It’s over 14 years since David Cameron pledged to end the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Now the policy pendulum seems to be swinging in the opposite direction, but is it really? Under the previous government, the phrase “inclusive education system” was used to mean mainstream and special schools. Recently we’ve noticed a shift in language, with ministers and advisors using phrases like “inclusive mainstream” and “mainstream system” with increasing frequency. This, at least partly, seems to mean more use of units, bases and resourced provision within mainstream schools.
We are increasingly concerned about the rapid expansion of resourced provisions when the main driver is cost reduction rather than meeting the needs of disabled children and young people. Knee-jerk policy shifts, lacking transparency or consultation, should be raising red flags within the SEND sector.
Over a very short period, resourced provisions have quadrupled in some local authorities (LAs), notably those linked to the Delivering Better Value (DBV) programme. The programme has an explicit target for over 15,000 more children being supported through resourced provision; a 370% increase. Yet at the same time, some valued units for disabled children with “lower incidence” needs have closed.
In this context, there is a very real risk of disabled children with diverse needs being lumped together and segregated within mainstream schools, without access to the support and facilities they need, creating the illusion of inclusion when the real motivation is cost-cutting. Without care, they could all too easily become exclusion units, undermining what inclusion means.
There are also some big questions about the status of different types of provision, with a bewildering and expanding range of terms springing up to describe them. There is a lack of national oversight about their quality or purpose and funding is inadequate and unreliable. It’s chaotic and confusing for families, who often don’t know what to expect or what their rights are.
Status matters. If a provision is just a department in a mainstream school, then it’s up to the school whether they admit a child or not (and for how long). The provision would need to be included in section F of an EHCP to ensure a child or young person could access it (assuming it stays open). Then there’s the question of how much choice children and their families would have over whether they are placed in these types of provision. Could they be forced into them?
We’re going to take a closer look at the evidence and are keen to hear from people with a range of views, so please do get in touch and tell us about your experiences. To begin with we asked the leader of a well-established Resource Base in the Midlands to explain some of the terminology and provide insights into what works and what doesn’t.
What are Resource Bases and Units? by a mainstream school Resource Base leader
In this article, I am going to concentrate on the difference between Resource Base and Unit provision. SNJ has other articles on Alternative Provision. I am going to focus specifically on the secondary phase because that is the area in which I have most expertise, as I manage a Resource Base in a secondary school.
Resource Bases and Units at the secondary phase are departments within the school, staffed by teachers and a number of teaching assistants (TAs).
Teachers take on the role of the SENCO for the children supported by the Base/Unit. This means they coordinate Annual Reviews, Team Around the Family (TAF) meetings, attend Child in Need meetings, liaise with NHS colleagues such as physios, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and CAMHS professionals. They liaise with and advise subject specialist teachers and senior leaders, alongside delivering aspects of detailed provision such as communication groups and literacy and life skills teaching, depending on the needs of the cohort. They also responsible for line management of support staff and safeguarding. TAs provide support in lessons and in the Base/Unit, under the direction and supervision of subject and Base/Unit teachers.
Bases and Units generally have one or two classrooms, depending on size, and access to other therapy rooms, depending on their specialisation. They may also have spaces for the young people to be supported at social times such as lunch and break. They may have specialist toilet facilities and other facilities such as kitchens, again, depending on their specialism.
Base and Unit provisions reflect the different needs children and young people with SEND present in the school system. A set of indicators for admission will help teaching staff and others, depending on who manages admissions, to determine who will benefit most from the provision.
What’s the difference between Resource Bases and Units?
The Department for Education (DfE) admits that, “In practice the difference between SRP [Specialist Resource Provision] and a Unit is often less defined so that careful briefing at the earliest stage is essential to ensure that a suitable range of spaces is provided.”
So what’s the difference between the two? Quite a bit as you can see below:
Resource bases:
- Resource Bases cater to the needs of young people who are academically able, to help them access the mainstream curriculum, culminating in GCSEs and A Levels/Level 3 qualifications. This can be tricky to assess at ages 10 and 11, so it is never going to be the case that the right children get into the right place all of the time (even if there is enough capacity), but it works as a general guide.
In a Resource Base, teaching and learning happens in mainstream classes with mainstream subject specialist teachers, with support coming from the Resource Base in terms of staff, intervention (such as overlearning/pre-teaching, therapies) and environment. - A Resource Base can offer flexibility in terms of the curriculum, so pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) can access the therapies and provision detailed in Section F. A secondary school is governed by the timetable to a far greater extent than a primary school, so timetable changes to drop some subjects is required. This is to accommodate pre-teaching, over-learning, communication groups, therapies, learning to use technology, or simply to give the learner some time to regulate their emotions.
