Defining special educational provision as that which is ‘additional to or different from’ feels less fit-for-purpose with each passing academic year. Is it time to redefine SEND?
The problem
Inconsistency is a real challenge in SEND. The Education Policy Institute pointed out in 2021 that the main determinant of a pupil being placed on a SEND Register is the school they go to – much more so than their individual type or level of need. Consistency is clearly important – our sector needs a meaningful shared language.
So, we know clear guidance is needed.
And the SEND Code of Practice (2015) (p. 16) (informed by the Children and Families Act (2014), Section 21.1) is the right place to try and shape that consistency. The current definition of SEN (not SEND, as disability uses the Equality Act (2010) definition) is as follows:
A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.
We are then told that:
special educational provision is educational or training provision that is additional to or different from that made generally for other children or young people of the same age
SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years – GOV.UK, pages 15-16
The phrase ‘additional to or different from’ first appeared in the Education Act (1993). And yet, within that time and under that same definition, we’ve moved from 18% of pupils being on a SEND register in 1993, down to 14% in 2016, and now back up to 21% in 2026.
Even with one definition (noting other relevant structural changes during that time), it seems there is real scope for inconsistency.
Core messages around SEND
While the strongest steer is for teachers to do ‘additional’ or ‘different’ things for their pupils with SEND, increasing voices are stating the opposite.
In the 2025 OFSTED school-inspection toolkit, we’re told:
leaders understand that the most effective inclusion strategy begins with everyday high quality inclusive teaching, which has most benefit for the pupils who find learning hardest and reduces the need for individual adaptations
In the EEF’s Guide to Inclusive Teaching (2026), we’re told that:
Strengthening and sustaining universal practices that are especially important for pupils with additional needs is likely to benefit all pupils and reduce – though not remove – the need for adaptations or additional targeted support.
, reinforcing their SEN in Mainstream Schools guidance report (2020), which states:
To a great extent, good teaching for pupils with SEND is good teaching for all.
Does it matter?
Perhaps both things are possible. Perhaps ‘additional to or different from’ is the right thinking for SENCOs (and others) when identifying need, while ‘where can I build in provision through what I offer everyone?’ is the right initial thinking for teachers (and others) to do when planning and delivering lessons.
But I can’t help thinking that one influences the other. I can’t help thinking that ‘additional to or different from’ thinking leads to silver bullet approaches; leads to a proliferation of individual-level strategies that can be unimplementable in a class of 30 pupils (where 6+ of those pupils require additional or different provision); that leads to EHCPs with 25+ strategies in Section F; that leads to well-meaning, inclusive-minded teachers feeling they’re letting their pupils down.
Perhaps this is merely a semantic argument about K-coding that has little effect on what teachers do for their learners. But I still can’t help thinking that ‘additional to or different from’ encourages teachers to plan a lesson first, then consider extra or alternative approaches for pupils with SEND. While this has merit, it misses the opportunity to build those pupils’ needs into the lesson from the outset.
A different way to define SEND?
The disadvantage of our current definition of SEND, as I see it, is in what it tells us about provision.
A revised definition of SEND could avoid mention of ‘provision’, but instead lean into the pupil’s barriers, needs or differences a bit more. Perhaps a definition that talks about ‘additional barriers’, ‘substantial learning-related needs’ or ‘developmental differences compared to peers’ would provide greater clarity around what does or doesn’t constitute SEND.
However, the advantage of our current definition is that it carefully avoids a deficit narrative. Our current definition does, at least, focus on how the provision can change around the child or young person (a social model of disability), rather than framing the child or young person as a problem needing to be solved (a medical model of disability).
A way forward
If a focus on provision is therefore the right one, perhaps we come back to that phrase ‘additional to or different from’. Where we know some of the best inclusion can be invisible, perhaps it’s time for a new definition of special educational provision, moving away from ‘special educational provision is educational or training provision that is additional to or different from’, towards perhaps:
‘special educational provision is educational or training provision that requires additional consideration to plan appropriate provision’; or
‘special educational provision is educational or training provision that provides adaptive universal and targeted support’
Or perhaps it needs a definition that leans more into the ‘reasonable adjustments’ duty, which currently protects the rights of disabled pupils through the Equality Act.
I don’t offer easy answers here. It takes the collective wisdom of academics such as Dr Susana Castro-Kemp and her work at UCL; research such as that from the Centre for Education Systems and their work looking comparatively at a range of systems internationally; the views of practitioners; the experiences of parents and – of course – the voices of young people with SEND themselves.
For now, let’s take heart that the best teaching for pupils with SEND isn’t always visibly different, that the needs of learners can at least some extent be built into whole-class planning and delivery and that additional or different plays a part, but might not need to be the starting point.
Links
Identifying pupils with special educational needs and disabilities – Education Policy Institute
SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years – GOV.UK
House of Commons – Education and Skills – Third Report
Release home – Special educational needs in England – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK
Special Education Needs in Mainstream Schools guidance report | Education Endowment Foundation
SEND Matters 