Grappling with SEND in Education

The publication of Ofsted’s State-Funded School Inspection Toolkit for Use from September 2026 represents one of the most significant developments in English school accountability since the introduction of the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in 2019 (Ofsted, 2026). While previous frameworks considered inclusion within wider quality of education judgements, the new toolkit elevates inclusion to a distinct evaluation area.

This change signals a recognition that educational success cannot be measured solely through attainment outcomes, but must also consider how effectively schools identify, support and remove barriers for disadvantaged learners.

The framework explicitly identifies four groups for particular scrutiny:

• Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, including those eligible for the Pupil Premium.
• Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
• Pupils known or previously known to children’s social care.
• Pupils experiencing other barriers to learning and wellbeing (Ofsted, 2026).

This article examines the implications of these changes for SEND pupils, Free School Meal (FSM) pupils, Pupil Premium pupils, teachers, school leaders and parents.

What Has Changed?

Inclusion Has Become a Core Judgement

Perhaps the most important shift is that inclusion is now inspected as a standalone evaluation area rather than being considered indirectly through achievement or quality of education measures (Ofsted, 2026).

Inspectors will evaluate whether schools:

• Identify barriers quickly and accurately.
• Implement effective support.
• Use specialist services appropriately.
• Work collaboratively with parents.
• Demonstrate measurable impact on learning and wellbeing.

This reflects a broader movement towards inclusive education advocated by UNESCO (2020), which argues that educational systems should be judged by how successfully they include learners who traditionally experience marginalisation.

The toolkit states that leaders must establish “a culture in which early and accurate assessment of pupils’ needs is prioritised” (Ofsted, 2026, p.11).

This places identification and responsiveness at the centre of school effectiveness.

High-Quality Teaching Is Now the Primary Inclusion Strategy

One of the most striking statements appears in the Inclusion section:

“the most effective inclusion strategy begins with everyday high-quality inclusive teaching” (Ofsted, 2026, p.13).

This aligns closely with Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) guidance, which consistently identifies high-quality teaching as having the greatest impact on disadvantaged learners (EEF, 2024).

Historically, schools have often responded to SEND and disadvantage through withdrawal interventions, one-to-one support or specialist programmes. While these approaches can be beneficial, the new framework makes clear that inspectors will first evaluate classroom practice before considering additional interventions.

This represents a move away from what Norwich (2013) described as the “additional needs model” towards a more inclusive universal design approach.

Stronger Accountability for SEND Leadership

The framework places unprecedented emphasis on SEND leadership.

Inspectors will evaluate whether “a qualified SENCo is empowered, through their leadership status within the school, to lead whole-school improvement” (Ofsted, 2026, p.14).

This reflects long-standing concerns raised by the House of Commons Education Committee (2019) regarding the marginalisation of SEND leadership within many schools. The implication is clear:

SEND is no longer solely the responsibility of the SENCo – SEND outcomes are now a whole-school leadership responsibility.

Greater Scrutiny of Pupil Premium Spending

The toolkit requires schools to demonstrate:

• A secure understanding of disadvantaged pupils’ needs.
• Use of evidence-informed approaches.
• Effective implementation.
• Regular review and adaptation.
• Positive impact on learning (Ofsted, 2026).

This closely mirrors recommendations within the EEF Guide to the Pupil Premium (EEF, 2025), which emphasises:

1. High-quality teaching.
2. Targeted academic support.
3. Wider strategies.

Schools will therefore need to demonstrate not merely how funding is spent, but why spending decisions were made and what impact they have had.

Implications for SEND Pupils

Greater Protection Through Explicit Accountability

For SEND pupils, the framework offers stronger protection than previous inspection models. Inspectors must consider:

• Reasonable adjustments.
• Curriculum access.
• The graduated approach.
• Transition arrangements.
• Progress monitoring.
• Specialist involvement (Ofsted, 2026).

This aligns directly with statutory requirements contained within the SEND Code of Practice (Department for Education & Department of Health, 2015). Importantly, inspectors are instructed to examine “emerging or changing needs” (Ofsted, 2026, p.14). This recognises that SEND is dynamic rather than static.

The Graduated Approach Becomes Central

The framework explicitly references “assess, plan, do, review” (Ofsted, 2026, p.14). The graduated approach has long been regarded as the cornerstone of effective SEND provision (DfE & DoH, 2015).

However, implementation nationally remains inconsistent (Ofsted, 2021). The new framework raises expectations that schools can demonstrate:

• Accurate assessment.
• Evidence-based planning.
• Effective intervention.
• Ongoing review.

This may improve consistency of provision across England.

Increased Focus on Independence

One particularly welcome development is the emphasis on curriculum access and participation. Inspectors will examine whether:

“additional adults in the classroom are deployed to enable all pupils to access high-quality teaching from their class teacher and to develop pupils’ independence over time” (Ofsted, 2026, p.23).

This reflects concerns raised by Blatchford et al. (2012), whose research found that excessive teaching assistant support can unintentionally reduce pupil independence. The framework therefore signals a move away from the “Velcro TA” model towards greater autonomy.

Potential Risks

Despite these positive developments, risks remain. There is a danger that schools may feel pressured to demonstrate rapid progress for SEND pupils.

