Leaks in the press about reduction in send spending

[Perzival]

I haven't seen a thread on this so thought i'd start one.

Over Christmas some newspapers inc the Times and Telegraph have leaked reports that the Government intend to tackle the cost of SEND by only issuing EHCP's to those children with the most severe needs. School's (mainstream) will then be responsible for meeting the needs of those with "moderate" or "minor" (not my wording) needs. Appeals to sendist by parents will be restricted (i'm guessing to those who still have an EHCP) and schools will have to liase with the LA regarding the needs of the other children requiring support.

To avoid drip feeding, my ds has severe/complex needs and attends special school, he'll never be able to live alone....

I have really mixed feelings about this. The current system is causing some LA's to go bankrupt, schools are already massively underfunded, lack of special school places, time it takes for tribunal and don't have the specialisms required but i also see huge waste like the removal of LA owned transport in preference for taxi contracts, the cost of inde provision (not disputing need but wish there was a way for thatto be provided locally by LA's without the profit margin) and the cost to families for professional reports from inde speacialists for tribunal / section f- provision.

If this goes ahead what will happen to the kids who will be failed? What impact will it have on the kids without send in classes with more children with unmet send? If something doesn't change where will the money come from for send with some LA's already blamimg SEND for bankrupsy?

I'm not looking for a discussong rather than an argument. The SEND groups can be an echo chambre so looking for different views.

https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/leaks-denials-fake-conversations-not-inspire-parental-confidence-send/?fbclid=Iwb21leAPInu5jbGNrA8iej2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHrItacXo4jijUu3mrF_32165ExI-sVCsVWcUNjc49IsMqP3NOT7kEg3neK8j_aem_AOqVBm2C3Uk7R5u6D-3GIw

Interesting question.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this “new” policy was what used to happen. Provision was effectively reserved to children with the greatest needs. Does anyone know?

Wish i could edit the mistakes in my op. Def should read that i'm looking for a discussion not an argument x

I think so but school's were different and there were less kids dx'd.

I also think many kids left education with out qualifications.

The new system was supposed to help all but it's just too costly.

Another thing i've just thought of is that the threshold for a ehcp needs assessment is very low (i know many have to goto tribunal to get that far) sureky this will need changing too?

only issuing EHCP's to those children with the most severe needs

Hasn't that always been the case?

The threshold for assessment is may have sen and may require an ehcp to have provision made (not the legal wording). So many kids meet this.

I think it was different for a statement of sen (what was before EHCP's) but not 100% ds had one but i don't believe they were as common and definitely wasn't as detailed (ds has a well specified plan). Many parents can and do have to pay for specialist reports which state what provision the child needs, this then should be put into the plan.

Many kids with what could be classed as lesser needs aren't getting those needs met in the way they once were as thete isn't enough funding so parents are using their rights to apply for a needs assessment.

That is the threshold for assessment. Assessment doesn’t mean a child will get an ECHP. If there isn’t an assessment which includes reports from appropriate qualified professionals then who is making that decision and what are they basing that decision on?

We already know that many councils are refusing to assess and/or refusing to issue or not issuing an appropriate ECHP. We know out the cases taking to tribunal only 1.3% are upheld by the judge. That means in 98.7% of cases taken the LEA are getting in wrong and paying for expensive barristers to defend their actions. I can’t see how fewer qualified professionals and safe guards is going to reduce that and give children the education they are legally entitled to.

You're right ofcourse that is the threshold for assessment but from there if the child meets that it isn't a huge jump to a plan although may require tribunal. Where the LA isn't doing the assessment, parents are going to tribunal to get the assessment then tribunal to get the plan.

Part of the problem is the number of tribunals- the system isn't working if families have to wait over a year to get their rights met.

I get and understand parents win most tribunals and it's the LA's who aren't doing what they should be doing. Many don't meet timeframes, don't provide the correct reports and write wooley plans. I don't dispute that at all.

I'm wondering how it'll play out. If they go ahead how will these kids have their needs met? I'm guessing most won't. How will that impact other kids and the teachers who will have more balls to juggle? I can see though that things can't continue the way they are. There just isn't the funding. The current system i also find is unfair to families who can't afford inde reports or don't have the fight in them to take om the LA or are just too tired. I'd be lying if i said i thought the system was fair.

No one wants to pay is the bottom line

as a society we don’t think that children who need extra help do deserve it.

there should also be some investigation as to why so many children are sen - to be honest the percentage is so high that you could say Sen is the new normal . I think that could get nasty / challenging - older parents, first cousins marriages, fewer still births - better medical care for premature babies , environmental factors ( cheap food ) , removal of sure start probably all play a part

of course someone will say the money is there it’s just being spent on the wrong things which I understand means state and civil service pensions

so yes there will clearly be pushback against providing support and they will find ways to reduce the numbers entitled to anything - I don’t see that needs to be “leaked” it’s like leaking that 1+1 makes 2

@itsthetea it isn't so much the situation being leaked but how they intend to change the current system. if it goes ahead it's a huge change from the 2014 legislation.

