22. May 2026
What International Evidence Really Tells Us About SEND Reform
Borrowed Realism: What International Evidence Really Tells Us About SEND Reform
May 2026
There is something reassuring about the idea of ministerial air miles. A visit to Canada[1], a seminar in Lisbon, a well-chosen reference to Italy’s long-standing inclusion story – all signal seriousness, ambition and global awareness[2]. Across the education sector we are tantalised by international successes and reading the White Paper and its associated SEND reforms it is easy to apply these international reference points, creating the impression that, elsewhere, ‘mainstreaming inclusion’ has been achieved and that England need only catch up.
The problem is that the research being cited tells a far more complicated, and cautionary, story.
International perspectives are invaluable. They can challenge narrow inward-looking thinking and remind us that England’s current arrangements are as a result of historical decision-making, not inevitability. But when this comparative evidence is used selectively – as proof that inclusion ‘works’ rather than as a lens through which to examine complexity – it risks becoming a policy comfort blanket rather than a tool for genuine reform.
Take Canada, often presented as a leading light in moving away from segregated provision. The reality, as the literature shows is uneven and highly contingent[3]. Progress towards closing special schools has depended on provincial priorities, legal frameworks, funding models and – crucially – sustained investment in mainstream capacity. Even where special schools have closed, inclusion has not automatically flourished. Instead, new forms of exclusion have often emerged[4] seen in internal segregation, informal gatekeeping, or reliance on withdrawal and specialist units within apparently mainstream settings[5].
In other words, desegregation has been seen as a necessary part of systemic reform, but on its own has not successfully delivered inclusion. This matters enormously for England, where policy rhetoric appears increasingly confident that structural change alone – reducing reliance on special schools, tightening thresholds, encouraging ‘mainstream by default’ – will deliver better outcomes. Canada’s experience suggests that even where reforms signal a significant systemic shift, their success depends on the depth and coherence with which system redesign is carried through; without this, exclusion may simply be relocated rather than dismantled.
Portugal, too, is often cited approvingly. Almost all pupils with disabilities are educated in mainstream schools, and the legal framework is rightly lauded for its alignment with rights-based principles[6]. Yet the findings from Portugal[7] questions what this ‘success’ actually means as presence, participation and achievement continue to be unevenly realised. Although mainstream placement rates are high, practice often depends on removing pupils from their regular classrooms for separate support, with limited expansion of specialist staffing and unconvincing national outcomes data.
Most strikingly, the Portuguese case highlights how inclusion can become fragile when resources are spread thinly across a widened definition of need. Teachers report feeling underprepared[8]; parents fear that pupils with complex needs are being left behind in the pursuit of universalism[9]. The lesson here is not that Portugal has failed, but that true inclusion without adequate capacity, workforce confidence and accountability mechanisms create significant risk. A cautionary view reiterated across the sector in anticipation of implementation of widescale reform
Italy’s long history of inclusive education is perhaps the most seductive comparison of all. Since the 1970s, Italy has dismantled most special schools and embedded pupils with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Yet even after five decades, Italian researchers are candid about persistent challenges: a lingering medical model of entitlement[10], micro-exclusions within classrooms, and heavy reliance on support teachers who are often perceived as belonging to individual pupils rather than the class as a whole[11]. Rob Webster[12][13] has conducted extensive research on this latter point, for the English context.
What Italy teaches us is humbling. Inclusion is not a destination one reaches by legislative decree; it is a continuous, iterative process requiring vigilance, investment and cultural change. If a system with Italy’s depth of experience still struggles with fragmentation and inconsistency[14], England should be wary of assuming rapid transformation through structural reform alone.
The common thread across these international examples is not widespread, settled success in mainstreaming inclusion. It is complexity. Progress has been slow, uneven and frequently accompanied by unintended consequences. Evidence from international contexts indicates that progress in inclusive education depends on long‑term commitment to teacher development, adaptable funding, multi‑agency collaboration, and transparent engagement with trade‑offs.
This is where the English context becomes decisive. England’s SEND system is embedded in a highly performative and market‑oriented education environment, shaped by accountability pressures, increased reliance on parental tribunal advocacy, and ongoing recruitment and retention difficulties. Whist the government’s SEND reforms align in intent with a substantial international evidence base, the lack of specificity in the published documents raises questions about delivery and accountability. Should we seek to transplant policy lessons without adapting them to these conditions is not evidence‑based reform; it will simply result in policy borrowing devoid of system context – and that’s a challenging position to hold.
None of this is an argument against learning internationally. On the contrary, the education sector continues to pay close attention to international evidence, recognising its potential to challenge assumptions and encourage intellectual humility. But it should also prompt caution – particularly if we fail to acknowledge the difficulties encountered elsewhere. In such cases, attention to international evidence should be transparent in foregrounding complexity, trade-offs, and the conditions required for change - supporting careful judgement rather than encouraging expectations of straightforward transfer.
