The Department for Education’s announcement of “at least £3 billion to create tens of thousands of new specialist places in mainstream schools” suggests a commitment to inclusion that exceeds anything we have seen before.
But as ever, the devil is in the detail.
At the heart of this policy sits a fundamental assumption: that inclusion can be delivered primarily through physical space. That assumption runs through the detail, and it is where the problems begin.
One of the most significant details is the removal of new specialist free schools from the equation.
Of the proposed 92 specialist and alternative provision schools proposed, only 15 are confirmed to continue.
Fifty nine have been left to local authorities to either proceed with or reallocate the funding to support inclusive mainstream schools. Eighteen special schools will definitely be scrapped, with funding diverted to local authorities.
Space is not the same as capacity
The promise is clear. Children with SEND, we are told, will achieve better outcomes if they attend their local mainstream school with a specialist room or calming space available.
The DfE states this will be achieved “either by building the planned schools, or by giving local authorities the funding to create the equivalent number of specialist places themselves”. This framing creates a misleading impression of what inclusion requires.
Funding at this scale sounds substantial. But repeated references to “calming spaces” suggest a focus on capital works – repurposing classrooms or reconfiguring buildings. Space, however, is not the same as capacity. It’s a key difference that matters.
The scale of need continues to rise. In 2025 alone, there was an increase of 48,000 children with education, health and care plans and a further 45,000 children added to SEN Support.
More than 1.7 million children with SEND are now on the rolls of English schools, according to DfE statistics. These figures were already climbing before the most recent wave of special free school applications was submitted.
At that point, the sector was already warning that the proposed number of new specialist schools would still be insufficient.
A gaping hole in the research
Specialist provision is now full and has been for years. Special schools are bursting at the seams, with no spare capacity and no pipeline of new provision coming on stream at the pace required.
It is against this reality that mainstream schools are being asked to absorb more need.
Yet this shift is happening despite a gaping hole in the research on the effectiveness and impact of integrated or enhanced resource provision.
We are ploughing headfirst into wholesale implementation before the “national conversation on SEND” has even concluded, never mind produced recommendations.
This same assumption — that space equals inclusion — overlooks the cultural change required to make such provision work. Inclusion cannot be installed. It depends on training, expertise and confidence.
To suggest that specialist spaces alone can deliver this, without acknowledging the level of training required, risks becoming a sticking plaster that curls at the edges, exposing the wound underneath.
Confidence in the mainstream workforce is fragile
As a SEND leader, any injection of funding into the sector is welcome.
But this injection is not for specialist providers, despite the fact that specialist settings have been under sustained pressure for years. Where is the budget to extend capacity and build on what already works?
The consequences of this approach are already visible. Confidence in the mainstream workforce remains fragile.
A Teacher Tapp survey from July 2025, with more than 3,000 respondents, again highlighted the need for more SEND training, more teaching assistants and smaller class sizes for pupils with EHCPs. This is not a sector brimming with confidence, even before this latest announcement.
They are also visible in the wider system. In the last year, the success rate for families winning SEND tribunal cases against local authorities reached 99 per cent.
Tribunal success rates have remained in the high 90s for the past nine years, reflecting inappropriate mainstream provision, reluctance to assess and the persistent lack of specialist places.
Teachers and leaders already know what the challenges are. They know their schools have not been structurally adapted to meet sensory sensitivities and processing differences.
They know not all staff can meet the increasing co-occurrence of need, and that more is required to support rising social, emotional and mental health needs.
Creating a safe space does not inclusion make
Creating a “safe space”, a specialist classroom at the end of a corridor, or a cabin at the edge of the playground does not inclusion make.
There are examples of what genuine specialist provision looks like.
The Cullum Centres, developed under the guidance of the National Autistic Society, offer architecturally bespoke environments, highly trained staff and rigorous Autism Accreditation. They demonstrate the level of expertise required.
Specialist provision is not the easy option. It offers multiple academic routes alongside explicit teaching of the personal skills employers are crying out for, and prepares young people to be strong self-advocates in a society that still struggles to see strength in difference.
That is inclusion. And yet, as policy is reshaped, specialist leaders remain largely absent from the conversation.
You cannot build inclusion on calming spaces alone.
Your thoughts