Some takeaways and further thoughts:

• Inclusion bases: Many schools already have some form of inclusion base, but the reforms present an opportunity to reflect on how it is perceived and to make improvements if required. Inclusion bases should be identifiable as “bridges,” not “exclusion rooms.” The provision should be at least as good as what you get in a classroom and there should be a clear route back to mainstream class and how to catch up on the curriculum. We need to be mindful about bringing everyone onto the same page with culture and language – avoiding terms like “base child,” which simply aren’t inclusive.
  
  
• Inclusion is a process, not a destination: Now is the time to move away from the graduated approach being viewed as a SEND administrative tool and something that has to be proven to fail in order to access funding. Instead, it should be seen as the engine of change and a tool to be used to continuously make our provision better for each individual child. Teachers need more clarity on their role in delivering the graduated approach and should be offered the right training to help with this, so it doesn’t all fall to the SEND team.
  
  
• Individual Support Plans (ISPs): The hope is that ISPs will be clear, concise and easy for parents to understand – a one/two page document would be ideal. We may want to consider distinguishing what is a ‘must have’ and what teachers ‘might do’ for each individual child, to avoid overburdening teachers in a way that’s unhelpful. SENCos can reassure parents that, instead of waiting 20 weeks for a piece of paper that might be out of date by the time it’s signed, we will have a real-time digital record that moves with the child.
  
  
• Use of TAs: TAs are vital to delivering on the promise of reform. There are justifiable concerns about how far the new funds will actually stretch, but the panel reiterated their importance as intervention leaders and finding ways to capture the valuable insight they bring. One school, as an example, has seen the benefits of rich insights gathered by implementing a simple system of collating “Today I noticed that…” and “I wonder if…” hypotheses from TAs. We should be supporting the TAs we already have, including upskilling more specialist TAs through apprenticeships.
  
  
• Local groups: Some schools have already developed a provision that extends beyond their Trust into the local area. Examples of success include New Marsden Primary School, part of the River Learning Trust, where children attend the hub four days a week, then return to their host school for the remaining day. Other areas like Camden have already been pooling resources to enable them to deliver support much sooner. The point behind the local groups is that schools benefit from shared expertise and community engagement, not just funding, and that it prompts Headteachers to lead SEND strategy and not just SENCOs.
  
  
• EHCP reviews: Reassessing at Year 6 could have its drawbacks. Not many parents or primary schools will want to remove an EHCP just before the transition to secondary school, and this could result in more battles with local authorities. We also need to reassure families that the DfE are indicating that only one in eight pupils who already hold an EHCP might have it removed; it shouldn’t be a concern or debate for those with very complex needs.
  
  
• Best use of specialist time: There is a concern around whether there will be sufficient capacity in the system to fully support the ‘experts at hand’ service. For the measures to succeed, EPs need to work at a systemic level, training teachers to be comfortable identifying needs, rather than just individual EPs / SALTs / OTs / Specialist Teachers seeing individual children. Capacity isn’t just about the number of experts; it’s about how they are deployed.
  
  
• Early identification of need: Moving forward, we must not only align our universal provision to the new evidence-based National Inclusion Standards but also ensure it is being effectively delivered. We need to help teachers and TAs to feel more confident using the range of assessment techniques at their disposal. This includes training more teachers and SENCOs to be able to correctly use a range of standardised psychometric tests (alongside other vital contextual information), as well as building the confidence of TAs to make observations and escalations, where required. Training TAs to be specialists in areas of intervention delivery and assessment of need will make a considerable difference here.
  
  
• SENCO workload and evolving role: Responsibilities for creating ISPs cannot just fall to SENCOs, we will need to plan for some teacher directed time to be set aside to support this. The white paper suggests SEND is “everyone’s job,” not just the SENCO’s, and to enable this, we should also focus on upskilling the “middle tier” (Heads of Department/Year) so they can own the SEND data and strategies for their cohorts. Similarly, leaders must move the SENCO away from firefighting individual crises and toward quality assurance. This means giving SENCOs the protected time the white paper hints at, allowing them to observe lessons and coach teachers on adaptive practice. Assistant SENCOs could also be called upon to help with tasks such as coordinating ISP reviews, freeing up SENCOs to focus on strategy.
  
  
• Preparing for change: SENCOs can already start thinking about auditing their provision and looking carefully at their SEND register, thinking about what their main area of need is, and which layer of support children might fall into. They should also look at the staff skillset they currently have and analyse how far their current provision is meeting needs. Do all the interventions you are currently using have proven efficacy and are they being followed with fidelity?
  
  
• Environmental audits: An “inclusive by design” school has thought about the impact of the building, timetable, structure of the curriculum and environment as standard, not “extra.”
  

Helpful links

• Margaret Mulholland shared a document from the ASCL outlining the value of the ADPR approach
• Some interesting research around effective use of inclusion bases from The Difference, an education charity for whole-school inclusion.
• The supporting consultation document to the White Paper; SEND Reform, putting children and young people first.
• Links to parent-friendly versions of the SEND consultation.