New research from the Sutton Trust highlights a stark and uncomfortable reality: when high-performing schools sit at the heart of their communities, disadvantaged pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are far less likely to attend them.

Looking at the top 500 secondary schools by attainment, the study finds they admit far fewer pupils who are both eligible for free school meals and receiving SEND support than live in their local areas. These schools take in around half as many disadvantaged pupils with SEND as the average school, and over a third fewer than live in their catchment areas.

This isn’t simply a matter of parental choice or school reputation. The research suggests something deeper and more systematic is going on.

A significant proportion of school leaders believe some schools are actively discouraging applications from pupils with SEND — rising to half of leaders in schools with the highest levels of SEND intake. Whether intentional or not, this points to a system where access is uneven.

This pattern reflects how admissions systems and accountability measures shape who gets through the school door. Schools are judged heavily on attainment and performance metrics, but are not rewarded in the same way for being inclusive of pupils with more complex needs. The result is a set of incentives that can make it harder for schools to welcome pupils who may need additional support.

In selective areas, these patterns are often even more pronounced. Only 0.57% of grammar pupils have a EHCP statement, compared to an average of 5.3% in mainstream secondary schools.  By design, grammar schools admit a much smaller proportion of pupils with SEND than their local populations. The 11-plus acts as a filter,  one that can disadvantage pupils with a range of needs, from processing difficulties to anxiety, and those without access to extensive tutoring.

Selection isn’t the only factor. Even within non-selective systems, admissions arrangements can create less visible barriers: complex oversubscription criteria, strong reputations around strict behaviour policies, and perceptions about the quality of SEND provision.

The Sutton Trust’s polling suggests these perceptions matter. Differences in school reputation for SEND support and inclusivity were among the most commonly cited reasons for unequal intakes. For families navigating additional needs, these signals can shape decisions or deter applications altogether.

One of the most striking findings is that many high-performing schools admit fewer disadvantaged pupils with SEND than live within their own catchment areas. That raises a simple but important question: how representative are our schools of the communities they serve? If some schools consistently serve fewer pupils with additional needs, the burden falls elsewhere — concentrating challenge in some schools while others appear more successful partly by default.

The Sutton Trust is right to highlight the role of accountability. If we want a more inclusive system, we need to recognise and reward schools that serve diverse intakes, and ensure admissions arrangements are genuinely fair and transparent. Because right now, the system does not consistently support schools to do the hardest — and most important — work.

This research adds to a growing body of evidence that selection and admissions systems shape not just who gets into which school, but who gets access to opportunity. For pupils with SEND, and especially those from low-income backgrounds, the barriers are too often built in.

A more inclusive system isn’t just about support within schools. It’s about ensuring fair access to them in the first place.