SEND, belonging and the evidence behind reform

The Government’s case for reform

The Government’s case for reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system places massive emphasis on the ideas of ‘locality’ and ‘belonging’ – often conflating the two. The narrative being used is seemingly simple (probably deliberately so): children should be educated close to home, alongside their peers and within their communities, because inclusion is expected to improve both their educational experience and their wider outcomes.

This very simple analysis has been used to press on with the SEND White Papers, without properly acknowledging that for many young people there simply is not a school nearby that is suitable. I have written elsewhere about this, and the concerns that the basic assertion gives rise to; especially in view of the stated intention within the White Paper, and the following EOTIS consultation, the remove parents’ ability to challenge the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan.

New DfE research on school belonging

A couple of weeks ago, The Department for Education dropped new research, School belonging and attainment at key stage 4: linked data study (August 2026). This research is hugely relevant to the narrative of the proposals. The Executive Summary of the research confirms;

“Belonging continues to grow in interest, especially given the government’s ambitions set out in the recent Schools White Paper (2026), Every Child Achieving and Thriving.”

This research paper is therefore particularly important, and the publication date is concerning. Gemma Collins received more social media attention from the DfE. A cynical person would also note that the publication of this research (19 August) was the day before the GCSE results, which, of course, received a huge level of attention.

What the research actually found

One of its findings deserves much closer attention than it has so far received: the difference in reported belonging between SEN and non-SEN pupils was not statistically significant on the study’s preferred measure of belonging.

SEN and non-SEN pupils’ reported sense of belonging

The study reports that 56.62% of SEN pupils and 62.98% of non-SEN pupils agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I feel like I belong at school”. It then states: “However, the subgroup differences were not quite statistically significant at the 5% level (p=0.05)” . That qualification matters because the report itself identifies this single question as its preferred measure. It describes the question as “more accurate” and says it is “the most precise and cleanest measure of belonging”.

Belonging and the Government’s SEND reform narrative

This creates an important concern when the research is read alongside the Government’s SEND reform proposals. The Every Child Achieving and Thriving Schools White Paper states explicitly: “In addition, children with SEND, children in need and those eligible for free school meals all report lower school belonging” (Every Child Achieving and Thriving, DfE, 2026, Chapter 4, “Pupil belonging: The scale of the challenge”).

It then says that “positive pupil engagement, including things like having a sense of belonging at school, are key to tackling some of the most important barriers to opportunity” and that evidence shows “clear positive relationships with attainment”.

Locality, inclusion and belonging

The SEND reform consultation goes further in connecting belonging with locality and inclusion. Its foreword states: “When children grow up together, attend their local school and feel they belong to their local community, our society is stronger.” It describes children with SEND as increasingly being educated away from “their friends and neighbours”, sometimes travelling “hours each day away from home simply to go to school”.

The consultation subsequently describes the objective as “Every child deserves high-quality, inclusive education close to home, where they can learn, make friends, and participate in their community.” It also proposes that children with SEND should be able to remain in mainstream settings alongside their peers wherever appropriate.

The policy narrative is clear: bring children with SEND closer to their communities, strengthen inclusion, increase belonging and improve outcomes.

Does the research support the Government’s narrative?

But the new research challenged that narrative. The study does not establish that SEN pupils have significantly lower belonging using the measure it identifies as its preferred measure. Nor does the study establish that moving children into local mainstream schools will cause their sense of belonging to increase. It establishes associations between measures of belonging and attainment, while explicitly treating belonging as a complex construct.

There is a difference between saying that SEN pupils appear to report lower belonging, saying that the difference is statistically significant, and saying that the education system is responsible for that difference and that changing the education system will improve belonging. The new DfE research supports the first proposition more readily than the second, and does not by itself establish the third.

That distinction is especially important when you consider again the points I made at the start of this piece about the timing of the publication of this research.

What the evidence tells us about SEND reform

Taken together, the findings do not provide the clear-cut evidence that the Government’s SEND reform narrative might suggest. The research does find lower reported belonging among SEN pupils, but on the study’s preferred, more direct measure, the difference between SEN and non-SEN pupils was not significant.

Crucially, the research also does not establish that the current SEND system is responsible for any difference in belonging, or that moving children into local mainstream education will itself improve their sense of belonging. This matters because the Government’s SEND consultation places considerable emphasis on children attending local schools, belonging to their communities and the need to reform the system around that principle.

The research therefore supports the existence of a difference that warrants further investigation, but it does not provide the straightforward evidential basis for the wider causal narrative being used to promote reform.

Why the timing of the research matters

Bearing that in mind, I return to the earlier point that the timing of its publication is also worthy of scrutiny: the study was released on 19 August, the day before GCSE results day and during the summer period. That has to raise a legitimate question about whether a study containing such important points about the narrative wrapping the SEND reforms has received the level of attention necessary before its findings become embedded in the policy debate. This research would have also been extremely helpful when preparing a response to the consultation paper.