Is the rise of adaptive teaching a sign of better inclusion, or a warning that the SEND system is struggling?
Over the last year, I’ve noticed a marked increase in requests from schools and colleges for training on adaptive teaching, SEND and inclusion.
This is not new territory for me; I’ve written about adaptive teaching many times, but the nature of the requests has shifted. Adaptive teaching means adjusting teaching in response to students’ needs, without lowering expectations or creating separate tasks for every learner.
These requests feel more urgent, more anxious and more operational from leaders: “What does this look like in a classroom with 30 students, several Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), limited support and no extra time?”
So, what is driving this shift? Government reform? Inspection pressure? Funding? Parental expectation? Increased identification, or a misunderstanding of adaptive teaching?
Adaptive teaching has become the new policy language
Adaptive teaching has partly replaced older conversations about “differentiation”. That is probably a good thing, but only if we are clear about what we mean.
Adaptive teaching is not producing 30 worksheets for 30 students. It is not about lowering expectations. It is not a coded phrase for “students with SEND”. It is the professional practice of adjusting instruction, explanation, modelling, scaffolding, questioning, practice, and feedback so that more students can access the same ambitious curriculum.
If adaptive teaching becomes a folder, a checklist, or a performance-management target, we have already misunderstood it.
SEND demand is rising
The SEND population has not simply appeared overnight. Schools and colleges are reporting greater complexity, greater parental expectation and greater difficulty accessing timely external support.
Increased identification may be part of the story, particularly around autism, ADHD, speech and language needs, mental health and neurodevelopmental differences. But increased identification does not automatically produce better provision.
Post-pandemic disruption may also have increased speech, language, social, emotional, attendance and mental health needs. Meanwhile, local authority capacity, waiting lists, specialist placement shortages and EHCP delays have shifted more responsibility onto mainstream schools and colleges.
Inclusion cannot be delivered by classroom goodwill alone.
Inspection and policy have raised the stakes
The DfE’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan drew national attention to the need for reform, consistency, early intervention and improved mainstream support. Ofsted has also sharpened its focus on how schools and colleges identify and support students with SEND.
That attention matters. Families have a legitimate right to know whether schools and colleges are safe, inclusive and effective. But inspection can also distort behaviour. It can make leaders anxious about how provision is documented, rather than how effectively students are learning. This question remains a sticking point for me:
Does inspection improve provision for students, or merely improve the paperwork around provision?
Adaptive teaching is not SEND provision
Adaptive teaching benefits students with SEND, but it is not a substitute for specialist assessment, reasonable adjustments, assistive technology, therapy, teaching assistant deployment, curriculum modification or statutory support.
The EEF guidance on SEND in mainstream schools is a useful starting point for schools looking to connect inclusive teaching with evidence-informed practice.
A teacher can adapt explanations, models, scaffolds and checks for understanding. They cannot provide speech and language therapy, diagnose autism, reduce class sizes, resolve EHCP delays or replace specialist provision where specialist capacity is limited.
What is the system really asking teachers to do?
The growing demand for SEND and adaptive teaching CPD tells us something important. Schools and colleges are not refusing inclusion. Many are asking for help because they want to do it better.
But we should be honest. Adaptive teaching cannot compensate for underfunded services, delayed assessments, insufficient specialist places or an accountability system that too often rewards presentation over provision.
The real challenge is not whether teachers can adapt. The challenge is whether the system around them is willing to adapt too.
For practical support, explore TeacherToolkit’s teaching resources, including materials that support planning, questioning, feedback and adaptive teaching.
