Endowment Foundation (2024) and the Confederation of School Trusts (2023), both of which argue that accountability systems must account for contextual complexity.

Greater Focus on Vulnerability

Newman’s discussion of increased attention towards looked-after children, pupil premium pupils, and vulnerable learners is particularly important as SEND rarely exists in isolation. Research consistently demonstrates high levels of overlap between:

• SEND,
• poverty,
• adverse childhood experiences,
• mental health needs.

Children with SEND are significantly more likely to experience disadvantage than their peers (Parsons & Platt, 2017).

Consequently, inspection frameworks that evaluate vulnerability more holistically are likely to provide a more accurate picture of inclusion.

The Limitations of Current Inspection Approaches

While Newman’s defence of inspection has merit, several significant concerns remain.

Inclusion is Still Difficult to Observe

One of the greatest challenges facing inspectors is that inclusion is not always visible. Many schools present highly polished systems during inspection. Policies may appear robust; documentation may be comprehensive, and leadership presentations may be persuasive. Yet pupils themselves can experience something entirely different.

Research on “performative inclusion” suggests that schools can demonstrate compliance with inclusion policies while pupils continue to experience:

• social isolation,
• curriculum exclusion,
• reduced expectations,
• limited participation (Slee, 2018).

SEND pupils often report experiences such as:

• feeling different,
• limited peer relationships,
• over-reliance on adult support,
• exclusion from wider school life.

These experiences may not be immediately observable during a short inspection visit.

This raises an important question: Can a two-day inspection genuinely capture the lived experience of inclusion? Many researchers argue that it cannot (Tomlinson, 2017).

The Problem of “Visible Compliance”

A recurring criticism of inspection systems is that schools may focus on demonstrating compliance rather than improving practice. This phenomenon is well documented within accountability literature (Perryman, 2009).

Schools can become highly skilled at producing evidence, preparing documentation, and presenting systems, without necessarily improving pupils’ experiences. For SEND pupils this creates particular risks.

So, whilst Inspectors may see:

• intervention timetables,
• provision maps,
• EHCP reviews,
• tracking documents,

They are missing crucial questions such as:

• Are pupils becoming more independent?
• Do pupils feel included?
• Are friendships developing?
• Are barriers actually being removed?

The danger is that paperwork becomes a proxy for inclusion.

SEND Outcomes Remain Insufficiently Examined

While Newman is correct that attainment should not dominate inspection judgements, there is a risk of swinging too far in the opposite direction.

Inspection must still ask whether provision is making a measurable difference.

The Education Endowment Foundation (2024) emphasises that effective SEND provision should improve:

• attainment,
• attendance,
• engagement,
• independence,
• communication,
• wellbeing.

Schools should not be able to demonstrate strong processes while SEND pupils continue to experience poor outcomes.

The key challenge is broadening our definition of outcomes rather than abandoning outcome measures altogether.

What Schools Should Learn from This Debate

The article provides several important lessons for school leaders.

Recommendation 1: Prioritise Pupil Voice

Research consistently demonstrates that SEND pupils often have limited involvement in decisions affecting their education (Lundy, 2007).

Schools should systematically gather pupil voice regarding:

• classroom support,
• accessibility,
• friendships,
• wellbeing,
• learning experiences.

Inspection readiness should not focus solely on documentation.

Schools should be able to demonstrate that SEND pupils themselves feel:

• safe,
• supported,
• included,
• challenged.

Recommendation 2: Measure Independence, Not Just Support

One of the most overlooked indicators of successful inclusion is independence.

Research warns against the development of the “Velcro Teaching Assistant” model, where excessive adult support unintentionally creates dependency (Webster et al., 2013).

Schools should routinely evaluate:

• independence skills,
• self-regulation,
• self-advocacy,
• organisational skills.

A pupil requiring less support over time may represent a more successful outcome than one receiving extensive support indefinitely.

Recommendation 3: Audit Curriculum Accessibility

True inclusion requires access to learning.

Schools should undertake regular curriculum accessibility audits examining:

• reading demands,
• vocabulary load,
• cognitive load,
• scaffolded support,
• adaptive teaching strategies.

The EEF (2024) highlights adaptive teaching as one of the highest-impact approaches for SEND learners.

Inclusive schools do not create separate curricula for SEND pupils.

They make the curriculum accessible.

