We were contacted by a local authority in England that asked about the overlap between Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and deprivation, and what a school could do to help these students.

It is important to be clear from the outset: SEND should not be treated as simply another label for deprivation. SEND arise for many interconnected reasons, including genetic, neurodevelopmental, and biological factors.

At the same time, there are well-documented associations between SEND and socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g. around 43.8% of pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) were eligible for Free School Meals), and ignoring these links would also be misleading. What matters is understanding that the relationship between SEND and deprivation is not uniform. It looks different depending on the type of need, the severity of difficulties, and the broader context in which children and families live.

Why SEND and deprivation often overlap — but not always

On average, children and young people with SEND are at risk for lower educational outcomes (Tuckett et al., 2021), which can feed into lower socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood. This partly accounts for why areas with higher deprivation often show higher recorded rates of SEND. In addition, many neurodevelopmental differences are heritable, making it more likely the parents of children with SEND also have difficulties. Where parents themselves have undiagnosed or unsupported SEND, families may face unstable employment, poorer health, difficulty navigating services, and greater exposure to stress and adversity. These pressures can affect school attendance, engagement with education, and the consistency of support children receive.

However, this pattern varies by type of SEND. For some needs, particularly more severe or biologically rooted conditions, the link with deprivation is weaker. For others, such as social, emotional and mental health difficulties, the association with socioeconomic disadvantage may be stronger. In these cases, relatively mild underlying neurodiversity can be exacerbated by environmental stressors, leading to greater difficulties being observed in school. As a result, neighbourhood-level “maps” of SEND prevalence can look very different depending on which needs are examined.

This is why it is unhelpful to talk about “SEND and deprivation” as though they were a single phenomenon.

Attendance, belonging, and relationships matter for everyone

One area where SEND and deprivation clearly intersect is attendance. Importantly, attendance is not just an administrative or academic metric. Regular attendance supports confidence, social participation, and a sense of belonging. Evidence increasingly shows that non-attendance among pupils with SEND is often linked to schools not fully meeting their needs, and that feeling connected and valued in school strongly predicts whether children attend (Cameron et al., 2025).

Crucially, this applies across the board. Whether difficulties are driven more by neurodevelopmental factors or by socioeconomic pressures, positive relationships with education professionals and a strong sense of belonging help children engage with learning.

Early years matter more than labels

For many children with SEND, especially those with intellectual or developmental delays, progress is shaped less by labels and more by the timing, quality, and consistency of early support. Some children benefit from entering education at a developmental stage that better matches their learning needs, rather than strictly by chronological age. However, flexibility in school entry only works if it is paired with guaranteed access to high-quality early provision.

Evidence suggests that when children miss formal early years education altogether, outcomes are worse—particularly for children from low-income or language-minority backgrounds Campbell (2023). What matters most is access to high-quality, inclusive early years settings, not simply delaying or accelerating formal schooling.

What the evidence tells us about early support

Research from the UK and internationally points to a consistent message: quality and access to support matters more than policy labels. Early years programmes that combine educational input with family support show benefits for children later identified with SEND, particularly for less complex needs (Carneiro et al., 2025, IFS). Earlier access to structured, high-quality provision is associated with better literacy and numeracy outcomes in the early school years (Vandecruys et al., 2026).

Parental involvement is a particularly powerful lever. Reviews of intervention studies show that the strongest effects come from multi-component approaches that combine structured parent–child activities with close collaboration between families and schools. Supporting families in a systematic, joined-up way improves both wellbeing and learning, especially in lower socioeconomic contexts (Hamid et al, submitted).

Inclusive systems need layered solutions

Because both SEND and deprivation are complex and inter-related, solutions must be multi-faceted. Educational responses alone are not enough. Effective systems:

• front-load support in the early years
• prioritise belonging and attendance
• embed evidence-based classroom practices that benefit all learners
• and include safeguards so that disadvantaged families are not excluded from flexibility or choice

Many classroom practices validated for SEND—such as explicit teaching, high-quality feedback, scaffolding, and structured support—also benefit the wider cohort. Scaling these practices as part of everyday teaching helps avoid over-reliance on individual diagnoses while still responding to genuine differences in need.

At the same time, broader societal factors—poverty, health, housing, and access to services—shape what schools can realistically achieve on their own. Inclusive education is necessary, but not sufficient, to address inequality.

In summary

SEND is not simply a proxy for deprivation, but neither is it separate from it. The relationship between SEND and SES varies by type of need and by context. What cuts across both is the importance of early, high-quality provision; strong relationships; a sense of belonging; and coordinated support for families. Systems that recognise this complexity—and design for it—are far more likely to improve outcomes for children with SEND and reduce long-term inequalities.

References:

Campbell, T. (2023). Whose entry to primary school is deferred or delayed? Evidence from the English National Pupil Database. Review of Education, 11, e3409. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3409

Cameron, C., Villadsen, A., Roberts, A., Evans, J., Hill, V., Hurry, J., Johansen, T., Van Herwegen, J., & Wyse, D. (2025) School absence and (primary) school connectedness: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. London Review of Education , 23 (1) , Article 5. 10.14324/LRE.23.1.05.

