2 Race and SEND: intersections and misrecognition
The children you interact with do not live single-issue lives. For many racially minoritised children, especially those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), school can be a space where racism and ableism overlap, creating a complex web of assumptions, misdiagnoses and missed opportunities for early intervention.
Racially minoritised children with SEND face a troubling paradox. They can be simultaneously over-labelled in some areas while completely overlooked in others, depending on how their identities are interpreted by adults around them.
Disproportionality and bias
In the UK, Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean children are significantly more likely to be excluded from school. These exclusions are often linked to labels such as Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs. In many cases, these labels are used without properly investigating communication needs, trauma, or undiagnosed learning differences. According to the Timpson Review (2019), Black Caribbean pupils were more than three times more likely to be permanently excluded than their white British peers, making them one of the most excluded groups in England’s school system.
What does this mean in practice?
- Children with SEND are around three times more likely to be suspended than their peers.
- Students with ADHD are up to 100 times more likely to be excluded.
- Autistic pupils make up 43 per cent of those who are persistently absent from school.
- SEND students also experience the largest attainment gaps. By Key Stage 4, pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) are nearly 40 months behind their peers in academic progress.
- According to No More Exclusions (2025), many of these pupils are being pushed out of mainstream education into alternative or specialist provision, not always because of need, but because schools feel unable or unwilling to support them.
At the same time, you might see that some racially minoritised children are under-identified for SEND support. Their behaviour might be misunderstood as cultural, oppositional, or simply difficult, rather than recognised as a signal of distress or unmet need.
For example, autistic Black children, especially girls, are often missed in diagnostic processes. This is partly because their traits do not always match the dominant expectations based on white, male diagnostic norms. What might be recognised as autism-related behaviour in a white child may be interpreted differently when displayed by a Black child, perhaps seen as defiance, cultural difference, or simply ‘bad behaviour’.
Furthermore, SEMH categories are frequently used in place of trauma-informed or culturally aware approaches. This may happen because professionals do not always recognise that what appears to be an SEMH difficulty could instead reflect developmental or social-emotional needs.
Rather than creating supportive and inclusive environments, many schools are becoming increasingly difficult places for neurodivergent children to feel safe or understood. No More Exclusions (2025) points out that the rise in Emotionally Based School Non-Attendance (EBSNA) may reflect institutional neglect, where punishment is chosen over support.
Blanco-Bayo and Reraki (2025) point out that the lack of clear distinction between SEND and SEMH in the current SEND Code of Practice may make identification even more challenging. These overlapping biases, perspectives and narrow definitions of inclusion mean that racially minoritised children may be labelled too quickly in some situations and overlooked entirely in others.
In situations where children can be both over-scrutinised and under-supported, it is possible to see the kind of challenges Dr Tembo described when he noted that ‘language is just one part of the anti-racist struggle’. The disproportionality patterns you’ve just explored show that there are no simple solutions because the challenges arise from multiple intersecting systems and assumptions. This is exactly the kind of work that requires us to move beyond our ‘personal anxieties’ about getting things wrong and into sustained action.
Reflection prompt
How is this linked to intersectionality?
You’ve just considered how racially minoritised children with SEND can be both over-labelled and overlooked, depending on how their identities are interpreted.
Intersectionality is about recognising how different parts of a person’s identity interact. In this case, how might being both racially minoritised and neurodivergent shape a child’s experience at school differently than if they held just one of those identities?
If you’re not sure, think back to how Frances Akinde described her son’s journey, specifically how she had to retrain as a SENCO just to ensure he received appropriate support. Would the challenges have been the same if he were white? Or neurotypical?
How does this link to your practice or caregiving?
Whether you work with children in a professional setting or care for them at home, consider these key questions:
- Are children’s behaviours viewed through a single lens, or are their full identities and contexts taken into account?
- When a child is struggling, is the response to manage the behaviour, or understand it?
- Are families given space to share what they know about the child’s needs?
As you explore practical interventions in the next activity, keep these reflections in mind. Understanding the complexity of intersectional experiences is the foundation for developing more responsive and inclusive approaches.
Activity 2 Putting it into practice
Task 1 Examining your starting point by revisiting your worldview
For practitioners
Take a moment to consider your honest responses to the following questions.
About assumptions
- When you think about a Black child who is frequently out of their seat or calling out, what explanations come to mind first? How might these differ from your initial thoughts about a white child displaying the same behaviours?
- Have you ever found yourself thinking ‘it’s a cultural thing’ when trying to understand a racially minoritised child’s behaviour or family response? What was that situation?
- When recommending SEND assessments, do you notice any patterns in which children you refer and which you don’t?
About your practice
- How do you typically gather information about a child’s needs? Who do you ask, and whose voices might be missing?
- When families disagree with your professional judgment about their child, how do you respond? Does this response change depending on the family’s background?
- Think of a recent incident involving a racially minoritised child. What assumptions guided your initial response?
Discussion
Your response may include:
- ‘I try to be colourblind’ or ‘I treat all children the same’.
- Recognition that you do think differently about behaviour depending on the child’s race.
- Discomfort realising you’ve used ‘cultural explanations’ to avoid deeper investigation.
- Awareness of unconscious patterns in referral recommendations.
A ‘colourblind’ response can indicate different things. Sometimes it reflects well-meaning practitioners who haven’t yet grasped how identical treatment can produce unequal outcomes. However, it can also signal colour avoidance or evasiveness, actively ignoring racial issues to avoid discomfort or responsibility. The key difference is whether practitioners are genuinely open to learning about how race impacts children’s experiences, or whether they use colour-blindness to shut down conversations about equity. Recognising differential thinking patterns is actually a positive first step when it leads to curiosity rather than defensiveness.