I agree it is all about money.

Mainstream schools are so shit now that sen children can't cope. Add to that, ineffective, permissive parenting that produces vicious little bullies and sen kids stand no chance.

I'm audhd and coped okay in school because they were run properly and parents actually parented, so there were fewer bullies. You always had challenges within school, but on the whole, it was quieter, more focused on learning (as opposed to being entertained or distracted) and there was proper discipline and better diets. Children weren't treated like toddlers and teens were expected to grow up and be functional.

We had to withdraw ds from school because it was chaos and they kept physically attacking him. It was more like a zoo than an educational setting. Luckily, we could afford private online provision, but many parents can't.

Is it the fault of sen kids that they're not coping or does a NT society entirely centred around NT needs actually recognise that it's mostly to blame?

This scares me. I have 5 dc with SEN, 2 currently have an ehcp. Dc4 has had one since year 3, he is currently year 8. He has moderate learning disabilities, speech delay and hearing loss and is in mainstream secondary school. He has 1/3 of a teaching assistant.

Dc5 has had one since year 6, now in year 7. He has autism and is 8 years behind his actual age in his emotional development. He needs constant supervision, although he doesn't always get it because of budget cuts. He is a sensory seeker and will hug random strangers if given half a chance. He is in mainstream secondary school too.

I don't know whether either one of them would be considered to me mild, moderate or severe needs. I suspect that as they are in mainstream school they won't be able to keep their ehcps. My youngest is already struggling and I worry for his safety if his ehcp is taken away.

I may not have interpreted it correctly so please double check but isn't there a new bill which looks to remove the right to home school for some send kids? so that may not even be an alternative option available.

I agree completely that mainstream can't meet every childs needs and i also agree with you about wider society behaviour but what me and you think isn't really going to impact what happens. Wat's being leaked is huge and while i know as a send parent that the current system isn't working i can't see what's being leaked working either. I also admit that send costs are massive and can't go on as it is.

I disagree, I think their is a significant jump.

The only reason there are so many tribunals is because the council isn’t fufilling their statutory requirement. Like I said before, taking away a level of protection isn’t going to suddenly make them behave better. Perhaps LEAs need to be penalised for not meeting the statutory requirements.

You’re right the system isn’t fair and it’s negatively impacting some of the most vunerable people in our society. I think we need to carefully when we discuss these issues that we don’t play into the right wing narrative that our SEN children don’t deserve an education which will allow them to become the most sucessful and independant they can be. As SEN parents we don’t need to be dividing and allowing oursleves to be conquered.

@elliejjtiny that must be really hard and scary. Do you think they'll still get the same support without the ehcp? Would you try for special school places?

I agree we do need to stand together, i don't think discussing what it will look like if this goes ahead will cause harm though. I think it needs discussing and with parents of non send kids too as i don't think the majority will be aware how impacting this will be on their children too.

In regards to the jump from ehcpna to ehcp we'll have to agree to disagree.

I completely agree about LA's not doing what they should be doing and the lack of accountability. It's shocking what goes on but i think this is part of the reason they are looking at these particular changes. Rather than enforcing the system and making LA's follow through, they're watering down legal rights and who has them. It's cheaper.

I think it may depend on your LEA. Mine is in the top 5 worst in the country.

Just realised out how bad my SPaG is today. Sorry guys!

More won’t have their needs met.

More parents will complain about DC with SEN in their DC’s class.

Suspensions and permanent exclusions for DC with SEN will increase.

Demand for s19 provision will increase.

The rate of parent carer burnout will increase.

Longer term costs to the state as a whole will increase because meeting needs in the shorter term saves money longer term and it is short-sighted not to provide that support.

If you remove the right to appeal to SENDIST from some parents, then the number of JRs is likely to increase. For most, JR isn’t possible at the moment for things that can be appealed to SENDIST, but if you remove that remedy, you open the door to more JRs.

There is a difference between may have SEN and may need SEP to be made via an EHCP and an EHCP being necessary.

families who can't afford inde reports

There are charities who can help fund assessments. For those eligible for legal aid, that can fund assessment where necessary.

LAs acting unlawfully isn’t the fault of parents who enforce what their DC are legally entitled to or their children. All parents should be supported to enforce their rights rather than removing legal protections from children with SEN.

Society would be aghast at how much LAs waste on representation to defend indefensible cases they know they are going to do. Mostly against unrepresented parents.

