The short version is this: the DfE is no longer treating inclusion as a quiet add-on to normal school life.
Schools are being asked to show, in public, how they identify common needs, how they meet them, and how inclusive practice is built into day-to-day provision. The new inclusive mainstream fund is part of that shift.
According to the methodology published on GOV.UK, the fund is worth over £500 million a year, with £400 million a year for schools. Schools will be required to publish an inclusion strategy by 31 December 2026. The strategy is meant to set out the school’s activity and approach to identifying and meeting commonly occurring and predictable needs in its cohort, and to embed inclusive practice. Read the methodology on GOV.UK.
That matters because it changes the burden of proof. Schools will no longer be able to talk about inclusion in broad terms and leave the detail in a SENCO’s notebook, a shared drive, or a one-off leadership slide deck.
What is actually changing?
The DfE is saying three things at once.
First, inclusion is now being funded more explicitly.
Second, it expects schools to publish an inclusion strategy each year.
Third, that strategy is not just a vision statement. The DfE says it should be a report of the school’s activity and approaches, and it should be available for Ofsted inspectors to consider when evaluating inclusion.
That is a meaningful change.
It means a mainstream school’s inclusion story has to be visible, specific, and current.
The information sheet for mainstream settings also points schools towards a whole-school approach to inclusion, with a curriculum designed for all learners and accessible provision beyond the classroom. See the DfE information sheet.
Why this matters to school leaders
Most schools already do a lot of good work for pupils with SEND.
The problem is not always the support itself. The problem is the way it is held together.
In too many schools, the useful information is split between:
SEN support plans
intervention notes
review meetings
parent emails
curriculum adjustments
behaviour logs
pastoral systems
individual staff memory
That works until someone changes role, a pupil moves class, or a leader asks a simple question like: what is our ordinary provision for this type of need, and how do we know it is working?
This is where inclusion strategy becomes more than a policy task. It becomes a records and workflow problem.
MeritDocs keeps SEND documents in one searchable hub, so staff can filter by pupil, see what is current, and export when needed. That matters because a strategy is only as good as the live record behind it.
What a good inclusion strategy should do
A weak strategy sounds polite and generic.
A strong one is specific enough that a parent, staff member, governor, or inspector can understand what the school actually does.
At minimum, a useful inclusion strategy should answer these questions:
1. What needs are most common in our cohort?
Not every school will face the same profile.
Some will need more structure around communication and language. Some will need stronger emotional regulation support. Some will need a better routine for sensory needs, attendance, or transitions.
The strategy should show that the school understands its own cohort rather than copying a template from somewhere else.
2. What is our ordinarily available provision?
This is the heart of the document.
If the school cannot explain what good support looks like before a pupil reaches a formal process, the strategy will feel hollow.
Ordinarily available provision might include things like:
high-quality classroom adjustments
predictable routines
clear communication with families
adult check-ins at the right moments
accessible resources
targeted interventions with review points
staff training for common needs
The school does not need a paragraph for every adjustment. It needs a clear picture of what is normal, expected, and reliable.
3. How does the school know the support is working?
This is where many strategies become vague.
A real strategy should explain what evidence leaders look at.
That might include:
attendance patterns
engagement in lessons
review outcomes
parent feedback
staff feedback
progress against agreed targets
reduction in repeated escalations
If there is no evidence loop, the strategy is just a statement of intent.
4. Who owns the strategy?
A strategy that belongs to everyone usually belongs to no one.
There should be a named owner, a publication date, a review rhythm, and a simple way to update it when school priorities change.
What schools should do next
If you are a leader or SENCO, do not start with formatting.
Start with four practical questions:
What are our most common SEND-related needs?
What do we already do well as ordinary provision?
Where do staff still rely on memory or personal habit?
What evidence would we show to prove the strategy is real?
Then turn those answers into a short draft.
A useful inclusion strategy does not need to be long. It needs to be honest.
It should say what the school is trying to improve, what is already in place, and how it will measure whether the change is actually helping pupils.
That is also why schools should think about the document alongside their live records. If the support plan, review note, and parent communication all live in different places, the strategy becomes harder to maintain and easier to doubt.
MeritDocs helps schools run this properly by keeping SEND documents in one place, with current information easier to find, review dates visible, and exports straightforward. The real gain is not just speed. It is a record people can actually rely on when the school needs to explain its inclusion approach.
A simple structure leaders can use
If you need a practical starting point, try this shape:
**Purpose**: what the strategy is for
**Cohort overview**: the needs the school sees most often
**Ordinarily available provision**: the support that should be in place for all staff
**Targeted provision**: what happens when ordinary provision is not enough
**Staff development**: what training and support the school will provide
**Evidence and review**: what data or records leaders will use
**Next steps**: what will change over the next term or year
That is enough to create a school-level document that feels real.
Common mistakes to avoid
Writing for compliance instead of practice
A strategy can tick a box and still be useless.
If it reads like a policy nobody will ever open again, it has missed the point.
Using too much abstract language
Words like inclusive, supportive, and holistic sound good.
They do not tell staff what to do on Tuesday morning.
Separating strategy from records
If the support evidence is fragmented, the strategy will not stay current for long.
Treating publication as the finish line
Publishing the strategy is the start, not the end.
The school will need to revisit it, update it, and keep it aligned with actual practice.
FAQ
Is this only relevant to academies?
No. The methodology refers to mainstream state-funded schools in England. The exact route may differ for maintained schools and academy trusts, but the practical expectation is still there.
Does the strategy replace the SENCO’s usual documentation?
No. It sits above the day-to-day records and should reflect them. The strategy explains the school’s approach. The records show what happened for individual pupils.
What happens if our current records are messy?
That is usually the first thing to fix. If the live record is hard to trust, the strategy will be hard to evidence.
The takeaway
The new inclusion strategy requirement is not just another task for September.
It is a sign that the DfE wants schools to make ordinary inclusion more visible, more deliberate, and easier to inspect.
Schools that already keep clear live records will find this easier. Schools that rely on scattered files and staff memory will feel the pressure quickly.
That is why the strongest response is not just a better document. It is a better system behind the document.
MeritDocs gives schools one searchable hub for current SEND documents, so the strategy can be built from something dependable rather than assembled from fragments.