A shift in language - The White Paper

A shift in language

It has taken me a while to digest the contents of the White Paper. I did not want to react to the headlines or rush to judgement while the sector conversation was still hot and noisy. I wanted to read it properly, sit with it for a bit, and then come back to it again with the reality of my day job in mind. I suspect I will keep returning to it over the coming weeks, particularly as we shape our response to the consultation.

I have written before, both here and elsewhere, about the gap that can open up between words and action, and about how inclusion can very quickly become a slogan if we are not careful. I have also said that moral purpose is the baseline, not the finish line, because it does not equip a teacher on a wet and miserable Thursday afternoon (and we have had plenty of those) with the confidence and tools to teach a class with wide-ranging needs. I tried to read this White Paper with the same lens I bring into schools every week. What is the intent? What are the practical implications? And what will actually change for pupils with SEND and the adults supporting them?

If I strip it back, I think I feel cautiously hopeful. Not because I am easily won over by a well-written narrative, but because in places the language does feel like it is trying to move us away from a deficit frame and towards something more collaborative and more human.

The view from the ground

I work in a trust, and most of my week is spent in and alongside schools with headteachers, SENCos, classroom teachers and support staff who are doing their best to hold inclusive practice together in real classrooms, with real budgets, real staffing pressures and real children whose needs do not wait for national reform to bed in. Our trust serves very different communities. We have schools in coastal contexts, small village schools, larger town schools, schools with higher levels of deprivation and schools with very different pupil profiles. The contexts vary quite a lot, but the challenges are remarkably similar.

What is consistent across them is the skill and commitment of staff who genuinely want to do the right thing for pupils with SEND, even when the system around them makes that harder than it should be. That was particularly clear earlier this week when we held a SENCo forum and spent some time looking at the White Paper together, thinking about how it might land for SENCos and for the role itself. It turned into one of those really rich professional conversations where people were able to reflect honestly about the system we are currently working in, but also about what could shift if the conditions were right. What struck me most was not cynicism, but a profession that feels ready for change. There was challenge, of course, but also a strong sense that many of the ideas in the paper resonate with what practitioners have been trying to build in schools for years.

That is the question I kept returning to as I read the document: does this help those professionals do their jobs better?

A shift in tone

The tone is noticeably different to 2014. The reforms that came in then were necessary, and I would not want to lose what they secured in terms of entitlement and statutory clarity. But the language of that period was often procedural and deficit heavy. It centred on gaps, needs, thresholds and failure to meet expected standards. This paper feels slightly different in how it positions children and the purpose of education. Even the title, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, signals something broader than attainment alone. Thriving is not a technical term. It is a human one. It suggests belonging, confidence, participation and growth.

One line that stood out to me was the repeated framing of high standards and inclusion as “two sides of the same coin.” I have argued before that separating inclusion from achievement can create some perverse incentives, particularly in a system that remains heavily outcome driven. When inclusion becomes a separate badge, or a separate judgement, schools can start to feel they must choose between being inclusive and protecting results. What is significant about that line is that it removes the false choice. It positions inclusion not as a competing priority but as integral to strong teaching and strong outcomes.

There is also language that nudges us away from a narrow deficit frame. The paper refers to children being “supported and stretched” and explicitly mentions those who are “progressing but capable of even more.” For pupils with SEND, that shift in emphasis matters. One of the most persistent low-level narratives in education is that additional need somehow equals limited ambition. On the ground, the reality is holding two truths at once. Some children need careful scaffolding and thoughtful adaptation in order to access the learning, and those same children still deserve stretch, curiosity, challenge and high expectations. The language suggests an intention to keep aspiration firmly in the frame.

One of the more significant structural changes sits in the proposed update to the Code of Practice. For over a decade we have organised SEND through the four “areas of need”. The consultation proposes replacing those with five “areas of development”. That might sound like a small wording change, but it is not. The document is quite clear that the intention is to move away from categorising children and from an over-reliance on diagnosis and instead anchor the framework in child development and classroom practice. The proposed areas are Executive Function, Motor and Physical, Sensory, Social and Emotional, and Speech, Language and Communication.

Personally, I think that is a great shift. Moving from “need” to “development” changes the lens. It sees children as dynamic and developing rather than fixed and deficient, and it anchors thinking more firmly in growth, barriers and responsive provision rather than labels. If this language survives consultation and is embedded meaningfully in the refreshed Code and National Inclusion Standards, it could reshape how teachers think about support across all levels. I hope it stays, because it feels like one of the most promising aspects of the reform.

Belonging as a priority

Belonging also appears more explicitly than I expected. The paper commits to improving pupils’ sense of belonging and engagement, and it expects schools to monitor this over time. That is quite a significant cultural marker, because belonging is often treated as a nice-to-have rather than something that sits within the accountability conversation. In trust work we see the relationship between belonging, attendance, behaviour and progress every day. If the system is serious about belonging, it also has to be serious about the conditions that create it, not just the measurement of it. It also brings in the different understanding of ‘Belonging’ from a Church school perspective.

The sections on inclusive mainstream education also contain language that feels intentional. The paper talks about schools being “equipped and funded to support children with SEND to achieve and thrive in inclusive mainstream settings, working together with high-quality specialist provision.” The phrase working together is doing quite a lot of work there. It suggests a model where specialist expertise sits alongside mainstream provision, and where inclusion is built through capacity rather than through drift towards segregation or hierarchy. That aligns with what many trusts are trying to build when things are working well. We strengthen expertise in classrooms, develop adaptive teaching, and use specialist knowledge to grow staff confidence so that inclusion becomes embedded in everyday practice rather than something that happens somewhere else. The paper talks about services wrapping around children and schools, and about collaboration being essential. In principle, that makes complete sense. In practice, this is where my caution sits. Collaboration cannot simply be mandated into existence. It requires aligned incentives, clarity of role, stability and, crucially, capacity. Many schools do not feel they have much spare capacity right now. If collaboration is the ambition, the system will need to be brave about the practical enablers, not just the moral argument.

