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

It seems snj have heard that ehcp's will only be given to those with severe or complex needs

It could be argued that's always been who should get an EHCP. The problem is, the provision schools are able to provide (with budgets on the floor) without one is so desperate, it means an EHCP is the only way to get anything different.

The thing is - all I hear everywhere is about inclusion.
True inclusion is everyone getting what they need to be successful.
Its about equity, not equality.
Its simply not possible with the current level of funding, staffing, expectations etc
Nothing I am hearing is going to change this for the better.
Call it what you like, get any diagnosis you wish - I do truly want the best for the children I teach.
Some EHCPs are not written well, many are very similar, not fit for purpose tbh
Some are vital.
There are too many of them currently imo - they are restrictive and prohibiting progress for some children, our LA is often reluctant to update them even when clear evidence shows progress.
1 person cannot do 5,6,7 tasks at the same time.
Someone or currently most if not everyone suffers.

@Perzival Reg 12 says F of the EHCP should include “the special educational provision required by the child or young person”. That means all. Not some. Not cherry picked. Not chipped away at during ARs because the LA doesn’t want to provide it. Not removing it vindictively in response to a parent successfully appealing/complaining/ [insert other reasonable action from parent]. Paragraph 9.69 of the SENCOP is also relevant. As is 9.166 onwards about reviews. Unfortunately, there is nothing explicitly saying “the LA must have new evidence to remove provision”. But if the provision is still required, it must remain.

Thank you very much x

I keep seeing the phrase 'every teacher to be an SEN teacher' online-that must be the tagline for this new idea.

The fact that the SEN teachers I know had a class of 6-12, with several TAs, suitably resourced classrooms and don't have to follow the National Curriculum so are free to meet the needs of their children, seems to be an irrelevance when looking at the expectations of mainstream teachers of 30!

I just saw this article which made me think of this thread. Again, this is just 2 children and a council run home, not an expensive contractor. The costs involved are just breathtaking. For context, 100% of the council tax from around 350 houses will be spent on these 2 children.

I’m not trying to be an arsehole but I think it’s important to highlight the scale of the costs when people talk about ‘underfunding’ or the taxpayer being tight with money.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/new-1m-high-security-home-10777521?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwZnRzaAPmxfNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe6EqNi1BbOCzWZAf2aKaHvHbT-BimsDMypAcs9NQsqMZe1K0B8bug0xMqLEE_aem_6NhOPgqF2BY0D5h_MW1Pug#Echobox=1769490906

@Playingvideogames the provision in the above isn't educational it's social care where the children have a DOL's due to mental health and trauma. The example given is of a yoyng girl being sexually exploited and requires a secure care home to stop her being abused.

I do take your point though and i'm aware that costs are rising substantially in both education and social care. In the case above though what would you do? She could be locked away in a secure hospital unit but then she would be likely caused further trauma and in a way beiing punished for being abused.

I live in a town close to Rochdale and believe at least one of the men who who was in the rape gang there is now freely walking around the town. I'd argue it'd be more just and a better use of funds to lock away the men who are sexually exploiting these kids so that the kids don't have the trauma and they don't need locking away for their protection. I think that's a whole other thread though.

the above isn't educational it's social care

Exactly. So many people misunderstand, intentionally or through ignorance, the difference between SEN provision and children’s services’ placements.

"Children with diagnoses of autism and ADHD are thought to be amongst those who could be moved to the new support structure."

Not sure how that would work as some kids with autism are incredibly complex and mainstream is absolutely thewrong setting for them.

I can imagine the arguments between parents and schools and that some of these inclusion bases will ne used like a holding area with no real education able to take place.

I also can't imagine being a teacher in a mainstream school and having to deal with the fallout of all this.

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-02-19/absolute-disaster-some-send-kids-set-to-lose-rights-under-radical-reforms?fbclid=Iwb21leAQD_KpjbGNrBAP5uWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHkSUb6EMDWBrIeyYVi5thzf7CCyHrNQd27FcjIqjHJoAR3rIiVfSzVy4Jtkd_aem_MSzEF0qUWLJgThRFWFi1fg

I honestly don’t know.

Personally I think preventative measures need to be pushed via some kind of social awareness campaign.

For example taking a prenatal vitamin for 3 months before conception cuts the risk of having a profoundly autistic child by half, even in those who already have a profoundly autistic child.

If that was aimed at me in order to produce an emotional reaction it is miss placed. We were trying for over a year to concieve before ds so my diet and prenatal vitamins etc were exemplorary. However, that's an interesting theory and given that a cause of autism hasn't been confirmed i'd love to see the evidence of that, if you can provide it? It may also be worth providing to the various governments and health authorities around the world.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2726608

I doubt they’ll do anything about it as it’ll be called ‘eugenics’

sweet lord wtaf is going on here

my god

@Playingvideogames "Conclusions and Relevance Maternal prenatal vitamin intake during the first month of pregnancy may reduce ASD recurrence in siblings of children with ASD in high-risk families. Additional research is needed to confirm these results; to investigate dose thresholds, contributing nutrients, and biologic mechanisms of prenatal vitamins; and to inform public health recommendations for ASD prevention in affected families."

This is a direct quote. Not sure it constitutes scientific reasoning although if you do, please inform the press, health agencies and governments world wide.

Ps i doubt this constitutes eugenics which by the way i'm in favor of.

Well it’s more scientific than the theory that people have differently wired/types of brain.

I agree, both are rediculous.

Scientists with real science degrees are looking into the science of Autism. I'd leave the research to the people who devote their life to science. It's based in facts not feelings.

As a scientist who actually had a do a degree and work in scientific fields all my life,to call myself a scientist.

It does grate when lay people try to piss all over proper research with a random theory. Makes the professors who taught me seem like jokes like anyone can say anything with as much and more knowledge. I wonder if Bob down the chip shop can do neuro surgery as they watched a youtube video and and had a good idea.

What is ‘ridiculous’ about what I just posted?

@Playingvideogames The findings aren't confirmed. It's a hypothesis that "may" impact those who already have children with asd (a bit broad don't you think?!).

Asd itself as a diagnosis has changed due to lobbying. It's an umbrella dx which different conditions.

"Profound autism" does have a set definition given by the lancer however, the article you linked doesn't define that definition or take into account other comorbids which may impact the result of their investigation.

I believe that pre natal vitamins do make a difference to a childs health. If it really recuced the likelyhood of profound autism i would personally lobby for them to be put into the water like flouride.

The paper doesn't conclude anything without doubt and in it's own conclusion says that further investigation is needed. Making a sweeping statement that it's factual is rediculous.