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

I also think there's a big difference between what constitutes a need vs a want.

if no SEN is detectable by age 11, then they’re very unlikely to be ‘disabled’ (unless medically diagnosed with for example, diabetes), and therefore it’s a ‘SEMH’ issue which doesn’t need addressing via channels meant for children with disabilities.

This is complete and utter rubbish. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t understand SEN and disability. Firstly, although many with SEN will also be disabled and vice versa, it is possible to meet the legal definition for one and not the other. Secondly, SEMH needs is one of the broad areas of SEN. Thirdly, many with SEMH needs are disabled, using the Equality Act’s definition.

Does anyone know why there is such a high number of children with SEN now? I remember the odd child at school (70's/80's) but it was rare.

There hasn’t been as huge an increase in recent years as some people like to portray. The most recent statistics released last year show 19.5% of pupils have SEN. In 2010, so before EHCPs, it was 20.9% or 21.1% (depending on which statistics you look at - I think it is a rounding issue adding up SA, SA+ and SSEN (anyone seeing resemblances to targeted, targeted plus and specialist?)). In 2005, it was 18%. Going back several decades to the Warnock report in 1978, “some 20% appeared to need some form of special educational help. This may even be an underestimate…”

Nowadays there seem to be a host of people with children who don't have learning disabilities etc, but who expect the state to provide an incredibly tailored, one to one level of provision, even where this doesn't appear to be effective in enabling the child or young person to attend school or work

There is far more to be considered than attending school or work. Not providing support required now costs more in the long term. not. For example, the right support now can be the difference between the child needing 1:1 or 2:1 (or even 3:1 or 4:1) as an adult. It can be the difference between a residential placement being needed or a placement within the community. It can be the difference between an ordinary residential placement or a secure placement. It can be the difference between 24/7 care or only care for some of the time. It can be the difference between contact with the justice system and not. It can be the difference between a child going on to be eligible for CHC funding or not when they are an adult. It can be the difference between someone needing prolonged hospital stays in the future or not. None of which are about attending school or work.

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.

no able bodied child with a normal IQ needs to take an expensive place in a special school.

They wouldn’t be placed in such schools if it wasn’t needed or there was a cheaper option. For some, the alternative is EOTAS/EOTIS/C, which done properly can be even more expensive.

Such children need mental health support, things like CBT, confidence building
But this is not education. This is for parents to provide.
Yes - education. Which doesn't include mental health support, cbt or "confidence building". These are for healthcare services AND PARENTS TO PROVIDE.

Actually, it is considered special educational provision rather than health care provision. By your post, it would be acceptable to leave a child without mental health support if parents couldn’t provide it. It wouldn’t be.

Would you accept a “good enough” education for your children, that met their needs “enough”?

Yes i do, every day. I consider it on me as a parent to offer more. The state provides "enough". If i want "the best", i have to provide that.

No one is saying these children will not have an education?
It just might not be the education they, or their parents, want. It might not be quite as good an education as is ideal, but it might be good enough?

This.

Would you accept a “good enough” education for your children, that met their needs “enough”?

Or do you expect your child to receive an education that is suitable for them, like any reasonable parent?

The problem here is people are interpreting "education" as this incredibly broad catch all concept covering health, emotionally well being and happiness, which is not what was intended by the term in that context.

No one is saying these children will not have an education?

It just might not be the education they, or their parents, want. It might not be quite as good an education as is ideal, but it might be good enough?

Ultimately there has to be a threshold somewhere in terms of which children qualify for more support. ALL children out there could progress quicker if they were in classes of 10, that doesn't mean we can afford to do that for all children. You have to draw a line somewhere and wherever you draw that line, there will always be some children close to it who would have benefited from being on the other side of the line with more support. The line still has to be somewhere.

So you want us to opt out of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and say that actually no, not all children have the right to an education, only the ones who can be educated cheaply.

In some ways I feel quite optimistic about this. My experience with EHCPs hasn’t been good and making sure the support detailed is given can often be a huge job. The application process is stressful too.

If the right support was there in mainstream it would be better and not having to jump through the hoops to get it would mean earlier intervention and better outcomes.

When you say 'if we spent some of the money on smaller class sizes'.... Do you have any idea at all what that would cost?

Probably the whole 4 billion if not more. The capital costs alone to modify schools so that there were more classroom spaces, and then the billions on training and paying say 10-20% more teachers in the system, and that would be just to reduce class sizes to say 24 or 25 instead of 30. People spout this stuff without any idea the massive, massive cost

So if they won't work or live independently they should just be written off and be given no suitable education?

Or is that only the asd/adhd/semh children that need to be written off? Because you seem to believe those with the 'most severe' needs and learning disabilities should have special schools and EHCPs, despite the fact they're far less likely to live independently and will cost the state a lot more as adults.

So basically it's ok for some disabled people to have the support they need but not others? Those who could potentially contribute should just be written off because there might be uncertainty, but those who will never contribute are hunky dory. Because that's how im understanding your view atm (based off another post I saw you on yesterday where you said EHCPs should be reserved for those with learning disabilities and significant physical disabilities).