Carneiro, P., Cattan, S., Conti, G., Crawford, C., Farquharson, C., & Ridpath, N. (2025). The short-and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Vandecruys, F., Vandermosten, M., & De Smedt, B. (2026). Education as a natural experiment: The effect of schooling on early mathematical and reading abilities and their precursors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 118(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000958

By Dr Emma Meaburn, Deputy Director of CEN and Reader in Human Genetics, Birkbeck.

I recently had the privilege of speaking at the Progress Educational Trust’s (PET) Annual Conference in London. This year’s conference asked, “What Does Genomics Mean for Fertility Treatment?”, and my session, “Polygenic Risk, Polygenic Scores, Polygenic Indices: What Are They? What Should Be Done with Them?”, provided an important opportunity to discuss the evolving science of polygenic scores for educationally relevant traits and what they might mean for the future of fertility treatment.

What exactly are polygenic scores?

I have blogged about polygenic scores before (see here and here), but to recap: they are derived from large-scale genomic research that identifies thousands of common DNA variants that statistically link to a trait of interest (such as physical and mental health problems, or social and behavioral traits). While each individual variant has a tiny impact, we can aggregate them into a single summary number (a ‘score’ or ‘index’) to estimate an individual’s genetic predisposition for the trait.

So, while we have known for decades, through twin and adoption studies, that traits with relevance for education and learning such as achievement, cognitive function and mental health are all heritable, polygenic scores allow us to move from group-level observations to individual DNA-based predictions.

Research vs. translation: The big distinction

In my talk, The ABCs of PGSs: Unpacking Polygenic Scores, I distinguished between using them for basic research (e.g. to understand gene-environment interplay) and using them as tools in society to inform individual decision making. For instance, polygenic scores are being considered as a screening tool to identify individuals at high risk for coronary artery disease to allow for earlier intervention.

But this is not the only possible application. In the context of fertility, it is now possible to use polygenic scores within a preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) framework. Often referred to as PGT-P, the calculation of an embryo’s polygenic scores allows prospective parents to screen and rank them based on their probability of developing certain traits, ranging from health conditions like diabetes to educationally relevant traits like depression and intelligence.

The conference was particularly timely, as while PGT-P is prohibited within the UK, the Guardian recently reported that fertility patients in the UK have circumvented this by sending embryo genetic data to US-based companies for analysis.

The reality check: genes are not destiny

What are the expected gains of PGT-P for parents who are interested in using it for traits such as intelligence or depression? The science suggests we should be cautious. Crucially, there is no destiny in genes. Polygenic scores are currently weak predictors that lack the vital context of environment, lifestyle, and the myriad other factors that influence a child’s characteristics, behaviour and health over their life course. For example, a polygenic score for ‘years spent in education’ is less accurate in predicting a child’s actual achievement than looking at their parents’ level of education or the family’s socioeconomic position. This highlights that while DNA plays a role in our educational journeys, it is only one piece of a very complex developmental puzzle.

Further, because polygenic scores tend to ignore biological mechanisms, they do not tell us what other outcomes would have been possible under different social and environmental circumstances. In the context of traits like attainment or behavior, this raises the risk of creating self-fulfilling prophecies for children born by PGT-P, and overlooks the important fact that developmental plasticity means all children respond positively to educational instruction and support.

Finally, is important to note that most genomic data currently comes from populations of European descent. This means that, at present, polygenic scores are far less accurate for individuals from other ancestral backgrounds, raising critical concerns about equity and fairness in their potential application.

Looking ahead

Genomic discovery research is moving at pace. It seems plausible that DNA-based prediction will become a bit more accurate for individuals and start to work better for people of all backgrounds. As this moves forward, we at the Centre for Educational Neuroscience remain committed to ensuring that the conversation around genomics, polygenic scores and traits relevant to education and learning are grounded in empirical evidence and clearly and openly communicated.

CEN Director Professor Michael Thomas appointed Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Education

We are delighted to announce that after 15 years serving as Director of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN), Professor Michael Thomas will be stepping back from his directorship to take up a prestigious secondment as the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) to the UK Department for Education (DfE).

Professor Thomas, who has directed the CEN since 2010, will begin his new role in January 2026.

A new chapter in evidence-based policy

This appointment marks a significant milestone for the field of educational neuroscience. As CSA, Professor Thomas will play a critical role in ensuring that scientific evidence is embedded at the heart of government decision-making.

His portfolio at the DfE will cover expert advice on:

Learning and skills

Children’s health and wellbeing

School sustainability

The use of technology in education

He will also contribute to the UK’s wider network of departmental CSAs, coordinated by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean.

Speaking on his new appointment, Professor Thomas commented:

“I’m very excited to be taking on this role. It’s long been my interest to ensure that the latest findings from the science of learning are used to help educators and policymakers improve the learning outcomes, health, and wellbeing of both our young people and lifelong learners.”

The appointment has been welcomed by government leadership. DfE Permanent Secretary, Susan Acland-Hood, noted:

“..Michael’s wide-ranging research has provided invaluable insights into child and adolescent development and psychology. His extensive research in this field will prove invaluable in supporting the department’s wider work to give children the best start in life.”

Professor Thomas has been instrumental in the CEN’s mission to strengthen evidence-informed education, and we wish him the very best in this influential new role and look forward to seeing the continued impact of his expertise on national education policy.