Government tells us in the first page of the SEND reforms proposals, “The evidence is compelling: children and young people learning alongside their peers has proven academic and social benefits… Pupils with SEND who are educated in inclusive mainstream schools are twice as likely to find employment and live independent lives…” It begs the questions: what evidence have they been looking at and how reliable is it? How compelling is it in making the case for inclusive mainstream over specialist settings?
A deeper dive into this particular piece of evidence show us that it comes from a longitudinal study by Myklebust & Båtevik from 2006[1]. The research did conclude that educating young people in inclusive mainstream settings resulted in better outcomes than for those who attended specialist settings, but there are a few things to unpick:
First, the study was conducted in Norway, with an education system, funding model and learning approach that differs significantly to England’s. For example, in Norway the number of pupils in permanent special education departments was reported in to be relatively stable in 2022, unlike in England where the rise in numbers attending specialist settings is well documented. Country comparisons are only useful when differences in context, policy, and education systems are properly considered.
Second, the evidence is dated; this study is now 20 years old. In that time, the SEND landscape has changed dramatically in terms of need, diagnosis, law, expectations, and provision. If the benefits of mainstream versus specialist for students with SEND were an indisputable fact, then you might expect to see a wider data set and more recent evidence.
Third, the categorisation of ‘special needs’ and ‘disability’ points to a heterogenous and somewhat unclear definition of SEND. A stated limitation of the study is that ‘functional difficulties’ were assessed by multiple experts using inconsistent criteria at the start of secondary school. This makes it unclear whether like-for-like comparisons were made or whether differences between needs (e.g. autism versus social, emotional, mental health) were considered. As learners with more complex needs are both more likely to be in specialist settings and to face greater barriers to employment, higher unemployment rates may reflect need rather than setting. The study does not make clear how far it controlled for these differences.
Finally, and most importantly, ‘outcomes’ in the study are defined largely in terms of employment and financial independence. This risks reducing independence to paid work alone. Independence looks different for different young people: moving out of their family home into supported living, volunteering in their community, managing personal care, travelling independently or with minimal assistance, accessing community activities, to name a few.
You might ask whether other evidence in the reform proposals substantiates the link between mainstream and better outcomes. While the DfE’s report on GCSEs found that pupils with EHCPs who attended mainstream schools achieved 0.56 grades higher in English and maths, they acknowledged that they “cannot prove that mainstream placement causes better academic outcomes. The observed association may reflect selection processes that place pupils with less severe needs in mainstream settings.” And, crucially, “GCSEs capture one dimension of educational success” and “any academic advantage must therefore be weighed alongside…broader outcomes.”
Even on the DfE’s own terms the evidence base is far from definitive – so why are the limitations not more explicitly reflected in the reform proposals? Shouldn’t the questions we are asking, therefore, be:
- What are the research gaps and what do we need for a robust and nuanced evidence base on inclusion?
- What outcome measures matter for young people with SEND wanting to lead fulfilling adult lives, particularly from their perspectives?
Both studies employ a very narrow approach to measuring outcomes. Case studies from our recent Power of Specialist FE campaign demonstrate the range of meaningful outcomes to young people with SEND: community participation, self-advocacy, building and maintaining friendships, as well as employment. These outcomes may be harder to measure, but that should not prevent us from trying to include them within our frameworks. Natspec has some ideas for where the Government might start.
There also needs to be a better understanding of how young people themselves experience different types of provision, building on the 2022 ONS report that considered students’ experiences of both specialist and mainstream. The study delves into the impact of friendships, for example, with one young person attending a special school saying, “my school now has been the best so far because I’ve made the most friends ever. And some of my friends are really supportive.”
A richer, more holistic evidence base would consider issues like the cyclical relationship between disability, connection and loneliness, and integrate evidence on belonging, friendship and wellbeing into our understanding of inclusion and the impact on long-term outcomes.
Over the next few months, Natspec is doing some of this work with a new research project exploring what inclusion means to young people in specialist colleges, gaining a better understanding of what they need from their education to achieve their future goals and aspirations.
Consider this our contribution to an evidence base that still has some catching up to do – watch this space!
[1] This article is behind an academic paywall. Link here in folder: Economic independence for adolescents with special educational needs.pdf