Reform councils to cut SEN spending

EHCPs can vary widely based on parental advocacy, legal pressure, or school capacity—not just need.

The law is the same for all. The problem isn’t parents advocating for their DC. It is LAs acting unlawfully and LAs and some schools perpetuating unlawful myths. The solution to that is to support all parents to know the law, advocate for their DC and enforce their DC’s rights.

The intention isn’t to strip away support from vulnerable children
This isn’t about denying children support

That is exactly what you are suggesting.

without…measurable outcomes.

Lawful EHCPs contain SMART Outcomes.

Why should EHCP funding be exempt from a means-based conversation

Because state education is free (beyond the tax system) and DC with SEN are protected by the law. It is interesting you are only proposing means testing education for DC with SEN and not for all DC. Some high earners send their DC to state schools; if your intention isn’t to discriminate against vulnerable DC with SEN you would be suggesting means testing their education too. You would also be suggesting means testing education for DC without SEN but who take up more resources in school e.g. pupils with EAL, LAC pupils, pupils on child protection plans/other pupils where there are safeguarding concerns.

focused on non-core services like private therapies, transport, or extracurricular support.

Therapies that educate or train are core services. They belong in F of EHCPs and are legally classed as educational provision and therefore the LA’s responsibility (despite what many LAs think(. Transport isn’t just an issue for those with EHCPs. DC with EHCPs don’t get extra-curricular clubs funded as standard - parents would have to evidence they are required because of the child’s SEN and that they educate or train (and even then LAs are likely to refuse to include the provision in F).

She said last night that I should be funding DS medication too!

The key difference is that medical care in the UK is already means-blind and centrally funded through the NHS, which is structured specifically to provide universal healthcare without charging at the point of need. It’s a foundational principle of our health system—and for good reason.

EHCPs, however, sit within local authority education budgets, not the NHS. They’re funded from a limited pot of money that was never designed to absorb the rising costs we’re now seeing—particularly when some EHCP placements cost more than private school fees. Unlike healthcare, where services are clinically assessed and standardised, EHCPs can vary widely based on parental advocacy, legal pressure, or school capacity—not just need.

This makes the system more vulnerable to inequality, overextension, and ultimately collapse.

So it’s not about picking on SEN families—it’s about recognising that this specific part of the welfare system is financially unsustainable and lacks the safeguards that prevent overuse in healthcare. Asking those who can afford to contribute toward EHCP-related costs—especially for non-essential extras—is about creating resilience in the system, not penalising disability.

If the NHS were funded like the EHCP system is now, we’d likely be having the same conversation about means-testing for certain services. The problem is structural—and that’s why education funding needs its own honest, pragmatic solution.

And define families who can afford and what a contribution would be.

A family struggling to hold down two jobs and the expenses that brings alongside keeping a roof over their head whilst supporting kids with SEN not in receipt of any benefits will not necessarily be able to afford education costs any more than others on benefits and frankly would be better off not working.

If we are maintaining the notion of free education for all then it’s free education for all not just some.

And you haven’t answered my repeated question re why not the focus on doing this with those that incur higher medical costs too?

I'm not sure they can actually do that on a local level but of course Reform would happily do it. Farage has said multiple times that he would like a US style insurance system for the NHS yet his supporters claim that doesn't mean he would privatise the NHS 😂 You only have to look across the pond to see what Reform want to create. But hey the media that literally give him 24 hour unchallenged coverage are in the hands of the liberal democrats 😂

So are we going to do this with medical provision too? Why just education?

The intention isn’t to strip away support from vulnerable children—it’s to propose a more balanced, sustainable system where public funding is protected for those who truly need it, and families who can afford to contribute toward EHCP-related costs are expected to do so.

At present, EHCPs can trigger extremely high public spending—sometimes upwards of £60,000 per year per child—without a consistent standard of accountability or measurable outcomes. When families with significant financial means access the same public funding pot as those struggling to meet basic needs, we risk depleting the system for everyone, especially lower-income families whose children may be most at risk.