Which is why I find myself cautiously optimistic rather than celebratory. The language does feel like a shift. It is more relational, more focused on belonging, and more explicit about inclusion and standards being inseparable. But I have also been in education long enough to know that warm words do not automatically translate into changed experiences for pupils with SEND, or for the staff supporting them.

I will keep returning to this paper and reading it through the lens of enactment. How will funding align? How will inspection interpret it? How will workforce development deliver it? And how will mainstream settings be genuinely equipped, rather than simply expected to cope? Because inclusion will only shift if the system changes in ways that make it possible for the people closest to the work to succeed.

Underneath it all

There is also a question sitting underneath all of this that I think the sector will continue to wrestle with: has the paper actually defined inclusion yet? Schools currently hold very different interpretations of what inclusion means in practice. For some, it is primarily about access and participation; for others it is about outcomes, belonging, curriculum access or specialist support. In reality, it is usually some combination of all of these, but without a clearer shared definition the risk is that implementation continues to vary widely from place to place.

The tone and language of the paper are encouraging, and the shift away from deficit framing feels meaningful. But tone alone does not always translate into consistent practice. It raises an important question about whether the reforms will eventually need greater specificity if the aim is genuine consistency across the system.

Ofsted has already started to develop some of this narrative through the work on inclusion within the inspection framework, particularly around belonging, participation and access to high-quality teaching. The real test will be how these different parts of the system align in practice. Will the policy direction, inspection expectations and professional development offer reinforce the same understanding of inclusion, or will schools once again be left interpreting the space between them?

Adaptive teaching guides: Practical tools for equitable classrooms

One of the most pressing priorities in schools right now is ensuring every pupil can access the full ambition of the National Curriculum, not just some of it, not just the 'easier bits', but all of it. this isn’t always happening. For pupils with SEND, access to a high-quality, well-sequenced curriculum isn’t an optional extra. It’s an entitlement. But we still have classrooms where teachers know exactly what they want to teach yet struggle with how to teach it so that every learner, from pupils who need greater scaffolding to those who are ready for advanced stretch and challenge, can engage and succeed. That “how” is where things often unravel. It’s not about knowing the content; it’s about designing lessons that meet the diverse needs of real children, in real time, with all the complexities that brings.

Over the past academic year across Our Community Multi-Academy Trust (OCMAT) we’ve been finding ways to respond to this challenge, not with another shiny initiative, but with something practical, teacher-led, and collaborative. This is where the subject-specific adaptive teaching guides came from. These guides are not prescriptive tools or rigid checklists. They are reflective aids designed to bring unconscious good practice to the surface, acting as prompts to spark thinking rather than formulas to be followed. They encourage teachers, support staff, and subject leaders to adapt thoughtfully, ensuring that high-quality teaching is maintained while being inclusive by design. At their heart, they’re a simple idea: a set of guides for each subject that bring clarity to adaptive teaching, making sure that pupils with SEND, and in truth all pupils, have the scaffolds and access points they need to succeed. But the story behind them isn’t about a piece of paper. It’s about culture. It’s about the belief that inclusion doesn’t live in the SENCo’s office or a bolt-on intervention, but in the everyday decisions that happen when teachers plan, model, and deliver their lessons.

For example, the Geography guide from Dymchurch sets out simple but powerful strategies like vocabulary walls, dual coding, pre-teaching of tricky terms, and retrieval tasks that make complex geographical concepts accessible to all pupils. They have helped staff to see inclusion not as a theoretical idea but as a set of practical, actionable strategies that make a difference. 

The starting point was the work we were already doing, peer-to-peer reviews across the Trust that brought SENCos, school leaders, and school teams together in open, reflective conversations through paired up schools across the trust, with solutions-focused inclusion questions created by schools, happening throughout the year. These reviews were an opportunity for school leaders and SENCos to look at both the micro and macro viewpoints of inclusion and work in a truly integrated way (this is talked about in the previous blog ‘two roles, one mission’ ). They were about listening, spotting the patterns, and asking hard questions about inclusion. What we found wasn’t surprising, but it was telling. Subject leaders were often highly secure in their curriculum knowledge, they could tell you the progression of knowledge in science or history inside out, but they weren’t always confident about how to adapt their teaching for pupils who might struggle or how to explain this to colleagues who were teaching the same curriculum. Not because they didn’t care or weren’t trying, but because inclusive teaching is deeply subject-specific, and the strategies that work in PE don’t necessarily translate to maths or art. We realised what we needed wasn’t a new framework or another layer of “expectations.” We needed a practical tool that teachers could actually use to make their lessons accessible from the start.

Subject leaders are the experts in their field. They know their subject inside out, its progression, its nuances, and the places where pupils are most likely to stumble. Whether it’s an abstract concept in science that feels miles away from pupils’ lived experience, a tricky historical timeline that demands holding multiple events in sequence, or the challenge of connecting a new mathematical skill to previously learned knowledge, subject leaders have the insight to anticipate these sticking points before pupils even encounter them. This deep understanding is what allows them to see where additional scaffolding or adaptive teaching will be needed, not to dilute the challenge, but to make the route to success clearer and more achievable.

When subject leaders work alongside SENCos, this expertise becomes even more powerful. A SENCo brings a wealth of knowledge about learning needs, processing difficulties, and the kinds of barriers that can turn a challenging concept into an insurmountable one for certain pupils. Together, they can design adaptations that are both targeted and subject-specific ,  refining explanations, sequencing tasks differently, or using visual and practical scaffolds to help pupils make the necessary connections. It’s not about bolting on “extra” support but about designing lessons that allow all pupils to access the core learning in a meaningful way. When this collaboration is embedded, it transforms the classroom: lessons become more thoughtfully structured, and pupils who might otherwise disengage are able to participate fully and succeed.

This work began as a direct response to the challenges we identified during our peer reviews. Time and again, we could see that teachers understood their subjects and their pupils, but they often lacked a practical, subject-specific reference point for adaptive teaching. I wanted to create something that didn’t add to workload but instead made planning for inclusion feel natural and achievable. I started with the Whole School SEND Teacher Handbook (Here ) specifically the subject guidance, and used it as the backbone for what would become our adaptive teaching guides. It’s an excellent resource, full of clear, evidence-informed strategies that focus on removing barriers without lowering expectations. From there, I built the first draft: a skeletal mock-up designed to be a flexible starting point, not a prescriptive checklist.

