Kemi badenoch now against autistic children

[Hunnymonster1]

What is wrong with her? Just read that the children commision is saying average wait like to get diagnosed as autistic is 4 years.
So kemi banging on about how parents are pushing gor diagnosis because they see how much extra money etc autistic children get at school is wrong.
The fact is I woukd think judging by lbc many kids are not getting the support that they need.
So js this about her saying the conservatives need to save tax by not helping people or children with autism and mental health issues.
Bare in mind she said similar about maternity pay last week makes me think she's like Liz truss wants to cut alot of stuff
How the hell can anyone support this?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kemi-badenoch-autism-tory-leadership-buckland-b2628845.html

Yes the idea that this is some sort of privilege is a very Tory idea. It goes to the old Tory idea of who is deserving and who is not. Given that the provisions for special needs has been decimated over the last decade the intent here is really malign. It is telling that Badenoch focuses on assistance or other measure designed to enable children to participate in their education and life. There has always been a certain percentage of people in the Tory Party who regard special needs as a grift and clearly she is one of them. Look at her focus! Tells you so much about the woman that she doesn’t look at the economic challenges we face (she was business secretary wasn’t she) but instead she chooses something to divide people. Tells you so much about her tactics. Combative.

Its all part of the culture wars. But dragging in disabled kids is a new low.

The threshold for EHCP assessment is 'might have a SEN.'

LAs cannot defend against no to assess decisions because the legal criteria is so low, so are agreeing to assess everyone who request it and consequently forming huge backlogs which can't be met.

It is then very difficult to defend no to a plan after doing an assessment, LAs usually lose in SEND tribunals because the parents who go to tribunal usually have private ed psychs and therapists who state a much higher level of provision required than the LA professionals.

Consequently anyone who works in SEND knows there are parents who have played the system to gain an extraordinarily high level of need for their child who has mild needs. Every SENCO knows of a child in their school who gets a much higher level of provision than another child with more severe needs because parents have successfully utilised the SEND framework.

The SEND system is broken. Thousands of children are not getting their needs met. This isn't because some parents can utilise the system better than others (usually the better off professional parents TBH) but it is one factor which is happening.

Parents of SEND children who refuse to recognise this is a reality, and who continue to just shout that everyone needs more and LAs and the Tories are just mean and don't care, are not helping SEND children. And beleieve me Labour don't have the answer here, because there isn't one without a radical overhaul which wuld be costly (they don't have the money) but also highly controversial and unpopular (important to look like you are the nice party even if you aren't solving anything).

We should all be able to agree the neediest children need most support, this isn't always happening, and some parents get their children preferential treatment, as the system allows this.

We need a better fairer system for all SEND children.

Given the Conservatives have caused this broken system by ensuring that public services cannot compete with well resourced parents, it’s pretty obvious that Badenoch is aiming to target those who have the least ability to navigate a system and those who do depend on public provision. Her “concern” is thus deeply suspect.

I can assure you getting a place in a SN school and transport is not a straight forward process and that anyone with mild needs would be waved through.
Councils do everything they can to avoid it.

Anyone with "mild" needs would NOT be waved through!

I agree with all of this.

Those with the most need really should and don't always get provision to meet those needs. The system is broken and unfair.

This is a big part of the problem and is in some way what KB is saying.

I'm glad profound autism is now being used to distinguish those with the most needs.

She is claiming that autistic kids get an economic advantage from transport and equipment.

Of course the bar is may have 'might have a SEN' - that is because there is a backlog for assessments and parents/schools may need to apply for support before a diagnosis. Support is based around evidenced need.

When my DD was assessed there were 22 Educational Psychologists in my county.

Less than 10 now. Of course there is a backlog.

If they cut school transport to SN schools then they will leave the places only for the wealthy. Very few parents can afford to spend hours a day driving to and from their kids SN schools and hold down a job - particularly if they have more than one child.
This shouldn't need spelling out.

You are aware those trying to get an EHCP or have one have other disabilities including those that are classified as being ND.

Edited to add: As Ms Badenoch et al cannot differentiate between ND and mental health conditions then she and they won't know what conditions are included under the ND umbrella.

It won't be just for the wealthy it will be for those who live right next to the schools - in other words postcode lottery.

Some people do live near a school that has places for children with their specific condition so don't need school transport. I live near such a primary school and went to one as a kid who still provides extra support decades later to children with a specific disability. Some kids with the disability use to arrive by mini bus and some walked to school like everyone else.

I'm very aware but that does not mean every person with an ehcp has co morbid conditions or other diagnoses. As I've previously said autism isn't a mh condition and mh needs doesn't always go hand in hand.

You're point on my post was?

I think the removal of transport as much as possible is on te cards. Some LA'S are already trialling the proposed amendment to sen law of offering a set number of schools for parents to chose between for the child to attend rather than the la having to send the child to school to meet all their needs. If this does go through transport costs will be reduced dramatically where there are a number of kids ooa.

