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’s the school environment that plays the biggest part now.

I also wonder who they are going to propose will staff these resourced bases, and how they are going to be trained etc!

The equine therapy is in some children’s EOTAS packages which was an alternative provision that has exploded in numbers, especially in our local authority. They started out as only being available for those who had tried and been unsuccessful at specialist schools but then started being used more widely. They are being scaled back now which is causing huge stress to parents 🙁

Threads like this will give a distorted view of the general population's view of this issue because it will evoke responses from worried SEN parents.

I think the majority of the population simply don't want to pay the level of tax that is required to fund the kind of SEN education that many parents want. Transport can be extortionate and placements can be eye wateringly expensive and add up to £100k a year. The average dwelling pays £2k a year in Council Tax. Councils would have to put all of the tax paid by 50 dwellings (potentially well over one hundred people) to fund one child's education. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out this is completely unsustainable. What about rubbish collections, libraries, pot holes, the police etc?

I think there are also wider questions about education that are relevant to SEN too. As we question the value of university degrees for the graduates themselves and the wider economy, we should also ask the same questions of education at all levels. What are we trying to achieve here? We clearly have limited resources so what can realistically be done in this area to deliver the best outcomes for the individuals and society at large within sensible financial constraints.

Our education system is completely unfit for purpose now but schools are also crippled with more and more behavioural issues which are driving thousands of staff out of the profession. It’s a complete shit show and 14 years of austerity have been the icing on the very shit cake 😢

The thing is the leaks dont suggest tackling high needs children. They are more around chikdren with lower needs. They arent in eye-watering 100k provisions (which are unusual even for high needs children)

£100k is an extreme but SEN education is hugely expensive even for children with relatively low needs. There are obviously many more children in this category too so £10k extra across 10 children still equals £100k spent on SEN education and requires 50 households to fund this. The rapid increase in expenditure in this area is also hugely concerning. It is clearly an area that needs major reforms and a lot of expectations management. We simply cannot afford to keep doing what we are doing.

I can't see the proposals helping unless the aim is to have children out of education. If this is the goal i don't understand some of the proposals in the children's act that remove parents ability to home educate kids with send (i may well have misunderstood that).

@2x4greenbrick have you read anything about how those with eotas will be impacted by the changes?

Edit to the above not childrens act (auto typo) it's the childrens wellbeing and schools bill

@Perzival Parents of a child at a special school with an ehcp need LA permission to remove a child from roll to home educate. Everyone else can just do it basically.

Nothing concrete about EOTAS/EOTIS (or anything else). Only that certain provisions such as animal assisted provision, falconry and certain exercise/sports are objected to. No doubt it will be about limiting provision to save money. Nothing new there then. Many LAs also dislike EOTAS/EOTIS/C because they see it as having less control.

Currently, only those with CSA pupils registered at a special/specialist school funded by the LA need consent from the LA to have their DC’s name deleted from the school’s roll. This isn’t quite tantamount to permission to EHE. Consent should not be unnecessarily withheld. If refused, parents can go to the Secretary of State. This may change with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Who knows what form that will get passed in. Under the bill as it stands, there is also a best interests clause where parents of DC in SS have to show it is in the best interests of the children. Same for those not in SS but on a child protection plan or with s47 assessment underway.

Parents don’t just get provision because they want it. It has to be reasonably required legally. That means there has to be professional evidence.

Council tax isn’t the only money funding SEN provision. It is disingenuous to suggest council tax is solely funding SEN provision. You might have missed it because it received little attention following the budget, but the plan is for central government to supposedly take over funding SEN provision. Further information will apparently be set out in the Schools White Paper and Local Government Finance Settlement. If it goes ahead, it has the potential to cause more chaos in education. With vulnerable CYP thrown under the bus again.

@2x4greenbrick thank you

Just thought I'd give a perspective on taxi use from someone who's child costs my LA an eye watering amount. Yes, I know exactly how much it costs.

My child is transported to school and back each day in their own taxi with a driver and escort. The school is 45 mins away from our house. Its the closest school that can meet their needs and yes, we've tried all the alternative schools. Multiple. 2:1 support in a mainstream didnt work. That one failed horrifically leading to a permanent exclusion.

The reason my child is transported alone is because they have a penchant for attacking people in moving vehicles. Anyone within striking distance usually. It's in their risk assessment for transport that they can't travel with others. Everyone agrees this, even the driver who knows my child very well agrees. Every now and then the LA play silly buggers and try and put other children in my child's taxi. The last time they did this there were punches thrown on a NSL road. The time before a similar incident happened. The LA dont seem to care about this though and their risk mitigation strategy seems to be based around 'well it might not happen' (regarding the behaviour).

Public transport isnt an option. There are 2 buses a WEEK that go within a mile of the school. The rest of the walk is along an unlit country road (the same one as the punching incident). The LA are especially keen to remind me that I can always take a personal budget for transport. Except the LA only pay 42p a mile and only if the child is in the vehicle. The true cost would be much, much more. However as I am medically restricted from driving (which the LA are fully aware of) it's neither here nor there.

So on paper, while children getting v.expensive taxis to school seems like a profligate waste of LA funds, there is almost always a reason for this. While the LA's can release details of taxi costs, what they can't do is give the reasons for the costs being as high as they are. So a situation is developing where all people see is taxis for children with SEND costing £££££ and make the wrong assumption its a huge waste of LA funds.