The first school to trial these adaptive teaching guides was Dymchurch, led by the brilliant SENCo and Head of School, Jenny Ross, along with her team. I shared the early drafts with them, and what followed was an honest, collaborative process of feedback and refinement. Together, they edited the adaptive teaching guides to reflect the school’s internal resources, preferred approaches, and scaffolding methods. The team at Dymchurch took the framework and made it their own ,  tailoring it so it felt authentic and aligned to the way they already taught, while adding practical tweaks that made it even more useful. This stage of co-construction was invaluable. It ensured that the adaptive teaching guides were not just a “trust initiative,” but something grounded in the reality of classrooms and shaped by the people who would be using them day to day.

Each one is built around a few key prompts: the classroom environment, the resources, the teaching approaches, and how we check understanding in ways that don’t exclude pupils. We’ve included practical strategies like modelling, sentence stems, dual coding, retrieval practice, not as a tick-list of “SEND things” to do, but as part of what high-quality teaching looks like when you’re thinking about all learners. We also include simple tools like a vocabulary bank or WAGOLL examples (What A Good One Looks Like), because we know how powerful clarity and modelling can be when pupils are struggling to grasp abstract concepts. But at the top of every adaptive teaching guide is the most important question of all: “What challenges or barriers might children face in this subject?” That question shifts the whole conversation. It stops teachers from adding adaptations as an afterthought and starts them designing with equity in mind from the beginning.

Crucially, these adaptive teaching guides are not intended to be a rigid checklist of “must-dos.” They are designed as an aide-memoir, a reflective tool to bring what is often unconscious good practice to the surface. They highlight the strategies that are already happening in classrooms and give them visibility, acting as a trigger for teachers to consider the “how” of their teaching as much as the “what.” A struggling Early Career Teacher can glance at the adaptive teaching guide while planning and immediately see practical ideas for scaffolding a lesson without lowering its ambition. A member of support staff can use it to think through how they might best assist a pupil with a specific barrier. A subject leader can use it as a conversation starter when explaining to colleagues how to approach their subject inclusively and consistently. 

In the Art and DT guide, inclusion is built through classroom layout, visual modelling of techniques, and space for creative exploration. It encourages gradually introducing equipment, scaffolding practical skills, and using peer or group discussion to share ideas. This kind of support ensures pupils with fine motor difficulties or anxiety around creativity are not excluded but instead encouraged to build confidence step by step.

The PE guide demonstrates how accessibility can be built into a highly physical subject. It focuses on equipment adaptation ,  such as using larger balls or introducing paralympic sports like boccia and ensuring all pupils can engage meaningfully. It includes ideas for formative assessment based on progress from individual starting points, and it highlights the importance of clear visual and verbal modelling.

While these adaptive teaching guides were designed with SEND in mind, they’ve proven to be just as beneficial for every learner. The research behind them, from Rosenshine’s principles to the Whole School SEND Teacher Handbook, is all about reducing cognitive load and improving memory and engagement. They help every child, not just those with additional or different needs. 

Some schools across the trust are already showing what happens when a more linear and consistent approach to teaching is embedded across multiple subjects. You can see threads running through lessons, the way modelling is structured, the way scaffolds are built in, the way assessment flows naturally into teaching. These schools are developing a shared pedagogy that is not only inclusive but also predictable and supportive for pupils. Over time, as these approaches become more refined and cemented within assessment and teaching practices, this consistency will grow. I believe that in time, we will see all schools in the trust move towards this model, where teaching is inclusive by design rather than by addition.

One of the reasons these adaptive teaching guides have worked (albeit early days!) is because they were co-created. They weren’t cooked up in an office and sent out as a directive. We built them with our subject network leads, with SENCos, and with teachers who were actually in the classroom, testing and refining them. We even discovered strengths we didn’t know we had along the way, like bilingual staff who helped us create multilingual vocabulary banks, or maths leads who dusted off forgotten manipulatives to make abstract ideas concrete again.

The impact has been noticeable. Ofsted inspectors have commented, more than once, on the clarity these adaptive teaching guides bring to lesson design, particularly in supporting inclusion. Teachers have said they’re easier to use than many of the over-engineered planning templates we’ve all seen come and go. And most importantly, pupils are feeling the difference. Lessons are more accessible, more structured, and more thoughtfully scaffolded, but without losing ambition or challenge.

We’re not pretending the adaptive teaching guides are a finished product. They’re living documents, constantly being refined as teachers use them and feedback. They don’t add to workload; they strip away the noise and give teachers a structure that works. 

It is also important to acknowledge that not every child will be able to fully access the National Curriculum, even with the most thoughtful adaptations and scaffolds in place. Some pupils require a truly bespoke curriculum that is tailored to their individual needs, often focusing on life skills, communication, or sensory regulation as much as academic progress. Recognising this is not a weakness in teaching or planning it is an essential part of inclusion. The adaptive teaching guides are not designed to ‘fix’ every barrier but to support the vast majority of pupils in accessing a challenging, meaningful curriculum while ensuring that those who need personalised provision are identified and supported appropriately.

When we talk about inclusion, we’re really talking about equity. Inclusion is the why. Equity is the how. And the adaptive teaching guides are one example of how we take the why, the belief that no pupil should be left behind, and make it real in the classroom. They remind us that the job isn’t just to cover the curriculum, but to make sure it’s truly accessible. Because if a pupil can’t access it, they can’t learn it. And if they can’t learn it, then the curriculum isn’t doing its job.

This work is still evolving, and it always will be. But every time I see a subject lead and SENCo planning together, identifying the tricky vocabulary in history or the conceptual leaps in maths, I’m reminded of why we started this. It’s about making inclusion the starting point, not the adjustment. When that happens, classrooms stop being places where some pupils just “get by” and start being places where every child can thrive.

Part two: Two roles, One mission (Practical strategies)

This is the second blog in a two-part series exploring how SENCos and school leaders can work in deeper, more strategic alignment to lead inclusion across their schools. In part one, we looked at the different models of partnership, what they look like, why they matter, and how they impact pupils with SEND. Now, in part two, we move from vision to action. Here, we share a set of practical, sustainable strategies that can help shift schools toward more inclusive, collaborative ways of working.