While you may be claiming the system is broken and unfair KB et al aren't saying that because they don't understand the conditions.

As a former business secretary she also appears unaware of what some businesses do to cope with their employees who have ND. The industry I'm in and the different one which my DP is in both have no issue with employees with certain NDs as they find they can use their traits to their business advantage.

Unfortunately many people with nd especially autism aren't so lucky and do need accomodations to work. It is easier to employ someone who doesn't need accomodations than someone who does.

Some people with autism are also so severely impacted by their autism that they will never work and will likely require 24 hour care for all their life.

The sen system is very broken. La's are claiming they are going bankrupt because of sen requirements, schools can't adequately support the varying needs, there is a massive defecit in the number of sen places..... other agencies and services just don't have capacity and the nhs is on its knees. Children are being let down. This isn't a secret.

As a pp detailed, parents who can afford it navigate the sen system easier. They can pay for private well written specified reports and solicitors to represent them. This does mean that funding isn't always spent on the children with the most need and there are children with severe/ complex needs who don't recieve half the support of another child with lesser needs because they can't afford to fight the system or may not be understand the system.

None of what it contained in Badenoch's pamphlet is designed to improve the system. There is nothing in it to ensure that services are better targeted.

It is designed to remove existing rights, protections and services.
Not to replace or refine them.

The pamphlet is a cost cutting exercise designed to cut support disabled kids.

I agree. I think that those with obvious disabilities will be somewhat protected or lesser impacted but those who aren't as obviously disabled or have mainly mh needs will be very impacted.

I don't think this is the way the system should be changed but it does need change.

No those with obvious disabilities won't be protected.

It has been pointed out in this thread by other posters the aim of Ms Badenoch et al's pamphlet to remove the minimal support and accommodations that those with various disabilities have fought for due to their decades of campaigning. Ms Badenoch et al aim to start removing support and accommodations with those with disabilities you can't physically see so this means starting with what they think is ND.

Incidentally not everyone who knows how to fight to get what their children need can afford solicitors nor are they middle class. They have just have the personal capability and characteristics to know who to find out information from people and put what they know into action.

If Badenoch had supported a paper outlining positive changes to the system based on the reality of what the system currently is, I would have been all ears. If they are going to withdraw school transport, how are they intending to support kids that live a long distance from their nearest SN provision etc. I am sure I would have still picked holes in it but I might have seen it as genuine engagement.

But this pamphlet has been deliberately frames autistic children and children with MH issues as taking opportunities and economic benefits at the expense of 'your' kids.

It is presents vulnerable children and their parents as manipulative and resource hogging.

Culture war stuff at its lowest.

Unfortunately many people with nd especially autism aren't so lucky and do need accomodations to work. It is easier to employ someone who doesn't need accomodations than someone who does.

Then that organisation is likely to miss out on a wonderful opportunity of being with, and learning from, someone with a different perspective on life. Also, bearing in mind that disabled and ND people are also consumers, then it makes business sense to make accommodations and have a workforce that represents its diverse customer/consumer base. If people exclude ND people because they can't be bothered to accommodate them, then they clearly aren't interested in inclusion or equality of opportunity. Fortunately some organisations are more forward thinking and can see the potential in harnassing the particular talents of ND people.

"No those with obvious disabilities won't be protected." It will be harder and less photogenic to remove ramps and other physical accomodations than refuse to send a child with autism(what would have been aspergers) than out of area school in favor of a local school.

"It has been pointed out in this thread by other posters the aim of Ms Badenoch et al's pamphlet to remove the minimal support and accommodations that those with various disabilities have fought for due to their decades of campaigning. Ms Badenoch et al aim to start removing support and accommodations with those with disabilities you can't physically see so this means starting with what they think is ND." - this is what I said and have said above?

"Incidentally not everyone who knows how to fight to get what their children need can afford solicitors nor are they middle class. They have just have the personal capability and characteristics to know who to find out information from people and put what they know into action." - I never said otherwise and definitely didnt write anything about middle classes but to ignore the advantage that money and ability bring in this situation is harmful to those families who can't afford help and are unable or even just to exhausted to fight for their children. The system is unfair and very broken.

Yes. This is exactly what Badenoch did with trans issues and she actually, as the minister responsible for women, achieved nothing that resolved the issue. However she certainly worked it to her advantage. Good on division, but no delivery or provision.

A nasty piece of work who pits vulnerable people against each other for her own political benefit.

I agree but that doesn't mean that this happens in every organisation. Life just isn't fair.

Some people with nd/ autism don't have any skills to harness and won't ever be in employment. This shouldn't be ignored.

Above was in reply to @Flowers4me

Yes, some people will never be able to work.

But we don't improve their chances by removing opportunities or support for education.