Why Inclusion for Special Educational Needs Isn’t Working

Why Inclusion for Special Educational Needs is not working

Inclusion is the concept that children with special educational needs (SEN) can thrive in a mainstream school setting. The UK offers an inclusive philosophy but not a structural framework. A modern social concept is failing to function effectively within a Victorian education system. In the UK, the reality often falls short. Deeply rooted structural, financial, and cultural problems mean that many children with SEND are poorly managed and neglected.

1.  Funding Crisis for Special Educational Needs

One of the most glaring problems is that while the number of children identified with SEN has surged, funding and outcomes haven’t kept up.

• According to a County Councils Network report, the number of children with EHCPs has risen dramatically: from ~240,000 in 2015 to nearly 576,000 by 2023/24—a 140% increase.  countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk

• Yet, despite this, educational outcomes have stagnated. The same report finds that only 8% of children with EHCPs achieved the expected levels in reading, writing, and maths at the end of primary school in 2022–23—exactly the same proportion as in 2016–17.  countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk

• Councils warn of a “financial cliff edge”: some say they’d be insolvent if their COVID-era deficits were formally accounted for. countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk

Impact: Schools must deliver more inclusive education without sufficient resources.

2.  Uneven Distribution & ‘Clustering’ of SEND Pupils

Inclusion isn’t evenly spread — and that’s creating pressure points.

• A recent NFER report shows huge inequalities in how SEND pupils are distributed across mainstream schools. Some schools have six times as many EHCP-holding pupils as others.  NFER

• According to The Guardian‘s coverage of the same research, some mainstream schools are actively steering away SEND pupils due to fears over exam performance and accountability.  The Guardian

• This clustering means that certain schools (often in more deprived areas) are under disproportionate pressure — while other schools effectively avoid taking on “hard-to-support” students.  The Guardian

Impact: Rather than inclusion being a system-wide norm, it becomes patchy. Some schools become overburdened, while others dodge responsibility.

3.  Inequities in Identification of Special Educational Needs

Identifying SEND is not consistent, which means some children slip through the cracks, while others may be over-identified.

• Research by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) found that children at academies (vs local-authority-maintained schools), those with English as an additional language, and girls with social, emotional, and mental health (SEMH) needs are less likely to be formally identified for SEND support.  The Guardian

• The Nuffield Foundation’s “Rethinking Special Educational Needs” project also highlights that current labels and diagnostic categories may obscure underlying needs — particularly because SEND often co-occurs with mental health difficulties.  Nuffield Foundation

Impact: Uneven or delayed identification means that some children don’t receive the support they need; others may be mislabeled, leading to mismatched support.

4.  Inclusion Without Infrastructure

Even when pupils are placed in mainstream schools, the practical support is often insufficient.

• A review led by Tom Rees (for the Department for Education’s expert advisory group on inclusion) found that to support SEND students genuinely, schools would need to rework their systems significantly — from staff training to internal tiers of support (universal, targeted, specialist).  The Guardian

• But many schools lack the specialist staff (e.g., speech and language therapists, behaviour specialists) and funding to deliver this. The review notes that although there are some “excellent” examples of inclusive practice, they often require extraordinary lengths from staff.  The Guardian

Impact: Without robust infrastructure, “inclusion” can become superficial and, for some children, do more harm than good.

5.  Legal Battles and Delays for Special Educational Needs

For many families, securing SEND support means entering a legal or bureaucratic battleground.

• An ITV News investigation found nearly a third (30%) of parents had used legal means to secure SEND provision.  ITVX

• Over 20,000 children waited longer than the 20-week statutory limit for an EHC plan, and some waited more than a year.  The Guardian

• Once appeals happen, local authorities often spend heavily to contest, even though they lose most of the cases. (In 2022–23, councils won only about 1.2% of tribunal cases.) The Guardian

Impact: The SEND system can feel adversarial, costly, and emotionally draining for families — making inclusion not just a matter of policy, but a matter of welfare.

6.  Attendance & Barriers for Special Educational Needs

Even where provision is technically in place, some pupils face obstacles in actually being in school.

• A UK Parliament Education Committee report highlighted that persistent absence among pupils with SEND is significantly higher than for their peers.  Parliament Publications

• Factors include health difficulties, lack of appropriate support, or a sense that “school isn’t for me” when needs are not accommodated.

Impact: Inclusion is undermined by the high rates of absence. There are barriers to learning and social engagement through a lack of staff knowledge, exclusion from the classroom and bullying. They miss out on education and social participation that is appropriate for them.

7.  Policy Misalignment: Accountability vs Inclusion

The school accountability system (exams, performance measures) often disincentivises schools from fully embracing inclusion.

• Schools may fear that taking on more children with complex needs could drag down their Progress 8 or exam scores.

• According to NFER’s reporting, some headteachers explicitly worry about the impact of EHCP students on data, leading to “selective” admissions.  The Guardian

Impact: When school performance is tightly linked to metrics, inclusion can become a “cost risk” rather than a moral or educational priority.

Conclusion: Inclusion Is a Goal, but Not Yet a Reality

Inclusion is a modern-day social construct made to fit a Victorian educational system. There are no structural changes to accommodate needs, and fair funding is lacking. Parents are locked in a battle for fundamental rights for thier children.