Enough is Enough! The time has come to recognise that segregation is wrong

22 April 2026

As those of us involved in the world of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) wait for the publication of the Schools White Paper, I wonder how many reviews of the SEND system there will need to be before it is finally accepted that proper Inclusive Education is the only rational system. Such a system would ensure that all our children are nurtured, supported and challenged so that they find their passions, enjoy life and feel that they belong in the world.

Surely those involved in the creation of yet more “reforms” to the SEND system, are embarrassed to be having the same conversations that have been going on for over 100 years. The Mental Deficiency Committee was asked by the Government in 1924 to:

• Consider the problems presented by the mentally defective child
• Find out how many there were
• Recommend what to do with them

I would recommend anyone interested in this area of public policy to read the 1929 Wood Committee report, as stomach churning as it is, because it gives a clear historic explanation of why we are where we are. The committee included Ellen Pinsent, a Eugenicist and Cyril Burt, a psychologist whose fabricated research about intelligence was discredited. The outcomes meant that more and more children, classified as “idiots”, were placed in institutions and, “imbeciles” and the “feeble-minded”, in special schools. Local authorities and health boards were given responsibility for developing these. There were some more enlightened conversations during the life of the committee, which included being sceptical about intelligence testing and some acknowledgement of the benefits of mentally defective children being educated alongside their “normal” peers. There was also the view that education outcomes should not only focus on reading, writing and arithmetic.

It seems incomprehensible that in 2026, the debate about inclusion continues.

Since 1929, there have been endless reviews, reports, codes of practice and legislation all addressing the problems of educating children with ever-changing labels and promising the same. The difference now is that the crisis in the system is more serious than ever before. But there was a period of optimism and hope that has clearly been lost.

The Warnock report (1978) created the special needs system and advocated for “integration”. The report led to the Education Act (1981) and a national conversation about ending segregation. It had been recognised by 1978 that segregating people led to poor life outcomes and that:

“Even for children with profound learning difficulties, the friendship and society of other children can effectively stimulate personal development.” (The Warnock Report Chapter 7.8)

From 1981 until the early 2000s, there was a national move towards Inclusive Education. My daughter, Ellen, was born in 1982. We lived in the London Borough of Newham, which at that time had eight special schools. In the first weeks of my daughter’s life a paediatrician made it clear that she would go to a special school when she was two and these new ideas about integration were dangerous. She said that children with Down syndrome are cute when they are young but stop learning when they are seven. At this time, it was doctors who had the power to make these decisions. Ellen was a child who the Wood Committee would have labelled as an “idiot”, and it would have been expected for her to be locked up in an institution. By the 1980s, both Disabled adults and parents of Disabled children were challenging these ideas. We had already made the decision that Ellen would go to the nursery school and the primary school on our street. There were many parents locally who had the same vision, and we worked with the Council to bring the necessary changes about. Eventually, in 1986, I was elected to Newham Council and became Chair of the Education committee.

As a parent of a four-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, I was delighted that parents were asking for their children to attend their local schools and be part of the community. Ellen was already attending her local nursery school and it was clearly the national mood that Disabled children belonged in the same schools as their neighbours, brothers and sisters. The local organisation of Disabled people in Newham, taught us the history of the segregation of Disabled people and how closely it was linked to the Eugenics movement, which had given rise to scientific ableism, racism and white supremacy. In Newham, the movement to end segregation in education was entirely based on Disabled people’s human rights and how it made absolute sense for all children to go to the same schools.

My daughter went from nursery to primary school to secondary school to college and had an amazing education, which has led to her having a gloriously ordinary adult life. She works, has her own flat, is married, has a large circle of friends and a great social life. Her nursery, schools and college were all high performing, judged outstanding by Ofsted and were in the top five percentile nationally in terms of academic attainment. My daughter’s peers across Newham had similar experiences and demonstrate the impact that Inclusive Education has on the rest of life. In Newham, Inclusive Education was developed strategically, putting in place the structures to support mainstream schools to include all children. Resourced schools were developed for Deaf children and for children with severe and profound learning difficulties, including autism. These schools gave parents their legal right to express a preference for a mainstream school and the overwhelming majority chose mainstream schools. Six special schools were closed through coproduction with parents and young people expressing the view that, in an ideal world, it was better to learn and live in an inclusive community. Most of the staff who had worked in the special schools chose to transfer to mainstream schools.

During this period (1986-2000) local authorities across the country were pursuing Inclusive Education and I remember being asked by local authorities to speak at conferences, to other elected members, parents, young people, schools and strategic teams about what we achieved in Newham and how it had been achieved. I explained that the strategy was to:

• Focus the debate on the context of human rights and set a vision for the future.
• Coproduce the policy and strategy with families, young people, teachers and other professionals.
• Prioritise inclusive pedagogy and specialist support.
• Tackle issues, as they emerge, and plan next steps rather than a ten-year strategy.

