The new SEN White Paper is a good thing in one key way: it admits what most people working in education already know — something has to change.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth. We can write page after page of policy, guidance, and frameworks, yet still ignore one of the simplest, most effective levers we have:
Small class sizes.
If we’re serious about inclusion, outcomes, and keeping teachers in the profession, we have to stop pretending that putting pupils with SEND into classes of 30+ is “support”. Too often, it’s just survival.
Inclusion shouldn’t mean “everyone squeezed into the same room”
Picture a typical classroom of 30 pupils:
- Some have sensory needs (noise, touch, movement, lighting)
- Some have learning difficulties
- Some have speech, language, and communication needs
- Some have behaviour needs linked to trauma or unmet SEMH needs
- Some are academically confident and want to be stretched
- Some are simply there to learn, quietly and steadily
Now add one adult.
Even when a child has an EHCP, and the paperwork says they’re entitled to 1:1 support, the reality is often very different. That “1:1” becomes a teaching assistant trying to plug gaps across the whole room, because the need is bigger than the staffing.
So we end up with what many teachers experience daily: one staff member and 30 different learning profiles.
And then we act surprised when:
- pupils disengage
- behaviour escalates
- anxiety rises
- attendance drops
- teachers burn out
- staff leave
It’s not fair on pupils with SEND — or pupils without
When a class is overloaded, everyone loses.
For pupils with SEND, the environment can become overwhelming. Sensory overload, constant transitions, and limited adult attention can turn school into a daily stress response.
For pupils without SEND, it can mean:
- disrupted learning
- less teacher time
- reduced challenge
- frustration and resentment
That’s not inclusion. That’s a system asking children to carry the weight of under-resourcing.
The “wobble” problem: what happens when one child needs one minute?
Here’s a simple example.
A teacher spots a pupil starting to wobble — dysregulated, anxious, close to meltdown. The teacher does the right thing and spends a minute calming them down.
In that one minute:
- another pupil hasn’t been seen
- three hands go up unanswered
- someone shouts out
- someone else goes under the radar
- the lesson pace collapses
That isn’t because the teacher isn’t skilled.
It’s because 30 pupils is too many for one adult to meet needs properly.
What small class sizes make possible (and why it works in AP)
As an Alternative Provision working with pupils who have EHCPs, EBSA, and complex SEMH needs, we see the impact of small class sizes every day.
Small groups allow:
- stronger relationships and trust
- quicker identification of needs
- calmer, more predictable routines
- real-time adjustments (not “we’ll log it and review later”)
- meaningful conversations that prevent escalation
- consistent use of the ISP / assess–plan–do–review cycle
And crucially, for pupils:
- there’s less sensory overload
- there’s less pressure to mask
- there’s no place to hide — in a good way
- they are seen, known, and supported
That’s how attendance grows.
That’s how pupils re-engage.
That’s how qualifications become realistic.
That’s how young people start looking forward again.
The chicken-and-egg reality: staffing, space, and the system
There’s a real challenge here, and we should be honest about it.
Small class sizes improve teaching conditions — which helps teachers stay and attracts new teachers.
But to create smaller class sizes, you need:
- more teachers
- more support staff
- more rooms and teaching spaces
Many schools don’t have the physical space, even if they had the funding.
So yes, it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.
But that doesn’t mean we ignore the solution. It means we plan for it properly.
Sensory rooms are great — but what if we also built teaching space?
We’re seeing money allocated for schools to improve environments: sensory rooms, calm spaces, wellbeing areas.
That’s positive.
But here’s the question:
What if some of that investment also created more teaching space, so schools could run smaller classes?
The improvements would be huge:
- pupils could stay in their local school
- pupils could make and keep friendships
- pupils could learn in the right environment
- teachers could teach properly
- inclusion could become real, not just a word
If we want inclusion to work, we need the conditions for it
The SEN White Paper is right that something needs to happen.
But inclusion isn’t achieved by placing pupils with SEND into large classes and hoping for the best.
Inclusion is achieved when schools have the conditions to meet needs — and small class sizes are one of the biggest conditions of all.
If we want better attendance, better outcomes, and better wellbeing for pupils and staff, we need to stop treating small class sizes like a luxury.
For many pupils — and many teachers — it’s the difference between coping and thriving.
SEND reform / SEN White Paper (DfE consultation)
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-first/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-first-html-version
EHCPs: statutory guidance (SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
Class size research (EEF: Class size)
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/reducing-class-size