Because a Resource Base supports a small number of children within the secondary school, it is possible to make this adjustment personal to the child (as opposed to ‘everyone who needs support with reading must give up French’) and look for opportunities where the child or young person can focus on their strengths as well as the things they need help with. - This means pupils supported by a Resource Base each have a different balance between lessons and Base time, depending on their needs. Some young people may spend up to 90% of their time in lessons, while other pupils’ timetables will be set up for around 30% in class. Any lower than that and the child risks spending most of the time in the Base, away from class teachers and with TAs—not the best way to get a mainstream education.
The Resource Base enhances the educational provision of the mainstream school.
SEN Unit Provision
- An SEN Unit provision in a mainstream school, on the other hand, supports pupils whose learning needs make it difficult for them to access a mainstream curriculum. This means most of their core learning takes place in the Unit, delivered by Unit teaching staff, and supported by TAs.
- Young people supported in a Unit can access the mainstream school for enrichment lessons, where subject specialist classrooms and teachers allow them to broaden their experiences, for example in design and technology, drama, music and/or PE.
- Young people can attend more or fewer mainstream lessons according to their needs and abilities.
- Again, there is a limit to how much time spent in the Unit is a good idea for the young person. Anything above 30% runs the risk of the young person becoming isolated in the Unit, separated and segregated from the rest of the school community.
Mainstream school enhances the educational provision of the Unit. If children can attend mainstream lessons, this is celebrated. However, it is not the expectation.
What sort of Bases/Units can there be?
As there are lots of different young people with different needs, so there are lots of different kinds of Bases/Units. These include for meeting the needs of young people with autism, physical disabilities, hearing and vision impairments, speech, language and communication difficulties (SLCN) and the catch-all of SEMH—social, emotional and mental health needs. Different kinds of needs, for example, physical disability or trauma from deprivation, require different approaches, staffing sizes and training. Or this is the ideal, anyway.
As different Bases/Units are staffed and trained to differing levels and types of expertise, it is important, as far as it is possible, to get the right children supported by the right kind of Base/Unit. Not an easy task and there will always be pupils who don’t fit neatly into an administrative category. There is also great pressure on the availability of places and an expectation that parents should be able to choose which type of school provision they prefer for their child. And that’s tricky when everyone likes the same one, regardless of its specialism.
Bases/Units can be run (staffed and managed) by schools/multi-academy trusts (MATs) or by the LA/SENSS (special educational needs support service). There are advantages and disadvantages to both models. They are not schools in themselves and they do not share the same legal definition as schools.
Bases and Units with a high level of teacher and TA time can support young people with higher level and more complex needs. That means teachers are on hand every day, with a low teaching load and there are a high number of TAs (though this may not equate to 1-1 support). Bases/Units managed by Higher Level Teaching Assistants (HLTAs) with oversight from a mainstream SENCO, can support pupils with “lower” levels of need.
The number of young people supported by the Base/Unit is relatively low. A large Base/Unit in a mainstream secondary school could have up to 30 places, depending on the needs of the young people. It is not the case that adding a couple of extra TAs and another table would increase capacity. Having all of your high-needs children in one place can be similar to having all of your fireworks in one tin—coupled with overcrowding and/or under-resourcing, it’s akin to throwing in a lighted match. Numbers are governed by nationally recognised risk assessments.
It is possible to have more than one kind of Base/Unit in a school. Just because the Hearing Impaired (HI) Base has empty places doesn’t mean that those places are suitable for a child with autism.
Which children and young people should access Bases/Units?
There is nothing quite like that feeling of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and this also applies to children and young people supported by Bases/Units. The last thing anyone wants is to have a young person stuck in the Base, feeling like they don’t belong, or that they can’t do what teachers are asking. Meanwhile their mental health, and potentially their behaviour, plummets as a result. A good time to review whether the provision is continuing to meet a child’s needs is at the end of Key Stage 3, but being open to discussion at an Annual Review would be helpful to everyone.
There are young people with EHCPs who don’t need the kind of support a Base/Unit offers. Over-supporting young people can have unplanned consequences, and in the end, can be disempowering. Equally, signs that a young person’s needs are not being met in school, such as changes to their behaviour and difficulties in attending, don’t necessarily mean they need to be supported by a Base/Unit. Tweaks to timetables and ensuring the provision in the plan is being carried out can work wonders.