And you do know that some specialist schools do in fact offer GCSEs and A levels and other qualifications right? Being in a Specialist school in and of itself doesn't automatically mean someone will never contribute to the tax system when older.

A lot of the schools around here have opened specialist provisions within the mainstream schools. These allow children to have hybrid provisions, within the "hub" when needed, within the mainstream classroom when possible. The idea is to allow a return to mainstream when possible. Schools have been given funding to create the specialist provisions (including a very high adult to child ratio of teachers and money to secure the premises to keep the hub separate if needed). This is actually beneficial for undersubscribed primaries with space in their buildings and also for councils paying millions towards transports for children going to specialist schools.

“Small space + LSA + EHCP children.”

So unqualified staff, providing simple childcare, in an unsuitable setting? That is pretty outrageous! And at a time when the brains and bodies of those children are still malleable and they could make the most progress with the right sort of specialist intervention.

@Playingvideogames

If you believe that “able bodied children with normal IQ” shouldn’t be in specialist, to meet their emotional and social needs - will you be happy when they’re all back in mainstream?

I worked in alternative provision, with some of our LA’s hardest to engage kids and real challenging behaviour. If their EHCP’s and support packages are streamlined, they will end up in onsite provisions in mainstream schools, and will not cope.

We see on here all the time that people don’t want their children going to school and witnessing meltdowns, or violence to others, or destruction - which is fair enough. But, when those children are either shoehorned back into mainstream, or lose their EHCP in favour of “targeted support,” they will end up back with your kids.

Sure, it’ll save some money, but the impact on education and engagement won’t just stop with our SENd kids.

More people having children later in life. The jury's still out on whether being an older parent is a risk factor for autism and other LD or whether autistic people find it harder to meet people to settle down with so have their children later-neurodiversity runs in families, so that's a factor.

As medicine gets better, we save more premature babies who are more likely to be disabled and have lifelong needs. The way our noisy, fast-paced, aggressive and internet centered world is now makes it harder for neurodiverse people to cope when perhaps they would have in previous generations.

And certainly in London, intermarriage is a factor. In one of the boroughs near me, 1 in 5 SEN children is a result of cousin marriage.

The teaching unions will respond to this. Be interesting to see what they say.

Nope-nearly all primary schools around here are starting them, whether they are one form or bigger. It’s in the library, or the ICT room, or a demountable!

Small space + LSA + EHCP children.

I am already having to fight for my child as it is, no specialist can meet needs the only one that can was an independent provision but instead he will have to go to the Local mainstream school.
He has not set foot in a classroom in 2 years, has not had a any education,hardly any friend ships.
He can not cope with the very small primary he is in and they can not meet his needs even with a 1 to 1!
And he only goes in 20 mins a day.
He is behind socially and mentally, he still drinks from a babys bottle!
Can not dress himself,tie shoelaces.

I have no life what so ever (I love my child dearly) but im at breaking point to.

I have to find 1000s to fight this system but with this new one parents by the looks of it wont even be able to fight!

Do you think send tribunal find in parents favour just because they feel like it?

We have been so let down time and time again!
And I wont even go down the route of what some parents have done because they could not get any help!

So please the people who this will not impact but going on about money.
What do you suppose I do with a child like mine?
Just give up on him?

And I completely agree with you

But many wont. OP’s son is in special school and therefore given a high level of support and she sounds doubtful at best that he will live an independent working life. It isn’t as straightforward as ‘spend now; save later’. I’ve seen many such cases and sadly only a minority go on to live a life without significant state support in some form.

I don’t have ‘beef’. It’s pointless mud slinging and trying to make me out to be a bigot or a fascist of some kind, firstly because I’m not, secondly because we’re discussing the public purse, not individuals.

Yes, this is happening already because LAs are directing mainstream schools to take pupils who are unable to set foot into a mainstream classroom. They are shoved in any space the school has available-with some wobble cushions and a tent-and because the funding is woefully inadequate have one LSA for 2/3 children.

This is not quality SEN provision with a qualified teacher! It may be local (to save on transport costs) but I don’t think anything about this is inclusive.

So where do you suggest they go when they can no longer attend a mainstream setting? These able bodied normal IQ children as you put it, will be adults who can pay into the tax system in the future given the right support now. So how will writing them off and denying them an education benefit anyone?

also what's your beef with children/people with asd and adhd? Do you think only this with physical disabilities are actually disabled?

There’s FAR too much focus on curriculum content at ks1 and 2. It’s pushed out more important things and too many teachers rely on TAs to deal with a child with send. TAs are fantastic but are not trained teachers.

specialist teachers should be focusing all their efforts on those children.

Latest from BBC as funding due to be reserved for extreme cases from 2035:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c98q9j04q39t

I can see how they can build SEND hubs in large secondaries, but a lot of primary schools are still one or two form entry. So will the hubs only be in the larger primary schools, like 3 form entry plus? And will this actually work in all areas. It is an important question because a lot of parents who suspect SEND will automatically opt for a smaller primary environment, thinking it may be softer on the child.