In a corner of north London, one secondary school is challenging the assumption that pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) must be taught separately to succeed. Staff at this extensive argue that genuine inclusion is not a bolt-on intervention, but a fundamental question of social justice – and they believe they have found a model that works. As national data continue to show stark inequalities in outcomes for Send pupils, their approach offers a rare, practical example of how mainstream schools might begin to close the gap.
Rethinking inclusion as a social justice imperative in London classrooms
In a city where inequality is often mapped by postcodes, the way schools respond to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities has become a litmus test for social justice. The emerging model in some London classrooms rejects the idea of “fitting children into the system” and instead redesigns the system around every learner.That means planning lessons from the outset with multiple access points, embedding communication supports as standard, and treating sensory adjustments as routine rather than exceptional. Teachers describe a shift from asking, “What’s wrong with this child?” to, “What barriers have we built, and how do we remove them?” The result is a culture where reasonable adjustments are no longer favours, but rights.
This approach is reshaping daily practice in tangible ways, from curriculum design to playground norms:
- Co-produced learning plans developed with pupils and families, not just for them.
- Flexible environments with quiet zones, movement breaks and visual timetables for all.
- Shared language around neurodiversity woven into assemblies and tutor time.
- Targeted staff training that links SEND pedagogy to anti-racist and anti-poverty work.
| Practice | Old Approach | Justice-Focused Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Support | One-to-one withdrawal | In-class scaffolding |
| Voice | Decisions made for pupils | Pupils shape their own goals |
| Data | Labels drive expectations | Strengths inform provision |
Inside the school transforming support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities
In a bright corner of the playground, a sensory garden hums quietly with activity: a pupil practises speech exercises while another records a podcast on inclusion using school-issued tablets.This is not an add‑on but the result of a wholesale redesign of how support is planned, funded and delivered. Teaching teams are built around pupils’ needs rather than timetables, with specialists, class teachers and support staff co‑planning lessons that keep children in the classroom, not sent out of it. Staff say this shift has reduced exclusions and anxiety, but they are speedy to stress that it required bold decisions on staffing, training and use of space. The school’s leadership now treats every corridor, nook and lunch queue as a potential learning or support habitat.
Provision is mapped with near forensic detail. Pupils’ support plans are written in plain language that families help to draft, and resources are redeployed termly according to what the data – and the children – actually say. Rather of relying on distant external agencies, the school has built a tight in‑house network of expertise, from occupational therapy techniques embedded in PE to visual supports in every classroom. Staff describe it less as a “Send department” and more as a whole‑school operating system.
- Co‑teaching in core subjects so pupils access the full curriculum alongside peers.
- Daily check‑ins using simple emotion scales to spot issues before they escalate.
- Flexible learning zones where pupils can regulate, not be removed.
- Family partnership sessions held after school, with translators on hand.
| Focus Area | Old Approach | New Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Support | Withdrawal groups | In‑class co‑support |
| Planning | Paperwork‑heavy | Data‑led, pupil‑voiced |
| Culture | “Add‑on” inclusion | Whole‑school responsibility |
Training teachers changing cultures embedding everyday adaptations for Send learners
At this London school, professional development has been turned on its head: instead of occasional SEND “twilight” sessions, teachers learn in the flow of the school day. Staff co-plan with specialist colleagues, observe each other’s lessons and debrief using real pupil work, not hypothetical case studies. The message is clear: inclusion is not an add-on but a professional standard. In classrooms, that translates into small, habitual shifts – a visual timetable on the board, a quiet “pre-teach” of key vocabulary, a choice of how to show understanding – repeated until they become part of the school’s muscle memory. Leaders describe these tweaks not as generosity but as equity: reasonable adjustments made early so children do not have to “fail first” to receive support.
Teachers say the shift has been cultural as much as technical. Conversations in the staffroom now revolve around what each learner needs, rather than what they “can’t do”. Training foregrounds co-production with families, listening to pupils’ own accounts of what helps, and dismantling low expectations. Everyday practice is anchored in a shared toolkit of strategies:
- Universal design – planning lessons that work for a wide range of learners from the outset.
- Consistent language – common prompts and cues used across subjects to reduce cognitive load.
- Flexible assessment – multiple ways to demonstrate knowledge, from oral responses to scaffolded writing.
- Calm classrooms – predictable routines and sensory-aware environments.
| Practice | Everyday Adaptation | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Questioning | Think-pair-share with extra wait time | More pupils contribute |
| Instructions | Visual steps alongside verbal directions | Fewer repeated explanations |
| Feedback | Short, specific prompts with models | Clearer next steps for learners |
What policymakers and school leaders can copy to scale this inclusive education model
Systemic change rarely travels well if it relies on hero headteachers or one-off grants.What can travel is a set of practical design choices. Senior leaders can start by hard-wiring co-teaching and shared planning time into timetables, so Send specialists and classroom teachers are co-owners of every lesson, not occasional visitors. Local authorities can shift funding rules to reward early intervention, allowing schools to front-load support in mainstream classrooms rather than waiting for crisis-level need. Simple, visible commitments matter too: publishing a whole-school inclusion charter, embedding training on neurodiversity for all staff (including lunchtime supervisors and office teams), and tracking progress data for Send pupils alongside headline attainment figures, not as a separate, afterthought spreadsheet.
To make replication more than a slogan, national and local policymakers can treat inclusive practice as infrastructure, not innovation. That means incentivising clusters of schools to share specialist staff, opening up resource bases to pupils from neighbouring primaries and secondaries, and building accountability frameworks that value belonging, attendance and wellbeing as much as exam performance. School leaders can borrow the London model’s emphasis on family partnership by formalising parent advisory groups, co-designing support plans with carers, and ensuring communication is clear, frequent and jargon-free. When these structural moves are combined with a clear message that Send inclusion is a social justice obligation, not a discretionary extra, the model stops being exceptional and starts becoming the baseline.
The Conclusion
As debates over special educational needs provision intensify nationwide, the experience of this London school offers a glimpse of what a different future could look like: one in which inclusion is treated not as a costly add-on, but as a core measure of a school’s success.Its model is far from a quick fix. It demands money, staffing, time, training and a willingness to rethink what mainstream education is for. But it also shows that when those investments are made, the results can be transformative – not only for pupils with Send, but for their peers and teachers as well.
Whether this approach can be scaled up across a strained and uneven school system remains uncertain. What is clear is that, for the staff and families here, inclusion is no longer a slogan or an aspiration. It is indeed the organising principle of school life – and, they argue, a social justice issue that can no longer be left to chance.
