Disadvantaged pupils with SEND effectively shut out of high performing schools

• Top 500 secondary schools take in a lower proportion of pupils eligible for both free school meals and SEN support than live in their catchment area.
• 41% of primary and secondary school leaders think some schools actively discourage applications from pupils with SEND, and this rises to 50% of leaders in schools with the highest proportion of SEND pupils.

New research published today finds that the top 500 secondary schools are effectively shutting out local disadvantaged pupils with SEND. Top schools for attainment take in just half as many disadvantaged pupils with SEND as the average comprehensive, and 36% fewer than live in their catchment area.

Polling of school leaders for the Sutton Trust suggests this is often a deliberate strategy by schools to limit the numbers of these pupils coming through their school gates. 41% of senior leaders believe some schools in their area actively discouraged applications from pupils with SEND (46% primary school leaders, 32% secondary leaders).

Half (50%) of leaders in schools with the highest level of SEND pupils report that some schools actively discourage applications from pupils with these needs. School reputations for SEND provision also play a major role. 63% of school leaders said different reputations for quality of SEND provision and 55% said reputations for inclusivity accounted for differing SEND intakes across schools.

32% of school leaders also believe parents’ perceptions of a school’s approach to behaviour help explain different intakes of pupils with SEND. For example, a school that’s perceived as being particularly strict might be seen as an unsuitable destination for their children with SEND, compared to a school with a reputation for being more accommodating to those with additional needs.

This new report builds on previous Sutton Trust research showing the 500 highest performing comprehensives had fewer children eligible for free school meals (FSM) than the national average, and often fewer than their local averages. Top schools that are less representative of disadvantage also tend to be less representative of SEND. When looking at the Progress 8 performance measure, 71% of the top 500 schools with an ‘FSM gap’ also had a ‘SEND gap’.

This matters, because pupils with SEND, and those with the double disadvantage of coming from a low-income background and having SEND, are significantly less likely to attend top state schools, even if there’s one in their local area. In many cases, this could be down to active discouragement by some schools. This underlines the scale of the government’s challenge in creating a more inclusive system where children with SEND can thrive in their local mainstream schools.

The polling also revealed school leaders’ views on what would most help them to educate more pupils with SEND. Two-thirds (66%) stated more teachers or teaching assistants were needed, 58% wanted more specialist support, such as speech and language support, and 28% wanted better training on SEND and inclusion. One in four leaders in schools with high levels of SEND felt that greater recognition of inclusion in inspections and league tables is key.

The Sutton Trust is calling for the government to shift school accountability through both Ofsted and league tables, to address disincentives to schools being more inclusive of children with SEND and those eligible for free school meals. Schools that do well with very challenging intakes should be rewarded and celebrated, but the scales are currently tipped against them. The success of the SEND reforms will also be driven by delivering on the increased level of funding, teacher recruitment, specialist support and training that’s made available to mainstream schools.

Commenting, Nick Harrison, CEO of the Sutton Trust, said:

‘It’s appalling that many of the top performing schools take in a lower proportion of SEND pupils than live in their catchment area. This amounts to further social segregation of the school system, and risks entrenching the double disadvantage faced by low-income families whose children also have SEND needs.

‘In many cases, schools appear to be actively discouraging applications from SEND pupils. But we should recognise the tangled web of assessments and incentives, and long-term underfunding, that prevent school leaders taking bolder action on inclusivity. This must change if the government is to deliver on its ambition to create more inclusive schools. Right now, too many young people aren’t able to get the support they need locally, and that’s a disgrace.’