Increasing proportions of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are becoming concentrated in a small number of mainstream schools in England, placing growing pressure on those schools and raising questions about fairness across the system.
New NFER research, High-SEND schools: Patterns and pressures in mainstream provision, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, looks at how and why this is happening, and what it means for schools, pupils and families. This final report builds on NFER’s earlier scene-setting report, which first revealed the stark inequalities in the distribution of pupils with SEND across schools.
The new analysis comes as the government’s recent Schools White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, set out an expectation that every local mainstream school should meet a wider range of need, with legislation now planned through the proposed Education for All Bill. However, this new research suggests that this ambition will be difficult to realise while pupils with SEND remain concentrated in a minority of primary and secondary schools.
Drawing on national data, a survey of 800 Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) and school leaders, and in-depth school case studies, the research finds that while some schools are developing deep expertise in inclusion, this concentration is creating pressures that many say are difficult to sustain. It is also limiting the extent to which expertise in SEND is shared more widely across the system.
The research also finds that this pattern is shaped by both “pull” and “push” factors. Pupils with SEND are often drawn towards schools with established reputations and expertise in inclusion, while capacity pressures elsewhere can limit access in other schools. Variation in school practices may further reinforce this pattern, with some schools less willing to develop a reputation for inclusion or discouraging admissions of pupils with SEND.
At the same time as the number of pupils identified with SEND has risen sharply, from 14.4 per cent in 2015/16 to 19.5 per cent in 2024/25 (over 1.7 million pupils), fewer than one in five schools report that they can meet the needs of all pupils on their roll, highlighting a widening gap between demand and schools’ capacity to respond.
While rising prevalence means that all schools are increasingly likely to support a broader range of need, this demand is unevenly distributed, which can further exacerbate these capacity pressures.
Primary schools with the highest rate of pupils* with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) had, on average, six times as many as those with the lowest rate. A similar pattern is seen in secondary schools, where those with the highest rate had around five times as many pupils as those with the lowest. In absolute terms, this equates to an average of three EHCP pupils per primary school with the lowest SEND levels, compared to 17 in those with the highest.
The evidence also suggests that these high-SEND schools are more likely to serve disadvantaged communities, meaning that concentrations of SEND often overlap with other forms of educational and social disadvantage. This can compound pressures on staffing, pastoral support and school finances.
The report suggests that inclusion bases (a new term introduced in the Schools White Paper to describe special educational needs (SEN) units, resourced provision, and pupil support units) are not a silver bullet for the SEND crisis.
While many schools say these arrangements can strengthen expertise and support pupils within mainstream schools, our evidence shows provision and integration are currently uneven, with many schools facing significant staffing and resource pressures in delivering them.
Commenting on the research, Matt Walker, Principal Investigator and Senior Research Manager at NFER, said:
“Our research shows that support for pupils with SEND is not being shared evenly across the system. Instead, it is concentrated in a minority of schools and placing unsustainable pressure on them.
“While these schools are demonstrating what effective inclusion can look like, the system itself is working against them, repeatedly steering pupils towards the same settings. At the same time, schools with fewer SEND pupils often do not develop the same breadth of expertise and experience, meaning the system is neither building capacity nor sharing responsibility effectively.
“If we want a genuinely inclusive system, responsibility for SEND cannot rest with a few schools. It has to be something every school is expected – and supported – to do.
“Without that shift, the government’s ambition for mainstream schools to better meet a wider range of needs will remain difficult to deliver.”
Key findings from the report include:
- Some inclusive schools become known as places that will “make it work”, shaping parental choice and local authority placement decisions.
- Leaders said that schools with strong reputations for inclusion were often treated as default or “last resort” placements when specialist capacity was limited, meaning they were expected to take pupils even where needs could not always be met safely or sustainably.
- High-SEND schools (schools with above-average proportions of pupils with SEND compared with their local area and nationally) often have stronger inclusive practice – but also face heavier workloads, financial pressure and increased complexity of need.
- Pupils with SEND in high-SEND schools are less likely to move schools than their peers with SEND in other settings.
- Not all SEND needs can be met in mainstream schools; with staff and parents reporting that some pupils require specialist provision in order to be supported safely and effectively.
Alice Reeves, Research Grants and Programmes Manager at the Nuffield Foundation, said:
“The research shows that parents of children with SEND are often attracted to schools with strong reputations for inclusion, while other schools direct these pupils elsewhere due to capacity pressures or concerns about performance scores. Without better scrutiny of admission practices, it is unclear how the proposed reforms will address this perverse incentive and make inclusive education genuinely mainstream.
“Mixed findings on SEN units and resourced provision also make it plain that the potential of inclusion bases will depend heavily on resourcing, staffing, careful design, and meaningful joint working between base and mainstream staff. And stakeholders stress that a proportion of children still require a specialist setting for their needs to be fully met.”
Recommendations for policymakers and system leaders
- Monitor the distribution of pupils with SEND locally and take action where school intakes appear persistently unrepresentative of local need.
- Ensure inspection and accountability systems reward inclusive practice and meaningful progress for pupils with SEND.
- Review funding so it better reflects differing levels of need across schools, making inclusion sustainable rather than goodwill-based.
Recommendations for schools and trusts
- Embed SEND support across teaching, curriculum, behaviour and leadership, not as a standalone function.
- Protect SENCO time and distribute SEND expertise across staff to avoid crisis-driven approaches.
- Use consistent, data-informed processes to identify and support pupils’ needs earlier.