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

@Perzival I think you are thinking of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although Deprivation of Liberty isn’t the same as a section. DoLS only applies to 18+ in certain settings, such as hospitals and care homes. That wouldn’t apply to you. But a Deprivation of Liberty Order can be made by the Court of Protection to those younger than 18 and those not in hospitals and care homes. That can include 16 and 17 year olds living at home with their parents. This is a very basic starting point from Mind. Scroll down to the ‘Court of Protections Conditions’ section for the explanation about an Order from the CoP for those under 18/living at home.

With professionals we went down this route because apparently it will come through quicker than the Deputyship application DH and I have made. I’m not sure if it will in practice though.

@2x4greenbrick thank you. I'll have a read.

People feel a sense of entitlement now to an incredibly tailored education for their child. They don't just want support that enables a severely disabled child to get through the day safely/participate.

They think its reasonable to expect thata more moderately disabled child receive costly provisions that mitigate every possible discomfort, remove all demands, and alongside this want their child pushed to achieve their absolute maximum academic potential. As a senco friend remarked recently "everybody thinks the only option is a full time named 1 to 1". We cannot afford to give such a high cost provision to such a huge proportion of kids.

I do think a huge issue nowadays is teachers expected to coax all kids through a demanding curriculum with no easier option for those who can't manage.

It is reasonable for parents to expect their DC receives the SEP they reasonably require to meet their SEN. That doesn’t make parents demanding. DC aren’t entitled to the best possible provision or to be educated to maximum potential. Any parent experienced in the SEN system knows that. They also know they don’t just get provision because they ask for it. 1:1 isn’t included in EHCPs unless it is reasonably required.

It is reasonable for parents to expect their DC receives the SEP they reasonably require to meet their SEN.

The problem is that bespoke provision is massively expensive and there isn't an endless pot of money.

Agree with this. Also 1:1 is practically impossible to get unless school push for it. My dd had 1:1 as my LA named it ( with no request from me). School then asked for the 1:1 to be increased ( with no backing from me - I was actually opposed to it). That 1:1 was the only TA in class and our case I think was schools way of getting back to pre austerity budget and staffing. Ironically I got the TA and funding removed as it blocked dd possibilities of going to mainstream secondary. Her school is back to 3 classes of 30 in her year with one floating TA to cover all classes, all the ehcp kids. There is no other TA. Not even for non contact time. This TA does it all. It's really bootstrap budget and the funded TA benefitted every child in the class. However I did resent my child being used to top up the budget like that as it inflated her needs to secure her funding.

Of course it doesn’t make parents demanding but that doesn’t mean the need isn’t so great en masse that we can’t actually meet it.

People mistake the (valid, evidenced) argument around the unaffordable, unsustainable increase in SEN spending with an argument that somehow their child isn’t worthy.

It’s not about worthiness and I’m not querying that, but it’s just fact that the costs have spiralled to such a degree they are now severely impacting county councils, schools and taxation in general. We can’t continue as we are.

I’ve seen quite a few EHCPs at work and honestly I read them thinking ‘how on Earth is a school supposed to cater to this level of detail for every child?’. They’re so complicated and specific, dictating almost every minute of the child’s time at school.

It's simple enough. Most schools ignore them in large part.

@Redlocks28 @Playingvideogames not providing the provision required increases costs in the longer term. Playing I didn’t mention worthiness.

@NotPerfectlyAdverage just so you are aware, 1:1 doesn’t prevent a child going to secondary MS. That wouldn’t be a lawful reason to refuse MS.

dictating almost every minute of the child’s time at school.

Yet don't fund additional support for every minute making it impossible to deliver!

Ultimately, LAs are responsible for ensuring SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F is provided. EHCPs can be fully funded. LAs don’t do that unless forced but it is possible.

not providing the provision required increases costs in the longer term.

I agree but no government any more seems to look at anything long term. It's all about short, snappy-sounding but ineffectual short-term sound bite headlines.

eg

Government FORCE SCHOOLS TO BAN PHONES!!! (costs government no money or action, would be better if the government did an outright ban rather than leaving it up to individual schools to all come up with policies.) Ofsted are now inspecting mobile phone policies. Government want credit for no work and most schools had banned them anyway.