 Practical Strategies for SENCo and School Leader Collaboration
So how do we begin to shift towards that truly integrated model of working? The model where inclusion is not something tagged onto the SENCo’s to-do list, but instead embedded into every discussion, every decision, and every layer of school life?
The honest answer is that there is no single formula that works for everyone. There is no polished blueprint, no guaranteed sequence of steps that will deliver inclusion overnight. Every school is different, shaped by its culture, its structure, its size, and its wider context. But what can make a significant difference are the small, strategic shifts that help build stronger collaboration between SENCos and school leaders. These strategies are not intended to add more to an already overwhelming workload, nor do they claim to be quick fixes. Instead, they are offered as gentle invitations to reflect, try something new, and begin laying more intentional foundations for inclusion.
 
Start with a heat map

This may sound deceptively simple, but in practice, it can be transformational. Many schools already use heat maps effectively in phonics assessment and planning, where they help identify patterns of need, highlight gaps, and inform targeted teaching. The same principle can be applied to leadership collaboration. At the start of the year or term, find time to sit down together and create a heat map that charts the pressure points in both of your roles.

Think about key periods such as annual review deadlines, census submissions, internal assessment cycles, performance management meetings, report-writing windows, moderation schedules, and the inevitable flurry of activity just before an Ofsted visit.

By mapping these peak stress points out visually on a calendar, both the SENCo and the school leader can begin to develop a shared understanding of the demands each person is facing. This exercise encourages empathy, reduces frustration, and helps to explain those occasional missed emails or cancelled check-ins. That unanswered message might have landed just as the SENCo was knee-deep in 27 EHCP reviews. That missed conversation may have coincided with a day when the school leader was managing multiple staff absences and a complex safeguarding issue.

While a heat map does not reduce anyone’s workload, it does bring a sense of clarity, and that clarity becomes an act of kindness. It enables forward planning and helps create protected time for meaningful conversations and joint decision-making. It encourages both roles to think proactively and respectfully about when and how to connect.

 

Plan together with intention

Joint planning does not need to be elaborate or time-consuming, but it does need to be deliberate. Establish regular opportunities to sit down together and review what is working, what is not, and what needs attention. Use this time to explore the current provision in school. What is having impact? Where are the gaps? Which interventions are no longer meeting pupils’ needs? Are children with SEND making expected progress? What is the data telling you, and perhaps more importantly, what are your professional instincts telling you beyond the numbers?

Bring others into these conversations too. Phase leaders, curriculum leads, pastoral staff, and other key voices should be part of this collaborative thinking. These are not just meetings about SEND. They are meetings about inclusion, and inclusion should thread through every layer of school life.

When planning is conducted in this way, it moves SEND out of a corner labelled "support" and places it at the heart of whole-school improvement.

Give the SENCo a strategic voice

Inclusion gains real traction when the SENCo is positioned as part of the strategic leadership team. This means not only being consulted once decisions are made, but being included from the outset so they can actively shape the direction of those decisions.

Consider the areas where the SENCo’s expertise could influence whole-school planning. This could include staffing deployment, curriculum sequencing, timetable structure, or the focus of professional development. Imagine the difference it might make if they were involved in shaping behaviour policy before it is rolled out, or if their perspective was central to how phase transitions are planned and supported.

This kind of visibility benefits the whole school. It allows inclusion to be designed in from the beginning, rather than retrofitted after the fact. It enables schools to take a proactive rather than reactive stance, creating systems that work for all children from the outset.

 

Walk in each other’s shoes

There is nothing quite as powerful as stepping into each other’s world. School leaders benefit from taking time to observe a small-group intervention or sitting in on a multi-agency meeting. Likewise, SENCos gain valuable insight by attending curriculum planning sessions, participating in staffing discussions, or joining parent and carer briefings.

This is not about scrutiny or judgement. It is about developing perspective. By seeing the emotional labour, the decision-making, and the expertise required in each other’s work, both professionals become more generous in their assumptions. Trust deepens. Empathy grows. And collaboration becomes more authentic and grounded in mutual respect.

These moments of shared observation, though brief, create a lasting impact. They help break down the idea that there are separate and distinct roles with separate and distinct responsibilities. Instead, they build a shared mindset that we are all in this together.

Learn side by side

Professional development is not just about acquiring new strategies. It can also be a powerful tool for connection, alignment, and building a shared culture. When SENCos and school leaders engage in training together, they begin to develop a common language and a unified understanding of what effective, inclusive practice looks like in their school. This shared experience helps to uncover assumptions, explore new approaches, and establish a joint vision for inclusion.

This kind of learning can take many forms. It might involve participating in a trust-wide training day focused on adaptive teaching, attending a national SEND conference, or joining a collaborative session with local or trust schools. The specific format matters less than the quality of the learning experience and the depth of reflection that follows. High-quality professional development offers content that is relevant, thought-provoking, and closely aligned to the day-to-day challenges and opportunities within schools. 

Just as important as the quality of input is what happens next. The real impact comes from how the learning is interpreted, shared, and embedded over time. After a training session, it is helpful to ask questions such as: What resonated most strongly? What challenged our current thinking? What can we take back to school and apply? What might need to be adapted to suit our setting? Who else in the school community needs to be involved in this work? And what support might be needed to ensure the learning translates into sustained change?

Some of the most powerful professional learning moments come from discomfort. Those moments when thinking is stretched, when familiar ideas are questioned, and when new insights begin to take shape. That is where deep learning begins. When these moments are experienced side by side by the SENCo and the school leader, they become a foundation for honest discussion, thoughtful planning, and long-term collaboration.

Professional development should not be seen as a one-off event. It is a catalyst for change. When approached with purpose and followed through with action, it becomes the bridge between strategic leadership and everyday inclusive practice.

Ask the question that matters most: 

There is one deceptively simple question that can act as a compass for any team seeking to build a more inclusive culture...

‘What do we hope our pupils would say about how we work together?’

