Every Child Achieving and Thriving. Welcome? Yes. But Let's Be Honest About What It Will Take.

When the Government published Every Child Achieving and Thriving in February, my first reaction wasn't excitement. It was something closer to recognition.

After 25 years leading SEN schools, most of what I read in that white paper isn't new. The emphasis on belonging. The understanding that inclusion is a culture, not a policy. The acknowledgement that children with SEND need more than a tick-box approach to support. These are things that good inclusive practitioners have known, and argued, and fought for, for decades.

So yes, it's welcome. It genuinely is. But I've been in this work long enough to know that the distance between what a white paper says and what actually changes in schools can be vast. And right now, I have real concerns about whether the conditions exist to make this work.

The profession is exhausted

Let's start with the honest truth that often goes unsaid in policy discussions: schools are tired.

Headteachers and their staff are navigating the aftermath of a pandemic whose effects are far from over, a recruitment and retention crisis, rising levels of need in their communities, and the relentless pressure of accountability systems that have not always been kind. The idea of adding significant new statutory requirements, however worthy, to that load is not straightforward.

I'm not saying schools don't want to do this work. Most do. The educators I meet are deeply committed to getting inclusion right. But commitment without capacity is a recipe for frustration, and frustration. If we're not careful, it becomes the thing that gets in the way of the very children this policy is designed to help.

The white paper does include significant investment; £4 billion in total, covering an Inclusive Mainstream Fund, a specialist workforce bank, capital funding for new provision, and SEND teacher training. That is not nothing. In fact, it is genuinely encouraging, and the commitment to ensuring every staff member working with children aged 0-25 receives SEND training is exactly the kind of systemic thinking this area has needed.

My concern is not about intent or even investment on paper. It is about pace, reach and implementation. Funding announced is not the same as funding felt in a classroom. The question is how quickly these commitments translate into reduced waiting lists, more educational psychologists, and genuinely accessible specialist support.  And whether schools, in the meantime, are effectively being supported to hold the gap.

The white paper does commit to expanding the educational psychology workforce and increasing access to therapists, and that is genuinely welcome. The concern is not that these commitments aren't there on paper. It is that the current reality in schools is happening now, while those workforce expansions will take time to materialise. Children and families cannot wait years for the system to catch up with their needs. In the meantime, schools are holding that gap largely alone and they need practical support with what is happening now, not just the promise of jam tomorrow.

The curriculum elephant in the room

There is something significant missing from Every Child Achieving and Thriving that I don't think is being said loudly enough in the discourse around it: the curriculum reform currently underway is proceeding in almost complete isolation from the SEND reform.

This matters enormously. The curriculum is the front line of inclusion. It is where belonging is either built or broken, lesson by lesson, day by day. An ambitious, well-designed curriculum that is genuinely accessible to all learners, including those with SEND, as well as enabling parity in status between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ qualification routes, is not a nice-to-have. It is the foundation on which everything else rests.

If we are serious about every child achieving and thriving, we cannot reform SEND provision and curriculum independently of each other and hope they align. Accessibility, adaptation and inclusive design need to be embedded in curriculum thinking from the outset, not retrofitted afterwards.

This is a conversation the sector needs to be having, loudly and urgently.

The risk of friction between parents and schools

I want to name something that I think is underacknowledged in the current conversation: that unmet need and delayed diagnosis has been, and will continue to be  a source of conflict between parents and schools.

Parents of children with SEND are often exhausted too. They have frequently been fighting . For recognition. For diagnosis. For provision; and for a long time. When a new policy promises more, expectations rise. And when those expectations don’t meet the reality of what a school can actually deliver within its current resources, the result can be friction that nobody wanted and nobody benefits from.

Schools want to get this right. Parents want their children supported. The children themselves just want to belong.

The answer lies in schools and families being on the same side; and that requires proactive, honest communication. Schools that get ahead of this, that reach out to parents about these proposals before tension builds, that explain what they are doing and why, that invite families into the conversation rather than waiting for them to knock on the door; those are the schools where friction is replaced by partnership. Clear, regular, human communication between schools and families is not a soft skill. In the context of SEND reform, it is one of the most important leadership tasks there is.

It is also worth remembering that Every Child Achieving and Thriving is, at this stage, a white paper. The consultation period is open until 18 May 2026 — and that matters. Schools have both an opportunity and a responsibility to engage with that process. Organising briefing sessions for parents, helping families understand what the proposals mean in plain language, and actively inviting their views is not just good practice. It is how schools can ensure that the voices of the children and families they serve are heard in shaping what comes next. Parents who feel informed and involved are far less likely to become adversarial. And schools that lead that conversation, rather than waiting for it to come to them, will be better placed whatever the final policy looks like

So what would actually help NOW?

This is where I want to land, because I am genuinely optimistic about what is possible, and I've seen it done well, even in the most challenging circumstances.

Here are four things that would make the biggest difference right now.

1. Recognise and value what schools are already doing

For years, schools have been supporting children with unidentified and unmet needs without diagnosis, without adequate specialist backing, and without sufficient recognition that they were doing so. The relational, trauma-informed, needs-led approaches that the white paper now champions are not new to most inclusive schools, they have been the daily reality of SENCOs, class teachers and pastoral staff working heroically in a gap that the system created. The investment commitments in the white paper for more educational psychologists, more therapists, a specialist workforce bank, should, if delivered at pace, begin to ease that burden. Schools deserve to have that work seen, named and properly resourced in the here and now as well as in the future. Not just asked to keep going.

2. Invest in the wellbeing of school leaders, not just their capability.

The implications of SEND reform are significant and complex, and headteachers are being asked to lead that change whilst managing everything else on their plate. LAs and Trusts need to think seriously about how they are supporting their leaders; not just briefing them on what the policy says, but genuinely investing in their capacity to lead this work sustainably. Coaching and supervision for headteachers is not a luxury. Right now, it is a professional necessity.

3. Keep communication with classroom staff open, honest and practical.

The classroom teacher is where inclusion is lived or lost. They need to understand not just what the policy changes mean in theory, but what they mean tomorrow morning, in their classroom, with the children in front of them. That means regular, honest conversations about the impact on staff, as well as purposeful CPD that builds confidence and practical skill. Briefing staff on "what this means now", not just "what this means eventually", is one of the most important things a school leader can do.

4. Recognise that CPD is the bridge between policy and practice.

Good intentions do not automatically translate into good practice. The bridge between them is professional, is grounded in neuroscience, rooted in real experience, and designed around the specific context of your school. Whole-staff training as well as targeted individual CPD  that helps every adult in a building understand how to support children with SEND, how to shape their practice accordingly, and how to build genuinely inclusive classrooms is not a one-off event. It is an ongoing commitment.

What I actually think

Every Child Achieving and Thriving is a step in the right direction. The emphasis on belonging, on early identification, on building inclusive cultures rather than checking compliance boxes, All of that matters and should be welcomed.

But policy is only ever as good as the conditions in which it lands. And right now, those conditions need work.

The schools I admire most are not waiting for the system to catch up. They are building inclusion from the inside; developing their staff, supporting their leaders, talking honestly with parents, and treating every child's right to belong as non-negotiable regardless of what the policy says.

That is what good inclusive practice has always looked like. And it is more possible than it might feel right now.