The government’s £200 million SEND training package is a welcome and significant investment in teachers’ professional development. But to make the most of it, the programme should be shaped around the realities of classroom practice. New research, commissioned from Teacher Tapp by The PTI and Etio, suggests teachers want SEND CPD that is specific enough to help them with the pupils, subjects and settings they work with every day. This is important, because when teachers were asked what would help them better meet pupils’ needs, 69 per cent said more teacher assistant support, while less than a third chose more training. Teachers were more likely to point to the need for more time to plan (51 per cent), and advice on how to meet pupils’ needs (39 per cent). This does not mean they do not want training. But it does suggest that SEND CPD cannot be generic, disconnected from classroom reality or treated as a standalone solution to wider pressures. Given the scale of the government’s commitment, we asked more than 6,000 teachers what they would want the focus and format of SEND CPD to be. Specific subject focus Just 4 per cent said they did not need SEND CPD at all. For secondary teachers, there was a clear preference for CPD focused on teaching pupils with SEND in their specific subject area. This was chosen by 47 per cent of secondary teachers, far ahead of CPD around a specific condition (17 per cent). For primary teachers, the picture was more varied. Twenty-two per cent backed CPD on both specific conditions and broad areas of need, while 20 per cent wanted CPD on teaching pupils with SEND in their specific setting or phase. This points to a central challenge for the government. A national CPD package must be coherent enough to work at scale, whilst being flexible enough to reflect the different contexts in which teachers work. The same message came through when teachers were asked what formats of CPD they would choose if cost were not a factor. The most popular option was in-school training provided by an outside specialist (64 per cent of primary teachers and 47 per cent of secondary teachers). The second most popular option was a one-day face-to-face course out of school (49 per cent of primary teachers and 37 per cent of secondary teachers). By contrast, an online short course was chosen by only 14 per cent of primary teachers and 18 per cent of secondary teachers. Online short courses may be scalable, cost-effective and easy to access, but teachers are much more likely to prioritise expert-led, in-person and context-specific support. Default answer That does not mean online learning has no place. But online modules cannot become the default answer. Teachers’ confidence in SEND is not built by information alone. It is built through expert input, collaborative planning, follow-up and opportunities to test approaches in practice. So what does the government need to do? SEND CPD should be designed around subject, phase and setting, not simply broad categories of need. For secondary school staff in particular, subject-specific SEND CPD should be central to the offer. Delivery should make the most of local expertise. Teaching school hubs, specialist settings, local SEND networks and expert practitioners all have a role in translating national expectations into local practice. CPD should include time for collaborative planning and implementation. Training that ends when the session ends is unlikely to change practice at scale. Finally, the government should judge success by impact, not participation. The question should not simply be how many teachers complete a course, but whether teachers feel better equipped, schools build more inclusive practice and children and young people experience better support. The £200 million SEND CPD package is a significant investment. Its success will depend on its design. If it is built around what teachers say they need – subject-specific, phase-specific, expert-led and rooted in classroom practice – it could make a meaningful contribution to the wider SEND reforms.