Recommendation 4: Strengthen Staff Expertise

Teacher expertise remains the most powerful factor affecting SEND outcomes (EEF, 2021).

Professional development should focus on:

• Autism.
• ADHD.
• Speech and Language Difficulties.
• Developmental Language Disorder.
• Dyslexia.
• Cognitive Science.
• Adaptive Teaching.

SEND should not be viewed solely as the SENCO’s responsibility.

Every teacher is a teacher of SEND.

Recommendation 5: Use Broader Measures of Success

Schools should develop inclusion dashboards incorporating:

Academic Measures

• Progress.
• Attainment.
• Attendance.

Social Measures

• Friendships.
• Participation.
• Extra-curricular involvement.

Wellbeing Measures

• Emotional regulation.
• School belonging.
• Mental health.

Independence Measures

• Organisation.
• Self-advocacy.
• Reduced adult reliance.

Such measures align more closely with the realities of SEND pupils’ educational experiences.

Implications for Ofsted

If inspections are to become genuinely inclusive, future frameworks should place greater emphasis upon:

1. Pupil Experience

Structured interviews with SEND pupils should become a central inspection activity.

2. Inclusion Indicators

Inspection reports should explicitly evaluate:

• belonging,
• participation,
• accessibility,
• independence.

3. Longitudinal Evidence

Greater use of evidence over time rather than snapshots during inspection.

4. SEND Specialist Expertise

Inspection teams should include greater SEND expertise, particularly when evaluating schools with large numbers of pupils with complex needs.

5. Adaptive Teaching

Evaluation should focus less on intervention programmes and more on the quality of everyday classroom practice.

Research repeatedly shows that the greatest gains for SEND pupils come from high-quality teaching rather than withdrawal interventions (EEF, 2021).

Conclusion

Matt Newman provides an important reminder that inspectors are not simply “box-tickers” and that many HMIs are genuinely attempting to understand the realities of inclusion. His description of a framework increasingly shaped by professional dialogue, contextual understanding and broader notions of vulnerability reflects positive developments within educational accountability.

However, the article also highlights the persistent tension between what schools can demonstrate and what pupils actually experience. Inclusion cannot be fully understood through data, policies or inspection conversations alone. Equally, it cannot be evaluated solely through intentions and processes if vulnerable pupils continue to experience exclusion, dependency or poor outcomes.

For SEND pupils, genuine inclusion means far more than being present in a classroom. It means accessing learning, participating in school life, developing independence, building relationships, experiencing belonging and making meaningful progress towards adulthood.

The next stage of inspection reform should therefore move beyond evaluating whether systems exist and towards understanding whether those systems are transforming the daily experiences of pupils. Schools should similarly move beyond compliance and focus on creating cultures where every child—particularly those with SEND—can participate, achieve and thrive.

Ultimately, the most important question is not whether a school appears inclusive during inspection. It is whether SEND pupils themselves would describe their school experience as genuinely inclusive. Until accountability systems place that question at their centre, the debate about inclusion and inspection will remain unfinished.

References

• Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.
• Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools (4th ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
• Confederation of School Trusts. (2023). The Future of School Accountability. CST.
• Department for Education & Department of Health and Social Care. (2015). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–25 Years. London: DfE.
• Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., Roulstone, S., & Law, J. (2022). Supporting children with speech, language and communication needs in schools. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 38(2), 87–104.
• Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools: Guidance Report. London: EEF.
• Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). Attainment, Attendance and Inclusion: Evidence Review. London: EEF.
• House of Commons Education Committee. (2024). Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND): Solving the Crisis. London: HMSO.
• Hutchinson, J., Crenna-Jennings, W., and Andrews, J. (2023). Annual Report on Education in England. London: Education Policy Institute.
• Lundy, L. (2007). Voice is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.
• National Audit Office. (2024). Support for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs. London: NAO.
• Newman, M. (2026). What Ofsted inspectors really think about inclusion. Tes, 10 June 2026.
• Norwich, B. (2023). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education. Routledge.
• Parsons, S., & Platt, L. (2017). The Inequalities Generation: The Impact of SEND and Poverty on Educational Outcomes. London: London School of Economics.
• Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631.
• Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education Isn’t Dead, It Just Smells Funny. Routledge.
• Tomlinson, S. (2017). A Sociology of Special and Inclusive Education. Routledge.
• Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2013). Maximising the Impact of Teaching Assistants. Routledge.