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

I agree. I haven't said otherwise.

Just because certain parents can work more effectively to get an EHCP or adjustments for their child doesn't mean that their child shouldn't have those things. It means that a massive overhaul and major input of funding is needed so that ALL children with additional needs get everything that they need to thrive.

This will need significant additional funding but it really needs to be done and is an investment in our future society.

For example, a neurodiverse child who is diagnosed/had needs identified promptly when issues first appear and who has appropriate adjustments made in order to help them to succeed, who has teaching staff that fully understand their issues and have freedom to accommodate them in whatever way they need, will less chance of developing mental health issues and needing CAHMS input further down the line. They have more chance of functioning well in society as adults.

It really doesn't need to be a race to the bottom ( Child X is less needy than Child. Y so their support needs to be reduced)

Funding and finances are always a matter of choice and priorities and we can make choices to support these children properly. It is just that Kemi Badenoch isn't going to do this.

I would be removing subsidised food in HoP, reducing the things MPs can claim for to sensible obvious things, pursuing all the money that was wasted on inadequate PPE (contracts to sweet company etc) etc etc. I'd also be taxing the mega rich more and bringing in legislation to make companies like Amazon pay proper amounts of tax in this country. Etc Etc. Yes I know it is a balancing act and it may be that not everything can be done immediately but there is a lot that could be done to fund education, special needs, and the NHS better. We need politicians of all flavours who understand what things are like for ordinary people and then we need to do this.

EHCPs are rare, compared to the number of children who have SEND, diagnosed or otherwise.

EHCPs are what attract the extra funding for schools that Badenoch seems to think comes merely with your child being diagnosed, where in reality most children with a diagnosis don’t qualify for an EHCP.

And even for those who do qualify, actually getting one is blood from a stone, because of the money attached. They are basically always rejected first time and have to go to appeal. I have heard of some absolutely clear cut cases of severe need being denied an EHCP. And obviously the longer they can drag out the process, the less money they will have to stump up.

Spot on @EducatingArti - I was forced to fight for my son and daughter, because of their schools refusal to follow the recommendations in their NHS medical reports. I was also often told that I was a pushy parent seeking an advantage over others which was bizzare as I am just an ordinary woman with minimal means. I couldn't afford solicitors etc; I had to do the best with the resources I had which unfortunately came too late to prevent my son having a major crisis. It was clear that my kids school were biased against me and my family and this is an attitude that is also prevalent in my LA with one councillor saying that poor parenting is behind autism. When you are treated in the way I and other parents are treated, most will fight back with whatever resources they have because they care for their kids and want the best for them. We absolutely do need an overhaul of the system but not one that takes resources from one group of ND people for another - all need support and a chance to become the best version of themselves.

@EducatingArti you have just very articulately said what I had come back to say. My child is possibly at the less severe end of the scale but I will fight for the reasonable adjustments he needs, they won’t cost much , if anything but they do need to be documented and adhered too. I do this to help ensure school is a successful for him and he doesn’t end up as a refuser or struggling with mental health issues which would ultimately cost more. Early intervention is key , all children deserve a fair crack at education and this will
always look slightly different different children. It’s no good saying they will cope without diagnosis/ support. I have seen enough times that they don’t!

All these posts were seen slagging labour off by many right wing members always seem quiet when this sort of stuff pops up. Commissioner for children on news today saying that there should be school nurses to assess kids at school . I always thought schools used to have nurses but there's a shortage kf nurses now so How's that gonna work?
Tories hate spending their tax money on other people it's very selfish

There is also need to fulfill the 'may be necessary for special education provision to be made in accordance with an ehc plan' too.

Still a low bar, but there is two halves.

I'm not sure on the definition of rare but 4.8% of the school population have an ehcp. This has grown from around 2.8% in 2016 which was a fairly stable number for many years apparently.
Around 13.6% are on sen support..

The thing that always surprises me is that about 70% of ehcps are for boys. Well it doesn't surprise me knowing abbout genetic conditions, but it does make me think it's unlikely boys as a group have parents more capable of getting an ehcp so there are other factors going on.

Yes but the only way LAs can argue that point successfully in most cases is by doing the assessment.

This is what the tribunals have concluded when LAs are challenged: how can you be confident it isn't necessary unless you have assessed them?

So many LAs are now agreeing to assess all requests, and parental requests have hugely increased.

Perversely, children who the schools think have mild needs and consequently have not involved support services are harder to defend no to assess decisions as there is less evidnece to argue it's not needed.

There are many perverse incentives/ ways to gain advantage in the current system.

All true. But I don't think anyone is arguing most children who have EHCPs are the ones whose parents can get them one, just that the system does allow for certain groups of parents to utilse the system more effectively.

It does happen. It is a problem. It's not the biggest problem.

The entire point of EHCP was to reduce the number of children that was claimed to have SEN.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/councils-do-have-targets-to-ration-ehcps/

Well that's backfired.

Ehcp's were never intended to be for every child with send. Another poster questioned the defiitionofrare but I would suspect that nearly all mainstream schools have at least one child in every year with a plan.

The funding in ehcp's isn't straight forward. Usually schools aren't provided with enough to cover what the child really needs and in some (majority) of cases the plan lacks the detail to be enforced. Schools are sometimes complacent as they treat whatever money as a pot to share to meet the majority of needs of children within the cohort rathe than just on the one child.

