What does trust-wide inclusion really look like in practice?

Across a trust, it can be tempting to look for one SEND and inclusion approach that works everywhere.

At The James Montgomery Academy Trust, that has never felt realistic.

In a recent conversation, David Silvester, Trust CEO, and Cheryl Gaughan, Strategic Lead for SEND and Inclusion, reflected on what it really means to lead inclusion across schools that serve very different communities, work with different staffing profiles, and face different day-to-day challenges.

What stood out was not how different the schools within the trust are, but how consistent the thinking behind the work has become.

Different schools, different realities

Across JMAT, the contexts vary significantly. Some schools are based in urban areas with highly diverse communities. One serves one of the largest Roma pupil populations in the country. SEND needs also look very different from school to school. Some schools support a high proportion of pupils with SEND, while others have made different decisions about provision and resourcing over time.

This wasn’t framed as a problem to solve, it was simply recognised as the reality of leading a trust made up of a diverse mix of schools. 

The questions stay the same

Despite those differences, David and Cheryl described something that felt surprisingly consistent.

Across the trust, schools tend to ask the same core questions.

How do we respond to the needs in front of us?
What needs to be in place to support learners properly?
What structures help staff feel confident and capable over time?

Those questions don’t change. What changes is how each school answers them.

As David explains, the trust works hard to keep the conversation aligned, while recognising that the right response in one school will not necessarily be the right response in another.

Experience shapes the approach, not the ambition

Some schools have long-standing, highly experienced teams who have worked with pupils with complex needs for many years. Others are building capacity with newer staff or a higher number of early career teachers.

That difference does not change the trust’s ambition for inclusion.

What it changes is the starting point.

Cheryl describes her role as helping schools find approaches that are realistic, supportive and sustainable for the staff they have now, while keeping the child at the centre of every decision.

Putting the child first, every time

Again and again, the conversation returned to one clear principle. Start with the child.

Not the label. Not the framework. Not the paperwork.

Whether a classroom has one child with significant needs or several, the expectation is the same. The child comes first in everything they do.

Across the trust, some pupils have more complex needs than others, but the values do not shift. The work always begins with understanding the child in front of them.

Letting go of quick answers

David reflected that, early on, there was a natural desire to find clear answers…a programme…a curriculum. Something that could be applied across schools. It is hard for schools to not have a knee-jerk reaction. This is something that we had to learn, take time over and get it right.

Over time, it became clear that SEND and inclusion do not work that way.

There is no single approach that fits every child. What matters far more is creating a culture where staff feel able to ask questions, try things, reflect honestly, and adjust when something is not working.

Instead of looking for certainty, schools are encouraged to ask a more useful question. Is this right for this child?

Inclusion is more than being in the room

Cheryl spoke openly about something many schools recognise. A child can be physically present in a classroom and still not feel included. So the trust keeps coming back to practical questions.

What does inclusion look like for this child today?
Why might they need to leave the classroom at certain points?
What are we learning about their needs when that happens?
How can that understanding help us support them back into learning?

Sometimes children do need targeted support outside the classroom. That is not a failure. What matters is that those decisions are purposeful, reviewed, and connected back to the child’s longer-term learning and wellbeing.

Making sense of progress

Another strong theme in the conversation was how schools capture and talk about progress for learners with SEND.

Not just outcomes, but the things that matter day to day. Engagement. Confidence. Regulation. The strategies that help learning happen.

Using Evidence for Learning has helped their schools bring those pieces together. It makes it easier to connect classroom learning to EHCP outcomes, personal learning plans, one-page profiles and support strategies, so progress tells a coherent and shared story.

Starting carefully, not everywhere at once

JMAT did not try to introduce everything across all schools at the same time.

Instead, leaders asked careful questions. Which schools needed support most urgently? Where was there readiness to lead the work? What would help this become embedded rather than feel like another short-term initiative?

Early conversations with headteachers and SENCOs focused on their vision for SEND, what SEND looked like in their school, and where they wanted to go next. That understanding shaped how the trust offered support and where time and energy were focused first.

From “we can’t” to “we can work this out”

One of the most important shifts David and Cheryl described was cultural.

In education, people often feel overwhelmed not because they do not care, but because the internal message becomes, we cannot do this.

Over time, JMAT has worked to build a different mindset. One where it is acceptable to say we do not know yet, and where learning together is seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

That shift has mattered for early career teachers, experienced staff and leaders alike. It has created space for honest conversations, shared learning and steady improvement.

What this makes possible

The impact has not come from one single intervention. It has come from doing the work carefully and consistently.

Across the trust, David and Cheryl describe children who are more settled in school, improved attendance and engagement, stronger relationships with families, and professional development shaped by real need rather than generic expectations.

Most importantly, schools feel better equipped to respond to complexity with confidence rather than fear.

A shared direction

JMAT’s experience shows that trust-wide inclusion is not about standardising practice.

It is about agreeing on the questions that matter, creating space for professional learning, and supporting each school to find answers that work for their learners and their context.

The settings may be different. The challenges may look different. The commitment remains the same.

Put the child first.
Keep learning.
Build on what works.