Accessibility

How inclusive is our understanding of inclusion?

Last week, I attended the Empowered Schools inclusion conference alongside a room full of passionate, purposeful educators. The conversations were thoughtful, the commitment was palpable and the collective ambition to improve educational experiences for children and young people was clear.

Yet, as I looked around the room, I found myself reflecting on a contradiction. We were gathered to discuss inclusion, but the room lacked visible diversity. Furthermore, as with many educational inclusion events the conversation focused on the relatively narrow lens of inclusion as Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

This is not a criticism of the organisers, speakers or delegates, nor is it a dismissal of the importance of SEND inclusion. The challenges facing children and young people with SEND, their families and the educators supporting them are significant. The commitment to addressing these challenges is both necessary and urgent.

However, it did leave me wondering:

• When we talk about inclusion, who are we including in the conversation?
• Whose identities are we considering?
• Whose experiences are informing our decisions?
• And, perhaps most importantly, who might we be overlooking?

As the conversations developed, we began exploring belonging, racial equity and intersectionality. These discussions reinforced something I have been reflecting on for some time: Inclusion cannot be inclusive if our understanding of identity is exclusive.

The name of the conference also prompted me to reflect on what it means to be an empowered school: Empowered to do what? Empowered by whom? And empowered for whom?

Surely, an empowered school is one where leaders and educators have the knowledge, confidence and courage to recognise and remove barriers to belonging for every member of their community. One where inclusion is not defined by a single characteristic, identity or educational need, but understood through the richness and complexity of human experience.

Inclusion Is Bigger Than One Identity

In education, inclusion has increasingly become synonymous with SEND. This is understandable given the pressures facing schools, the challenges within the SEND system and the urgent need to improve provision and outcomes. However, inclusion is not a synonym for SEND.

Inclusion encompasses the full spectrum of human identity and experience, including race, ethnicity, disability, neurodivergence, gender, sexuality, religion, socioeconomic background, language, culture and family circumstances.

It also requires us to recognise that identities do not exist independently of one another:

• A Black autistic girl does not experience school solely through the lens of race, gender or neurodivergence. Her experiences are shaped by the interaction of all three, alongside other aspects of her identity and the wider social and institutional contexts in which she lives and learns.
• A child from a Romani (Gypsy), Roma and Irish Traveller people background may experience barriers associated with cultural misunderstanding, racism, socioeconomic disadvantage or disrupted educational experiences.
• A Muslim pupil with SEND may experience challenges associated with disability alongside religious discrimination, cultural assumptions or a lack of representation.

This is where intersectionality, a concept developed by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, becomes essential to our understanding of inclusion.

Intersectionality helps us recognise how different aspects of identity interact with systems of power, privilege and disadvantage, creating experiences that cannot always be understood by examining individual characteristics in isolation.

Without an intersectional lens, we risk developing inclusive practices that support one aspect of a child’s identity whilst overlooking another. And when that happens, our inclusion becomes conditional, fragmented or incomplete.

Reframing the Seven Principles of Inclusion

The Department for Education’s Inclusive Mainstream Fund guidance identifies seven principles to support schools in developing their approaches to inclusion. These principles provide a useful framework for school leaders, particularly in considering how to strengthen inclusive mainstream provision.

However, the framework also presents an opportunity to ask a broader question: What might these seven principles look like if we applied them to the full diversity of our school communities?

Rather than considering inclusion primarily through a SEND lens, how might we use the principles to explore identity, intersectionality, equity and belonging?

1. Ambitious Leadership and Governance

Ambitious leadership and governance that embeds inclusion across the school.

Inclusive leadership requires more than a commitment to meeting individual needs. It requires leaders to understand how organisational cultures, systems, policies and practices shape the experiences of different groups:

• Who makes decisions about inclusion? 

• Whose perspectives inform our strategic priorities? 

• How representative are our leadership teams and governing bodies of the communities we serve?

• Do our inclusion strategies address racial equity, gender equality, religious diversity, socioeconomic disadvantage and disability? 

• Or have we inadvertently created separate agendas that compete for attention and resources?

An intersectional approach encourages leaders to move beyond isolated initiatives towards a coherent, whole-school commitment to equity and belonging.

Reflective question: Whose identities and lived experiences are represented in our inclusion strategy, and whose are missing?

2. Evidence-Based Support and Early Intervention

Evidence-based support that prioritises early intervention to catch barriers to learning early.

