Another day, another announcement. No sooner has the government’s 90% SEND debt write-off lifted the funding Sword of Damocles off councils, than more school plans are announced.
This video by the Education Secretary suggests the fabled Schools White Paper is to drawing ever nearer, but at this rate, what good news can there be left to announce?
Today’s missive concerns £1 billion for “the school estate”. In other words, buildings. Specifically, crumbling buildings, leaky roofs…
Of greater interest for us is the news of a new name for mainstream SEN units and resourced provision and pupil support units–what has been acronymed “SURPS”. No one wants them to be dubbed Slurps by the likes of us…
Instead, the DfE has come up with an umbrella term of “inclusion bases”,
“As part of the drive to make schools more inclusive by design, we expect every secondary school will, in time, have an inclusion base – a dedicated safe space away from busy classrooms where pupils can access targeted support that bridges the gap between mainstream and specialist provision.”
Bridget Phillipson in the press release for the announcement
At one level, this sounds like a tidy bit of simplification. One term, one direction of travel, less confusion. The way Ms Phillipson describes it above, makes it sound like a separate room with dedicated specialists children can pop into when they’re overwhelmed.
It’s a bit hyperbolic to claim, as they do, that school leaders report units as having “strong positive impacts as pupils thrive alongside their peers” More accurate would be to say SOME school leaders say SOME pupils have positive impacts. Many others are taught by teaching assistants in ill-defined provision, largely segregated from their peers.
Renaming doesn’t fix the grey areas children fall into
If you’ve ever tried to work out what a “resource base” actually means in your area, who decides entry, what support you get, who delivers it, whether it’s genuinely inclusive, and what happens if it closes, you’ll know the problem isn’t just the words. It’s the rules, the rights, and the reality on the ground.
Despite the new umbrella term, there will still be two models, as there are now.
“The term ‘inclusion base’ will be underpinned by two models: ‘support bases’ – commissioned and funded by individual settings and MATs; and ‘specialist bases’ – commissioned and funded by the local authority.”
While it may initially seem like these two models are just new names for “mainstream units” and “resourced provision” it may actually be that the second model is units and RP combined under one name, while the first model is, in fact, withdrawal or intervention rooms—more like the first Phillipson quote, instead of children most often being withdrawn and taught in corridors. If that’s the case, those rooms are going to be pretty busy if every school has only one each.
There is the creeping sense that an “inclusion base” can be used as a convenient halfway house: not quite mainstream, not quite specialist, and not always accountable in the way parents expect. And if changes mean an EHCP isn’t required for access (as we’ve heard is on occasion the case), there really is no accountability to be had.
A new umbrella term may simplify terminology for policy usage—but it doesn’t simplify families’ rights, or schools’ duties.
But this cannot be right…can it?
The following caught our eye in a Sky News report, and fits neatly with the above. Neatly but completely nuts and, we’re thinking, probably wrong:
“Under one plan discussed in government last year, the indicative threshold above which a council would fund a specific pupil would rise from around £6,000 to upwards of £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000.”
That’s more than most special school packages, and no school could afford that. Or they could, because they just wouldn’t accept or keep those children–for a start, they wouldn’t have the type or numbers of teachers needed.
If a child needs that much funding, they would require highly specialised provision. The truth is, very few children have, or require, packages that expensive and those who do won’t be in mainstream schools, even with an “inclusion unit”.
Unless, that is, Labour is going for full Article 24-type inclusion, clearing out special schools–but that’ll cost far more than they currently have earmarked.
More likely is that the government wants to break the link between individual EHCP funding–dishing out a lump sum for a school “inclusion unit” is faster and less bureaucratic, but again, virtually an accountability-free zone.
(As an aside, those private-equity-funded, for-profit independent special schools that do price gouge do need to be reigned in)
A base can support inclusion — or it can be a “safe” space that quietly segregates.
We’ve previously highlighted research and practice that cuts through a lot of the noise: resourced provision can function as an inclusive service that supports a child to stay in mainstream classes with the right adjustments, or it can become a safe space model, where separation becomes the default. That difference matters more than any name.
As mentioned earlier, this framing of inclusion bases as a “dedicated safe space away from busy classrooms” is telling. Safe spaces can be essential. Many children need somewhere calmer to regulate, recover, or get targeted support. But “safe space” can also become a euphemism for removal—a polite word for being educated away from peers, away from teachers, and away from the mainstream curriculum.
“Inclusion” is not a room. It’s not a corridor pass. It’s not being on a mainstream roll while spending your day elsewhere. Inclusion is belonging — in lessons, at lunch, on trips and after school clubs, in friendships — and being taught by staff who are trained and supported to adapt practice, not just manage crises. It’s inclusion as a verb. It’s the thing we do rather than a thing in itself.
What does inclusion mean anyway?
Here’s the awkward bit: policy is leaning hard on the language of inclusion, but we still don’t have an operational Government definition of what inclusion actually means.
Despite an Inclusion Taskforce and subsequent report –see the second half of this post we still don’t know. It may well be that it has decided, but it’s being saved for a “big reveal’ in the White Paper–they have to have something left…
But until inclusion is defined in a way that families can recognise—and challenge—we’re left with a concept that sounds great in a speech and collapses under cross-examination. Without a definition that we can all agree on, “inclusion” becomes elastic: stretched to fit whatever decision is being made—whether that’s about placements, funding, thresholds, or which children are deemed “too complex”.
