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.

What the future of educational neuroscience looks like: a report from Chile

How do we move from understanding the brain to improving outcomes in the classroom? This was the central question as researchers from the Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN) travelled to Santiago, Chile, in November 2025 to share expertise at two major Latin American Science of Learning events.

The two events brought together researchers from the Millennium Nucleus for the Science of Learning (MiNSoL), UNESCO Regional Office in Santiago, the Centre for Advanced Research in Education (CIAE) at the University of Chile, and the CEN in the United Kingdom, as well as researchers from Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe, with the goal of strengthening links between science and education.

On Day One, Professor Michael Thomas, Professor Andy Tolmie, Dr. Rebecca Gordon, and Dr. Emma Meaburn joined international experts at the inaugural Conference on the Science of Learning in Latin America (CCA 2025) to discuss the state of the science of learning in 2025, and how to translate educational neuroscience insights into education policy and teaching practice. On Day Two, the conversation continued with the UNESCO Regional Gathering on the Science of Learning, hosted in collaboration with UNESCO Santiago.

Day One: Inaugural Conference on the Science of Learning in Latin America

The conference opened with a keynote address from Professor Michael Thomas, where he mapped out the current state of the field. He moved beyond skills and knowledge acquisition to emphasise the importance of wider factors that underpin learning. Factors such as sleep, diet, mental health, and the physical environment can all help (or hinder) the brains ability to learn.

This set the stage for Dr. Rebecca Gordon, who expanded on the environmental aspect by discussing her planned country comparison study between Brazil and the UK. The project proposes to examine the environmental factors that might affect the development of the cognitive mechanisms implicated in the learning process, and how these might be mediated by interventions, policy and practice.

New evidence

One of the most practical takeaways came from Professor Andy Tolmie, who presented findings from a recent randomised cluster trial on spaced learning, the technique of breaking learning into short intervals spaced out over time with distractions in between. The study, implemented in 18 UK secondary school physics classrooms, found that combining one hour of spaced learning with conventional teaching resulted in 60% to 90% greater learning than either on their own (partial eta-square = .06 to .29).

Dr Emma Meaburn provided an example of taking a genetically informed approach, presenting findings from a study that explored the pathways linking parental genetic liability for mental health conditions to variation in adolescent internalising and externalizing behaviors. The study identified that genetically influenced environmental pathways are important in the development of early adolescent internalising behaviours, highlighting the potential of family-centered strategies for mitigating intergenerational risk for behavioural difficulties.

Why the brain matters for education

A core theme of the day was defining what value neuroscience brings to the science of learning. Professor Thomas outlined three key avenues:

Biological constraints: Learning happens within the brain, which means it is subject to specific biological limitations, which have been shaped by evolution. This can account for why we rarely forget motor skills (like riding a bike) or fear responses (like being scared of spiders), yet struggle to recall abstract facts (like the capital of Mongolia). These differences arise because different types of knowledge are stored in different brain regions and systems, with distinct biological properties.

Granularity: Neuroscience allows us to break down complex concepts like “attention” into smaller components, such as inhibition or mental effort. Educators can use this granular knowledge to tailor instruction and learning environments to these more specific underlying processes to help learners.

New interventions: Evidence-based innovation can lead to new tools. For example, the CEN’s UNLOCKE project used knowledge of inhibitory control to develop software that helps children learn counter-intuitive scientific concepts. Similarly, research led by Usha Goswami has shown that training rhythmic skills in the early years can help mitigate dyslexia-related word processing difficulties.

Emerging trends and knowledge gaps

While there is plentiful data on literacy and numeracy in the early years, the conference highlighted the need to expand our scope. Professor Thomas highlighted emerging research in the areas of:

General skills, like executive function, working memory and social-emotional skills

The home environment, and its impact on school readiness

How technology and AI is reshaping the classroom, and its impacts in learning

However, gaps remain. There is still much to understand regarding adult learners, secondary school education, the arts and humanities. Furthermore, there is a need to develop the science of teaching, that is to understand how the teacher-student relationship and teacher characteristics directly affect student engagement and learning.

The challenge: from establishing consensus to influencing policy

The ultimate challenge for educational neuroscience is determining what works, for whom, and in what context, and in the hands of what educators.

Professor Thomas warned against focusing too heavily on the child while ignoring the wider nested systems of schools, society, and the government that can support (or hinder) learning. He proposed that to tackle this, universities could act as “R&D hubs” to build the evidence base, co-creating research with schools to ensure the evidence generated is relevant and timely. Gatekeeper organizations (like the Educational Endowment Foundation in the UK) can then curate this evidence, which can feed into government policy and educational targets.

To support this vision for the future, the CEN has recently established working groups to build academic consensus on where the evidence is strong, where it is weak, and what does not work. You can read about the new CEN working groups here.