CRACKDOWN ON ATTENDANCE!!! without looking at why so many children are unhappy and don't want to come to school as that would cost money. Cheap sound bites where Ofsted crucify schools over attendance figures that are largely out of their control.

MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS TO OPEN THEIR OWN SPECIAL SCHOOL HUBS AS PARENTS DON'T WANT TO TRAVEL TO SPECIAL SCHOOLS!!! No money spent by the government and schools expected to set up special school provision with no money, which will be staffed by TAs on the cheap and is NOT what most parents want, but hey-it's a cheap sound bite!

Everything is crap, short-term and misses the point.

I agree. It is shortsighted to only consider immediate costs.

I was going to say. My son is Year 5 with 2:1 support at mainstream and the plan is to continue with mainstream secondary too.

It's the same with

FREE SCHOOL MEALS
FREE BREAKFAST CLUB
FREE NURSERY HOURS

None of it is free stuff. It's stuff that schools are expected to plug the gaps with and they have no budget left. I'd hoped a change of government would be better (when I taught under a previous Labour government, things were much better) but it's just more of the same

Just adding this to the discussion. It seems snj have heard that ehcp's will only be given to those with severe or complex needs but the definition of those terms is up for grabs (my ds is described in this way but tbh i never thought what that truly meant apart from to statw his needs are vast and likely require more input than others with a similar dx).

https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/complex-needs-cuts-undefinable-labels-ration-send-support/?fbclid=Iwb21leAPlxGdjbGNrA-XDnWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHlxh02_88vRIwJ62uyrTxTc4arDbzXkW3sAdPO8DDCyQiLYgwpTHujLppvg9_aem_UHgxglgEeufQbv8aOBCLKA

I think the costs will be high in the long term no matter what we do. Our disability levels are sky high, we have the equivalent of the whole of Scotland on disability benefits. Children with high level needs are ever increasing and their profiles are such that they will always need care and never be independent.

When I think of the children I know (and I don’t know many, just my oldest’s school class), 1 will never ever work and will need constant 2:1 care as a minimum. 1 more might be able to live semi independently but will definitely need heavy input. 2 more may or may not work, it’s hard to say but I think more likely not, although they’re not a risk to themselves as such and would probably need some kind of supervision. That’s 4 children, in a class only 27 in an ordinary area. That’s something like 15% of the kids, which is massive.

This is worth a read too:-

https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/leaking-poorly-thought-through-plans-cuts-send-rights-tiers/?fbclid=Iwb21leAPlxtFjbGNrA-XGCWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHlZzz2Ig5bqGxFWrFJ9YnIqx-hJwfL6q8-tLDQHalAMPXgfivT5xuBy59KdY_aem_HqdBM1hPyhBiWZ83aeTc0A

Regarding the info that was in the i at weekend and the proposed tier system.

I didn’t say costs wouldn’t be high anyway. I said not providing support increases costs. I stand by that.

It isn’t just about being independent or not. For example, the right support now can be the difference between the child needing 1:1 or 2:1 (or even 3:1 or 4:1) as an adult. It can be the difference between a residential placement being needed or a placement within the community. It can be the difference between an ordinary residential placement or a secure placement. It can be the difference between 24/7 care or only care for some of the time. It can be the difference between contact with the justice system and not. It can be the difference between a child going on to be eligible for CHC funding or not when they are an adult. It can be the difference between someone needing prolonged hospital stays in the future or not.

I suppose it is a little better than only children in special schools will have EHCP's. Unless they decide that only children in special schools can have severe/complex needs which wouldn't surprise me.

There is discussion of those who are born with the identified needs. The article discusses DS where the needs of the person with DS vary and if DS is considered to be severe or complex enough from birth that they need an ehcp/ special school then whatabout those with DS who are able to attend a mainstream setting. Like i said my ds is classed as severe/ complex but he didn't get a dx until two although needs were identified at one.

It's all hearsay at this poont though.

@2x4greenbrick i'm currently searching for where it says that removing provision from section f is unlawful without updated evidence, tried ipsea, sossen etc but just can't find it. Any idea's please? Thought i'd ask, hope that's ok.

It's ridiculous and is going to make things worse, not better.

If they remove my son's EHCP because he's in mainstream or because they don't deem him to be complex then I'll have no choice but to fight for a special school place. The only reason he isn't in special school is due to his EHCP.