If, as it certainly seems, “inclusion bases” will be the national policy push, the make-or-break question is this: Are we building a system that helps mainstream change for the better—or a system that moves children who don’t “fit” into classrooms where they are not part of a whole school experience, but keeping them out of special schools—where they do have community and they are included in the full life of their school?
Ask any parent of a child in a specialist school and they will tell you the great friendships they’ve made, how their self-esteem has grown, and where they feel wanted. That’s inclusion that will turn out a child more ready for adulthood than a child who may feel they’ve been pushed into a unit where they’ll be less bother.
The Government says it’s not about costs—that’s because it’s about ideology. There are plenty of special schools that are fantastic value, both in terms of cost and in future taxpayer savings for turning out useful members of society. This must not be overlooked.
Buildings matter
This new terminology is all rolled up with an announcement of funding to refurbish crumbly school buildings. That’s not SEND-specific, but hopefully, giving schools cash to refurbish knackered buildings, or as they put it, “transform the education estate” will stop them hoovering up money meant to support mainstream SEND.
In the DfE release, they claim, the “additional” £1 billion is, “over £700m to tackle issues and improve schools and colleges with a further £300m committed to Connect the Classroom to tackle the digital divide and so schools have the fast, reliable digital connectivity that modern teaching demands.”
But to be clear, our resident funding guru M. Keer, tells me this £1 billion is not new, new, but from the £38bn capital funding allocation for the 2025-2030 period announced last summer.
Guidance coming
The announcement also includes news that new guidance is coming this spring, detailing how adaptations in mainstream settings should improve inclusivity and accessibility, including breakout rooms, accessible changing facilities, outdoor learning spaces such as sensory gardens, and improvements to lighting, acoustics and ventilation.
Also coming guidance on inclusion bases–although there is still not yet any solid evidence base
The upcoming guidance is non-statutory, something that we have strongly questioned in advisory group meetings we’ve attended. If schools don’t obey statutory guidance, what hope does non-statutory guidance have? Non-statutory guidance is where accountability goes to die.
If the direction of travel is that every secondary school will eventually be expected to have an inclusion base, then families need more than warm words and “best practice”. They need clarity they can rely on when things go wrong—and they do go wrong.
Stability and some questions
We also need to talk about stability. Our look at school census data showed a rise in schools recorded as having units/resource bases—but also significant churn, with provisions appearing and disappearing over a relatively short period. For families, churn means uncertainty: the support that made attendance possible can vanish, staff can move on, and children can be pushed back into settings that aren’t ready or willing to meet need.
If inclusion bases become the national answer, we need to stop treating them as optional extras that can be switched on and off.
If this is going to be more than a rebrand, the Government needs to answer some basic questions:
- Rights and access: what is their legal status, who decides placement, and how do parents challenge decisions about how much time a child spends in an inclusion base?
- Standards: what minimum expectations apply on staffing, training, specialist input, and curriculum access?
- Accountability: how will bases be prevented from becoming internal segregation or “managed exit” routes?
- Data and transparency: what will be published about availability, outcomes, exclusions, part-time timetables and closures?
- Inclusion definition what does “included” actually mean — beyond being physically present on site?
“Inclusion bases” could be a route to genuine belonging for SOME children—if they come with statutory teeth, clear definitions, and proper investment in people as well as space.
But a new label isn’t a plan. And inclusion can’t just be a room at the end of a corridor.
Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.
Also read:
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- Navigating constraints: Why a former PCF chair thinks the current model is missing the mark for families
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
Key Content
- Mainstream SEND Funding: A simple explainer, another consultation, and why it really matters
- Research: Inclusion for neurodivergent pupils needs lived-experience trainers and getting the wider school environment right
- Inclusion bases: Can they help solve the SEND crisis?
- Capital carrot, SEND steamroller: The Government’s evidence-light reform route isn’t waiting for anyone
- Schools White Paper: What do we know so far about funding for SEND?
- SEND cash splash: What does it all add up to—and will ditching debt improve provision?
- Inclusion bases: a new label, a big ambition, same unanswered questions
- Fix SEND our way for 90% of SEND debt write off, Government tells councils, urging swift action on change. So much for co-production…
- EXCLUSIVE: LAs largely ignored Government’s “strong recommendation” on how to spend SEND Capital cash
- The £3 billion SEND funding extravaganza: We’ve crunched the numbers so you can ask the right questions
- SEND funding reforms will be immensely painful—but the current situation is chaotic and sinking fast
- SEND Inquiry report 3: How does the Education Committee want to fix SEND funding?
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
- EOTAS Consultation: A further assault on children’s SEND rights with cost saving and reintegration to schools at its heart - July 15, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I live in Canada, we have the same kind of problems about inclusivity in schools. I know from my daughters experience too there were really good teachers, and some not so good teachers. Either they were not trained enough to handle the job or hated the job. All the experiences she had (along with the bullying etc.) left her with bad memories of going to school. The tough part is once she graduated from her special program, she also aged out of supports. It has left us caregiving her for more than 20 years. Now we are facing aging and have to work really hard to get approved for supports. And even at that we can’t get a hold of someone who operates these non profits.
http://www.atypicaljourneystore.ca