Identifying barriers early is essential. However, we must also consider how those barriers are recognised, interpreted and addressed:

• Are we examining differences in attendance, attainment, exclusions, suspensions, behaviour sanctions and access to opportunities across different demographic groups?

• Are we exploring how race, gender, disability and socioeconomic disadvantage intersect?

For example, do we understand how racialised assumptions may influence perceptions of behaviour? Are we recognising how girls’ neurodivergent needs may present differently or be overlooked? Are we considering how poverty, housing insecurity or language barriers may influence attendance and engagement?

Evidence-based inclusion requires both quantitative data and qualitative insight. We need to understand not only what is happening, but why it is happening and how it is experienced. This means listening to children, families and staff, particularly those whose experiences may be marginalised or misunderstood.

Reflective question: Are we using evidence to identify systemic barriers and inequalities, or simply to identify individual children who need additional support?

3. High-Quality Adaptive Teaching and an Inclusive Curriculum

High quality adaptive teaching with a curriculum designed for all learners.

Adaptive teaching is often understood through differentiation, scaffolding and adjustments to meet learning needs. These approaches are essential, but inclusive teaching also requires us to consider what we teach, whose knowledge we value and whose identities are represented:

• Does our curriculum reflect the diversity of our communities and the wider world? 

• Whose histories, stories, achievements and contributions are visible? Whose perspectives are missing or marginalised?

• Are we challenging stereotypes and deficit narratives? 

• Are we creating opportunities for children to see themselves reflected positively in their learning whilst developing curiosity, empathy and respect for experiences different from their own?

An inclusive curriculum should be both a mirror and a window. It should affirm children’s identities whilst broadening their understanding of the world. Similarly, adaptive teaching should recognise cultural and linguistic diversity alongside cognitive, physical and sensory differences.

Reflective question: Does our curriculum enable every child to see themselves reflected, represented and respected, whilst also encountering and valuing identities different from their own?

4. Enriching Provision Beyond the Classroom

Enriching provision beyond the classroom that all children can access.

Educational inclusion extends far beyond the classroom. Clubs, trips, residential experiences, sports, performances, leadership opportunities and enrichment activities all contribute to children’s confidence, relationships and sense of belonging. 

Yet access to these opportunities is not always equitable. Financial barriers may prevent children from participating in trips or extracurricular activities. Religious observance, cultural expectations or caring responsibilities may affect availability. Gender stereotypes may influence who feels welcome in particular activities. Disability-related access requirements may not be fully anticipated or accommodated.

We must also consider the less visible barriers:

• Who is encouraged to participate? 

• Who is selected for leadership roles? 

• Who feels confident enough to put themselves forward? 

• Who sees people like themselves represented in these opportunities?

Providing an opportunity does not automatically mean that everyone can access it, feels welcome within it or benefits equally from it.

Reflective question: Who participates in our enrichment opportunities, who does not, and what might this reveal about the barriers we have yet to remove?

5. A Safe and Respectful Culture That Fosters Belonging

A safe and respectful culture that fosters belonging, attendance, and active participation in learning.

This principle sits at the heart of inclusive education. Belonging is not simply about being present, being included in activities or being treated kindly. It is about feeling safe, seen, heard, valued, respected and accepted for who we are.

A school may have welcoming displays, inclusive policies and a strong commitment to kindness, yet children and adults may still experience racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, religious discrimination or other forms of exclusion.

Psychological safety also matters:

• Can children and colleagues express their identities, share their experiences, challenge inappropriate language and raise concerns without fear of judgement, dismissal or retaliation?

• Do we recognise the difference between an absence of reported discrimination and the presence of genuine belonging?

A culture of belonging requires us to move beyond our intentions and examine the lived experiences of the people within our communities. We cannot assume that because some people feel they belong, everyone does. And we cannot measure belonging solely through attendance, behaviour or participation. We need to ask people how they experience our culture and be prepared to hear answers that challenge our perceptions.

Reflective question: How do we know who experiences belonging in our school, who does not, and what are we prepared to change because of what we discover?

6. Strong Partnerships with Families and Wider Services

Strong partnerships with families and wider services.

Families are central to children’s experiences of education. However, meaningful partnership requires more than communication, consultation or inviting parents into school.

