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

100% this.

i hate that a child needs a diagnosis to get their needs met but there we are, many people who are teachers either lack the skills, training or compassion to meet certain needs.

if a child is struggling in an identified area there should be interventions already on site to utilise.

I teach in SEND and all the children who came to us early made the most progress, even being able to transition to mainstream during teen years.

Early speech and language interventions are the most important and impactful approaches. No other learning can happen really till that has been worked on

What’s been declared so far is:

• By 2035, EHCPs will be reserved for only the most complex special educational needs
• Children who currently have an EHCP will keep them until they reach the next stage of their education
• Children will be reassessed for EHCPs as they move up to their next stage from 2029
• Under the changes, the government projects that the proportion of children with SEND on the current highest level of support in school will start falling each year from the end of the decade

I agree. Our whole education system is underfunded and unfit for purpose. The reform is needed there. Reform that and many of the current send issues will sort themselves. Reforming send support is just a sticking plaster.

Thousands of children in mainstream are expected to lose their EHCP's.

Covid lasted 2 years.

WW2 lasted 6, and nobody in my grandparents 90 something cohort seem as anxious and unable to do things as teens now.

Im sure it’s had some effect, but I think you’re overblowing it.

(Due to the right things being put in place earlier on)

It will take over a decade for any real impact to be seen

The 25-26 cohort (the ones that have started this year) will have been born in 2020-2021.

I would assume that those children, and any older than them, are affected either by a lack of early socialisation, or lack of access to EYFS provision.

I wouldn’t expect to see an end to the impact of Covid on education for at least another decade.

@Peridoteage - schools educate the whole child now, it’s 2026. Pastoral education plays a huge part in child development and learning.

Children are more likely to have ehcp strengthened tbh.

transition from primary to secondary is woeful. More (good) pressure on secondary to have the necessary support, attitude and resources in place to accommodate children

BP is absolutely right that lots of private companies are making a fortune out of send. That money should be being used for the same thing in schools we already have.

I do think the knee jerk reaction now is to assume a child with any emotional difficulties is ‘SEN’ and therefore now the remit of school and CAMHS.

There is a cost for rebranding everything as ‘disability’, it makes it feel immutable and like something the parents can’t change.

My understanding is that mainstream primary schools are being encouraged to establish SEND hubs on site, which will mean that children will be able to attend their local school rather than being moved to specialist provision.
I think schools will feel forced to do this- by 2028 national inclusion standards will be in place - so I’m not sure schools will really have a choice
and that it will be done with differing levels of funding and expertise across the board.

@Peridoteage - prenatal and maternal healthcare is still impacting this cohort of children starting schools. Baby checks were down, speech and language has had severe delays since early 2020. Health and education in real life for children as well as poverty are not separate buckets. They all impact each other and greatly so.

Yes - education. Which doesn't include mental health support, cbt or "confidence building". These are for healthcare services AND PARENTS TO PROVIDE.

What do you think parents are for? Parents need to accept responsibility for rearing their children and attending to their wellbeing.

I believe the reasoning is that there will be a lot more targeted interventions earlier in education, especially sp and lang, which if picked up early can make huge differences to a child at secondary level. If ignored it’s teen years that becomes more problematic.

so I think the aim would be to be putting so much in earlier on that some children would not need an ehcp at secondary.

at least that’s the theory. The practice is very different.

imo they need far more OT input earlier too. They get so much more in the US and it makes an enormous difference

Of course there are lots of anxious youngsters and more severe SEND. That is also down to Covid. They locked kids and youngsters up for almost 2 years and it took until now for the NHS to get back on its feet to diagnose etc and there are still delays in things like speech and language

The cohort starting school this year were born after all the lockdowns yet there are as many diagnoses as ever.

Of course there are lots of anxious youngsters and more severe SEND. That is also down to Covid. They locked kids and youngsters up for almost 2 years and it took until now for the NHS to get back on its feet to diagnose etc and there are still delays in things like speech and language. We always knew the young would take the brunt and we would be playing catch up for 10 years at least. It is hardly a surprise.
Education should be a happy place for most - all kids are learners, they need to all be given the opportunity to learn at their pace in a safe environment. I think that is all most parents are asking for.
We do not dump old people with dementia on their own at home either well past their economic best. We invest heavily there too. It is what it is. Most of us are working 40 years max but are supported via education for 20 years and then most of us for another 20 years in retirement too.

If you are going to spend 4 billion - i would prefer to make it useful by listening to what actually helps.

What parents have demanded for the last 10 years hasn't delivered better outcomes. There are more anxious young people not in school or work than ever before.

I would rather they cut 1/4 out of the primary curriculum and focused on actually engaging children and letting them learn and consolidate their learning became constantly moving onto the next thing. I would stop testing in primary as well-there is no need for it. I would stop the obsession with phonics (remove the screener) and allow a focus on sight words if phonics isn’t working for groups. Phonics is great, but it doesn’t work for everyone, particularly those who are ND. Lots more play based learning throughout KS1 would help as well-active phonics, Forest Schools, outside learning.

I’d scrap uniforms and Ofsted too but that’s probably too controversial! Might save a few quid though.

If children are enjoying school because it’s not all too stressful every minute of the day, and they are actually able to succeed, then they’ll probably want to come in more so we wouldn’t have so many schools refusers or SEMH issues.

That sounds far from confident, and while this isn’t a value judgement, shows why very expensive school places with far from guaranteed outcomes are basically a false economy. Presumably even with the best support your son (who I gather is of normal intelligence and able bodied?) stands a good chance of not working- in which case you’ll expect the social care and benefit system to take care of him for life.

This will cost millions and millions of pounds. Can you not see how unaffordable this is for all but the most disabled children?

Early diagnosis and appropriate interventions for those 'capable' children you reference is actually the key to helping them flourish and not need to rely on incapacity benefits due to severe mental health problems. Late diagnosis is what is cripping the whole 'system'. This has been proven. I'm not seeking a diagnosis for my daughter so she can go onto benefits and opt out of society. I'm doing it so that she has the right support to thrive, have the same opportunities as others take for granted and to try to ensure she doesn't end up self harming or committing suicide.

If we spent some of the money on smaller class sizes and replaced the curriculum with something less result focused and more holistic, a lot of children might manage better

Even the cost of reducing class sizes from 30 to 25 would be enormous. Where are 20% more teachers going to come from? And extra classrooms. There are just shy of half a million teachers (full time equivalent) in uk state schools. You'd need another 100,000. At an average cost including pension contributions of about 50k per teacher, the teachers alone would cost £5 billion extra per year. Without allowing for building changes, extra supply teachers, extra admin staff to cope with a workforce 20% bigger.

Amd most kids with SEN wouldn't even register the difference between 30 & 25 kids per class.

And the purpose of education being state funded is that its a public good to have an educated workforce. Wtf is a "holistic" curriculum? We need to educate doctors and engineers and computer scientists and nurses and architects and people who can actually read, write and manage maths in every day life.

I do agree there should be alternative routes from age 14 - especially for trades - we desperately need to promote training more bricklayers and roofers and plumbers and electricians.

But the support now is endlessly trashed and deemed inadequate. We’re spending endlessly with outcomes not improving and yet more SEN children. We can’t keep going