The publication of Every Child Achieving and Thriving marks a defining moment for special educational needs and disabilities reform. After decades of drift, the system has been given a clear direction: earlier intervention, stronger mainstream inclusion and more consistent access to specialist expertise.

Much of that direction is right. The ambition is serious. The investment is significant. But there is a notable silence at the heart of the White Paper.

At a time when education has undergone a profound shift in how it is delivered, there is no meaningful reference to online education or online schools.

Silence on online education

That absence matters - and the contradiction is difficult to ignore. Only a few years ago, during the pandemic, online and hybrid education became the system’s primary means of continuity. Schools across the country relied on it.

For many pupils, it was not an optional extra, but the only way education could continue. That moment revealed something important. Education is not bound to buildings. It is a relationship, a process, a system of support. The medium can change.

Yet in 2026, at the very moment when the system is grappling with rising exclusions, persistent absence and increasing numbers of children experiencing emotionally based school anxiety, those insights are largely absent from policy thinking.

Ignoring the reality

Instead, we are still designing a system based around attendance in buildings - but this risks overlooking those who cannot access those buildings in the first place.

We know that absence is not a single issue. It is often the downstream expression of unmet need. Children with SEND remain disproportionately represented in exclusion figures. Many experience repeated breakdowns in placement.

Others withdraw altogether - not out of defiance, but because school environments have become overwhelming or are perceived as unsafe. Some do not leave their bedrooms.

For these children, the debate about inclusion bases, capital investment and physical infrastructure may have little impact. This is where the omission of online education becomes more than a technical oversight; it becomes a conceptual gap.

The rise in online learning

There is already evidence of what works for this cohort. Across the country, families are increasingly turning to alternative forms of provision, including home education supported by online learning. This is not driven by preference alone; it is often a response to systems that have been unable to meet need.

Alongside this, models such as the National Online School, the UK’s first Department for Education-accredited online SEND school, are beginning to demonstrate what a different approach can look like.

Online provision then, when designed well, can offer structure, therapeutic support and relational consistency in a format that reduces sensory and social overload.

It can act as a bridge back into education for pupils who have disengaged, and for some it becomes a longer-term pathway that enables stability and progress.

In that sense, it sits within the same continuum that the White Paper seeks to strengthen. It is neither an alternative to inclusion nor a retreat from it. It is, for some children, what makes inclusion possible.

How will future educators view this decision?

The risk of omission, then, is not simply that a growing part of the sector feels overlooked; it is that the system continues to link inclusion too closely to physical presence. But inclusion is not a place.

If a child is on roll but unable to attend, are they included? If a young person is physically present but psychologically absent, has the system succeeded? And if a child can engage, learn and feel safe through a different mode of delivery, why would that not be recognised as a legitimate form of inclusion?

There is also a question of how this moment will be viewed in the future.

It took more than four decades for a new SEND White Paper to emerge. When policymakers look back in 20 or 40 years, what will they see? A system that recognised the changing nature of education and adapted accordingly, or one that remained anchored to traditional models despite clear evidence of transformation?

At a time when artificial intelligence, digital platforms and new forms of learning are reshaping education globally, the absence of online provision from SEND reform risks appearing not just cautious, but outdated.

Helping all pupils thrive

None of this diminishes the importance of strengthening mainstream schools or investing in specialist provision. Both are essential. But a mature system recognises that no single model will meet all needs.

The real question is not whether online or in-person education is better; it is: how can the system create belonging, safety and access across different contexts so every child can achieve and thrive?

For a growing number of children and young people, the answer will not be found solely within the walls of a school; it will be found in a system willing to meet them where they are.

Thomas Keaney is founder and CEO of the National Online School, and a trustee of NASS (National Association of Special Schools)