With school budgets being cut more parents are exercising their rights which I don't think was the intention of the reforms in 2014. Kids/yp who should be having their needs met through universal support aren't.

Some special schools have been set up as businesses to meet the needs of children who would ordinarily be in mainstream and no-one can blame parents for wanting better for their children.

The law is likely going to be changed and trials of some of the suggestions in place. I'll find link with info and put it below.

Some LA's are having debt wrote off in return for lowering their high needs block.

The current system is unsustainable that does not mean I agree with changes or that all children shouldn't have their needs met.

https://contact.org.uk/help-for-families/information-advice-services/education-start/education-learning/the-send-and-ap-improvement-plan/

Nearly everything about the 2014 SEND reform backfired.

It was meant to be person centred and support families. Instead EHCPs have become an unweildy bureaucratic nightmare for everyone. eating up vast sums of money to manage the system and failing kids.

No one dares to seriously address it though because it results in some vicious attacks when some unpalatable truths are raised.

I don't think I would mind politicians thoughtfully addressing issues regarding the current system - parents certainly arent blind to its shortcomings.

However I do object to SN provision being dragged into Conservative leadership culture wars.

Badenoch isn't providing solutions, just targets.

Well she's not suggested any solutions I agree.

But I think most politicans know that raising the actual issues in SEND is so unpalatable to many groups, and would result in such a vicious backlash, they won't do it.

I think what KB is signalling here is: she would do it.

So could be described as a culture war, or a politican prepared to do hard things. As she wants to sytle herself.

Problem is she obvioulsy doesn't (yet?) understand the problems or have any solutions, so not very wise.

I think many parenst know the problems very well, but think the solution is more of the thing that would solve it for them e.g. to get the EHCP/ school place/ 121 support.

What they don't see is that the system involved in allocating all this is broken. And they view with huge suspicion anyone who suggests changing the system they think will provide what they need.

I think its fair to say that as mainstream school funding got tighter and tighter during my time in a school, the level of ordinarily available support or universal offer got less and less.

The main cut backs the school could make were TAs and pastoral.

This definitely pushed pupils that would have been fine 10 years ago into the 'needs an ehcp' group.

She is signalling that she would cut costs.
Nothing else.

I havent forgotten her complaining in 2022 about schools employing 'superfluous' staff.

Reduce SN provision, reduce SN schools, reduce TAs.
Offer a tax cut. Become Tory leader.

This isnt a genuine attempt to resolve problems.

This isnt a genuine attempt to resolve problems.

I agree with that.

But I do think she is signalling something else: that she'll tackle hard problems others avoid even if it makes her seem unkind. That's her USP. And it's something many people actually want from politicans.

I think if she's going to do that though she needs to deeply understand the issue, which she doesn't here.

I do not see a desire to genuinely understand the current system. I see point scoring, attempts to sow division and an offer to the membership which they will expect her to stick to.

Ignorance dressed up as 'plain speaking'.

I didn't say it was a genuine attepmt to understand? I said it was a signal she'd do hard things.

Yes that gets her 'points' with her base, yes it's divisive, and yes she's ignorant about the issues.

I think we're agreeing on all that.

Maybe the diagreement is whether the SEND system needs someone who is prepared to do hard things and be divisive? It may be the only way to address it.

But it certainly doesn't need someone/ anotherone who is ignorant.

I think you have to look her performance as an actual government minister on a contentious issue. KB did actually have a significant responsibility for women’s rights to single sex spaces as the women’s minister.

She fulminated a great deal in public. She let everyone know how she objected.

However, she effected no change. She built no coalition or lasting legacy to tackle something she declared to be of great importance.

KB is the concern troll of the Tory Party. She simply berates people for no according with her analysis. Lots of people on this thread are familiar with the issues in SEN provision.

Politicians should be judged on delivery. KB will make a very good leader of the opposition because she reckons on having a career where she identifies an issue but uses it as grievance to maintain her profile.

Even if you believe in a small state you should see that for what it is. A lazy grift.

Well at the moment she is running for leader of the opposition so I guess showing she'd be good at that is a good strategy?

She certainly spoke up for women in a very clear sighted way that few other politicians were doing. the extent to which she was responsible for the lack of change/action on that is debatable given the barriers and timing.

She was accused by many of using it just as a culture war issue and being hateful for doing so.

One persons hate is anothers honesty. Depends which side you take.

Politics is often a war of attrition on some issues and yuo have to take steps the first one of which: be preparedto discuss a topic others won't touch. Doesn't mean you then solve it even, if you are the minister at the time. the barriers in the civil service are well known.

Maybe she is a grifter. Maye you have to be to get on in politics?

Well the proof is in the pudding. Raising an issue is something most can do. Tackling it quite another.

Leveraging anger and outrage if people without resolving is very cheap. She was actually in charge of the response on trans and single sex issues for women. Achieved nothing as a part of a government who managed to leave the EU, manage COVID, develop vaccines amongst other radicalism.

What did she have to do resolve the issue she raised? Build a coalition of supportive colleagues, bid to the PM for legislative changes, navigate a bill or SI through Parliament. All standard Ministerial work that never happened. She didn’t get timed out but failed.

Months on and she is still leveraging this to take potshots at David Tenant. Being in opposition is perfect for her. She can leverage all sorts of prejudices endlessly with no resolution and claim to have insight. Like her mentor Gove, except much less personable.

She mulled things over

I think that was the excuse used