Inclusion is the right policy...or maybe it's not
What are people saying about the UK Labour plans for special education?
In a column 26 February 2026 for The Guardian, Frances Ryan promoted the new policies promoulgated in the Labour party’s reform of the special education system in the UK. She expressed specific support of efforts to have children with disabilities receive schooling in mainstream schools. Ms. Ryan, who is a researcher and the author of trade books about disability as well as newspaper columns, wrote under the headline, “Labour’s Send1 reforms get this right: disabled children in mainstream schools is transformative for everyone: It doesn’t fit neatly on a Treasury spreadsheet, but there is huge value in disabled and non-disabled pupils learning together.”
In addition to referring to public concern about the costs of special education and distribution of funds for education to private providers as well as societies’ persistent lower expectations for students with disabilities, to make her case Ms. Ryan drew on her personal experience. As child, she had used a wheelchair to move about her school. One might therefore say that she comes by her advocacy naturally, but she also studied for it—she holds a Ph.D. in politics.
Her message was that governments, including a “Reform government wait[ing] in the wings,” should not abandon efforts to include students with disabilities in schools. Inclusion, she contended, not only benefited students with disabilities, but also their peers. Changes are coming to UK schools and
…“inclusion” is the overriding theme: all mainstream schools will now have tailored support to – in the government’s words – “make every school truly inclusive”
As would probably surprise few readers of Special EducationToday, not everyone agreed with Ms. Ryan’s views. Some readers of her column wrote letter to The Guardian expressing contrary views, and the newspapers editors published those letters. Here a notes about three that were published under the headline, “Mainstream schools are not beneficial for all Send children: Readers on the importance of special schools in response to Frances Ryan’s article about Labour’s reforms on special educational needs and disabilities”;
Anonymous explained that his or her daughter’s experience was not as good as Ms. Ryan described. The writer noted that evidence showed social isolation or some students with disabilities in the mainstream and that the daughter’s learning had “stalled” until she was enrolled in a price program.
Pete Crockett, an administrator for special schools, lauded Ms. Ryan’s efforts, but explained that “Mainstream inclusion can be transformative, but it is not universally appropriate,” and some children need different environments.
John Lawrence, the parent of a child with autism, observed that the private programs that had benefitted his son had disappeared and their expertise had been lost. He complained that “The race to integrate has starved special schools that were centres of excellence of funding.”
These contrasting views echo points that have been made for at least since the 1980s. Some advocates restate the ideas (and experiences) that Ms. Ryan presented to champion inclusion, but others—such as these letter writers—see inclusion policies as less auspicious because of their effects on their own children’s experiences.
I doubt we educators and families will ever get beyond such debates. People’s opinions are predicated on personal perceptions, which is to say that the evidence in discussions of inclusion is subjective and selected experiences. And, it is terrifically difficult to debate from more than personal opinion, because trustworthy empirical evidence is terribly difficult to find. (Well, maybe some readers can set me straight here: If someone knows of the definitive study or studies that demonstrate the superiority of inclusion (or not-inclusion), please pass it along to all of us so that we may learn from it.)
Footnote
For those who are unfamiliar with the terms used in the UK, “Send” refers to “special education needs disabilities” and is often written in all capitals. I preserved the capitalization that The Guardian used in its printed copy.