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

@Dutchhouse14 your analysis of the system is spot on.
i would love to send you to DoE as an SEN advisor.

If they phase out EHCPS at a higher level it will create such a mess with the slightly less struggling kids that they'll all end up needing more support.

Secondary schools are so much more pressured than they were 20-30 years ago. Uniforms are stricter, lessons and grades are more pressured, lunch breaks are shorter and kids can't just bunk off without attendance penalties and potentially social services getting involved.

Agreed

There is a phase transfer annual review when doing from primary to secondary and again at post 16.
There are annual reviews every year (or should be).

I think this is proposing doing a full needs asssesment again, as is done when you iniatially apply for an EHCP.
IF done well, this should involve multi disciplinary team assessment such as education psychologist, speach and language therapist, occupational therapist, teachers, health professionels, social workers etc. In reality it ususally doesnt and needs are not fully assessed and support required remains unidentified.
The statutaory time frame for a needs assessment is currently 20 weeks. This is very very rarely met by local authorities due to to shortage of EPs,SLTs,OTs , caseworkers , financial constraints and level of demand.
When my own DD went through her needs assessment in year 8, it took 39 weeks, at the end of the process she had no named school.
The needs assessment was inadequate and did not include SLT and OT assessments so her needs were not fully indentified.
Her mainstream school could not meet her need and the LA could not find a specialist school . She had no education for 2 years whilst went to tribunal for Education Other Than at School. Which she got.
My experience and that of many other parents is that needs go UP and not DOWN when a child transitions from primary school to secondary school.
The secondary school environment, frequent transitions, large number of people, noise, the large school building plus puberty and communication and relationships with peers becoming more complex.
DD is academically bright, she initially went to main stream grammar school. They had THREE part time teaching assistants for 1200 pupils.
Ther TAs didnt have the training or the to implement the recommended programs such as ELSA . The senco didnt have the time.
There was kindness but no support.
Mainstream schools have a 2 week rolling timetable. So if you see a therapist every monday morning , for example, you will get behind in 2 subjects.
Availabilty of support and professionals means you cant pick the time and avoid important lessons neither can you change your appointment time or day every week.
If the child goes to the learning support centre there is no teacher available to teach them and often there is also no TA so they are left to read a book or attempt a worksheet for which they havent had the accompanying teaching - because theyve missed the lesson.
SEN isnt just learning delay many SEN pupils are academically able and deserve the same level of teaching as their peers in mainstream school.
SEN pupils have diverse needs but often they are put together in the same specialist school and entry criteria ie behaviour needs or global development delay is ignored due to there not being enough SEN school places so the Special education NEED that the school is meant to fulfill and focus on is diluted and provision streched and therefore their pupils needs are not fully met.

The current law is excellent.
Its the implementation of it that is failing.
Weakening the law will let our children down and just push the cost to society further along the track to adulthood, they are far less likely to lead productive lives as an adult if their needs as children and young people are not met.

"I would sooner the budget was given to schools, who can provide the right support, at the right time"

@ExtraOnions having personal and professional experience of lots of schools, I think leaving it up to schools would be a disastrous idea.

Sounds like they want to phase out EHCPs except for the highest level of need and it is politically easier to do this gradually as kids transition to secondary school. I get why. The current system is crazy expensive. But they will probably just stick all the responsibility onto schools and not resource them properly.

Some of them were undiagnosed.
Some of children just didn’t survive at birth if there were complications.
Some conditions are hereditary. More ND people are married nowadays and have children and their children have higher chances of ND / additional needs.
Some believe that older age of parents is contributing.

I personally think that awareness is the main one. I’m sure that at least 3 people in my form at secondary were autistic and it’s just my form , there were 5 others. And I haven’t started thinking about possible ADHD yet.

Various reasons.

My son wouldn't have survived in the 70's, as an example. Advances in medicine means that more children are surviving that wouldn't have otherwise in the 70's.

Having had an ASD child who has been through the system .. I honestly think that (at least at high school) EHCPs are a bit of a waste of time. It all takes too long, and is too prescriptive, and often just makes for a load of conflict. I would sooner the budget was given to schools, who can provide the right support, at the right time, regardless of needing an EHCP.

Teenagers are complicated, and can cycle in and out of the support they need, and schools need to be more responsive.

Our High School doesn’t even really use the phrase “SEND” anymore (though they have to do legally of course), that have invested school budget in creating a Hub, in school based Alternative Provision, in supporting alternative timescales, in providing in-class (and out of class) assistance, therapy, trauma based training for staff etc. All of which can be accessed without the need for an EHCP.

PEXs are down to virtually zero since this approach was adopted 3 years ago.

The amount of better work they will be able to do with the new funding, and the new facilities they will be able to provide will be amazing.

They wouldn't have been in mainstream schools to be obvious in society.

In the early 90s, my friend used hearing aids and was the first hearing impaired student in the school. Other children with disabilities began to be admitted into mainstream around the same time.

ADHD and autism were less recognised but with hindsight there were a comparable number of young people with these traits, and I know some of my friends finally being diagnosed in their 40s.
Struggles were more hidden. No one looked into why people "bunked off", the stakes were lower, less exam pressure, more entry level jobs to work up from the bottom. Arguably the changes in society such as formal childcare, and more intense environments also tips people beyond fragile coping thresholds.

Higher parental age and increased survival rates in premature babies and difficult pregnancies/ births has also increased rates.
Special schools have higher rates of children with complex medical needs so children struggling with the curriculum are pushed into mainstream schools.

Cuts have meant fewer early interventions so more children are starting schooling behind in skills like speech and communication and able to keep up. Waiting lists and processes take years, and children can't develop to their potential in that lost time.

