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

'Making inclusion a reality, not a rhetoric'

 

We all love a good speech, don’t we? A room full of nodding heads, a leader passionately declaring their commitment to inclusion and how every child matters, even the ones down the road. It feels inspiring and stirs something within us. But the reality is that words, no matter how powerful, do not equate to action.

While speeches can ignite a moral imperative to do good, they cannot equip a teacher grappling with how to adapt their lesson for a child with sensory processing needs. They don’t instill confidence in support staff working with children experiencing complex social, emotional, and mental health challenges. Talking about moral purpose is important, but it’s just the starting point. Inspiration alone is not enough; action and investment are required to make inclusion work.

If we truly want inclusion to mean something, we must ask ourselves: how are we investing in it? Are we equipping our staff with the skills and confidence they need? Are we providing the practical tools and training to support inclusion? These are the critical questions that should guide us.

The reality of SEND funding and support is undeniably challenging. Budget constraints, stretched resources, and increasing demands for specialist provision create significant barriers. But acknowledging these challenges should not weaken our resolve. Instead, it should sharpen our focus on what is within our control: equipping staff with practical skills, fostering collaboration, and maintaining high expectations for every child. Limited funding calls for innovation and determination, not inaction.

If I had to choose between a teacher who cares deeply about children but lacks the skills to meet their needs, or one who is a skilled, adaptive practitioner who can deliver high-quality lessons for all children, I would choose the latter every time. This isn’t to diminish the importance of care; it’s the foundation of our profession. But care alone is not enough. Without competence, even the best intentions can falter when faced with complexity.

Caring is the baseline; it is the job’s starting point. What sets educators apart is their ability to adapt, be agile, and teach in ways that bring out the best in every pupil. Inclusion requires more than good intentions, it demands skill, strategy, and consistent effort.

In leadership, we often celebrate moral purpose as the pinnacle of our intentions. Yet, moral purpose alone does not fund the CPD budget. It doesn’t create time for peer reviews or team planning. It doesn’t ensure high-quality resources are available in classrooms or build teacher confidence. When moral purpose is emphasised without accompanying action, it risks becoming performative—a badge of honour rather than a non-negotiable expectation.

True inclusion means doing what is right for children, which requires investing time, money, and effort. It means moving beyond wanting to make a difference to actually making one. To create inclusive schools, we need to shift our focus from speeches and vision statements to practical strategies and tools that empower staff. This includes:

• Equipping teachers with training that extends beyond awareness and into actionable strategies.
• Providing access to resources like assistive technology and adaptable lesson plans.
• Creating opportunities for collaboration through peer reviews, lesson observations, and shared planning sessions.
• Fostering a culture of reflection and continuous improvement.

Anything we put in place to support action, staff, and children must be of the highest quality. It needs to be quality-assured and grounded in a strong research base. The risk of rushing to implement something without ensuring its effectiveness is significant; poorly executed initiatives can waste funds, time, and capacity, leaving us no better off than if nothing had been done. High-quality, evidence-informed strategies are essential to making a meaningful impact.

The SEND Code of Practice outlines four broad areas of need, and each requires tailored approaches. Embedding reflective questions into decision-making can guide leaders in taking meaningful action:

Communication and Interaction: Are teachers confident in using visuals, scaffolding language, and supporting pupils with speech and language difficulties? How are you ensuring staff understand the needs of pupils with communication challenges?

Cognition and Learning: Do teachers know how to differentiate without diluting expectations? Are staff equipped with practical tools to adapt lessons for children who learn differently?

Social, Emotional, and Mental Health: Are staff trained to recognize signs of anxiety, trauma, or mental health challenges, and do they have strategies to support these pupils? How are you promoting emotional resilience across your school?

Sensory and Physical Needs: Is every classroom accessible, and are adjustments being made to ensure inclusivity? Are staff prepared to implement sensory-friendly practices where necessary?

Reflecting on these areas is not about ticking boxes; it’s about a commitment to develop staff to meet the diverse needs of their pupils consistently, every single day. Inclusion is a practical reality, not just an aspirational goal.

High expectations for all are crucial. One of the biggest barriers to inclusion is the belief that having SEND limits achievement. Skilled teachers challenge this narrative by holding high expectations and removing barriers to learning. Inclusion is not about lowering the bar but ensuring every child has the support needed to reach it and beyond. 

Inclusion is a collective responsibility. Leaders, teachers, and support staff all play a role in fostering a culture of inclusion where children’s diverse needs are met daily. This means:

• Leaders developing policies that prioritise inclusion.
• Teachers embedding adaptive practices into their routines.
• Support staff receiving proactive, not reactive, training.
• Everyone holding themselves accountable for their actions, not just their intentions.

As a school leader, ask yourself: How are you investing in inclusion in your school? Not whether you care about it or believe in its moral purpose, but how you are embedding it into the day-to-day realities of your school’s operations.

The challenges are real, but they are not insurmountable. True inclusion thrives when we focus on what we can do: equipping staff, fostering collaboration, and maintaining high expectations. Inclusion is not a luxury or an add-on; it is the core of our work. Children with SEND deserve more than our compassion. They deserve our competence. So, let’s move beyond words and focus on meaningful action that creates schools where inclusion is not just a vision but a lived reality.

Caring is essential, but doing is what truly counts.