Research consistently shows that progress for pupils with complex SEND is often non-linear and difficult to capture through conventional assessment systems (Norwich, 2014). If inspectors or school leaders place excessive emphasis on measurable outcomes, schools may:

• Narrow the curriculum.
• Over-rely on interventions.
• Focus on short-term gains.
• Prioritise data over inclusion.

Success will depend heavily on how inspectors interpret the framework in practice.

Implications for Pupil Premium and Free School Meal Pupils

Disadvantage Is No Longer Treated as a Statistical Category

A significant strength of the framework is its insistence that schools understand individual barriers rather than treating disadvantage as a label. Inspectors will evaluate whether leaders:

“have a secure understanding of their disadvantaged pupils’ needs” (Ofsted, 2026, p.13).

This reflects findings from Gorard et al. (2017), who argue that disadvantage is multidimensional and cannot be addressed through generic interventions.

Stronger Focus on Attendance and Engagement

Research consistently demonstrates strong links between poverty and attendance difficulties (Child Poverty Action Group, 2024). The framework recognises that disadvantage affects:

• Attendance.
• Behaviour.
• Wellbeing.
• Engagement.
• Achievement.

Schools will increasingly need to demonstrate how they remove barriers preventing disadvantaged pupils from fully participating in education.

Increased Importance of Reading and Vocabulary

The curriculum section repeatedly references:

• Reading.
• Vocabulary.
• Communication.
• Oracy (Ofsted, 2026).

This is particularly important because vocabulary gaps associated with socioeconomic disadvantage emerge early and widen over time (Hart & Risley, 1995; Quigley, 2018).

Schools are therefore likely to place greater emphasis on disciplinary literacy and explicit vocabulary instruction.

What Teachers Need to Know

For classroom teachers, several messages emerge clearly.

1. High Expectations Matter

Inspectors will evaluate whether teachers maintain ambitious expectations for SEND and disadvantaged pupils (Ofsted, 2026). This aligns with Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) findings regarding teacher expectations and pupil outcomes.

2. Adaptive Teaching Is Essential

The framework repeatedly references adaptation rather than differentiation. Teachers will need to demonstrate:

• Scaffolding.
• Modelling.
• Retrieval practice.
• Formative assessment.
• Reasonable adjustments.

These approaches are strongly supported by evidence from the EEF (2024).

3. Reading Is Everybody’s Responsibility

Reading is no longer confined to English departments. The framework repeatedly emphasises:

• Reading fluency.
• Reading competency.
• Vocabulary development.

Teachers across all subjects will be expected to contribute to literacy development.

4. Oracy Matters

The explicit inclusion of oracy is one of the most notable changes. Inspectors will evaluate whether pupils are taught:

“how to communicate effectively through spoken language” (Ofsted, 2026, p.20).

This aligns with evidence from Mercer et al. (2019), which demonstrates the impact of high-quality classroom talk on learning outcomes.

What Parents Need to Know

Parents are given a significantly more prominent role within the new framework. Inspectors will consider whether schools:

“work closely with parents” and “take their views into account” (Ofsted, 2026, p.13).

For parents of SEND pupils, this means they should expect:

• Genuine consultation.
• Regular review meetings.
• Transparent communication.
• Clear explanations of support.

Parents of disadvantaged pupils should expect schools to explain:

• How pupil premium funding is used.
• How barriers are being reduced.
• What impact support is having.

The framework strengthens the expectation that schools and families operate as partners.

What Happens Next?

The implementation of the toolkit from September 2026 is likely to drive significant changes in school improvement priorities. Schools will increasingly need to:

• Audit inclusion practice.
• Review SEND provision.
• Strengthen pupil premium strategies.
• Improve reading and vocabulary instruction.
• Develop staff expertise in adaptive teaching.
• Enhance parental engagement.

Most importantly, schools will need evidence that inclusion is making a difference. The framework moves inspection away from compliance and towards impact.

Whether this ultimately improves outcomes for SEND and disadvantaged pupils will depend on implementation, inspector training and schools’ willingness to embrace inclusion as a whole-school responsibility rather than a specialist function.

The overall message from the 2026 framework is clear:

Inclusive education is no longer an additional priority. It is now central to what Ofsted defines as an effective school.

References

• Blatchford, P., Russell, A. & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the Impact of Teaching Assistants. Routledge.
• Child Poverty Action Group (2024). The Cost of the School Day. London: CPAG.
• Department for Education & Department of Health (2015). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–25 Years. London: DfE.
• Education Endowment Foundation (2024). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools Guidance Report. London: EEF.
• Education Endowment Foundation (2025). Guide to the Pupil Premium. London: EEF.
• Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N. & See, B.H. (2017). The Trials of Evidence-Based Education. Routledge.
• Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore: Brookes.
• House of Commons Education Committee (2019). Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: First Report of Session 2019. London: HMSO.
• Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, Thinking Together and Digital Technology in the Classroom. Routledge.
• Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education. Routledge.
• Norwich, B. (2014). Recognising Value Tensions that Underlie Problems in Inclusive Education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 495–510.
• Ofsted (2021). SEND: Old Issues, New Issues, Next Steps. Manchester: Ofsted.
• Ofsted (2026). State-Funded School Inspection Toolkit for Use from September 2026. Manchester: Ofsted.
• Quigley, A. (2018). Closing the Vocabulary Gap. Routledge.
• Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report: Inclusion and Education – All Means All. Paris: UNESCO.