SEND - children’s needs to be reassessed from year 6 2029?

That is not what I said.

I think what you define as a need, I do not truly believe to be a need. The law was drafted in a way that may consider it a "need" because the law was not drafted to be applied for the range of SEN it is now forced to encompass.

You're right that TA's meant for the whole class are having to act as 1:1's.
The problem could be solved if children who needed 1:1's were always given them, but they're not, meaning staff have to rally round and make do. My child's school would love to be able to give him a 1:1 instead of the TA having to be an unofficial personal helper every year but he wouldn't meet the criteria. I agree it would benefit the other children as well if he could have a 1:1 and the TA was freed up to do her job.
My child is well behaved, doesn't disturb lessons but needs a lot of support to be able to focus and understand instructions. I will just have to hope that because he is lovely teachers will always help him, I doubt he'll get an EHCP for secondary school now.

Nice deflection. That's not what you said is it. You said courts are awarding eotas packages based on what parents want, rather than evidenced needs. Are you back tracking now and acknowledging this is completely untrue and fabricated?

Our youngster’s secondary has a “SEN hub” - it’s a fairly new build school and was purpose built.

Works well. Great SENCo leader, provision for pupils who can use it as little or as much as they require. Progress in getting school refusers in on a part time basis, with aim to be full time. And a mainstream school just there if it becomes possible for the pupil to move across.

Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it helps.

I agree. The numbers are vast. They truly think people will just pay more taxes to enable this to continue indefinitely.

With relief and regret it looks like the govt have done the only thing they can do; which is dramatically reduce the number of children whose provision is legally mandated.

Nobody wanted to reach this point but there is no alternative.

The easiest comparison is old age pensions. When they were introduced, you got your pension at 65, and life expectancy was only 68. The law introducing them was based on people only actually receiving them for a few years at the end of their lives.

As life expectancy has increased, we cannot afford to provide state pensions at 65 any more. So we have reduced entitlement to only people older than this, and more in need. If you want to retire earlier you can, but you must fund it yourself.

We can no longer afford the additional costs of non standard education because the pool of "eligible" children with SEN has grown too much. So now we must restrict who qualifies to prioritise those with the most severe needs.

How do you think our kids get the help they need, before they get an EHCP?

I taught for 5 years, I didn’t only help children with an IEP (as they were then). There were (and still are) children without a statement of need or any funding, who were still lower attaining and needed support. Differentiating for, a member of staff available to support their learning, small group work etc etc.

If your children require support than they’re not getting, it’s the school’s responsibility to meet that need - or at least attempt to through targeted interventions etc.

If they’re not doing that, take it up with them.

Clearly something hasn’t been working for a long time. I’ve not had the battle personally but I have seen parents have to take our local authority to court to get ECHPs. It is a massive waste of everyone’s time and deeply challenging for those parents. Not everyone can manage that fight.

My worry is the money doesn’t touch the surface or really put in place the environment to support children or their teachers properly. At one point in my daughter’s class of 30, there were the following issues (that I was aware of- no doubt there were more).

2 kids severe adhd
1 kid severe autism (moved to a special school)
1 kid with severe anxiety (left to be home schooled)
1 kid with autism and anxiety
1 kid with v difficult home life and anxiety
1 kid with v flakey parents and high levels of absence
1 kid with v severe difficulties (was on roll but
only actually attended for 1 week before it was deemed impossible)
3 kids with dyslexia (one of whom left as they weren’t getting enough support)
1 kid who was exceptionally bright and operating on a different level to everyone else in the school (possibly with hyperlexia)

For many years, there were no ECHPs or funding support for this class. Honestly I don’t know how on earth teachers are supposed to manage these dynamics let alone then deal with the other 15-20 kids with different needs and abilities.

It needs to be reviewed because needs change. A child who has support in place at 5 (which my dd did) may need different support by 8 let alone 11. It may be more, less or just different

Like what? They don’t have enforceable legal rights via EHCPs do they?

I’d increase my expectations if I were you. If my child needed an intervention that the school wasn’t providing, I don’t think I’d be taking to MN to tell disabled kids off, I’d do something about it.

Do you understand how courts of law work? They look at evidence. They don't award packages based on what parents want 🙄.

The law was written in a different time that did not envisage the vast expansion of diagnostic criteria for asd/adhd. It was never intended to provide this level of support to this proportion of children.

“Teaching assistants meant for all are now just one to ones”

I would be very surprised if my son’s 1:1 is a general TA that’s been pulled from the other children, because the school are provided with specific ringfenced funding for that 1:1 and legally have to spend it on that. They’re accountable for that spend to the LA.

His 1:1 also doesn’t count into the class’s ratios, because she’s for him, so if she has just been moved from general TA work and not backfilled by another member of staff, they’re out of ratio.

Nice try though!

Neither of my kids has their educational "needs" met in school . One is exceptional in maths and has learned absolutely nothing in school maths as a result. No he gets absolutely nothing more, because state education is not geared up to provide more for him.

The other could do with more help in maths but isn't "bad enough". She could do better with small group teaching in maths but couldn't we all?

I just want my child to be able to go to school! How about that!

Do you understand how courts of law work? They look at evidence. They don't award packages based on what parents want 🙄. If they were LAs would be appealing the courts decision every single time. They don't though do they? Because all is above board and the judges are doing their jobs as they should be.

I think some people on here actually can't grasp the maths.

Uk public spending per head, is under £14k. For those of us in the south east, its even lower, only £12k.

Thats covering health, social care, education, the lot.

And you really think we can be affording to spend 2 to 3 times that (and more) on as many as 1 in 5 kids education?

We literally can't. As a country we would go bust. We have to spend less or there simply isn't enough money to go around.

Do SEN parents really think non SEN kids are ‘having their needs met’ and an education tailored to them? Because if so - nope; not even close. A lot of them are losing out because everything is channeled into SEN. Teaching assistants meant for all are now just one to ones. 60% of all new funding goes on SEN.

Children are entitled to an education, that doesn’t mean the best education money can buy that fits them perfectly.

Excellent post. I'd like to add it's not unusual to find semh needs emerge because other SEND needs are unidentified/unmet. Proper identification and support can see semh needs reduce dramatically.

Also a nice diagram all the 'but send has exploded' people dislike

Then you don’t understand the current law. If provision wasn’t reasonably required, in the legal sense, to meet needs in B, it wouldn’t be included in F. The LA wouldn’t included it. SENDIST wouldn’t Order it either and if the LA thought SENDIST had erred, they would be quick to challenge it.

Most of the parents at my DS's 2000 kid, local comp do. It's far from ideal and all the kids would benefit from smaller class sizes or their own personal 1:1 teacher. But that's not realistic. We couldn't afford private so we plug the gaps as best we can.

DC don’t get EOTAS/EOTIS/C unless it is inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school or college. They don’t receive it just because parents expect it. Just because a child doesn’t have a learning disability doesn’t mean they don’t have incredibly complex needs.

I fundamentally disagree that all the things some parents consider to be "needs" are actual needs. I think many of them are wants.

DC with SEN don’t get the best possible education now. The current law doesn’t allow for that.

DC don’t get provision just because they or their parents want it.

Children cannot learn without feeling safe and somewhat happy. All the research shows that! Absolutely ridiculous that anyone would suggest otherwise in the 21st century.