27/09/2026
Not all sensory support is the same. New research suggests that difference shows up in what a child can actually do.
If you are a SENCO or a school leader, you are already making sensory decisions every week. Which pupil needs a movement break. Who needs a quieter route to the hall. What goes in the plan and what stays informal. Usually with limited time and a long list. You are not overthinking it. Those distinctions genuinely matter.
Park and Kim (2026) pooled 23 randomised controlled trials of sensory integration therapy with children. They found improvements in motor skills, in daily functioning, and in the individual goals set for each child.
The largest effects were on those individual goals. And they were most pronounced where the therapy stayed close to Ayres Sensory Integration principles.
That is the part worth sitting with. Universal adaptations, targeted strategies and fidelity-grounded intervention are three different things, and the evidence does not treat them as interchangeable.
Which gives you a sharper question to ask. Not "do you offer sensory support" but "what is this practitioner trained in, and does the intervention hold to the model it names".
Because the goals that moved in these studies are not abstract. Getting into the building. Staying at the table. Managing the corridor between lessons. Regulation first, then learning.
Small hinges open wide doors.
Park, S. H., & Kim, E. Y. (2026). Effects of sensory integration therapy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 172, 105269.
For the SENCOs here: when you arrange sensory input for a pupil, what do you currently ask about the approach?