Many practitioners realise they rely heavily on teacher reports and formal assessments while rarely seeking family insights about the child’s strengths, interests, or home communication patterns. This can lead to incomplete pictures of children’s needs and capabilities.
For parents and carers
Reflect honestly on your experiences and responses.
About your child’s experiences
- Describe a specific time when your child’s behaviour or needs were misunderstood at school. What exactly happened?
- How did the school explain your child’s difficulties? Did this explanation feel accurate to your knowledge of your child?
- What questions did you want to ask but felt you couldn’t? What stopped you?
About your own responses
- When your child comes home with stories about unfair treatment, what is your immediate reaction? Do you listen first, or do you find yourself explaining or minimising?
- Have you ever felt the need to ‘prepare’ your child differently for school because of their race or additional needs? What does this preparation involve?
- What support do you wish you had during challenging times with professionals?
Discussion
Your responses may include:
- Feeling dismissed or not believed when describing their child’s needs
- Being told their child’s difficulties are ‘behavioural’ without investigation of underlying causes
- Feeling like they had to become experts in the system to be heard
- Experiencing different responses from professionals depending on how they presented themselves.
These experiences may reflect systemic patterns rather than individual failings. When families feel unheard, it might indicate professional practices that prioritise institutional convenience over genuine partnership.
Task 2 Connecting to broader patterns
Based on your reflections above consider the following questions.
Practitioners
- How might your assumptions connect to the disproportionality statistics you learned about earlier?
- Where do you think your initial responses come from: professional training, personal experience or media representations?
- What would need to change in your setting for families to feel genuinely heard and valued?
Parents and carers
- How do your experiences connect to the systemic patterns described in this session?
- What would have made the biggest difference in how professionals responded to your child?
- How might your child’s experience be different if they were not racially minoritised? Or if they did not have additional needs?
Discussion
You may have initially resist connecting your individual experiences to broader systemic patterns as it can feel overwhelming to recognise that personal challenges reflect wider inequities. However, this connection is necessary because:
- individual solutions alone cannot address systemic problems
- understanding patterns helps prevent self-blame for families and professional isolation for practitioners
- systemic awareness guides more effective intervention choices.
Practitioners often realise:
- their training emphasised deficit-focused approaches over strength-based assessment
- school policies and time constraints make meaningful family engagement difficult
- they lack knowledge about how trauma, racism, and neurodivergence intersect.
Families often recognise:
- their experiences weren’t unique or due to personal failings
- the emotional labour of advocating was made more difficult by systemic barriers
- their child’s needs were viewed through narrow, often deficit-based lenses.
Task 3 Identifying one change
Write down one specific change you could make in your approach.
This could be:
- a question you could ask that you don’t currently ask
- a pause you could take before making assumptions
- a conversation you could initiate with colleagues or family
- a way of responding differently when children or families share difficult experiences.
Make it concrete: Instead of ‘be more inclusive’, try ‘ask parents directly about their child’s strengths and interests before discussing challenges’ or ‘pause for 10 seconds before responding when a child’s behaviour surprises me’.
Discussion
You can make changes more effective by being:
Specific rather than general: ‘Listen more to families’ is less actionable than ‘Ask families to describe their child’s strengths and interests before discussing challenges’.
Process-focused rather than outcome-focused: ‘Take a 10-second pause before responding to surprising behaviour’ is more controllable than ‘Never make assumptions’.
Sustainable rather than overwhelming: Small, consistent changes often create more lasting impact than dramatic shifts that are hard to maintain.
Practitioners might have chosen:
- asking different questions during assessments or meetings
- creating more space for family input before making recommendations
- examining their own responses before attributing behaviour to cultural factors
- seeking additional training on trauma-informed or culturally responsive practices.
Families may have chosen:
- preparing questions in advance for meetings with professionals
- documenting their child’s experiences more systematically
- advocating more directly for their child’s needs
- connecting with other families facing similar challenges.
This level of self-examination can produce significant discomfort because:
- it challenges professional identity and competence
- it reveals gaps between intentions and impact
- it connects personal experiences to systemic inequities
- it requires acknowledging limited control over outcomes.
You may find this discomfort can lead to:
- increased curiosity
- a willingness to seek additional learning
- a commitment to gradual change
- recognition that growth requires ongoing effort.
Though, you should note any negative responses to this discomfort such as
- self-attack, paralysis
- dismissing the activity as ‘too political’
- making dramatic one-off commitments that aren’t sustainable or that you are not planning to follow through.
Remember that recognising problems is the first step toward addressing them. This work requires patience with yourself while maintaining commitment to equity for children and families.
Reflection prompt
Reflect on the following questions:
- What was most uncomfortable about this reflection process? What does that discomfort tell you?
- How ready do you feel to have honest conversations about race and SEND with colleagues or family?
- What support would you need to make meaningful changes in your practice or advocacy?
The discomfort you may have experienced during this reflection process is valuable information, as it often signals areas where growth is most needed. Whether you feel ready for difficult conversations or recognise you need more support, the frameworks you’re about to explore can help guide your next steps.
Moving from self-awareness to action requires practical tools. The three interventions that follow, restorative approaches, trauma-informed practice, and cultural competence training, offer evidence-based frameworks for addressing the intersectional challenges you’ve examined. They will provide you with ways of thinking and responding that can transform how you support racially minoritised children, those with and without SEND.
As you engage with each intervention, consider how it might address the specific assumptions, gaps or changes you identified in your reflection.