Our recent webinar, Building an Inclusion Strategy That Delivers: Turning Priorities into Action, sparked lots of excellent questions from school, trust and college leaders across the sector.
With the deadline for Inclusion Strategies approaching and schools beginning to allocate their Inclusive Mainstream Funding (IMF), many attendees raised important questions about implementation, funding, accountability and practical next steps.
We’ve rounded up some of the most common questions below.
Is the need to publish an Inclusion Strategy only for mainstream schools?
Yes. The current requirement relates to mainstream settings, with specialist SEND settings not currently required to produce an Inclusion Strategy. Schools with specialist units attached to mainstream provision should be mindful that Inclusive Mainstream Funding is intended to support pupils in mainstream education, although there may be crossover where pupils move between specialist and mainstream provision.
For colleges and further education providers, separate guidance is available for the Inclusive Mainstream Fund.
Should trusts create one Inclusion Strategy or individual school strategies?
Many trusts are considering how best to approach this. In practice, it can be both.
An overarching trust-wide Inclusion Strategy can provide consistency and shared direction, while individual schools develop their own strategies that reflect their specific cohorts, challenges and priorities. Where IMF funding is being allocated, the costed elements should be identifiable at academy level.
How many priorities should schools focus on?
One of the biggest mistakes schools can make is trying to do too much at once.
The Department for Education’s direction of travel suggests that schools should focus on a small number of priorities and implement them well. The right number will vary depending on school size, capacity and available funding, but leaders are generally better served by identifying a few high-impact priorities rather than spreading resources too thinly across multiple initiatives.
SEND identification varies significantly between schools. Is it a reliable starting point for planning?
It’s an important challenge.
Before setting priorities, schools should interrogate their SEND data and compare it against local and national benchmarks. Where significant differences emerge, these may indicate that identification processes need strengthening. In some cases, improving the accuracy of SEND identification may become a strategic priority in its own right.
Should schools be doing more screening to identify underlying needs?
Many attendees highlighted concerns that needs such as Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) can become less visible as pupils move through the education system.
Early screening, particularly at key transition points such as entry to Year 7, can help schools better understand underlying needs and plan appropriate support. Effective assessment allows schools to move beyond presenting behaviours and identify barriers to learning more accurately.
How does an Inclusion Strategy differ from a Pupil Premium Strategy?
The two should complement one another rather than compete.
Some schools may choose to integrate elements of their planning processes, but it’s important to maintain a clear line of sight over how Inclusive Mainstream Funding is being used to improve outcomes for pupils with SEND. While there may be overlap in priorities, funding streams and reporting requirements should remain transparent.
Can we include our national SEND budget in the strategy?
Absolutely.
In fact, schools may find it helpful to present a complete picture of their investment in inclusion. Alongside IMF funding, this might include spending from core budgets, notional SEND funding and capital investment. Doing so creates greater transparency around how resources are being used to support pupils with SEND.
What happens if a successful initiative is funded using a one-year allocation?
This was a concern shared by many leaders.
While future funding arrangements remain subject to government review, schools should focus on demonstrating the impact of current investment. Strong evidence of what works will help schools make informed decisions about sustaining successful provision in the future and may strengthen wider arguments for continued investment in SEND reform.
With limited funding and increasing levels of need, where should schools prioritise investment?
For many schools, this is the central challenge.
Where resources are stretched, focusing on the quality of universal provision often offers the greatest return. Strong adaptive teaching, effective identification of need and ensuring all staff understand the needs of pupils with SEND can improve outcomes for a large number of learners without requiring extensive additional intervention programmes.
While targeted interventions remain important, schools should first ensure that their universal offer is as strong as possible.
Is the Inclusion Strategy likely to be a one-off requirement?
Current expectations suggest that Inclusion Strategies will be reviewed and updated over time rather than treated as a one-off exercise.
As SEND reform continues to evolve, the Inclusion Strategy is expected to become an increasingly important mechanism for demonstrating how schools are planning, funding and evaluating inclusive provision.
Looking for support?
Supporting Education Group has developed a free Inclusion Strategy Preparation Toolkit to help schools analyse their data, identify priorities and create a practical, costed strategy that delivers meaningful impact for pupils with SEND.
Whether you’re just getting started or refining an existing approach, our team can help you turn priorities into action.
You can view my recommended resources, publications and insights, including a link to the Inclusion Strategy Preparation Toolkit, on my page here.