Lisa Pinkerton, Head of Education at Widgit Software explains why a strategic approach to symbols and visual communication can help schools move from adaptations for individual children to inclusive practice by design.
Walk around most schools and there is an enormous amount of information competing for attention, much of which depends heavily on spoken or written language.
Everything from room names, timetables, instructions and rules to displays, notices, curriculum vocabulary and signage can create an extra layer of difficulty for children with additional needs. Changes to routines, behaviour expectations and information about trips and events can also present challenges for some children.
There may be pupils who know what they want to say but struggle to express it, or others who find it difficult to process lengthy instructions. Changes to routines can heighten a child’s anxiety, while some pupils may need extra processing time and visual supports to engage in a lesson or understand what is expected of them.
These are not necessarily individual "SEND problems". They can be barriers created by how information is communicated.
This is where the requirements in the Department for Education's (DfE) new inclusion strategy create an interesting opportunity for schools.
A wider view of inclusion
From 2026–27, mainstream schools in England must publish an inclusion strategy, identifying pupil needs, barriers, actions and intended outcomes, with the first due by 31st December 2026.
The changes prompt school leaders to ask a key question about inclusion: “Are we designing our schools so that fewer pupils encounter barriers in the first place?”
To find the answer, schools will need to look beyond individual pupil interventions and consider the wider features that make a school inclusive.
One of these is communication accessibility.
From individual visual supports to an accessible whole-school environment
Visual prompts in the form of imagery or symbols can help make communication in schools more accessible, but they are often introduced reactively.
These adaptations can be highly valuable. But there is another question schools wanting to improve inclusion can ask: “What if visual communication was embedded across a school, rather than something added only when an individual pupil needs it?”
This is the thinking behind communication-friendly environments. They consider three broad areas: the visual support systems already in place, the way adults communicate and the physical classroom environment.
Changes can include accessible signage and labels, clear visual information, simple and unambiguous instructions, appropriate visual supports and attention to the environment in which communication takes place.
The important shift is from "which pupils need visual support?" to "how accessible is our school environment?"
Why consistency matters
A set of symbols used consistently alongside written and spoken communication can provide a familiar visual language for children with additional needs across different parts of school life. But symbols should not simply be decoration alongside text. They should have a clear purpose: helping pupils understand, navigate, communicate and participate.
Consider a pupil who encounters the same visual representation throughout the day, whether as a signpost to the toilet, or as a communication aid for “help”, “break”, “lunch” or “home” in the classroom, corridors or on timetables. Repeated, consistent exposure to such imagery can make important information more predictable and recognisable. For some pupils, this familiarity can support independence and reduce the amount of information they have to process from scratch.
So how can schools achieve consistency in the way they communicate?
A genuinely strategic approach to inclusive communication should extend beyond individual classroom resources. It can be helpful to carry out a communication accessibility audit to identify gaps and consider where changes could make communication more accessible across the school.
The audit could begin with questions like: “Can pupils identify important rooms independently?”, “are signs understandable to pupils who cannot rely on text alone?”, “are classroom routines visually represented?”, “are instructions accessible to pupils who find spoken or written language difficult to process?” and “is key vocabulary supported visually where appropriate?”.
The audit could then look more broadly at the accessibility of the school environment, rather than simply asking whether individual pupils have the resources they need.
It might cover six areas:
Visual information: Are signs, labels, timetables and instructions accessible and consistent?
The value of this approach is that it creates a useful baseline for leadership to identify where the school is now, establish priorities and monitor the changes being made on children’s independence, participation and engagement in school. It also helps schools progress from simply having visual communication prompts available in a resource cupboard to thinking much more broadly about how communication and accessibility are designed across the school. This is much more meaningful than recording that a school has purchased visual resources
A bridge between inclusion and school improvement
The DfE’s guidance emphasises building an inclusive core offer, meeting predictable needs and becoming inclusive by design. It also highlights accessible, inclusive environments as a key principle. That makes communication accessibility a valuable strand of a school’s inclusion strategy.
An inclusion strategy shouldn’t become another document sitting alongside school improvement. With a communication accessibility audit, practical action can be taken to improve inclusion: strengthening visual communication, informing staff development, reviewing the environment, gathering pupil voice and giving governors clear evidence of progress.
The approach therefore becomes part of a continuous improvement cycle:
Audit → Prioritise → Implement → Monitor → Review
The role of technology
Technology can make this easier, particularly when staff need to create consistent visual resources quickly.
But technology should follow the strategy, not become the strategy.
Start with the communication need:
Only then should leaders consider the tools needed to deliver the approach.
A consistent symbol set can become part of this infrastructure, helping staff create visual timetables, signs, vocabulary resources, task sequences and communication boards without developing different visual languages. Consistent visual supports can help create a more communication-friendly school environment.
Inclusion by design, not adaptation by exception
The biggest shift is cultural. Instead of introducing visual communication only when a pupil is identified as needing it, schools can design communication to be accessible from the outset.
That doesn’t mean every piece of information needs a symbol, or that visual communication replaces language, literacy or good teaching. It means being more deliberate about how information is presented and how pupils can communicate.
So the question becomes less “Which pupils need symbols?” and more:
“How accessible is the way our school communicates and what could we change to reduce communication barriers to learning and participation?”
That is firmly a whole-school inclusion question.