This week’s Government announcement of at least £3 billion to expand specialist places within mainstream schools could be a significant moment for creating more inclusive schools. The plan is to create tens of thousands of tailored spaces in local schools, so more children with SEND can attend their local school within their community. It also gives local authorities flexibility to deliver places faster than at current and by pass some of the major transport issues which is a vital step.

I welcome this direction of travel; in fact, this is the first thing from this Labour Government that I feel I can really get behind. There’s a good reason for this: I have been running a 55-place Specialist Provision within the heart of my mainstream school (Over 600 pupils) for over a decade now. It has been transformative. Done properly, it improves belonging, impacts life chances, reduces unnecessary travel (though not completely), and builds capacity inside mainstream, not just around it. 

But we must be realistic: the benefits are real (If done right), and so are the challenges, especially for Ofsted and Accountability. 

Why Specialist Support Inside Mainstream Really Matters 

Access and belonging. Mainstream specialist spaces open up society. It should be more than a cornerstone but the principle with which a truly inclusive society should build its foundations. It breaks down barriers but more importantly it shows us what individuals can do and how they are an inspiration; rather than a problem. Children in my Special School are ambassadors for my school – we learn from them each and every day and the positives far outweigh the challenges. The policy intent is clear: end the postcode lottery and make “inclusive by design” schools the norm, with tailored spaces and the chance to mix with other classes at appropriate times. I feel that if we get this right and fully support it, society will be so much better for it. The lessons I have learnt from children and families within my specialist provision have been the most profound within my 30-year career. I am still a fan of the amazing work Special Schools do – but I know, from experience that a mainstream school can offer a quality education for ALL children.

Quicker identification and better SEND teaching within the majority of schools. Embedding specialists and professionals, alongside more specialist teachers in mainstream settings will accelerate identification and support; for example we now have the expertise to gather evidence for children as early as Nursery because we know what we need to do to get support moving quickly. Investment, therefore, must highlight staffing and training, or schools could inherit rooms without the expertise to run them well. Another issue will be how this is scaled – you need to have enough children to make this work with a qualified teacher. This takes time and for each of those schools starting on this journey there is a lot to learn. Because the danger is – the whole school culture has to shift… just placing a room somewhere and creating that as a separate space – that will not work! 

  • Clarity around behaviour management – managing this is a real challenge and it has to be understood by the whole community – Children, teachers, staff (Especially governors), the LA and parents. 
  • Impact on attendance – there will be one. My current mainstream attendance is 97.5% and I am really proud of this. But special school attendance is much lower for many reasons (currently 89.9% – still above national SP attendance)—often due to complex medical needs or diagnoses. The impact is published attendance data falls to 96.6% still good, but context most observers miss. That might be the difference between Expected, Strong or Exemplary… In the game we play with Ofsted that matters.
  • Curriculum adjustments – a mainstream curriculum needs a lot of fine tuning and adaptation to work for children with SEND. This will not happen overnight and will need constant review. We often find ourselves (and still do) having to really think hard about how the curriculum is meeting the changing need of the current cohorts. What worked last year – might not work this year… But also, how do you make integration work on a practical level (Staffing and timetables are a constant battle!).
  • Outcomes will be lowered and you will be constantly having to explain this! We usually have at least 10 children (14 this year) in Year 6 who are part of our Specialist Provision. Everyone is entered into SATs. But the IDSR does not recognise this. This year EHCPs in Year 6 are at 19%; add in the 22% on SEND support and you have a critical year group where SATs results have an accountability impact on judgement. 40% SEND is hard when SATs is the only external accountability measure you are up against, and it impacts your results hughely. You have to justify this time and time again and you end up sounding like a stuck record – or worse, making excuses. You have to do this for GLD, Phonics, Times Tables, attendance, exclusions and SATs… BIG outcomes!
  • System efficiency. Local authorities have faced spiraling transport costs and high‑needs deficits. They are at such levels now that they impact school effectiveness and have done for years. Bringing support closer to home can reduce reliance on long-distance transport, help families feel they belong in their community, and relieve pressure on budgets over time. The key issue is: can this free additional funding? Can this, on scale, create better opportunities’. I really see it as the first big step to doing this. But, it is not the final answer – we need to change they way we see schools and education and build this into our system. We will still need those excellent Special Schools – but they need to be used where they are best. The hard fact is too many children who could succeed in Mainstream schools with the right support and culture are put into Specialist Provision – usually because parents do not believe their child’s need can be met.

