Inclusive education cannot be built by schools alone

What a shared response to the Schools White Paper taught us about making collaboration work

Inclusion is a shared responsibility

Schools are central to creating more inclusive education, but they cannot do it alone. The barriers children and young people face often cross the boundaries between education, health, family support and wider services. Collaboration can bring different perspectives together and help create responses that better reflect the complexity of children's lives. 

At Wates Family Enterprise Trust, we think of co-creation as part of the long-term work of building relationships, trust and shared purpose. When the Schools White Paper was published, we supported a group of organisations to develop a shared response. The consultation window was short, and those involved were also running services and supporting young people, schools and families.

The response grew out of a convening focused on young people's social, emotional and mental health, hosted by WFET and partners. Some contributors raised the idea of a joint response on the day, while others joined following previous engagement with the Inclusive Education Community. Together, they brought experience from mental health, alternative provision, youth support, inclusion and vocational pathways. This breadth moved the discussion beyond SEMH to wider questions about accountability, pupil voice, inclusive practice and vocational pathways, revealing connections that might have been missed in separate organisational responses.

Holding the space without owning the answer

WFET's role was to create the opportunity and support the process without determining the recommendations in advance. Contributors were not drawn from WFET's grantee portfolio but came together because of their experience of and interest in the issues. This reflected our intention for the Inclusive Education Community to be a wider space for connection and shared work.

To keep the work truly shared, we asked Social Finance to design and facilitate the process. Their independence allowed WFET to remain a neutral convener while they provided the structure and kept the work moving. This mattered because the issues raised by the White Paper crossed organisational and professional boundaries. No single organisation held all the knowledge needed to respond, and convening without owning the answer created space for different forms of experience and expertise to shape the discussion.

Openness needs structure

Openness does not mean an absence of structure. Social Finance designed the workshops around three stages: align, focus and develop. This helped sustain momentum without closing down discussion too early. 

The first session focused on what contributors wanted to achieve and how they would work together. They agreed to follow a shared agenda, balance ambition with pragmatism, move at pace and offer friendly challenge. Considering both the barriers to the White Paper’s ambitions and the conditions for success helped move the discussion beyond criticism towards what would help the reforms work better for children and young people too often missed by the current system.

Most participants had not worked together before, but these simple guardrails helped them listen, share their expertise and think beyond their own organisational priorities. As the group's thinking developed, members volunteered to lead different sections, helping turn a common concern into three far-reaching recommendations: expanding what matters in accountability, building inclusive practice into every school and valuing vocational pathways.

The response felt genuinely co-created because it was not a collection of separate organisational asks brought together at the end. Some contributors took on more of the writing, while others shaped the response through discussion, comments, review and sign-off. Not everyone could attend every stage, but there were different ways to return to the process and influence the final response.

Participation has to be made possible

Collaboration only broadens our understanding of inclusion if people with relevant experience are able to take part. Organisations working closely with children, families and schools often hold insights that policy needs, yet smaller and medium-sized charities may lack the capacity to sustain engagement alone. Working collectively allowed contributors to bring their expertise to a shared response without each organisation having to manage the full process. Part of the IEC's role is to help create that capacity through coordination, facilitation and practical support. 

The strength of the process came from what people already brought: knowledge of practice, relationships with schools and young people, policy insight and leadership experience. Structure helps make that expertise visible and useful without seeking to control it. Shared ownership does not mean an absence of leadership. Someone still needs to convene, provide structure and keep the work moving, while remaining clear about where decisions sit and whose voices shape the outcome.

What this means for inclusive education

Our main lesson is that schools have a central role in creating inclusive education, but the conditions that support it reach beyond the school gates. Charities, families and local services hold different knowledge about children’s lives and the barriers they face. Collaboration can connect those perspectives and support responses that are better informed by the whole picture. For collaboration to work well, it needs trust, structure and capacity, alongside clarity about how people can contribute and where ownership sits.

As we work with the Centre for Social Justice to develop the Inclusive Education Community, we want to build on this learning through further convening, communities of practice, shared learning and practical collaboration across the education and charity sectors. Our role is to keep creating the conditions in which that can happen.

The IEC blog provides a platform for a range of voices and perspectives. The views expressed are those of the individual author and should not be taken as representing the official views of the Community.