By Brahm Norwich
The reference to policy research in title of the SEN Policy Research Forum usually implies research that informs policy making – evaluation studies, policy analysis, theoretical positions and empirical studies etc. The direction of influence is from this analyses/studies to the policies. This blog piece is to show how what goes on in the SENPRF can also go in the other direction from policy positions to theoretical analyses.
This is what happened following the January 2025 policy seminar about the national Curriculum and Assessment review (Reviewing curriculum and assessment from a special educational needs and disability (SEND) perspective). At the seminar Peter Imray presented a paper on: An inclusive curriculum and assessment system?
Nicola Grove was listening to it online. She mentioned that she had questions about Peter’s perspective and position. It was suggested to Peter and Nicola that they engage in a critical dialogue on the question of inclusive education for learners with severe and profound learning disabilities.
What follows below is the abstract of the Frontiers paper that came out of this dialogue.
Paper Abstract:
This paper is a dialogue between two experts in the field of the education of children and young people with severe and profound learning disabilities (SLD/PMLD) who address the question: What does educational inclusion mean in theory and practice for learners with severe and profound learning disabilities? The dialogue illustrates how concepts reflect a dynamic interaction between value positions and conceptual framing.
Peter Imray argues that curricula for all do not work for all. He argues that even strong differentiation of the same curricula does not serve learners with SLD/PMLD well. But, he has become an inclusion believer, based on the teaching of specialised curricula in mainstream schools and that inclusion for all is an honourable ambition.
Nicola Grove’s starting point is that educational inclusion cannot be separated from societal inclusion because it is in schools where children learn who are their peers. She questions Imray’s arguments for distinct curricula, which she attributes to questionable beliefs that “severe” and “profound” are distinguishable categories and that children with SLD/ PMLDs learn in completely different ways to typical pupils. For her educational inclusion is a complex process and even with mixed outcomes evidence, inclusive settings do offer some positive gains. Partial inclusion is presented as a relevant concept when there are divergent concepts of inclusion.
They both agree that: SLD and PMLD are lifelong conditions, educational inclusion is critical to societal inclusion, and those with PMLD and SLD are amongst the most marginalised in society. They both favour resource bases in community schools, staffed by skilled professionals, collaborating with mainstream teachers; investing in social and academic inclusion, with a flexible approach to when and how children learn.
Brahm Norwich in his commentary interprets their ideas of inclusion as involving both learner engagement in what is personally relevant, but also about social participation in local schools. He suggests that the challenge of inclusion can be considered as finding a balance between these two aspects. His conclusion is that too much focus on the personal can risk an over-emphasis on ‘difference’ and too much focus on the social can risk an over-emphasis on the ’same’.
If you would like to read the full paper it is downloadable from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1903221/full
It would be good to see if other policy seminars can lead to academic dialogues this one.
Peter Imray’s follow up statement is inconsistent with his first in the sense that it aims to convey what he believes to be honourable in principle while recognising the genuine practical implications of inclusion within the classroom. Both he and Nicola Grove appear to be aligned on this. The premise of the dialogue however presumes inclusion to be fundamentally a good thing without being precise about what is meant by it, and without citing examples of how educational inclusion translates directly into long term social integration. A more productive discussion might be around how a dedicated special needs unit (or school) could teach and support the skills necessary for social integration in later life. It would also be helpful for the focus to be on how children in mainstream classes might be incentivised to learn about and understand the difficulties faced by their peers with severe or profound SEND, and how they might learn how to adapt their behaviour to support them during shared social activities.
Pupils with PMLD and SLD already access the National Curriculum in many Newham schools through meaningful adaptation and differentiation. While learning goals may differ, pupils remain connected to the same curriculum themes as their peers. These adaptations, including sensorimotor approaches to learning, ensure the curriculum is accessible, relevant and engaging. The breadth of the National Curriculum offers valuable opportunities for all learners to develop knowledge, understanding and participation in the world around them.
After 30 years working within the education system and supporting inclusive models of education, I firmly believe there are significant benefits to learning within inclusive environments. Beyond academic outcomes, these settings provide children with valuable opportunities to develop resilience, social understanding and a sense of belonging. They help prepare all pupils, including those with additional needs, for participation in an inclusive society and equip them with the skills, confidence and experiences needed to navigate the diverse world around them.