The Big Question: Can we redesign SEND to be sustainable and genuinely inclusive?

The Big Question Series

This series of posts is a result of a unique event where Edurio hosted 32 trust leaders for a residential to discuss the biggest questions across the sector in a candid and deep discussion.

The questions were pre-submitted by the participating trust leaders, and the most popular topics were then discussed in groups of 10-15 leaders.

Chatham House rules were observed in the sessions. These blog posts summarise the main insights to elevate the discussion across the sector.

In this session, trust CEOs contemplated the question: “How could we redesign our SEND offer so that it is both financially sustainable and genuinely inclusive, while improving outcomes for pupils and reducing pressure on staff?”

What emerged was a recognition that SEND sits at the intersection of inclusion, accountability, funding, parental expectation and societal change, and that doing nothing is no longer an option.

The instinctive “yes, but”

One of the first reflections in the room was how quickly optimism turns into constraint.

Even when leaders try to respond with “yes, and”, the reality of the day-to-day pulls them back to “yes, but”.

Adaptive teaching sounds right. Inclusive classrooms feel morally non-negotiable. But when a pupil is dysregulated, and a lesson collapses, aspiration collides with reality. The tension is not philosophical, but practical.

Several leaders pointed out that societal shifts have accelerated, with parental expectations changing and social media amplifying voice and comparison. The working world has left many families exhausted. Yet schools are often still operating within structures designed decades ago.

“Redesign” was the word that stuck. Incremental adaptation may no longer be enough. But drastic change feels risky. Especially in a system where accountability measures have not fundamentally shifted.

Moving from a deficit to an asset-based SEND model

A powerful theme that emerged during the session was the language we use about pupils with SEND.

One leader described SEND as too often framed through a deficit model. The underlying assumption becomes: how do we make this child more like everyone else?

And yet outside education, sectors are actively seeking neurodiverse talent. One CEO shared the example of a games design company employing a predominantly neurodiverse workforce because it sees difference as an asset, not a limitation.

In schools, the lens is often narrower. Curriculum and assessment models still privilege a specific type of learner. Strengths can be overlooked because they do not align neatly with accountability frameworks.

Another leader described reframing disability in their special school through a “don’t diss their ability” mindset. Staff began by identifying what pupils could do, not what they could not. Grouping was redesigned to allow progression and a sense of rite of passage, rather than static labels.

The result was not a softer approach, but higher aspirations rooted in strengths.

The question for trusts is how far that asset-based mindset can extend into mainstream settings.

Two very different challenges

The discussion also distinguished between different areas of need.

For pupils with clear learning needs, many leaders felt that professional expertise can adapt pedagogy, curriculum and structure effectively. More funding would help, but thoughtful redesign is possible within existing parameters.

The sharper challenge sits within social, emotional and mental health needs. Particularly when dysregulation manifests as persistent disruption.

In mainstream classrooms, one or two pupils in each class presenting with high levels of need can fundamentally alter the learning environment. Often, those needs are rooted in complex external factors beyond the school gates.

The system response has too often defaulted to containment – removing the pupil from class, adding a teaching assistant, moving to alternative provision or excluding the pupil from school.

These reflections led to a stark statement in the room: “Permanent exclusion of a child in primary education before the age of legal responsibility is a failure of society. Discuss.”

Not everyone agreed in absolute terms. But the provocation forced a deeper question. If exclusion rates are rising, what does that say about unmet needs?

Data transparency to improve trust inclusion

One CEO proposed a radical shift – sharing the data openly. Not as a performative act, but a system diagnostic.

This means sharing the permanent exclusions as a percentage of the roll, sharing repeat suspensions, and the scale and structure of internal inclusion units. 

“If we’re serious about this, let’s start being open.”

More accountability feels threatening, as leaders already operate under intense scrutiny. But the proposal was not about external judgment, rather about creating greater transparency between trusts and understanding patterns. If one trust’s exclusion rate is higher, is it due to the context? The practice? Could it be access to specialist provision? Without shared data, the conversation remains abstract.

As one participant put it, much dysfunctional behaviour in the system stems from anticipation of blame. Transparency could help reframe the conversation from blame to collective problem-solving.

What is within the gift of a CEO?

The conversation repeatedly turned to agency. What is within the gift of the CEO and their wider team? The answers from the participants were practical.

“Strengthen links with special schools.” “Create shared provision models that reduce reliance on expensive independent placements.” “Design post-incident reflection processes so that suspension becomes a moment of learning, not a revolving door.” “Invest in training.” 

One trust described exploring a model where mainstream schools link formally with high-quality special schools at a significantly lower cost than some private provision. This would not only create better outcomes for pupils and parents, but also bring the potential saving in the millions.

Others spoke about early intervention and parenting support. The metaphor of “pulling people out of the river” surfaced. Many schools are overwhelmed by immediate crises, leaving little capacity to go upstream and prevent the need from escalating.

Here, the limits of agency were acknowledged with years of underfunding, reduced external services and accountability pressures. The consensus was clear. There is no cavalry coming.

Collaboration or the Prisoner’s Dilemma

The final stretch of the discussion returned to system dynamics.

Everything in the current framework incentivises competition. Performance tables. Inspection outcomes. Reputation. Even inclusion can become a competitive advantage rather than a shared responsibility.

One leader referenced the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Individually rational decisions can produce collectively worse outcomes. True collaboration would lead to better results for all. But the system nudges leaders towards protective behaviour.

If trusts collectively committed to reducing exclusions and post-incident reflection replaced automatic escalation, the cumulative effect could be significant. But only if it is genuinely collective.

What happens if we do nothing?

The session closed with a simple question. What happens if we leave this conversation here?

The answer was sobering, highlighting mounting pressure, escalating needs, staff burnout and rising exclusion numbers.

Redesigning SEND is not about a single policy lever, but about mindset, structure, transparency and courage.

It asks trust leaders to:

• Reframe need as potential, not deficit
  
• Share data to understand the real scale of the challenge
  
• Invest in collaboration over competition
  
• Align mainstream and specialist expertise
  
• Create reflective processes that reduce repeat exclusion
  
• Accept that perfection is impossible, but progress is essential

Most of all, it requires leaders to see SEND not as a bolt-on strand, but as a litmus test of whether the system is truly inclusive. If the sector does not find collective solutions, no one else will.