Behaviour Challenges: Early Turbulence and Culture Shift 

Embedding specialist support in mainstream settings often leads to initial increases in behaviour incidents or suspensions as pupils and staff adjust. This phase is expected, even in the best-designed systems. When going through the process there were points where our Suspensions went really high (I still shudder at 2021’s suspensions). Right now, we are below the national mainstream suspensions despite the fact that many of our children in Specialist have been suspended or experienced a failed mainstream placement. This is because our culture is one in which we believe and have a long track record of making work for challenging behaviour.

Suspensions may rise temporarily when provision isn’t fully adapted to complex needs. This doesn’t mean inclusion is failing; it means we are in transition and currently not sure how to meet needs. The bigger challenge is changing culture and attitudes. People will not change their beliefs quickly and may see the development as standards dropping. This will be the leaders biggest challenge when taking on additional SEND provision within their mainstream setting.

Ofsted’s Inclusion Toolkit: Where It May Clash with Reality 

There could be a danger in Ofsted’s Inclusion Toolkit as schools take on more complex SEND.

  • Vague definition of “inclusion.” The toolkit lacks clarity on what inclusion looks like for pupils with profound needs within a mainstream setting.
  • Overemphasis on attainment vs. progress. Schools with high SEND cohorts’ risk being penalised for lower published results, even when progress and personal development are strong. They use the AVERAGE as a norm throughout their Toolkit… I see this as limiting. Every Ofsted I have to justify our data and inspectors really do not get it. They treat you as though you are trying to hide something. Especially past data where they can’t follow up on practice. 
  • Mainstream bias in curriculum expectations. Toolkit references to “age-appropriate knowledge” can be misaligned with developmentally appropriate goals for SEND pupils. Especially the most complex of EHCPs or need. This language is just not helpful and nothing I see in the Ofsted Inclusion outcomes gives me confidence from afar. Though I have not yet had an Ofsted… 
  • Insufficient differentiation for specialist contexts. Schools with therapeutic bases or high-dependency pupils may be judged harshly if they can’t demonstrate conventional integration. Ofsted’s understanding of conventional schooling is not, as yet compatible with what we do at my school. Up to now there are not many mainstream schools with such a large number of EHCPs – and therefore I find inspectors understanding lacking here. This has to change.

The £3bn investment announced this week could support SEND provision if schools are supported to manage early turbulence, cultural change, and inspection readiness. Inclusion is not just adding specialist places; it’s reimagining school culture, accountability, and curriculum. I worry that many schools are not currently ready for this. Currently I don’t see the rewards from the central accountability system; so why should others. I only see it at a local level from the community, maybe that should be enough? But, you can’t escape Ofsted and if they can’t adjust then schools are going to be punished for being more inclusive… Which is basically the system we have right now. Maybe what I mean is this – For this system to work well nationally there needs to be a culture shift regarding what it means to be a truly inclusive school and rather than finding easy data based on narrow outcomes we need to acknowledge and reward those schools that do everything to find ways for children and young people to succeed – no matter what. No amount of extra funding will do this though.

Done thoughtfully, this is a powerful step forward. Done without nuance, it risks leaving schools overwhelmed and judged unfairly. I know many collegues worry about this – we are still in a culture where we think throwing money at a problem will solve it rather than talking about the fundamental elements that underlie it.