‘Interesting’ article on overdiagnosing in Times.

[Soontobe60]

Just putting this here for discussion.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9f82545c-57f5-4db2-8a47-9a8cc2304243?shareToken=c0f809004b0c59cf1b96f6b6eb6129c3

I'll see if I can make screenshots that are actually readable later.

There's also children like my son who clearly needs an EHCP but has no learning disabilities or behavioral issues and wouldn't be suitable for a specialist school as he is capable of accessing a mainstream education but will need a lot of physical support because he's in a wheelchair.

DC don’t get special educational provision in EHCPs just because they/their parents want it. It has to be reasonably required.

Similarly, DC don’t get provision under s19 of the Education Act 1996 just because they/their parents want it. The LA only has a duty to provide a suitable, full-time education so it isn’t just a matter of the parents demanding what they want.

I dont think I mentioned things not being taken seriously, I have an ND sibling and I work with ND children

I answered a post about the concept of what ND is considered to be, there is lots of 'certainty' in this and other threads about it being cast in stone but the diagnosis and criteria has changed and will continue to change. Im sure categories will be added back in as they were previously.

Schizophrenia is a case in point, the theories and criteria and diagnostics for this umbrella condition has changed over time and likely to continue to change. EUPD, bi polar, these are very fluid diagnoses, any one working with a service user group will see that diagnoses are updated, changed over time, medication stopped and started according to changes in thinking about the patient.

Why it would be different for ND conditions you have to set this out.

This every time. We are now paying the price for inclusion. Governments of the day and subsequently have found a way to initially cut costs which has risen cost because parents of children with SEN wanted to be able to access mainstream schooling for their children. Its then politically convenient to agree with that pressure group.

Consequently SEN places were reduced and now mainstreams cant cope leading to more and more children struggling, children with and without SEN.

The law can say what it wants, if it’s attempting to enforce something unworkable then it isn’t going to happen. The government will have no choice but to change the law over the next few years.

Enforcement action is successful. Parents can enforce their DC’s provision.

I have no idea what s42 of the CFA 2014 is but if what you say about funding not being an excuse is correct, then I can tell you it's a law based in unreality and should be repealed

Well it is unreal because whereby there are citations of this or that being appealed and overturned and support being put in place, the reality is that many schools have adverts running for months on end and cant recruit the person they need, or the 1-1 hired gives notice, then another one, then another one, short quick changes that the child cant work with or connect to etc etc

Despite an appeal, and apparent 'enforcement', you cannot obtain something and someone that isnt there.

Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The part of the Act that places an absolute duty on local authorities to ensure special educational provision detailed, specified and quantified in F of an EHCP is provided. This duty is non-delegable. It is correct lack of funding, resources or staffing isn’t a lawful excuse LAs can rely on. Judicial review works. Very few get to an actual hearing because LAs often concede before the case reaches that point because LAs know they will not win.

But you're talking about where that hasnt been put in place because of opposition

Where its agreed by all but simply not available tell me the mechanisms of how a provision, who has staff shortages and who are advertising the roles needed and cant recruit or do recruit and then the person takes a different job, or gets pregnant or goes off sick or any number of reasons why they're not in post, what happens then?

I can tell you by the way.

Section 42 applies to all special educational provision detailed, specified and quantified in F. If it is in F, the LA agrees it is legal required or has been ordered by SENDIST to include it. It doesn’t apply if the LA hasn’t included something in F because they disagree it is required. In that situation parents would need to appeal to secure the provision in F in the first place. They can’t enforce provision if it isn’t detailed, specified and quantified in F.

Once it is in F, the LA’s duty is absolute and enforcement action including JR can be pursued if it isn’t provided for whatever reason. That includes because the LA claims there is a lack of resources, staff or funding.

Using 1:1s as an example, with the right funding, potentially substantially more (higher wages, potentially much higher wages in line with the teaching MPS, attracts more applicants), and effort (LAs often only start taking parents seriously when they see parents know the law and will advocate and enforce DC’s rights including via the courts) an appropriate appointment can and is made. JR works.

EHCPs wont be legally enforceable for much longer. They will become advisory like they did during covid.

Can confirm. I am aware of one such setting. The parents of a particular child insist that the child needs more contact time, but then insist that they can’t get them to come to school. Or they do come in but won’t engage with any of their (1:1) lessons. This child has more money spent on them than anyone else at the setting and has not made any meaningful progress over the several years they have been there. What else can the setting do but say they are not able to meet need? The money could be spent on a child currently out of education or in an inappropriate placement, whose needs might be met in a specialist provision.

Obviously this isn’t every child/family but it’s no joke when it happens. And the cost is eye watering.

So if a LA files for bankruptcy who will be responsible for fulfilling the EHCP then?

Well clearly a JR would fix this!!!

The LA is still responsible for the special educational provision in EHCPs even if they file a Section 114 notice.

@StrivingForSleep it sounds to me like the system works for the middle-class parents who have taken the time (or paid someone to take the time) to understand the system, and does not scale at all. I mean, courts, really?

I just. The fact that this exists and you've had to spend time learning this and there are hundreds of thousands more people around the country who also are doing this, and an ecosystem of paid advisors to help people through this - this is tangential, but it's honestly such an unstated WASTE to society of intellectual resources and labour.

@OneAmberFinch sadly, DC whose parents know the system and can advocate and enforce their rights get better support. It shouldn’t be that way and fails the most vulnerable - and I am passionate about all DC receiving the provision they need. Disappointingly, that isn’t going to change in the foreseeable future.

For some thing, including failure to provide provision in EHCPs/breach of s42 of the CFA 2014 and failure to provide a suitable full time education under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, SOSSEN can help with pre-action letters free of charge. Although there is a wait. And if the parents are eligible for legal aid, that can cover pre-action letters. For JR proceedings themselves, proceedings are brought in the child’s name, so they can be eligible for legal aid in their own right. Sometimes, although not as often as in the past, the threat of judicial review to the Director of Children’s Services at the LA works.

This is why people like me are retiring early and cashing in our pensions. No point in being no better off than elderly people on benefits.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate You just reveal how little you know about bipolar. The symptoms are not all self reported. Many people with bipolar have been sectioned against their will because of their psychosis. The person with bipolar thinks they are well.

The whole system is going to collapse with.the increasing numbers.

If any claims can be made for over diagnosis the Government will use them as reasons to raise the qualifying criteria.

All resources are finite. No matter what the law says.

Actually, some migraine sufferers get aura and some don't. Some get the aura without the pain. Some get the pain always on the left, some get it on the right, and some get some migraines on one side and some on the other. Some people's entire side of their body is affected, others just the head.

All autistic people experience difficulties socialising and restricted, repetitive behaviour and interests. How that manifests will depend upon the dominant culture and how the person has been socialised. A pre-industrial autistic person wouldn't have had a monomania about steam locomotives because they hadn't been invented yet. Yet history has always had people who keenly collect objects of a particular type. It's all the other stuff that turns up alongside the social difficulties and restricted interests that differs from person to person, like the sensory issues. Arguably, we might one day classify those as common comorbidities rather than as part of autism.

Depression manifests differently in different people too. Yet no one says it doesn't exist.

The psychosis is proved how? Oh yes, potentially fakeable behaviour. (Please note: I am not accusing mental health patients of malingering here.)

I was replying to a poster who was claiming that "we" (one presumes the general public is meant by "we") should challenge and disregard the diagnostic criteria in DSM-V for autism spectrum disorder on the basis that there is no objective test for it, no diagnostic imaging, no blood test, nothing other than a medical professional's belief that the behaviours and words of the patient are honest.

Who said that?