What does inclusion look like when children and young people are supported by Bases/Units?
Frankly, just as there is no one size fits all to an EHCP, there is no one size fits all to inclusion. Social inclusion and the development of friendships are often a major concern for parents.
I see any secondary school as being made up of different communities. There are the young people who hang out in the library, those who play music together, another set of young people who love the art teacher and so on. The Base/Unit is yet another community within the mainstream school, one where the quieter—and often the neurodivergent—pupils can meet and make friends based on shared interests or experiences. I’ve found neurodivergent young people don’t need explicit teaching on friendship and communication when there is a place for them to find ‘someone just like me’ with whom a friendship can develop naturally. They won’t always be going around to tea or each others’ birthday parties, but I bet they’ll be online chatting (loudly) together while playing Roblox, Fortnite or Minecraft in the evenings (and probably well into adulthood!).
As an outcome, getting on well in lessons, having interactions with teachers and accessing trips and outings, as well as events such as sports days, concerts and proms is a good sign that young people are being included in the life of the school. Of course, as they get older, children and young people themselves take greater charge of what they want to be included in. “Inclusion” doesn’t mean being in everything all of the time.
What do parents want out of Bases/Units?
All parents want their children to be happy and to learn well. When their child has additional needs and their parents want them to stay in mainstream school, a Base/Unit can seem like the answer to all their prayers. Some parents want the high level of TA support, other parents want the close connection with teaching staff that Base/Unit teachers can facilitate and provide. Some parents want their young person to achieve a clutch of high GCSE grades, while others are happy that they make it to 16 in one piece, regardless of exam results. Everyone who wants a Base Place wants their child included in mainstream education.
Sometimes parents, as well as politicians, teachers, headteachers and other interested parties, can misunderstand what the Base/Unit is for and what it does—and how their child is reacting to being in a supported space in a mainstream school. Being clear about what additionally-resourced provision is, and what it can and cannot do, is helpful in this regard.
What do children want from the Base/Unit?
All children can be reluctant to do the things they find hard (such as spelling, reading, maths, being in busy spaces) or that are full of demands (school). This can mean once they are in the Base/Unit, they can become reluctant to leave it, or perhaps their behaviour starts speaking for them.
All children want to do well, and achievement at school is enormously protective to mental health, especially when other areas of their lives may be hard. That said, not all young people supported by Bases/Units, by the very nature of their personalities, their particular disabilities or abilities, are ready for GCSE at 16. This doesn’t mean they, or the placement, have failed. It just means it may take them a little longer to discover their talents and direction. Some young people are ready at age 11 for the big changes of secondary school and some are not—and this is, or it should be, okay.
For many, having that quieter, low-arousal space in school staffed by people who have the time and space to get to know them well, means mainstream school life can become something manageable. Still hard, still with moments of intense challenge when it feels like everything is going wrong (they are teenagers after all), but safe—a place where it’s not only okay but good, to be who they are.
Are there any problems with Bases/Units?
Yes, of course, it’s never perfect.
Segregation: First, and most importantly, children/young people can get stuck in them, accessing hardly any of the education on offer in the school and spending an increasing amount of time with adult helpers rather than making friends and developing their skills with other young people. While this can be enormously entertaining for young people, listening in to adults and having a nice chat all day isn’t what school is about. This is segregation.
This can happen for several reasons that need to be addressed so the pupils can be included in the whole school, and the provision can enable the school to be inclusive. The whole purpose of the setting is to help young people be included in mainstream classes and the school curriculum.
Getting greater support: Making a change or getting further assessment can also be problematic. Once a child is ‘in the Base’ it can often be seen as the answer to all problems, when it isn’t. Getting further assessments can be tricky, especially when, say, educational psychology work is focused on EHCP assessment. If you want your child’s EHCP to demonstrate they need a base, then once they have that place, it can be seen as ‘job done’. Statutory timescales and a lack of capacity elsewhere in the system can also contribute to children getting stuck and not making progress.
Less teacher input: Bases/Units run by HLTAs don’t have as much teacher input, and this is never as effective in terms of teaching and learning. This can happen for several reasons, including the lower level of need, or when the base is run, managed and financed by the school, for instance. Parents often want that high level of TA support, but without teacher input the children can become increasingly disempowered and segregated. A teacher/SENCO should have oversight and the time to do so.