Day Two: Science of learning meets policy

The conversation continued on day two with the UNESCO Regional Gathering on the Science of Learning, hosted in collaboration with UNESCO Santiago.

Professor Thomas returned to deliver a second keynote, ‘Science of Learning and Policy: Gaps, Overlaps, and Opportunities.’ Using the UK education system as a case study, he took a deep dive into the relationship between what researchers find, what governments write in policy documents, and what happens in schools.

The ‘opportunity mission”

Analysing recent UK Department for Education (DfE) policy documents, Professor Thomas noted a strong interest in the Early Years, childcare, and school readiness. The goal here is clear: to break down barriers to opportunity and address disadvantage by targeting resources, and in a scalable and cost-effective way. There is also consideration of broader social and economic contexts, such as how to best equip children with the skills needed for their journey into adulthood and the labour market.

Where the science of learning fits in

Science of Learning and educational neuroscience is well-placed to solve many of these challenges. It can offer evidence in core areas like early development and student attainment. It can also help address modern concerns such as the impact of AI, social media, and mobile phones, as well as the sources and impacts of rising anxiety.

The blind spots: where we need to grow

However, Professor Thomas was candid about where the field currently struggles to provide insights. Because neuroscience focuses on how individuals learn, it often lacks the tools and approaches to address large-scale issues. He identified four key “gaps” where the science needs to expand to meet policy needs:

Systemic issues: Educational neuroscience investigates neural and cognitive processes, meaning it often has little to say about macro-level issues like school leadership and governance.

Workforce challenges: We currently lack research on the economics of education, such as how to recruit and retain teachers and early years providers, or how to support and incentivize lifelong learning.

Socio-cultural context: Lab-based research can be narrow (e.g., focusing on attention mechanisms) and fail to account for the messy real-world contexts that matter in education, such as housing insecurity and crime.

Building infrastructure: Factors such as the design of new schools and inclusive classrooms to climate change mitigation strategies are often overlooked, yet they have a massive impact on learning.

The ultimate challenge: translating the science

The keynote concluded by addressing the translation gap. Rather than expecting busy teachers to act as researchers, the research community must take responsibility for translating robust evidence into accessible, actionable strategies, and facilitate its integration into teacher training and continuing professional development. Importantly, the approaches we take must respect teachers’ time, knowledge and needs.

The BOLD blog is a global multimedia platform for scientific knowledge about child and youth development. The blog, along with podcasts and videos, features evidence-based articles by researchers, journalists, and practitioners on topics like educational psychology, neuroscience, genetics, and educational technology to improve learning and life chances for children worldwide. It asks questions like: What happens in children’s and young people’s brains when they learn? What does the ideal learning and development environment for each individual look like? Which programs and technologies should be pursued? Which decision makers need to be involved to improve development and learning conditions?

The BOLD blog has recently launched a collaboration with the journal Mind Brain and Education, posting blogs that delve into new scientific papers appearing in the journal.

This year, BOLD has featured two papers published by CEN members. Take a look here:

Dr. Astrid Bowen and colleagues: How do we know what works in education?

Prof. Michael Thomas and colleagues: Are we bridging the gap from brain scan to lesson plan?

New Working Groups at the Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN)

The Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN) is pleased to announce the establishment of several new working groups, formalising our commitment to translating rigorous neuroscientific research into actionable insights for policy, practice, and the classroom. These groups will focus on key areas spanning from genomics to physical learning, ensuring that the latest evidence enhances educational outcomes across the sector.

1: CEN-GEN Working Group

The CEN-GENomics working group (CEN-GEN) was established in Spring 2025 to address the rapidly evolving intersection of genomics, social science, and education. This is a critical area, especially since genomics featured in the Department for Education’s (DfE) 2025 Areas of Research Interest document, highlighting the need to understand its implications for policy, practice, and families.

Who is included?

Membership includes Emma Meaburn, Michael Thomas, Jo Van Herwegen, and Mojtaba Soltanlou, alongside external experts Yulia Kovas (Hult International Business School) and Tim Morris (UCL).

Focus in the Near Future?

The group has outlined two initial stages toward its long-term goal of supporting strategic planning by the DfE and other policymakers:

Building Scientific Consensus: The group is consulting with the DfE and gathering perspectives regarding the state of the science and plausible evidence-based pathways to translation. These findings will be published as a report intended to serve as a grounded and accessible resource for policymakers.

Teacher Consultation: Following the report, a workshop for teachers and educational professionals is planned for spring 2026. The goal is to explore teachers’ understanding and concerns regarding genomic information, and identify the professional development and support they might require.