Would they describe a joined-up team? Would they say that adults communicate well, that systems are clear, and that support is consistent? Or would they describe a gap between what they need and what they receive? Would they notice when systems feel fragmented, or decisions seem disconnected?

Let that question guide the work. Because when pupils can see the strength of collaboration between adults, they begin to trust the structures around them. That trust forms the foundation for every other element of support.

It’s not more work. It’s the right work

None of these strategies are flashy. They are not expensive to implement, and once embedded, they are not time-consuming either. But what they all have in common is intentionality. They are rooted in the belief that inclusive practice does not emerge from policy documents alone. It takes shape in the conversations we prioritise, in the empathy we show, and in the consistency we model across the school.

No one will get everything perfect every time, and perfection is not the goal. Progress is.

If you can take one intentional step this term, one shared conversation, one moment of joint reflection, one decision made together, then you are already moving in the right direction.

Because in the end, this is not about adding to an already heavy workload. It is about setting a new direction. It is about building a school culture where inclusion is not the responsibility of one person, but the shared responsibility of a whole team.

These strategies will not solve every challenge. They are not magic solutions. But they can serve as anchors. And in a system that can often feel uncertain and ever-shifting, anchoring to what matters most, to shared purpose and meaningful collaboration, may be the most powerful move we can make.

There is no need to wait for the system to change. There is no need to wait for permission. The children in our classrooms are not waiting.

Let us lead inclusion, together.

(This blog was originally written as a keynote for Challenge Partners, a fantastic organisation doing incredible work to support collaboration and improvement across the education system. I had the privilege of speaking to leaders who were either exploring what it means to join Challenge Partners or preparing to embark on their peer-to-peer SEND review work. It was a space filled with curiosity, purpose, and a genuine commitment to doing better for all children, particularly those with SEND)

Part one: Two roles, One mission

This blog is the first in a two-part series exploring how SENCos and school leaders can work together to lead truly inclusive schools. In this first instalment, we take a deep dive into the models of partnership that exist across the system. These range from isolated and disconnected ways of working to fully integrated approaches that drive sustainable change. The most impactful change begins with aligned leadership. In the second blog, we will explore practical and achievable strategies that bring this vision to life. But first, let us understand why this partnership matters so deeply.

Inclusion is not a bolt-on, nor is it a standalone policy or the responsibility of just one person. It is a culture, something woven into the very fabric of our schools and trusts. And that culture only truly thrives when two key roles are working in deep and deliberate alignment: the SENCo and the school leader.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of wearing many hats in education. I’ve been a class teacher, a curriculum lead, a school leader, and a SENCo, often all at once in the wonderful chaos that comes with leading in a small school. Today, my focus has widened. I work across systems, supporting inclusion at scale to ensure that every pupil, and especially those with SEND, receives what they need to thrive.

The majority of schools and trusts follow the SEND Code of Practice, which clearly positions the SENCo as most effective when on the leadership team. 

Section 6.87 of the SEND Code of Practice (2015):

“The SENCO has an important role to play with the headteacher and governing body in determining the strategic development of SEN policy and provision in the school. They will be most effective in that role if they are part of the school leadership team.”

 This ensures that inclusion is considered in all strategic planning and decision-making processes. In this blog, I have chosen to use the term ‘school leaders’ to refer specifically to those in headteacher, head of school, or executive leadership roles. This is to reflect the varied leadership structures now found across trusts and larger organisations. Of course, it goes without saying that all leaders have a responsibility for SEND. However, this blog focuses on how SENCos and senior leaders can work together in a more cohesive and deliberate way to drive inclusive practice at every level.

The educational landscape we’re operating in is far from stable. Political shifts, curriculum changes, and evolving accountability frameworks all seem to move without a clear or consistent direction. For those of us leading inclusion, that kind of ambiguity isn’t just challenging...it’s exhausting. The frameworks we rely on remain inconsistent across the country. Local Authorities interpret the SEND Code of Practice in different ways, leaving schools to navigate a landscape of uncertainty while also trying to balance budgets, meet attainment targets, and respond to an ever-increasing complexity of need.

Both SENCos and school leaders are stretched. SENCos are often overwhelmed by paperwork, education health and care plans, multi-agency meetings, and the constant need to respond to urgent issues. At the same time, school leaders are juggling a wide spectrum of responsibilities including pupil outcomes, safeguarding, staffing, and finances. And somewhere within this complex web sits the child – the one in front of us today – not the one who might benefit from a reform that arrives later down the road. 

This is why how we lead matters more than ever. While none of us can fix the entire system single-handedly, we can absolutely change how we lead within it. That is within our control. And that is where the real work begins.

 

The Four Ways SENCos and School Leaders Work Together

Over the years, I’ve seen the full spectrum of SENCo and school leader partnerships. From reactive systems running on caffeine and crisis, to deeply collaborative teams where inclusion is woven into the school’s DNA. Most of us don’t live in one model permanently, we shift between them depending on the term, the pressure, or the people in post. But understanding these working models helps us name where we are now and imagine what’s possible next. 

The first model is often referred to as ‘working in silos’. In this scenario, both the SENCo and the school leader are operating at full capacity. They are highly competent, deeply committed, and moving at speed, but entirely disconnected from one another. The SENCo is immersed in the daily demands of provision mapping, completing EHCP paperwork, responding to staff queries, and coordinating external agencies. At the same time, the school leader is managing a broad range of responsibilities, from safeguarding and staffing restructures to performance targets, premises issues, and budget concerns.

Each role is essential. Each individual is working hard. Both may genuinely believe that the other is simply getting on with it. On the surface, this can resemble mutual trust, and in many cases, that trust is real. However, beneath that, there lies a fundamental problem. The work is not joined up. The inclusion agenda does not always feed into wider curriculum discussions. Resourcing decisions and timetabling often overlook what is needed for inclusion to be truly effective. Teachers may assume that inclusion is the SENCo’s responsibility alone, rather than recognising it as a shared, whole-school commitment. The result is that pupils with SEND risk being treated as peripheral in key conversations, when in fact they should be central to every aspect of planning and practice.