This isn’t about denying children support—it’s about shared responsibility. We already accept this model in other parts of life: higher earners pay more tax, some families pay full childcare costs while others receive subsidies. Why should EHCP funding be exempt from a means-based conversation, especially when demand has exploded and local authorities are going bankrupt trying to meet it?

Contributions could be means-tested, scaled to income, or focused on non-core services like private therapies, transport, or extracurricular support. Public money would still cover essential education and care—but families with resources could help shoulder the extras that strain the system.

And no, this wouldn’t mean that poorer families “go without.” It would mean that limited funds are prioritised for those who can’t contribute, and the burden is more fairly distributed. The ultimate goal is a system that works better for everyone—not one that breaks under pressure.

This!

I think posters like Cherry have strange morals, not deep of thinking or are on a wind up or all three.

The severity of someone’s disability has nothing to do with their academic ability. What an absurd comment.

Nope they are not for education but the huge amount of other expenses having a disability brings. Having SEN doesn’t mean you’re entitled to PIP anyway.

Let’s see how your discriminatory, abelist wheeze would pan out. So the many children with Sen that come under and over the EHCP threshold have parents that decline to or can’t pay for the mental health, phonics, reading, writing, physio, speech, behaviour etc interventions school think they need. Many will have more than one children and will probably be on low income if SEN has been inherited.Less and less children can access the curriculum and behaviour spirals. What then? Those that do pay will demand evidence re what their money is being spent on,guarantees and some control. Who is employing the staff doing the interventions? Those with higher bills will just keep their kids at home. What happens then?

I bet the likes of cherry are the first to complain when lessons are disrupted by disregulated children, or when the teacher is having to spend extra time helping children with a topic. People don’t seem to realise that it’s in everyone interest to ensure children are properly supported in school.

It is discrimination. It isn’t about ‘wants’. No child or young person gets provision just because they or their parents want it. It has to be reasonably required in law.

Perhaps a portion of that could come out of DLA/PIP if awarded?

You do realise for many DLA/PIP doesn’t cover the cost of disability related expenses as it is without adding funding educational provision to the equation? Which disability related expenses do you suggest parents stop providing for their disabled DC in order to fund your proposal?

Scope’s latest disability price tag research shows on average, disabled households need an additional £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. That would be higher if adjusted for inflated now. These figures account for disability benefits such as DLA/PIP.

Surely things like DLA/PIP are created for exactly this purpose - to improve quality of life etc?

I’d have thought having 1:1 support and transport etc would fall within the category. If families are being paid that extra supplementary allowance, wouldn’t it make sense to allocated some of it towards those extra services?

It comes purely from the idea that it is good to make the lives of disabled children and their families, harder

Ok so can we have it for all sorts of other things then- medical conditions people are also born with. Maybe we should test at birth and anybody with less than perfect genes gets taxed extra? 🤔

"This could be taken directly from wages, like a salary sacrifice scheme, so the parent isn’t being taxed on that amount."

So you want families with a disabled child to have a worse quality of life. Yes it is discriminatory.
It's also for no purpose as the amount you would get back is very small or nothing to compared to what families could actually pay and the admin costs of doing this.

No because it is discrimination. All children are entitled to an education, not some ALL.

Why on earth would you want to put a financial penalty on people who have disabled children? Do you not think that they might have enough on their plates already?

I honestly don't know what's wrong with some people.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

The core framework for schooling should always be free, but if you want/need add-ons or extras, you should be willing to pay towards that provision.

Perhaps a portion of that could come out of DLA/PIP if awarded?

However you try to dress it up making people pay to be able to access education is discrimination.

I think it could be implemented in a similar manner to CMS. A contribution based on income, where the families earning less pay less.

This could be taken directly from wages, like a salary sacrifice scheme, so the parent isn’t being taxed on that amount.

"What I’ve said, repeatedly, is that there should be a contribution made by the families receiving those services. Whether that’s means tested or a sliding scale."

And if the parent won't or can't pay what are you going to do?

I know, and I’m aware it’s tough. Our council is selling buildings now to raise funds.

But if it’s a legal requirement to provide a service, councils are leaving themselves open to being sued. Presumably this is why the Badenoch et al bang on about dropping the Equality act etc. So they can cut funding without financial penalties. Depressing stuff.