If you’ve been around long enough in educational leadership, you start to see cycles. One statement that never seems to go away is the – We take all the children with SEND whilst that school up the road does nothing…. I have heard it so often in my 23 years of headship and then, last week, the Sutton Trust really threw the cat amongst the pigeons with their report – Selective Inclusion. The timing could not have been better planned.

The report shows that disadvantage and SEND are closely connected, with schools that under‑represent pupils eligible for Free School Meals also tending to under‑represent those with SEND. This pattern is strongest for pupils receiving SEN Support, rather than those with EHCPs, whose admissions are more tightly protected. The report highlights the concept of “double disadvantage”, where children who are both economically disadvantaged and have SEND face the poorest outcomes and the least access to high‑performing schools, reinforcing existing inequalities within the system.

As the head of a school with some Cohorts having over 40% SEND this comes as no surprise.

According to the report, the country’s top‑performing schools those often lauded for strong outcomes and sky‑high progress are taking half as many disadvantaged SEND pupils as the average comprehensive. Even more starkly, these same schools enrol 36% fewer disadvantaged SEND pupils than actually live in their catchment areas.

To me this would mean one of two things – that these schools actively discourage applications from SEND families or that families without SEND are more likely to get a place in the school therefore making them full and making it impossible for local families to get a place. The classic – ‘Oh, we’re full… sorry.’

In other words, the ‘top schools’ aren’t just top; they’re curated. Their results are the product of controlled and carefully shaped intakes, while the schools serving the children with the greatest needs are left to carry the load. So, where is this Quiet Curse coming from then?

Across local areas, the inequalities seen in individual schools are repeated on a larger scale: places where schools differ widely in their intake of disadvantaged pupils also show wide differences in their intake of pupils with SEND, especially those receiving SEN Support. Senior leaders say these patterns are strongly influenced by school reputation—schools known for strong SEND provision (63%), inclusivity (55%) or particular approaches to behaviour (32%) tend to attract more pupils with SEND. Even more concerning, 41% of leaders believe some schools actively discourage applications from pupils with SEND, a figure that increases to 46% in primary settings, 50% in schools with the highest SEND levels, and 44% in the most deprived schools. Together, these local differences and reputational factors reveal how structural inequalities and school behaviours combine to determine which schools pupils with SEND are steered towards—and which they are quietly steered away from.

Meanwhile, Ofsted lumbers in without properly acknowledging any of this context; In fact they allude to the ‘Quiet Curse of low expectations‘ if you even mention it. A school with a higher number of SEND pupils, more deprivation, and a daily diet of crisis‑management is compared directly with a school that has half the level of SEND complexity and therefore less staff challenges outside of teaching and learning. And guess who’s more likely to walk away with the glowing report?

In short:
The system rewards schools for avoiding challenge, and punishes schools for embracing it.
No wonder the playing field feels like it’s sloping towards a cliff edge for so many school leaders.

So, what would it take to create a fairer, more honest, more humane system; one that values inclusion as much as outcomes?

Here are five changes that would make a real difference.

1. Fix Admissions So Schools Can’t Game the System

If top schools are taking far fewer disadvantaged SEND pupils than live locally, the admissions system is fundamentally broken.

We need:

  • Local authority control of admissions, so no school can subtly nudge families elsewhere; a practice that many leaders believe has been happening for years.
  • Transparent reporting of intake profiles compared with local demographics – you get it on your IDSR – so lets make it very transparent.
  • A clear legal duty to prevent discouragement of SEND applications, given that almost half of leaders believe it’s happening already. I feel that parents should also be reporting this. The number of times I have been told – ‘Oh the SENCo told me that you are great at SEND’. This ended up (2 years ago) with me writing to the local schools to set the record straight and say – I have NO MORE RESOURCES THAN YOU DO!

If your intake reflects your community (Or is reflecting larger challenge), then we can talk about performance comparisons.

2. Reform Ofsted So It Recognises Context, Not Just Numbers

One of the biggest disconnects the Sutton Trust highlights is between school performance metrics and actual inclusion.
We need Ofsted to:

  • Weight evaluations to reflect levels of SEND and deprivation – acknowledge it and promote it. Find the strengths beyond data.
  • Start acknowledging ‘context’ – comparing schools like with like… E.g How do other schools with 28% SEND and a rural setting compare? What might the difference be and what can we learn from this? I want to know how my SATs results compare with other schools nationally who have 30%+ SEND including 19% EHCPs… Not schools who have no EHCPS or SEND. Then we can look at how well we are – or are not doing. It wouldn’t be hard to do.

Right now Ofsted compares Apples with Caviar. One of them is good for the system whilst the other makes me sick.
It’s time to stop pretending every school’s starting point is the same, or reflective of an inclusive system.

3. Properly Fund SEND Support in Mainstream Schools

I know the White Paper promises Billions – but, this has to be felt by schools on the ground… Almost every leader can tell you: the SEND crisis is a funding crisis and that is a whole other system narrative!

  • The Sutton Trust describes the system as “in crisis,” with families struggling to navigate support and schools lacking resources.
  • Leaders say the biggest improvement would come from more teachers and TAs to support SEND pupils directly.

If mainstream schools are expected to be inclusive, they need the staff, the training, and the specialist services to back it up.
Goodwill alone isn’t enough. In fact, for many of us – it drained away and dried up some time ago.

4. Change Accountability Incentives So Inclusion Is Rewarded, Not Penalised

Right now, schools that avoid higher‑need pupils are rewarded with better headline data. That’s not accountability; it’s distortion.

We need:

  • A national Inclusion Index that recognises schools that genuinely reflect their communities, or go above and beyond.
  • Consequences for schools with persistent FSM and SEND gaps compared to their catchment
  • Value‑added measures that prioritise progress for vulnerable learners, not just overall averages.

Accountability shouldn’t incentivise exclusion.

5. Improve Transparency So Families Understand What’s Really Going On

Misunderstanding and muddled reputations shape parent choice more than evidence.
School leaders report that 63% believe reputation for SEND provision is a major driver of where SEND pupils end up, and 55% say inclusivity perceptions matter too. I hear this every week as I show parents around my oversubscribed school. I am now 4 over PAN in one year group because I am fed-up having to go to tribunals and court. It is not good use of my time. But, ultimately, when many schools more local to families are not full – we should not even be asked.

We need:

  • A national admissions dashboard—building on the Sutton Trust’s interactive map; to show real intake vs local demographics.
  • Public reporting of actual SEND provision and outcomes so families rely on facts, not folklore.

When information is opaque, inequity thrives and that can be used to make the system even more unequal.

Final Thought

The Sutton Trust report simply confirms what many school leaders at the chalk face have known for years:
Schools with the greatest needs do the hardest work and often get the harshest judgements. It’s been the same in every Ofsted framework – there are those that buck the trend, but they always need to game the system in one way or another.
Meanwhile, schools that quietly curate their intakes enjoy the accolades.

Fixing this isn’t about tinkering. It’s about building a system where serving your community is rewarded, not punished.