LAs don’t actually go bankrupt. That is just the media portrayal. A section 114 notice isn’t quite the same as bankruptcy.

There hasn’t been such a huge increase in SEN in recent years as some people like to claim. For example, the latest SEN statistics from Jan 2025 show 19.5% of pupils have SEN. In 2010, so before EHCPs, it was 20.9% or 21.1% (depending on which statistics you look at - I think it is a rounding issue). In 2005 it was 18%.

What will happen is in 10/15/20 years time they'll be sitting around scratching their heads wondering why unemployment has increased, there are more pip claims than ever and complain about the increased costs of adult social care. All whilst still being unable to add 2+2......

getting an assessment doesn't mean you get an EHCP though, the threshold for issuing a plan is different.

"some LA's already blamimg SEND for bankrupsy?"

While SEN provisioning is costing a huge amount of money, it's the health and social care demands within society that is making LAs go bankrupt. The LAs fund the state carehomes because many just cannot afford to pay privately, so you end up with bed-blocking in the NHS because they have nowhere to be discharged to. Their homes aren't adapted to meet daily living requirements and families often can't afford to make the required changes and private carehomes are expensive, so the state carehomes pick up the slack.

A good example I have for this is my dad. He has one of the rarer forms of dementia, and it was early-onset. It destroyed his marriage. The diagnosis came through very late and his wife just could not take care of him. She just about managed to get a place in a private carehome with NHS funding to meet his needs.

The answer is of course to raise taxes, but taxes are already sky high and many are having to make huge cutbacks to carry on. People will be so much more unhappy if they have to pay more.

This is an example of difficult choices the government has to make, but it is a result of kicking the can down road as many of the problems we have today could have been solved years ago had there been halfway decent politicians who could withstand the backlash and ram changes through.

I also agree there will probably be a huge increased demand for section 19 provision when these send children don't get the support they need so end up out of education. So will reducing EHCP provision actually cut costs in reality? Unless they're planning on changing the education act 1996 too?

I think the best way to cut costs re SEND CYP would be to appropriately fund our schools and the nhs so the early intervention is there.

My boys are autistic (though in a way that is hard to spot if in the right environment). So is my sister - who wasn't diagnosed until 30 and my dad (diagnosed at 70) and uncle (diagnosed at 60). I would put good money on my grandad being autistic and from family records the pattern of high achieving, cold personal relationships, rigidity in life goes much further back. My dad and uncle were very bright boys at private school so it was just normal and my sister was just written off as a girl acting out.

I do think special needs are so high that we might just need to consider modern life does not suit everyone but I think it's the diagnosis that's new not the condition.

@2x4greenbrick i agree with nearly all of what you have wrote. I do feel that as much as there are charities and legal aid there is still a two tier system. With all the will in the world some parents just haven't got it in them to fight for whatever reason and those children do lose out and it definitely isn't their fault.

How do you feel about funding and the costs of the current system? I think more children have plans because of the cutbacks and changes within mainstream. Children who would have had their needs met without now don't because the support just isn't there and school environment has changed. I do think at least locally that our LA waste a huge amount on taxi contracts and the lack of local send provision is forcing kids ooa to inde schools which cost more. My own ds goes ooa but i'd love for him to be local, there just isn't the facilities. Our local send high school couldn't meet his needs.

I really recently read about a DC that needed a taxi and a consort person to accompany him less than 5 miles to and from school each day. The cost to the LA over £68k. I don't see how that is even possible but that was what the LA were paying taxi company and person to accompany him to school each day. Many days he was not well enough to go to school but LA still had to pay for taxi and person whether he used them or not. It's just not realistic. It apparently cost more to get him the 5 miles to school most days than to send a DC to Eton College. Instead of hiring contractors who charge through the roof the LA should have its own vehicles/drivers/escorts which would be so much cheaper. No wonder there is little left for the actual education, so much is creamed off by contractors. I know it cost over £22k for a taxi for my foster son to go to a school over 21 miles away each day. The taxi travelled 35 miles before it got to us, then drove him to special school, then went back to it's hub. Then the same in reverse at home time. I could have driv n him for 45p milage and it would have cost a little over £6k per annum. I told them I was happy to do this but they said they had to use contracted taxis. This is where money could be saved.

"there should also be some investigation as to why so many children are sen"

I don't think it's because there are so many SEN kids, I think it's that people managed much better in years before it was later decided to throw money at problems.

When I was growing up, I don't remember there being taxis specially provisioned by the LA for SEN children because it was usually dad in his trusty Ford Mondeo (dad's taxi) that dropped them off at school. Now there is a lot more state intervention with this way of solving problems by throwing money at them.