The special schools versus specialist facilities debate fails to appreciate that all educators should be working to support SEND students in mainstream settings, says Vasilis Strogilos
The government recently announced the cancellation of some planned special schools and has instead given local authorities the option to develop more specialist facilities within mainstream schools (e.g. resourced provisions, specialist units).
This decision has prompted concern from parts of the specialist sector and some parent organisations, who argue this ignores the growing demand for special schools.
It is important, however, to reflect on what this rising demand really tells us.
The increasing call for more special schools should be understood not as clear evidence of their necessity, nor as proof of genuine parental choice, but as a symptom of a wider system failure: our ongoing inability to educate students with more complex needs effectively in mainstream schools.
One of the most common arguments in favour of expanding special schools is that there is insufficient research evidence about the effectiveness of specialist facilities within mainstream schools. This is partially true.
Limited evidence
While it is true we have a limited evidence base on the effectiveness of resourced provisions and specialist units, the same can be said of special schools. We rarely ask where the robust evidence is for the effectiveness of special schools, despite their longstanding presence.
The evidence we do have on specialist facilities is largely qualitative, drawing on the experiences of teachers, teaching assistants, parents and pupils.
This evidence is, overall, overwhelmingly positive (see the ‘current landscape and prior research’ section of this article).
Teachers reported students receive high-quality support in specialist facilities and parents expressed strong satisfaction with the organisation, staff expertise and the support received. Pupils also highlighted the opportunity to learn alongside their mainstream peers and build friendships.
Producing other forms of evidence, such as direct comparisons of attainment outcomes between pupils with SEND in special schools and those in specialist facilities, would require experimental studies.
These are difficult to design ethically and practically. Their findings would still be open to interpretation.
What kind of system do we want?
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question about the kind of education system we want.
I strongly believe policy should prioritise creating more opportunities for inclusion within mainstream schools and fewer opportunities for segregation.
By definition, educating pupils in special schools removes them from everyday participation in their local mainstream communities.
It is worth remembering the social model of disability, which strongly criticised the segregation of disabled children in special schools and shaped inclusive education policy worldwide, was developed in England.
Against this backdrop, a debate framed as “more special schools versus more inclusion” feels misplaced.
We should be asking different, more constructive questions. How can mainstream schools be supported to educate a wider range of learners with SEND well?
What knowledge, skills and resources are needed to enable more students to move successfully from special schools into mainstream settings?
How can specialist facilities avoid becoming spaces of withdrawal and segregation rather than inclusion (see the Down’s Syndrome Association’s argument about this)?
Two important dimensions
If we accept specialist facilities should exist primarily to support inclusion, rather than as parallel systems, we must consider how to measure their effectiveness.
This is as complex as measuring inclusion and first requires clarity about what we mean by “effectiveness”.
I would suggest effectiveness has two distinct but equally important dimensions.
The first relates to the quality of teaching and support provided within the specialist facility.
The second concerns the facility’s role in supporting pupils with SEND to access mainstream classrooms, the curriculum and wider school life, and its contribution to developing inclusive practice across the whole school.
Both dimensions can be evaluated using a combination of evidence sources: pupil, parent and staff views, evidence of pupil progress and wider indicators such as attendance and exclusions.
If specialist facilities are given adequate resources, appropriate training and a clear inclusive purpose, there is good reason to remain optimistic about their potential.
This should be seen not as an end point, but as the beginning of a journey – one that focuses on understanding the real value of specialist facilities and on identifying the support required for them to function as inclusive services for the whole school.
Your thoughts