During the period 1986 to 2005, the number of children attending special schools fell from 135,000 to 90,000. By 2025, it had risen to 193,000. This, during a period when national policy, expressed in the Children and Families Act (2014) says:

A focus on inclusive practice and removing barriers to learning

“As part of its commitments under articles 7 and 24 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the UK Government is committed to inclusive education of disabled children and young people and the progressive removal of barriers to learning and participation in mainstream education. The Children and Families Act 2014 secures the general presumption in law of mainstream education in relation to decisions about where children and young people with SEN should be educated and the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination for disabled people.” (SEND Code of Practice, Chapter 1.26)

The Children and Families Act (2014) came in with the promise of:

• A focus on outcomes
• Moving from the medical model to the social model of disability
• Person-centred planning
• Inclusive education
• Coproduction

Ten years’ later, this has not worked.

There are more children attending special schools than has ever been recorded and the number of Disabled children suspended and permanently excluded, without a school place, on part-time timetables and informally excluded has risen dramatically, although much of this is not formally reported on. Since 2019, there have been numerous reports from the Education Select Committee, the Ombudsman, academic institutions, advisory consultancies, the National Audit Office and parent groups. There is a consensus across all these reports; that the Children and Families Act (2014) has not been implemented.

Why has the law not been implemented?

The Children and Families Act (2014) was written when inclusion had become the national vision, and it was received with enthusiasm and as an update of the Education Act (1981). The new focus on children and young people’s voice, coproduction with families and person-centred practice was received well and had been promoted by the Ofsted (2010) report “A statement is not enough”.

The Children and Families Act (2014) coincided with the introduction of a revised national curriculum and approach to assessment. It has been widely reported that the narrowing of the curriculum, the concept of “expected levels of attainment”, more prescribed teaching approaches and strict discipline policies have been major factors increasing the unwillingness of schools to admit or keep children with SEND. It is surely interesting that the curriculum changes introduced in 2014 have not led to significant improvements to reported academic attainment by age 16 but have led to thousands of children labelled with special needs and disabilities not being welcome in their local schools, many remaining out of education. Many schools that had been inclusive have now created “rooms” for all the children in the school with high needs, often “looked after” by teaching assistants. The reason given is that “they are not able to do the same as the other children.”

My experience of being a teacher in the 1980s and 1990s is that inclusive pedagogy is good for all learners and this explains why academic attainment rose fastest during the years of maximum inclusion.

Within the special needs system, it is said that children are presenting with “more complex needs” and this is why it is difficult for them to be in mainstream schools.

When Ellen started nursery, it had become normal for children with Down syndrome to attend a local mainstream school and to be fully included in their mainstream class. This is no longer the norm, and I have supported many parents who want their children with Down syndrome to be included but are told they “can’t meet need” as they are too complex. Even when children attend mainstream schools now, they are more likely to be in separate rooms. This is heartbreaking. Has Down syndrome become more complex or has the culture and environment of schools changed?

My opinion, we need to start from scratch and work to enable all schools to be inclusive:

• To want to welcome all children and young people living in their neighbourhood.
• To be confident in supporting all children and young people.
• To understand inclusive pedagogy and where to go to find out more and to get support.
• To be part of local partnerships of services and agencies that can enhance practice and support children and young people holistically.
• To enable all adults and children to understand disability equality and equity and how people are different but have the same rights and needs.
• To be supported by social care, health, employment and housing agencies to support young people to prepare for life after education.

Although these aspirations are far from where the system is now, they could be realised within the current legislative framework.

What needs to happen?

1. There needs to be an analysis of why the Children and Families Act 2014 has not been implemented and why there is not an accountability framework that could have dealt with this.
2. The purpose of special schools needs to be clarified. It is not good enough to say that they are for children with “the most complex needs”. There is no such legal category and it is a subjective concept. In law, all parents (and children from the age of 16) have a right to express a preference for a mainstream school regardless of their impairment or other differences. The Equality Act requires schools to anticipate being able to include Disabled pupils they have not supported before.
3. Inclusive pedagogy should be a priority. There is plenty of evidence from the 1980s and beyond of the benefits of teaching children with differences together and how this improves outcomes for all.
4. The development of a national structure of support for schools focused on inclusive ethos and pedagogy.
5. Specialist teachers, teaching assistants, psychologists, social work specialists, therapists and other health professionals to provide support to schools to develop confidence and effective practice.
6. A coherent approach to initial teacher and other training that assumes Inclusive Education.