In the context of the current proposals, what we need is borrowed realism: honesty about limits, respect for context, and a willingness to invest time and energy in the unglamorous elements of system work that international evidence consistently shows inclusion depends upon, whilst recognising that the grass is not always greener on the other side.
[1] House of Commons Education Select Committee (April 2025) — cross‑party visit to Ontario, Canada, as part of the Solving the SEND Crisis inquiry; reflections published by participating MPs detail observations of Ontario’s inclusive mainstream and special‑education practices: Read about my trip to Canada with the Education Select Committee.
https://www.carolinevoaden.com/post/read-about-my-trip-to-canada-with-the-education-select-committee
[2] House of Commons Education Select Committee (2025), Solving the SEND Crisis — inquiry report calling for a more inclusive mainstream SEND system, informed by international evidence but stressing that inclusion must be properly resourced and must not weaken statutory rights or specialist provision.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmeduc/492/report.html
[3] Sokal, L. & Katz, J. (2015), Oh, Canada: Bridges and barriers to inclusion in Canadian schools — examines Canada’s inclusive education agenda, highlighting persistent structural barriers, uneven implementation, and the gap between rights‑based inclusion policy and classroom practice.
https://edusites.uregina.ca/paigehamann/wp-content/uploads/sites/157/2019/12/Oh-Canada-Bridges-and-Barriers-to-Inclusion-Sokal-Katz-2015.pdf
[4] Alyass, G. & Buist, A. (2024), Inclusive education in Ontario, Canada: An overview — reviews Ontario’s inclusive education framework and critiques gaps between policy intent and practice, including inadequate resourcing, limited teacher preparation, and continued exclusion within mainstream settings.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1481222.pdf
[5] Lupart, J. L. (1996), Setting Right the Delusion of Inclusion: Implications for Canadian Schools — a foundational critique arguing that inclusion was declared successful before policy, organisation, and workforce capacity were in place, leading to persistent quality and equity problems in Canadian schools.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585938
[6] Portugal: Decree‑Law No. 54/2018 (Legal Framework for Inclusive Education) — establishes inclusive education as the guiding principle of the Portuguese education system, requiring mainstream schools to meet diverse learner needs without diagnostic labelling as a precondition for support.
https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/EEspecial/dl_54_2018_en_version_0.pdf
[7] Niemtus, Z. (2025) Is Portugal our guiding light for inclusion? TES Research highlights disputes among Portuguese researchers, variability between schools, and concerns that reduced labelling may mask unmet needs. https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/how-school-inclusion-works-in-portugal
[8] Alves, I. (2024) Moving towards inclusive educational policies in Portugal. Research suggests that responsibility for inclusion has shifted to mainstream teachers faster than training, staffing, and support systems have developed. https://wels.edulead.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/09/E1-Alves_WELSforum_PoliciesPT_Sept24.pdf
[9] Carvalho, A. E. & Veiga, A. (2025) Perspectives of guardians/parents in Portugal: interpreting the inclusive education policy through lived school practices. Research documents uneven implementation, resource constraints, and limited translation of Portugal’s 2018 inclusion reforms into improved learning outcomes. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1613146/full
[10] D’Alessio, S. (2012) Inclusive Education in Italy: A Critical Analysis of the Policy of integrazione scolastica. Ethnographic analysis showing that Italy’s integration policy remains grounded in medical–deficit assumptions and produces forms of micro‑exclusion despite long‑standing mainstreaming.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.674770
[11] Ianes, D., Demo, H. & Dell’Anna, S. (2020) Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive developments, and challenges. Identifies enduring weaknesses in Italian inclusion, including reliance on individualised support teachers, persistence of medical models, and insufficient system‑level monitoring.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09509-7
[12] Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the impact of teaching assistants: How research challenges practice and policy. Landmark paper demonstrating that pupils with highest SEND needs made less academic progress when heavily supported by TAs, due to deployment models — not TA quality.
https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/lre/article/2405/galley/16358/view/
[13] Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2017). The Special Educational Needs in Secondary Education (SENSE) Study. Explains how inclusion policies can worsen outcomes without system redesign. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/SENSE%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
[14] Ianes, D., Zagni, B., Zambotti, F., Cramerotti, S. & Franch, S. (2024) Inclusione scolastica e sociale: un valore irrinunciabile? Large‑scale survey revealing growing inclusion‑skepticism among educators, who endorse inclusion ideologically but report major feasibility and implementation problems.
https://rivistedigitali.erickson.it/integrazione-scolastica-sociale/archivio/vol-23-n-1/inclusione-scolastica-e-sociale-un-valore-irrinunciabile/