Other potential pitfalls are:
- Children can become ‘someone else’s problem’ – which happens in SEND anyway, but the additional SENCO role of the lead teacher can confuse class teachers.
- Bases/Units can be poorly understood by the staff in the host schools.
- It can be tricky for parents if they want to make a complaint, especially if they haven’t understood how the management and accountability system works. It can all become a bit of a mystery to navigate.
How can we avoid hidden segregation?
No one wants resource bases or units to become hidden segregation. There are a number of ways this can be avoided.
For schools, LAs, and the DfE:
- Get the definition right, both for mainstream inclusion and for what a resource base or unit provision is. Defining what the provision is for will help it be successful, and ensure it is well understood by all stakeholders.
- Clearly state the relationship between the Base/Unit and the host school and make sure that it is revisited regularly.
- Be clear on who needs which kind of Base/Unit. Not all children/young people with SEND are good candidates for Base/Unit provision.
- Have defined points in a child’s educational journey where the provision can be reviewed. The end of Key Stage 3 would be an ideal point.
- Have capacity in the system for when things aren’t working, either with specialist school places or with a graduated level of support within the mainstream.
- Be honest with parents about the limits of a Base/Unit and how it works: It doesn’t automatically provide 1-1 TA support in all lessons, and it isn’t possible for any Base/Unit teacher to deliver an entire GCSE curriculum by themselves for an individual.
- Make sure that the Resourced Provision actually has the resources needed—and that includes admin assistance, as Base/Unit Leads are often far more closely connected to the families they support than the mainstream SENCO which has implications for their workload.
For parents:
- Be clear with yourself and with the rest of the team about what you want from a Base/Unit.
- Know that when a Base/Unit provision isn’t working (that is, the young person is accessing very little of the mainstream education despite everyone’s efforts) this may be a sign that a change in setting needs to happen – and this isn’t a sign of failure of you or your child, just a sign of change.
Also read:
- What’s happening with the SEND & AP Change Programme— November 2024 update
- Too many children arrive in AP with no needs assessment—schools need to be more curious about the “why”
- How government-funded schools’ SEND training has young people’s experiences at its core.
- More “bold” reform for SEND and more children in mainstream—but how mainstream is it really?
- Delivering better value in SEND? Much of a new review is based on deep and fatal flaws that may uproot the SEND system
- What makes an autism assessment report genuinely useful to a school?
- Big ideas belong to everyone: Education, rights and lifelong learning for people with learning disabilities
- As The Guardian prints our joint campaign’s open letter, it’s clear people with lived experience don’t want to lose SEND rights
- How do you ensure pathways to education, health, and social care support, meet both diagnosis and needs?
- Researching flexi-schooling: How beneficial is it for children with SEND?
- Oops, we did it again… The Government must now listen to more than 100,000 people who do not want to lose SEND rights
- Experts at Hand: When is an occupational therapist also a SEND expert?
- Could using AI to filter Government consultation responses lead to “algorithmic silencing” of neurodivergent voices?
- A council’s “improvement journey”? How determined SEND parents catalogued the trail of their LA’s unlawful behaviour
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
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
I campaign on disabled children’s rights to inform and influence policies and strategies. SEND Action coordinates strategic group legal action on key SEND issues, including a judicial review against the government regarding SEND funding. I represent SEND Community Alliance on the Special Education Consortium and on the SEND Strategic Oversight Board.
I’m passionate about social justice and have a research background in international development, focusing on children and education. I’m now developing research partnerships to explore and evidence the experiences of disabled children and young people and their families, particularly in relation to access to justice.
- The DfE’s URGENT survey for data on its new obsession: Mainstream SEND units - July 23, 2025
- SEN Resource Bases and Unit Provision in Secondary—what are they and do they count as inclusion? - January 10, 2025
- “Every learner matters and matters equally”. But in England’s education system, do they really? - July 3, 2024
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Where do Access Centres fit in to this? Our child attended an Access Centre attached to a mainstream school for a year. If thinking about a continuum of need from your article, resource bases are at the lower end, then units for greater need, and an Access Centre for the greatest need. Our experience was of a specialist Autism Access Centre for autistic young people of mainstream academic ability but whose anxiety and sensory needs meant the mainstream environment is totally overwhelming. Subject teacher specialists from the main school used to teach in the Access Centre on rota, and discrete lessons could be joined in the main school depending on the student. Sadly funding ran out for the model and it was changed into a resource base. Existing students were forced out as suddenly the expectations on them were completely different and they simply couldn’t cope and dropped out.