Don’t get dragged into the ‘inclusion’ trap

Following Ofsted’s publication of the revised Education Inspection Framework (EIF) last year, training organisations across the country have been working hard to interpret what a “heightened focus on inclusion” actually means for their daily operations. After discussing this with several organisations in recent months, I’ve noticed a worrying trend. Some organisations are missing the point and are at risk of falling into the “inclusion trap.”

Historically, our sector has been incredibly creative. We have a long track record of responding to new reports, reviews, and legislation – think Tomlinson, Kennedy, and Moser reports, or more recently, the SEND Act and the Augar review. Each of these pushed us towards greater emphasis, for example, on lifelong learning, widening participation, equity and diversity, and better provision for learners with special educational needs and/or disabilities.

Many local authorities and adult training organisations do a fantastic job with some of the hardest-to-reach or most marginalised members of our community. Further education and specialist colleges work wonders, creating real life chances for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Meanwhile, those who offer education programmes for young people gamefully continue to tackle the uphill battle of supporting 16 plus learners who lack basic English and maths skills or struggle with behavioural and “soft” skills.

As government initiatives have evolved, Ofsted’s inspection frameworks have naturally shifted to mirror these themes, “encouraging” organisations to reconsider or realign their priorities. The latest iteration places a significant spotlight on inclusion. However, when a framework emphasises a specific concept, there is a natural tendency for organisations to over-correct in an attempt to please the inspectors. This is where the danger lies.

I recently worked with a college that responded to criticism from Ofsted. Inspectors remarked that too many learners had been put on courses that were too easy for them. In an effort to fix this, the college swung the pendulum the other way, placing more learners on higher level programmes. Without careful consideration, this risks creating the perfect storm. Attendance and retention are at risk, behaviour and attitudes of learners may suffer, support mechanisms can become over-stretched, staff morale may slip, and as a result, achievement rates may dip.

There is a simple adage in our sector that has stood the test of time: Aim to get the right learners on the right courses. This statement is anything but a cliché, it’s the foundation of a healthy learning environment.

When we meet this goal, we ensure that courses are chosen to meet a learner’s genuine career aspirations while aligning with their current development needs. It allows us to set sensible entry criteria, ensuring students have the academic baseline, particularly in English and maths, to thrive and succeed. Furthermore, it enables organisations to be strategic about resources. You can target support where it will have the most impact. This leads to motivated learners who have the interest, the capacity and the infrastructure they need to thrive.

So, how do you avoid the trap? When evaluating what inclusion means to your organisation, stop trying to second-guess the expectations of an inspection team. Inclusion does not mean lowering your standards, nor does it mean being all things to all people.

True inclusion is about removing barriers to success, not removing the requirements for success. The organisations that lead the way in this area are those that embed inclusion into their core vision and values without sacrificing pragmatism. They understand that placing a student on a course they may not pass isn’t “inclusive”, it’s irresponsible.

As you plan your strategy for the coming year, keep “right learner, right course” at the front and centre of your enrolment process. At the end of the day, your primary responsibility isn’t to a framework or a set of inspectors. Don’t do it for inspectors; do it for the learners.