There is a combination of more children, more recognition, and less support/ provision.

Lots of reasons but one of the main ones is that The school environment has become more and more unmanageable for nd people so that now rather than just about managing, some kids now can't. Also, a lot of kids before just had a break down or dropped out of school for another reason and therefore weren't considered to be a problem for schools. I am thinking of school refusers, adhd kids who were excluded, kids wirh depression, dyslexic kids who couldn't really access any work etc.

All sorts of reasons. There were more tiny schools around then, so some children in effect got all the benefits of small classes and a lot of attention which are much more difficult to get now. There were more basic labouring jobs around, e.g. on farms and in mines and factories, so less focus on achieving basic literacy.

If you were in school then, don't you remember those oddball kids who were constantly struggling? Those were the children who are now getting help. Then again, you never saw the ones with more serious SEN because they were shut away in institutions. There is much better recognition now. Additionally, more children who have suffered brain and other injuries at birth survive.

I came to say this^
I also agree with @Frankiecat2 that the timeline is absolutely wrong. The place is confirmed by the middle of year 6 February. How on earth they are going to manage reassessment of needs in year 6, consultation and transition?
Also in our area you have to be in deep crisis to get a visit/ meeting/ some attention from Ed psychologist. How they are going to manage all these reassessments of needs? Our council Sen team barely coping with doing EHCP plans on time and reviews with minor delays.

It would make more sense to spend the money assessing all kids for sensory needs in y6 so they have a sensory profile before staring secondary school. This would probably identify nd kids who have gone under the radar at primary and would empower rrhe kids to know what to ask for at secondary and also give the secondary schools helpful info to support the kids wirh send who might be able to manage in mainstream without needing an ehcp if they have enough support.

There were more grades of support such as school action and school action+ before the statement/ EHCP level, and it created a bigger, more beauocratic jump if in-house support wasn't enough.

My concern for DS after his diagnoses was the jump to secondary school and getting to the "right one", particularly as he was diagnosed just before Covid and out of school for half of y4 and chunks of y5. An EHCP is the only way to influence the allocation of school places. While he was initially rejected for an EHCP (and I had no fight in me for appeals at the time in 2021/22) he was fortunate to get a place at the heavily over-subscribed mainstream school that looked most likely to support his academic and social needs.

The EHCP system has never worked effectively from the begining (certainly not in my LA) and that's before all the Covid delays that were never caught up on.

In my workplace we have children being denied EHCPs and going through lengthy, expensive battles through the process when we can't keep them in the classroom safely. The education system and its administrative processes are not meeting the needs of so many children and it will cost long term in their opportunities avaliable in starting adult life. At the same time, the curriculum became more restricted and schools less individualised for children who could just about cope.

The whole thing is a mess, but I'm not convinced that the government understands what the mess is to get the right solutions.

They're talking about putting more money in to improve the pool of Ed Psychs, speech and language therapists etc, which would be welcome. However, the reality is that it takes over three years to train an EP, and good EPs can earn an excellent living on private work, so whether the funding will actually make a difference is highly questionable.

I also simply don't understand the logic of thinking that the need for EHCPs will suddenly disappear at age 11. Even with superb provision at primary level, things like autism don't go away, and the fact is that the transition to secondary coupled with dealing with puberty is a massive change which is always going to need a high level of support.

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. Not being goady. Genuine question.

I think the general approach is that 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.

Well Bridget Phillipson said yesterday the reforms weren't about saving money and in fact the government will be spending more money but will be taking action where money is not well spent.

So she may be lying, but i think the vision isnt saving money but getting earlier support so ehcps arent needed as support is just there as standard without having a fight and not being fleeced by private equity.

But Parents are jaded and have been fighting years to get support and are therefore very anxious about anything that takes away the legal mechanism they used to secure it. They see the reality of how wrong the environment of mainstream is for some children. Many are distrustful of politicians and even of schools after poor experiences so dont really believe that this early support will appear or work.

From what I can see, they are proposing a reassessment, not an automatic reduction. Secondary is very different to primary, I think reassessing support needs at that point makes sense.

After they managed to recruit extra 6k teachers funded by VAT?

I wouldn't worry to much - they planned to start in 2029, the latest next GE can happen is Aug 2029, they won't be in power by 2029 school year

EHCP are relatively new though aren't they - didn't Gove bring them in? I used to teach secondary (left in 2015) and I remember IEPs and 'statements' only for the most severe/complex children (in mainstream). It was quite rare to get a statement , I taught 600 kids some years and only one or two would have statements. The kids on IEPs had support but it wasn't legally prescribed in the same way but we did support them.
If the proposals are to nudge (or force) schools into more flexibility so more kids can flourish in mainstream then good - it should go hand in hand with changes to the curriculum though and giving more power back to LEAs but i don't know how possible that is with the forced academisation that's occurred. Gove really did a number on our schools.

This isn't about annual review.
It is a reassessment of need at a key transition point.
The idea that pupils transitioning from primary to secondary phase will magically have fewer needs seems inconceivable to me, both as a SEND parent and teacher.

Yes they’re reviewed every year.

"The country cannot afford the rising level of SEN need. It feels unpalatable to talk about it in the context of money but ultimately that’s what it boils down to."

What is proposed is a waste of money and time. Providing provision for more pupils in the state sector rather than using profit making companies would save money.

Yeah, probably by some poor sod who's had their support removed at secondary because they were doing fine in primary and then can't cope in secondary and have a meltdown. Some schools can't recognise a meltdown even if it hits them in the face.

It will be a disaster.