Like everyone else in education, I’d been waiting for the schools white paper for a long time.
On the day of its release, I was up late, spending time analysing both the white paper and the SEND consultation paper. It took me seven hours.
Because I read them so intensely, I noticed many things should have been included but aren’t, and that’s really starting to frustrate me.
At first, I couldn’t put my finger on why so many aspects of true inclusion, things I felt were vital, were missing.
Then it dawned on me: even though the language is about the rights of children, the Department for Education documents are all very much centred on the school.
There is little to no meaningful mention of:
- Intersectionality, particularly between race and SEND
- Racism, both the barriers and the harm it causes
- Trauma-informed practice as a systemic necessity
- Emotionally based school avoidance
- Elective home education
- Children missing in education
Although the white paper refers to “white working class” children 25 times, there is less emphasis on racially minoritised groups within working-class communities.
This is despite evidence that disadvantage affects all racial groups, with children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and Black Caribbean backgrounds the least likely to reach their potential or have their underlying SEND needs accurately identified whilst still in school.
I’m not saying white working-class children should not be a priority. This group needs attention. But we also know that attainment and disadvantage intersect with ethnicity.
Regarding parental engagement and co-production, will we see national standards for these, or will they be included in the national inclusion standards?
I would also have expected to see explicit mention of behaviour policies, and the harm that is caused when they are not applied through a trauma-informed, neuro-affirming and intersectional lens.
Schools as site of change
Throughout both documents, schools are repeatedly framed as the primary and key unit of change. This matters because it positions schools as the site of change, rather than the child within their wider ecosystem.
When you reverse this framing, you ask different questions. What are the barriers to learning for this child? What does the ecosystem around them look like? How are these systems interacting to shape their experience of education?
This way of thinking is not new. It is something I learned working in alternative provision and can be framed through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework.
Scotland has embedded this thinking into policy and practice through the “Getting it right for every child” framework. How can two nations, both part of the United Kingdom, have such different approaches to children’s wellbeing?
The language in the white paper is very much rights-based, but those rights are translated exclusively into what schools should do, deliver or manage. What is missing is the clear articulation of children’s entitlements.
Where is the explicit commitment to a child’s entitlement to use their voice and have it heard and respected? Where is the recognition of lived realities shaped by racism, ableism, trauma, poverty and disadvantage?
We are using words like “belonging”, “thriving” and “inclusion” more frequently, but we seem much less comfortable with phrases such as “dignity”, “safety”, “freedom from harm” and “mattering”.
We know schools have become the catch-all for wider societal failures. And yes, the white paper explicitly talks about re-establishing schools as “anchors” within their communities, but this framing still prioritises the system over the child.
Missed opportunity
I welcome the shift towards a more relational approach alongside high standards and the growing recognition of executive function.
But I was hoping for more. This white paper has missed a significant opportunity to state clearly that children really do come first.
But this is nothing new. We rarely go far enough. Instead of sitting with uncomfortable truths, we become defensive.
One of those truths is that schools can be sites of harm for many children.
The more I learn about education and social justice, the more I want to see a system built around children as individuals.
