The hidden history of tokenism in SEN support

This article was written by Brooke Ellis – Legal Assistant for the Education Team

The history of Special Educational Needs in the United Kingdom is a story of gradual progress mixed with moments where inclusion has often been far more symbolic than sincere. For much of the early twentieth century, children with what were then, learning differences, were placed in separate institutions. These settings often offered minimal to no resources and limited academic expectations. The belief at the time was that these children could not learn alongside their peers and needed to be kept apart for their own benefit. In reality, much of this system created isolation and made it difficult for many children to reach their true potential.

A major shift began in the late 1970’s with the publication of the Warnock Report (1978). This report introduced the idea that most children with learning needs could be educated in mainstream settings. It encouraged schools to reevaluate what support looked like and argued that ‘learning differences’ should not mean that a child is excluded or segregated from others. For its time, this idea was considered almost revolutionary. Nonetheless, this certainly laid the foundation for the modern idea and conceptualisation of inclusion.

However, one should note that as schools began to welcome more children with SEN, some of the early efforts were solely symbolic. For example, students were placed in mainstream classrooms without the equipment or trained staff to help them succeed and meet their needs. As a result, this created situations where inclusion was present in name but not in practice. As such, tokenism was evident as schools were trying to comply with new expectations without having sufficient resources to meet them fully.

During the 1990’s, the government introduced laws that strengthened the rights of students with SEN. The Education Act 1993 placed greater responsibility on schools to identify needs and provide support. This marked another step toward inclusion, but again, the implementation was uneven and unfair. Some schools adopted thorough systems for supporting students, while others produced formal documents that looked impressive from afar, but did not lead to consistent daily support. Families began to see a pattern where help was promised but then delivered only partially or not at all. Tokenism became visible in the gap between what was written and what actually happened in the classroom.

The 1996 Education Act had the aim to identify and support children with SEN. It set out definitions of different education stages as well the responsibilities of schools and local authorities. Although the 1996 Education Act is believed and viewed to not be as transformative as the later laws, it did however strengthen the identification, standardisation and assessment of SEN. The critical disparities did reveal themselves following the Act as schools could then say they were meeting their legal duties simply by having a SEN policy or by placing a child in a mainstream class, even if the learning environment wasn’t adapted to meet the child’s specific needs. As such, one can say that as a result of the 1996 Education Act, inclusion became a tick-box exercise rather than a cultural shift.

The introduction of Education Health and Care Plans (‘EHC’) in 2014 by virtue of the Children and Families Act 2014 was intended to create a more bespoke form of support for children. These plans were designed to bring together different support networks such as education services, health professionals and their family perspectives so that each child and young person with SEN and disabilities would have a comprehensive support structure.

This reform represented a positive commitment to improving the lives of students with SEN. Yet many families continued to face the same problems. Some plans were thorough on paper, but the support described in them was not always provided. Inconsistent training and financial pressures in schools and local authorities contributed to this gap. As a result, tokenism persisted. Schools might state that they valued inclusion, but students often found themselves without the help they were promised and much needed.

Within the Geldards Education team, we see daily that even when a child has an EHCP in place, the support set out in the plan is often delayed, inconsistently delivered, or not provided at all. As a result, the parents we work with are left constantly fighting for provision, challenging decisions, and, in often entering tribunal proceedings just to secure the support their children are entitled to. Although the system presents itself as progressive, the day‑to‑day reality for many families is one of ongoing struggle.

This history shows that while the United Kingdom has made significant progress in recognising the rights of students with SEN, true inclusion requires more than official documents or statements of intent. It requires everyday commitment, proper resources, ongoing training and a willingness to adjust teaching environments so that every child can participate fully. Only when these elements are in place can the movement toward inclusion truly fulfil its purpose.

While inclusion is encouraged, the fact remains that some students still require a specialist school environment to meet their specific needs. This may include smaller class sizes and a lower-arousal environment, which a mainstream setting cannot always offer. Moving forward to today, the Government’s reforms focus on the removal of such specialist schools and an increased focus on inclusion, which many of the families and parents that we support are concerned about. Therefore, while inclusion is important, special schools and specialist environments still need to be protected against the face of Tokenism.