2: CEN Early Years Working Group

The CEN Early Years Working Group was formed through a partnership between CEN and SEY (the Institute for the Science of Early Years). This group brings together leading researchers and senior figures from the UK’s major early-years organisations and promotes genuine two-way communication between research and practice.

Who is included?

This group is led by CEN member Sam Wass with contributions from Gemma Goldenberg, Denis Mareschal, Emily Farran.

Focus in the Near Future?

The primary focus is to co-develop authoritative, evidence-based policy positions and best-practice guidance for the early-years sector. The group leverages members’ extensive networks, sharing the latest neuroscientific insights while ensuring that the experiences and perspectives of practitioners shape future research.

3. CEN – Educational Neuroscience in the Classroom

This working group was established in Spring 2025, building on our research centre’s longstanding commitment to translating research into practice for teachers.

Who is included?

The membership includes Rebecca Gordon (Lead), Emma Meaburn, Gemma Goldenberg, Roisin Perry, Mojtaba Soltanou, Laura Outhwaite, and Jo Van Herwegen.

Focus in the Near Future?

The group aims to strengthen CEN’s role as a trusted source for evidence-based insights into the science of learning:

Resource Consolidation: They will map the extensive evidence body already available through the CEN, creating a searchable database that consolidates existing resources, including website materials and videos. This is intended to ensure teachers can easily access high-quality, research-informed content.

Professional Learning Co-design: The group will engage teachers directly through funded focus groups to identify priority topics and preferred formats for professional learning. This co-design process will then inform the development of a teacher-focused educational neuroscience module.

Integration into Teacher Pathways: Leveraging CEN’s network of over 200 partner schools, the group will support the Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Early Career Framework (ECF) team at UCL in integrating educational neuroscience into teacher development pathways.

4. CEN Maths Working Group

The CEN–Math group was established in Spring 2025 to highlight the critical role of mathematical learning in school readiness, academic achievement, and learning generally. Mathematics is a cornerstone of formal education: numeracy, alongside literacy, underpins the ability to access and build knowledge across subjects. Our initial objectives are to translate insights from the educational neuroscience of mathematics into practice—bringing evidence-based approaches to schools, teachers, and policymakers—and to promote understanding of how scientific findings can enhance educational outcomes.

 Who is included?

This group is led by Mojtaba Soltanlou and includes Jo van Herwegen, Emily Farran, Michael Thomas, Rebecca Gordon, Flavia Santos, Laura Outhwaite, Katie Gilligan-Lee, and Iroise Dumontheil.

Focus in the Near Future?

The initial objectives are focused on translating insights from the educational neuroscience of mathematics into practice. This involves bringing evidence-based approaches to schools, teachers, and policymakers and promoting understanding of how scientific findings can enhance educational outcomes.

5. CEN Embodied Cognition Working Group

The CEN – Embodied Cognition group was established in Spring 2025, recognising the importance of bodily engagement in cognitive processing for learning. This principle is based on the strong interconnection between “thinking and doing”. Bodily engagement includes gesture, movement, exploration, manipulating concrete objects, spatial reasoning, and other sensorimotor experiences, which are identified as powerful tools for effective learning.

Who is included?

The group is led by Emily Farran, and also includes Michael Thomas, Rebecca Gordon, Andy Tolmie, Denis Marschal, Spencer Hayes, and Ori Ossmy.

Focus in the Near Future?

The initial objectives are centred on translating research into accessible policy-ready and practice-ready formats. They also aim to disseminate the current consensus on what is known (and what is not known) about how embodied cognition benefits learning.

An Ongoing Commitment to Bridging Science and Practice

By combining rigorous research with practical application, these new working groups underscore the Centre for Educational Neuroscience’s dedication to empowering educators with the knowledge and tools required to enhance learning outcomes. We look forward to sharing the output from these groups as they translate complex scientific findings—from genetics to sensorimotor experiences—into tangible benefits for classrooms and policymakers. Our commitment is to ensure all practitioners and policy makers have access to information that can inform their decision making.

The Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN) was established in 2008 and is a university-based research centre which spans Birkbeck University of London and University College London, as well as including affiliate members. Its goal is to support translational research and dialogue between neuroscience, psychology, and educational policy and practice.

Today, we’re publishing a report summarising our research activities, engagement, and dissemination for CEN members in 2024-2025.

The report covers diverse projects spanning randomised controlled trials of educational interventions, cohort studies tracking children’s developmental and the societal, technological, and health factors that shape their educational trajectories, as well as research projects investigating skills relevant to education and dissemination activities involving the science of learning. This overview of our recent activities gives an indication of the range of translational research work currently underway in our centre. The CEN hosted its first annual conference, ENCORE, in April 2025.

Take a look at the report here: CEN-Report-on-activities-2024-2025.