The 2026 Schools White Paper promises a £4bn “revolution” for SEND, but for the Teacher or TA on the frontline in a busy mainstream primary in Wrexham or a secondary in Chester, the word “revolution” can sound a lot like “workload.”
While the government paints a picture of “early intervention” and “seamless support,” we need to ask the difficult questions: Is “Mainstream First” always the right move? And are we just layering more admin onto an already exhausted workforce?
1. The Admin Trap: Are ISPs just EHCP-Lite?
The new Individual Support Plans (ISPs) are touted as a faster way to get support than the dreaded EHCP. But let’s be honest: who is writing them?
-
The Skeptic’s View: Teachers and TAs are already drowning in data entry. Adding a “legally required digital record” for every child requiring early intervention risks turning educators into administrators.
-
The Stress-Test: If the £1.8bn for “Experts at Hand” doesn’t manifest as physical bodies in the classroom immediately, the burden of evidence-gathering for these ISPs falls solely on the class teacher and TA.
2. The “Inclusion” Paradox: Is Mainstream Always Kind?
The White Paper pushes for children to stay in mainstream settings via new “Inclusion Bases.” But for a neurodivergent child, a mainstream school can be a sensory minefield.
-
Overstimulation: No amount of “Inclusion Base” funding can fully silence a corridor of 1,000 pupils changing lessons or a buzzing, brightly lit classroom. For some individuals, the “space and calm” they require isn’t a partitioned corner of a loud school—it’s a specialist environment designed for their nervous system.
-
The Right to Specialist Care: By prioritising mainstream inclusion, are we accidentally stigmatising specialist provision? We must ensure that “Inclusion” doesn’t become a codeword for “Cost-Cutting” by keeping children in settings that—despite our best efforts—might trigger more than they teach. With ‘Inclusion Bases’ being specified for those with sensory or other additional needs… With some schools already bursting at the seams…Where will they find the space?
3. The TA Burden: The “Velcro” Effect
The White Paper relies heavily on TAs to facilitate these small-group interventions.
-
The Reality: We know that TAs are often the glue holding SEND provision together. However, increasing the “Inclusion” quota in mainstream classes often leads to the “Velcro” model, where a TA is permanently attached to one child. This can limit the child’s independence and put immense emotional and professional pressure on the TA, who is often doing the work of a specialist on a fraction of the pay.
4. What This Means for You
At Excell Supply, we don’t just parrot the Department for Education. We know that:
-
Teachers need more than just “digital plans”—they need reduced class sizes and genuine specialist support.
-
TAs need specific training in sensory regulation and de-escalation, not just a handbook on the new funding.
-
Schools need the honesty to say when a mainstream setting isn’t the right fit for a child’s wellbeing.
The Verdict
Funding is welcome, but it isn’t a magic wand. Inclusion is a noble goal, but it only works if it doesn’t come at the expense of the mental health of the staff or the sensory safety of the students.
What’s your take? Is the new funding going to help your classroom, or is it just more paperwork under a different name? Join the conversation on our socials – TikTok Instagram or Linkedin.
Head over to our Jobs page here