Can inclusion bases provide part of the solution to the SEND crisis?

The schools white paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, outlines the government’s ambition for every secondary school, and many primary schools, to have an inclusion base ‒ spaces where specialist support is provided for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).  

Drawing on new findings from our Nuffield Foundation-funded research, this blog post explores what we can learn from current inclusion bases about whether they can provide part of a meaningful solution to the SEND crisis.  

Mainstream schools are supporting increasing numbers of pupils with SEND 

Over the past decade, the SEND landscape has changed markedly. The number of pupils identified with SEND in England has risen steadily, reaching around 1.8 million pupils (20% of all pupils) in 2025. While specialist provision has expanded, the most significant growth has taken place in mainstream schools.

The number of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) — statutory plans outlining a child or young person’s special educational needs and the support they are legally entitled to — has more than doubled in mainstream primary schools since 2015/16, increasing from just over 60,000 to more than 150,000 in 2024/25.

Over the same period, EHCP numbers in mainstream secondary schools have also doubled, rising from over 55,000 to more than 110,000. This shift means that mainstream schools are no longer simply delivering universal inclusion; many are effectively operating as hybrid environments combining mainstream teaching with specialist provision. 

Early findings from our Nuffield Foundation-funded research on the uneven distribution of pupils with SEND suggest that this growth has not been evenly shared across the system. Pupils with SEND are often concentrated in particular mainstream schools. In practice, some schools have become local hubs of expertise and provision, while others support comparatively few pupils with higher levels of need. 

What are inclusion bases? 

Specialist provision within mainstream schools generally takes two forms. Firstly, there is resourced provision, which is intended to operate as a flexible space to provide targeted or short-term intensive support for SEND pupils, with the aim that they spend most of their time in mainstream classrooms. By contrast, SEN units function as more distinct specialist environments where pupils are taught separately from their peers in mainstream classes for much of the school day. Both types of provision normally specialise in a particular type of need such as speech and language difficulties, or Autism.  

We await further detail on how inclusion bases will be rolled out, but the white paper indicates that they will be classified either as Support Bases – providing a lower level of support (at the ‘Targeted Plus’ tier) and funded by individual schools or trusts – or Specialist Bases – providing more specialist support and funded by the local authority.  

What do we know about how effective existing bases in mainstream schools are? 

The white paper’s proposal to expand inclusion bases reflects the fact that many schools already consider themselves to have one. According to government data, just under 10 per cent of primary schools and around 20 per cent of secondary schools currently have SEN units and/or resourced provision as part of their offer.

However, our survey of 800 senior school leaders and SENCOsi found that a much higher proportion of schools consider themselves to be operating inclusion bases, albeit without formal funding or recognition. 

This pattern helps explain the policy logic behind inclusion bases. Rather than creating something entirely new, the government’s proposal can be seen as an attempt to scale up models that already exist, embedding specialist support within mainstream schools while enabling more pupils to remain connected to mainstream learning and their local communities. 

However, our survey suggests the evidence for inclusion bases is mixed. Of the schools that reported having a SEN unit and/or resourced provision in our surveyii, around two thirds agreed that this provision enhanced their overall capacity and expertise to support a wide range of SEND.

The remaining third comprises less than 10 per cent of primary and secondary schools who explicitly disagreed with this statement, and around a quarter who were on the fence.   

Further, only a third of secondary schools and fewer than half of primary schools said they felt their inclusion base could meet the needs of all pupils who accessed it. These findings suggest that while inclusion bases hold promise, they are not a silver bullet, and more evidence is needed to understand what makes them effective. 

How inclusive are inclusion bases? 

The white paper’s ambition depends not only on establishing more bases, but also on ensuring they promote meaningful inclusion rather than creating parallel systems within mainstream schools. Our findings suggest that this has not been the case in a significant minority of schools. In around a quarter of schools who said they had an existing base, pupils were reported to have limited interaction or friendships with peers outside the provision. Only two-thirds of primary schools felt pupils attending the base were well integrated into mainstream lessons and activities. For secondary schools, just under 80 per cent described pupils from the base as well integrated.  

Collaboration also appears inconsistent: over a third of schools reported weak joint working between base staff and mainstream teachers, potentially limiting the development of shared expertise and coherent support. Without strong integration, there is a risk that inclusion bases could expand capacity without fully delivering the white paper’s wider ambition of strengthening inclusive mainstream education. 

Funding and resources remain a central challenge 

In the current climate, funding remains a key challenge. Of the surveyed schools who reported having a base, over two-thirds reported that their base placed considerable pressure on school resources or staffing, and fewer than half felt they had sufficient specialist expertise to meet pupils’ needs. 

It remains unclear whether the proposed £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund, to be delivered over three years, will be sufficient to support SEND provision. Without sustained investment, there is a risk that inclusion bases will become overstretched rather than enabling schools to meet rising need. 

Conclusion: Can inclusion bases help solve the SEND crisis? 

Inclusion bases have the potential to increase capacity, help embed specialist expertise within mainstream schools, and deliver tailored support closer to pupils’ communities.  

But to realise that potential, and to ensure that inclusion bases strengthen rather than fragment mainstream provision, it will be important to provide: 

• Sustained, adequate funding
• Access to specialist staff
• Strong integration between base and mainstream teams
• Clear expectations for inclusion and pupil experience
• Monitoring to ensure bases extend, rather than limit, opportunities for pupils. 

Without this, they risk becoming isolated spaces that ease short-term pressure without delivering long-term change.