Are inclusive schools becoming victims of their own success?

The recently published report from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) should make uncomfortable reading for anyone involved in school leadership. Its central finding is both striking and concerning: pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are not evenly distributed across England's mainstream schools. Instead, they're becoming increasingly concentrated within a subset of schools. Some schools are carrying significantly higher levels of SEND than others and, in many cases, those differences are growing.

For many headteachers and SENDCOs, this won't come as a surprise. Indeed, many will read the report and simply nod in recognition. They live this reality every day.

The paradox of successful inclusion

One of the most interesting aspects of the report is its exploration of what researchers describe as a 'structural steering effect'. In simple terms, pupils are often drawn towards schools that have developed a strong reputation for inclusion. Parents talk to one another. Professionals make recommendations. Local authorities become aware of schools that consistently go the extra mile. Over time, these schools become known as places that will 'make it work'. This is undoubtedly something to celebrate. Schools should be proud when families feel confident that their children will be welcomed, understood and supported. Yet therein lies the paradox. The very schools that have invested heavily in inclusion can find themselves carrying a disproportionate share of the responsibility. Inclusion becomes both a strength and a burden.

The report highlights how high-SEND schools often develop stronger expertise, more sophisticated systems and greater confidence in meeting need. However, they also report heavier workloads, increasing financial pressures and greater complexity of pupil need. Many school leaders will recognise this immediately. Success in inclusion often creates more demand for inclusion.

The question we (perhaps) rarely ask

The report raises a question that education has perhaps been reluctant to confront directly.

Why are some schools consistently admitting and retaining higher proportions of pupils with SEND than others?

NFER's research suggests the answer is not simply demographics. Parental choice undoubtedly plays a role. School reputation matters. Availability of specialist support and resource provision also influences patterns. However, the report also points towards variation in school practices and willingness to embrace inclusion. Some schools are perceived as less willing to develop a reputation for inclusion, whether because of capacity concerns or anxiety about accountability measures and performance outcomes.

This, for me, is where the debate becomes uncomfortable. If some schools are routinely taking significantly greater responsibility for pupils with SEND, can we really describe the system as equitable?

Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone

One of the strongest messages from the report is that high-SEND schools are disproportionately located in disadvantaged communities. This means that the schools already dealing with higher levels of deprivation are often also carrying higher concentrations of SEND. That should concern policymakers. It should also concern trust leaders, local authorities and school leaders. For too long, our SEND system has relied heavily on the commitment, resilience and determination of individual schools and staff.

Many SENDCOs perform extraordinary work in exceptionally challenging circumstances. Many headteachers have made inclusion a non-negotiable part of their school's identity. But goodwill is not an inexhaustible resource. A system that depends on a relatively small number of highly inclusive schools absorbing increasing levels of need is unlikely to be sustainable.

What should leaders take from this?

For headteachers and SENDCOs, the report offers both validation and challenge. Validation because it acknowledges pressures that many schools have been describing for years. Challenge because it asks us to think beyond our own settings and consider whether inclusion is being shared fairly across local systems. This isn't about blaming schools. Nor is it about suggesting that every school should have identical levels of SEND. Rather, it is about asking whether every school is truly playing its part.

If we genuinely believe that inclusion is everyone's responsibility, then we should expect to see that reflected in admissions, practice, culture and accountability. At present, the evidence suggests that responsibility is not being shared equally.

A final thought

The NFER report leaves us with an important challenge. Some schools have become highly effective at supporting pupils with SEND. They've built expertise, developed inclusive cultures and earned the trust of families. We should celebrate that. But we should also ask why some schools are repeatedly becoming the destination of choice for pupils with SEND whilst others are not.

An inclusive education system cannot depend on a minority of schools carrying a majority of the responsibility. The question is no longer whether some schools are becoming victims of their own success. The question is whether the wider system is prepared to do its fair share.

You can access the full report by the NFER below:

high_send-schools_final-report.pdf

Download PDF • 1.04MB