Closely linked to this is another model that presents particular challenges. This is often referred to as ‘working in isolation’. Here, the SENCo is given full responsibility for inclusion, but without the partnership, influence, or structural support needed to lead that work in a meaningful and sustainable way. At first glance, this may appear to be a position of independence or even empowerment. However, on closer inspection, it becomes clear that this is not true autonomy. Instead, it is isolation disguised as autonomy. The SENCo becomes a lone figure, carrying the burden of provision, paperwork, and problem-solving without the backing of a wider leadership team. They are often left out of strategic discussions, even when their input would be critical in shaping the school’s response to its most vulnerable learners. They are the person everyone turns to when something goes wrong, but they are rarely included when systems are being designed to prevent those issues in the first place. This model cannot be sustained over time. More importantly, it is not fair. It places one individual between a child and the support they need. If that individual is overworked, unwell, or simply stretched too thin, the entire system around that child becomes fragile.

A third model, which often proves the most difficult to challenge, is known as ‘collaboration without vision’. At first glance, this model can appear promising. The SENCo and the school leader meet regularly. They may co-write policies and deliver CPD sessions together. There is clear evidence of joint activity and some shared responsibility.

However, beneath that surface-level collaboration, there is no unifying sense of direction or shared philosophy driving the work forward. There is motion, sometimes a lot of it, but very little meaning. Without a clear definition of what inclusion looks like in their context, and without shared values that underpin their decisions, the work becomes transactional. A policy is updated. An intervention is delivered. A CPD session is logged. But the deeper questions remain unanswered. Are these actions contributing to a broader vision for inclusive practice? Are they shifting the school culture in a lasting way? Are they sustainable?

In schools operating within this model, inclusion is often perceived as a project or a temporary initiative rather than a core principle that informs every aspect of teaching and leadership. As a result, staff may engage only at a surface level, doing what is asked of them without fully understanding the purpose or importance of the work. Pupils may still receive support, but that support comes from a system that lacks coherence, clarity, and long-term resilience.

Finally, there is the model that represents the gold standard. This is referred to as ‘integration as a team’. This is the point where the SENCo is no longer viewed as someone who is simply consulted about SEND matters. Instead, they are recognised as a strategic leader whose voice shapes all aspects of school development. In these schools, the SENCo has a seat at the leadership table. This is not a token gesture, or something done out of courtesy, but rather a recognition that their insights are essential to driving school improvement. This partnership is visible in everyday practice. The school improvement plan reflects a genuine commitment to inclusion. Budget planning takes account of the cost of interventions, the deployment of teaching assistants, and the provision of things like assistive technology. Curriculum leads collaborate with the SENCo to design and adapt resources in a meaningful way, rather than viewing adaptation as an afterthought or an optional extra.

In these schools, CPD is co-designed and co-delivered. Every member of staff understands that inclusion is not the responsibility of one person. It is everyone’s business. Teachers feel supported to meet diverse needs in the classroom. Families experience consistent, joined-up communication. Most importantly, pupils with SEND feel seen, valued, and understood.

What truly makes this model powerful is not just the structures that support it, but the mindset that drives it. The SENCo and the school leader work in tandem. They plan together, reflect together, and problem-solve together. They celebrate progress as a shared achievement and respond to challenges as a united team. This culture of shared responsibility gradually takes root, spreading throughout the school and transforming the way people think, feel, and act when it comes to inclusion.

Of course, not every school can operate in that fourth model all of the time. It takes patience, mutual respect, and intentional effort to get there. However, when schools can be honest about where they are now, and clear about where they want to go, they can begin to take deliberate steps in that direction.

 Perhaps the more helpful question is not “Which model are we in?” but rather “What is one meaningful action we can take this term to move closer to full integration?”

It might be something as simple as co-planning an INSET session, delivering a piece of CPD together, or attending a joint meeting with a parent. These small shifts matter, and over time, they build momentum.

In the end, real inclusion does not begin with policy. It begins with people. It begins with two professionals, aligned in purpose, committed to one mission, and choosing, day by day, to lead together.

 This is where inclusive leadership begins, not with policy, but with people. When SENCos and school leaders intentionally choose to lead together, they create schools where pupils with SEND are not an afterthought, but a central part of every decision. If this blog helped you name where your school might be now, the next step is to take action. Head to part two of this series, where we’ll explore tangible, real-world strategies that can help deepen collaboration and embed inclusion across your school.

(This blog was originally written as a keynote for Challenge Partners, a fantastic organisation doing incredible work to support collaboration and improvement across the education system. I had the privilege of speaking to leaders who were either exploring what it means to join Challenge Partners or preparing to embark on their peer-to-peer SEND review work. It was a space filled with curiosity, purpose, and a genuine commitment to doing better for all children, particularly those with SEND)

Ofsted’s Inclusion Judgment: A step forward or a risky detour?

 

Ofsted’s decision to introduce a standalone ‘Inclusion’ judgement in its new framework sounds like a win for equity on paper. After all, making inclusion a front-and-centre priority sends a strong message about valuing all learners. But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear that this well-intentioned move could actually create perverse incentives that pull schools away from true inclusivity.

Even more concerning, the framework is being rolled out before the government has actually defined what inclusion should look like. This means Ofsted is essentially setting the standard before national policy catches up, a move that could shape school decision-making in ways we haven’t yet anticipated.

Ofsted’s new approach breaks down school evaluations into separate judgements, one for ‘achievement’ and one for ‘inclusion.’ But here’s the problem: schools are still ultimately judged on results, and the pressure to maintain strong academic outcomes might push some to prioritise performance over real inclusion.

Let’s be blunt, schools have been accused of off-rolling vulnerable students before, and this framework doesn’t necessarily remove that risk. Instead, it creates a scenario where inclusion and academic success could feel like competing priorities, rather than two sides of the same coin. Schools may start gaming the system by subtly shifting away from admitting or fully supporting pupils with additional needs to protect their achievement ratings.

Inclusion isn’t a department, a programme, or a standalone metric; it should run through everything a school does. But by isolating it as its own judgement, the framework risks reducing it to a box-ticking exercise, rather than embedding it into every aspect of school life.