It requires us to recognise the diversity of family structures, cultures, languages, experiences and expectations within our communities:

• Do we understand how previous experiences of education, discrimination or institutional mistrust may shape relationships with schools?

• Are our communication methods accessible to families who speak different languages, have additional needs or experience digital exclusion?

• Do we recognise and respect different family structures, including single-parent families, blended families, kinship carers, adoptive families and families with LGBTQ+ parents?

• Are we engaging with communities whose voices have historically been marginalised, or are we relying on the families who already feel confident and comfortable participating?

Strong partnerships require cultural humility, curiosity, trust and a willingness to share power. Rather than assuming we know what families need, we must create opportunities to listen, learn and co-produce solutions.

Reflective question: Which families feel welcomed, listened to and valued as partners in our school, and which might experience our relationships and communication differently?

7. Inclusive Environments and Continuous Improvement

Inclusive environments with continuous improvements to physical and functional accessibility.

Accessible environments are fundamental to inclusion. Schools must consider physical accessibility, sensory environments, assistive technologies, communication needs and reasonable adjustments. However, inclusive environments are also cultural, relational and psychological:

• Do our buildings, displays, resources and shared spaces reflect the diversity of the communities we serve?

• Are prayer and reflection spaces considered? 

• Are our uniform policies inclusive of religious, cultural and gender-related needs? 

• Are toilets and changing facilities accessible, safe and appropriate for different users?

• Do our displays reinforce stereotypes or challenge them? 

• Are our school celebrations and traditions welcoming to families from different cultural and religious backgrounds?

• And perhaps most importantly, are we willing to recognise that environments experienced as welcoming by some may feel alienating or unsafe to others?

Continuous improvement requires us to look beyond compliance and ask whether our environments enable everyone to participate with dignity, confidence and a sense of belonging.

Reflective question: Who has our school environment been designed for, and whose needs, identities and experiences have we not yet considered?

From Access to Inclusion to Belonging

As we reflect on these seven principles, I think it is important to distinguish between three concepts that are often used interchangeably:

• Access is about removing barriers so that people can enter, participate and engage.
• Inclusion is about creating the conditions in which people are welcomed, supported, respected and able to contribute meaningfully.
• Belonging is about how people experience those conditions, whether they feel accepted, valued and able to be themselves without compromising their identities.

A child can access a classroom without feeling included.

A child can be included in activities without feeling accepted.

And a child can be physically present within a school community without feeling that they truly belong.

This is why inclusion cannot simply be measured by the provision we offer or the policies we implement. We must also understand how our actions are experienced by those they are intended to support.

Belonging is not something we can declare on behalf of others. It is something we must intentionally cultivate, continuously evaluate and collectively sustain.

From Empowered Schools to Empowered Communities

I left the Empowered Schools conference feeling encouraged by the commitment of the educators in the room, but also challenged by the conversations we still need to have. We need spaces where educators can share expertise, challenge assumptions and explore the complexities of inclusion without feeling that one group’s needs must compete with another’s.

SEND inclusion and racial equity are not competing priorities. Neither are gender equality, religious inclusion, socioeconomic equity or LGBTQ+ inclusion. They are interconnected dimensions of our responsibility to create equitable educational experiences for every child. And intersectionality reminds us that the children, families and colleagues we serve do not fit neatly into the categories we sometimes create.

The seven principles offer us a valuable framework. What matters is the breadth of our interpretation, the courage of our implementation and the impact on the people we serve.

Perhaps the challenge for all of us is to consider not simply how we empower our schools to become more inclusive, but how we empower every child, colleague and family within them to feel safe, seen, heard, valued and able to flourish.

So, as we return to our schools and organisations, I would encourage us to reflect on three questions:

• Whose identities are we centring in our conversations about inclusion?

• Whose experiences might we be overlooking because they fall outside our current understanding or expertise?

• How will we know whether our inclusive intentions are translating into equitable experiences of belonging for everyone?

Because inclusion is not about choosing which identities matter most. It is about recognising that every identity matters, every experience deserves to be understood and every person deserves the opportunity to belong.

An empowered school should be one in which everyone has the opportunity to experience belonging. And that requires us to move beyond good intentions towards meaningful, measurable impact.

The Belonging Effect: Shaping Intention into Impact.

References and Further Reading

Department for Education. Developing an inclusion strategy using the Inclusive Mainstream Fund. DfE guidance

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

The Belonging Effect. www.thebelongingeffect.co.uk