A quick scan of the school inspection toolkit shows some references to inclusion across other areas like curriculum and leadership, but not enough to ensure it’s truly integrated. If inclusion isn’t central to the way teaching, learning, behaviour, and leadership are assessed, then schools might focus on ‘looking inclusive’ rather than actually being inclusive.

By rolling out this framework before the government has locked down its definition of inclusion, Ofsted is effectively leading the conversation on what ‘good’ looks like. That might not sound like a bad thing, but it means schools are being pushed to meet an undefined standard that could shift later. This creates uncertainty and risks schools making short-term, compliance-driven decisions rather than embedding meaningful, long-term inclusive practice.

In short: if we don’t know what great inclusion looks like yet, how can schools be judged on it fairly?

The Impact on Small Schools

Small schools are set to be disproportionately affected by this framework. With fewer pupils, their achievement data is more volatile; one or two students with additional needs can significantly skew their results. If inclusion and achievement are judged separately, small schools may feel forced to make impossible choices: commit to being truly inclusive and risk lower achievement scores or prioritise academic outcomes at the expense of inclusivity.

However, it is critical to highlight that not all pupils with SEND or additional needs are lower achieving. In fact, many excel academically, and it is within this group that we can find some of the best examples of how strong, inclusive practice supports both academic achievement and good progress. The focus should not just be on perceived deficits but on identifying and scaling up the 'bright spots' of effective inclusion that enable all pupils, regardless of need, to thrive.

We already know that small schools often excel at creating close-knit, inclusive environments, but they have less flexibility in redistributing resources and support. Without safeguards, this framework could unintentionally discourage small schools from admitting pupils with high levels of need, leading to a further concentration of SEND provision in certain schools and deepening existing inequalities.

Additionally, this separation of inclusion and achievement could lead to unintended consequences for parents of children with SEND. Parents may be faced with difficult decisions when choosing a school, particularly if a school has been rated as 'exemplary' in achievement but has lower outcomes for inclusion, or vice versa. This could result in families avoiding schools that appear to prioritise results over inclusivity, or conversely, choosing schools with strong inclusion ratings but weaker academic outcomes. In turn, this could further polarise schools and exacerbate existing inequities in education.

Despite these concerns, credit where it’s due, Ofsted putting inclusion in the spotlight is a move in the right direction. Ensuring schools are properly held to account for supporting all learners, particularly the most vulnerable, is essential. But for this to work, inclusion needs to be a golden thread running through every judgement, not a standalone checkbox.

If we want real, meaningful change, we need the right foundations first. That means defining what ‘exemplary’ inclusion actually looks like before holding schools to it, ensuring that all aspects of school life reflect inclusive practice, and protecting small schools from being unfairly penalised.

The new framework is an attempt to balance standards with inclusivity, but in its current form, it risks driving schools towards surface-level compliance rather than deep, systemic change. Inclusion and achievement can’t be competing priorities; they have to be embedded together.

Instead of carving out inclusion as its own category, let’s integrate it into every aspect of school evaluation. And before we judge schools on ‘exemplary’ inclusion, let’s make sure we actually know what that means.

(Also, It still looks like a Nando’s spice board)

Governors, Trustees & Inclusion: How to spot what’s working in your schools

If you're a school governor or trustee, you’ll know that your role isn’t just about showing up to meetings and reviewing policies, it’s about making a real impact on the school community. You’re the bridge between strategy and practice, and your influence can shape an inclusive, high-quality education for every child.

Navigating the world of governance, especially when it comes to SEND, can feel like learning a new language. That’s why I’ve put together an example list to complement the checklist for Governors and Trustees, expanding on the key areas covered in the DfE guidance. This checklist isn’t just a list of responsibilities, it includes real, practical examples of what to look for in your schools and what evidence might be available to demonstrate effective inclusion. I have also created a simple Acronym sheet to support when discussing education in general terms, but also areas of SEND. 

The foundation of this checklist comes straight from the 'Special educational needs and disabilities: guidance for school governing boards for school governing boards'  (Yes, I do actually read these documents so you don’t have to!) The original framework sets out the statutory duties, but I’ve taken it a step further by giving you clear, concrete examples of what you might see in action at your schools. Please be aware that this is based on Primary School information, but I have created a link to the document should you wish to edit and add additional information. 

The checklist is packed with insights on:

• How to tell if your school promotes an inclusive culture 
• Ways to check parental engagement and communication. Are parents of SEND pupils involved, heard, and supported?
• Ensuring the pupil voice is central to decisions about their support. What opportunities do pupils with SEND have to share their views?
• Where and how SEN funding is allocated. Are interventions well-funded and effective?
• How well your school works with the local authority on EHCPs and support services.
• Whether your school’s SEND staff have the expertise and CPD they need to support all learners.
• How progress monitoring is done, because data matters, but so do real outcomes for pupils.
• Preparing for adulthood and transitions, Is the school setting up pupils for success beyond the classroom?

No more guessing: The acronym crib sheet

If you’ve ever sat in a meeting and felt like everyone was speaking in code, welcome to the club.  That’s why I’ve also pulled together a Crib Sheet of Education Acronyms, a quick-reference guide to help you decode all those terms (EHCP? APDR? DSL? Yeah, I've got you covered).

If you want to dig into the source material, you can find the DfE’s full guidance here: Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disabilities Guidance for School Governing Boards

Word of warning: Some Acronyms are county specific, so may need changing. 

Checklist for Governors and Trustees

Governors and trustees will wish to be assured that:

The school promotes an inclusive culture

Evidence might include:

• School vision and values explicitly reference inclusion.
• Classroom observations show adaptive teaching strategies.
• Whole-school CPD records demonstrate staff training on inclusive practice.
• Data on participation in extracurricular activities by pupils with SEND.
• Displays, assemblies, and newsletters highlight diversity and inclusion.
• Case studies of how pupils with SEND are supported and included in mainstream settings.

There is effective communication and engagement between the school and parents of pupils with SEN and disabilities

Evidence might include:

• Records of regular parent meetings, workshops, and support groups.
• Feedback from parent surveys on school communication.
• Evidence of co-production in EHCP reviews and SEN support plans.
• Email/newsletter communication regarding SEND provision updates.
• Minutes from SEND parent forums or coffee mornings.

Parents are involved in reviewing the school’s general SEN and disability policy and practice

Evidence might include:

• Parent consultation meetings with feedback.
• SEND parent representation in school governance or advisory groups.
• Published SEN policies include references to parent contributions.
• Evidence of responses to parental feedback in SEN policy updates.

The pupil voice is central to decisions about support for those with SEN and disabilities, at both individual and school levels

Evidence might include:

• Pupil feedback recorded in One Page Profiles or EHCPs.
• Participation of pupils with SEND in school councils or focus groups.
• Visual or recorded evidence of pupils contributing to reviews of their support.
• Pupil surveys on the effectiveness of their support.

Funding, including SEN funding, is allocated and spent effectively

Evidence might include:

• SEN funding breakdown in budget reports (e.g., staffing, interventions, resources).
• Costed provision maps showing how support is allocated.
• Impact analysis of interventions funded by the SEN budget.
• External funding applications for additional SEN resources.

The school works effectively with the local authority in reviewing SEN and disability provision

Evidence might include:

• School SEND Information Report aligns with the Local Offer and includes the Trust offer.
• Records of meetings with the LA regarding provision and EHCP processes.
• Examples of referrals made to LA specialist services.
• Evidence of engagement with local SEND networks or panels.

Staff have the expertise needed to support pupils with SEN and disabilities and access external specialist skills where required

Evidence might include:

• SENCo training records, qualifications, and CPD logs.
• Records of whole-staff and targeted SEN CPD.
• Deployment of external specialists (e.g., Educational Psychologists, SALT, OT).
• Case studies showing the impact of specialist support on pupil outcomes.

Governors and trustees should be satisfied with how the school:

Identifies pupils with SEN or disabilities and applies the 'graduated approach'

Evidence might include:

• Clear SEN identification process in the SEND policy.
• Examples of Assess-Plan-Do-Review (APDR) cycles.
• Intervention records showing graduated response strategies.
• Pupil Progress Meeting records demonstrating discussions on SEND identification.

Monitors the progress and development of pupils with SEN and disabilities

Evidence might include:

• SEN tracking data and comparisons with whole-school progress.
• Individual pupil progress reports.
• Termly review meetings for pupils on the SEND register.
• EHCP annual review reports with progress updates. 

Supports pupils in preparing for adulthood at each age and stage

Evidence might include:

• Evidence of independence skills development in curriculum planning.
• Transition plans for pupils moving between key stages.
• Secondary transition records, including meetings with receiving schools.
• Use of NDTi resources or other Preparing for Adulthood frameworks.

Governors and trustees of mainstream schools should ensure that the SENCo:

Achieves the relevant mandatory qualification within 3 years of appointment

Evidence might include:

• SENCo’s qualification record (NASENCo certificate or equivalent, soon to be NPQSENCo qualifications).
• Plans for training if newly appointed.

Has sufficient administrative support and time away from teaching to fulfil responsibilities

Evidence might include:

• SENCo’s timetable showing dedicated SEN time.
• Record of administrative support available for SEND administration.
• Comparison of SENCo non-contact time with other strategic roles (e.g., DSL).

Is empowered to support high-quality outcomes for pupils with SEN and disabilities

Evidence might include:

• SENCo’s role in strategic decision-making (e.g., SLT meeting minutes).
• Whole-school improvement plans with SEND priorities.
• Evidence of SEND focus in performance management objectives.

Schools have a duty to prepare and regularly update:

• A SEN Information Report
• Equality information (to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty)
• Equality objectives

Evidence might include:

• Documents published on the school website.
• Evidence of annual review and updates.
• Published equality information document.
• Data on participation and outcomes for different pupil groups.

An accessibility plan (outlining how the school plans to increase access for disabled pupils)

Evidence might include:

• Accessibility plan published on the website.
• Evidence of curriculum adaptations for accessibility.
• Records of physical/environmental improvements (e.g., ramps, sensory areas).

Governors and trustees should also ensure that the school’s SEN and disability policy is reviewed regularly

Evidence might include:

• Minutes from policy review meetings.
• Parent and pupil consultation feedback.
• Published updates with review dates.

Governors and trustees will wish to be assured that these documents help the school to:

• Understand the impact of its policies, practices, and decisions on different groups of pupils.
• Identify areas of inequality that may need to be addressed.
• Help plan for the school to become increasingly inclusive over time.

Education Acronyms Crib Sheet

CPD: Continuing Professional Development

EEF: Education Endowment Foundation

EIF: Education Inspection Framework

ISDR: Inspection Data Summary Report

KS1/KS2: Key Stage 1 / Key Stage 2

LA: Local Authority

MAT: Multi-Academy Trust

NC: National Curriculum

SEF: Self-Evaluation Form

SDP: School Development Plan

SLT: Senior Leadership Team

 

Special Education

ADHD: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

ASC/ASD: Autism Spectrum Condition / Autism Spectrum Disorder

EHCP: Education, Health, and Care Plan

HI/VI: Hearing Impairment / Visual Impairment

MLD/SLD: Moderate Learning Difficulty / Severe Learning Difficulty

SEND: Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

SLCN: Speech, Language, and Communication Needs

 

Safeguarding and Attendance

CAF: Common Assessment Framework

CIN: Child in Need

CP: Child Protection

DSL: Designated Safeguarding Lead

FGM: Female Genital Mutilation

KCSIE: Keeping Children Safe in Education

LAC: Looked After Child

LADO: Local Authority Designated Officer

LESAS: LADO Education Safeguarding Advisory Service ()

MASH: Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

PREVENT: Preventing Extremism and Radicalisation

CME – child missing education

EHE – Elective Home Education

IYCAF – In year casual admission form

KPAS – Kent Pru & Attendance Service

Governors and trustees, you have a huge role in making sure every child, especially those with SEND, gets the education and support they deserve. With this expanded checklist and crib sheet, I hope you’ll feel more equipped to ask the right questions, challenge where needed, and champion inclusion in your schools. 

Please feel free to download and edit as necessary:  Checklist and Acronyms