I think they will stop EHCPs altogether. There are just too many now.

@getoffmyknittingyoustupidcat the issue i have with taxi's are the contracts. Our LA sold off all their transport and gave out contracts to local firms. The contracts cost a huge amount more than doing it in house. The taxi firms are making a killing.

I feel the same about special schools- we need more LA special schools in area that can provide similar to may of the inde schools. I'd much rather my ds didn't have to travel as much as he does every day. He has significant needs (severe autism is his main dx). There are many kids like him locally/ in area that have similar needs, easily enough to warrent a school. Our LA has recently built a school for kids with autism but he has the wrong type and they can't meet need. I'm sure the LA could provide what he gets at his current provision a lot cheaper.

Yes, will they be a properly resourced send unit, or exclusion from mainstream without being a formal exclusion, to keep things cheap.

Thinking about the idea only children in specialist schools will keep EHCPs, how does this tie in with 'every child has a right to mainstream education'.

It doesn’t. There are other aspects it ignores too such as those not in school and those doing supported internships via mainstream placements. I suspect it would lead to a flurry of schools who are technically designated as mainstream schools but are actually anything but mainstream going through the process of becoming a special/specialist school.

also wonder who they are going to propose will staff these resourced bases, and how they are going to be trained etc!

Lots of resource bases have been popping up locally to me this year. Every single one is staffed by LSAs-usually ones that don't stay long. They are paid little more than minimum wage and are facing extreme physical attacks daily. They get a bit of training in Bucket Time and that's about it.

They are small and often filled with children who struggle to be around each other-I know in one, there are two children who smear poo and one who screams continuously when any other children come anywhere near them.

It's not inclusion, it's just cheap and it's not meeting anyone's needs.

Measure what Matters worked with specail needs jungle to do a FB post on this. Very interesting read. This white paper has roots led by truly notorious Surrey LA SEN managers.

I also have kids with EHCPs, and the system is broken it's worthless. However, this is not the answer.

If local authorities were proactive, there would be no market for independent SEN schools. Private companies thrive in a market vacum.

Two of my children are placed in independent SEN schools. Why? Simply because one is at a speech and language school. There are no LA owned SaLT schools. There's units in mainstream, but my son has severe needs. So there's no other choice for him. I didn't need to appeal to get him in. Is it worth the fees? He was non-verbal at 7 but talked within 3 months of starting. It's possibly a good return on his future costs to the state. I'm going to die at some point and non verbal people with learning disabilities tend not to self support.

The other is at SEN school that sits GCSEs. Why? Because no LA SEN school in my county offers GCSEs. So, with both schools, if there was an LA option, they would be there instead.

We have lots of Indi SEN schools in and around county run by Aspris. They are a private equity group. Someone is profiting, but not all independent SEN schools run on that model. My sons ( gcse son) school fees are less than mainstream private. They have therapy on staff. So it can be done a lot cheaper. Still very small classes as well.

What worries me is right now, is that a growing number of the most severechildren like mine and yours OP have no SEN school places to start in reception in my county. So if someone was to say "only the most severe of needs will get a ehcp and sen school place". There would still not be enough places. I have been a governor at a LA SEN school for over five years. We see this grow exponentially every year.

It's not as simple as just give support to most in need. Non verbal 4 year olds with learning disabilities are the most in need. Children diagnosed before school age are most in need. children who suffer strokes at birth are the most in need, But they overflow into mainstream and then get expelled to the local PRU.

Just because my kids are OK doesn't mean I welcome this. There but the grace of God my kids was born over a decade ago when no parent of a non verbal child ever appealed to get into reception at the SLD state SEN school.

How we fix it IDK but this isn't how

'Reasonably required' isn't some definitive objective threshold. Reasonableness is inherently subjective and the threshold needs to account for the financial reality we find ourselves and the demand for resource versus the resources available.

The majority of children would undoubtedly reasonably benefit from additional provision beyond what the state's standard £8k would ordinarily fund. For example 15% of the population have dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, or dyscalculia (or a combination). 12% of children are physically disabled. Around 7% have either ADHD, ASD or both. 20% of children have a mental health disorder. This is just scratching the surface and by no means definitive, but it's clear to see how a compelling argument can be made for an awful lot of children to receive additional provision from schools.

Obviously we are already in the situation where many children don't receive the help that they could ideally benefit from. We simply don't pay anywhere enough tax to deliver an optimum or even good education for all children. This isn't unique to children with SEN. We have kids stuck in inadequate schools with appalling results and opportunities up and down the country.

It doesn't matter if it's Central government funding SEN education or Council tax the truth remains that we love in a democracy and it can only be funded to the level that the population is happy to fund it to. It is balance between funding this and lots of other essential services that the state provides including health, defence, transport, adult social care and funding disabled adults whilst also not shrinking the economy and reducing the money available to everyone through excessive taxation. An blank cheque isn't an option so how do we sensibly allocate the money that is available.

We paid for Kings Interhigh, but there is other private provision. They're all registered schools, so the LEA can't object to children being educated via this route.

@Bargepole45 i am genuinely interested in your point of view. As the parent of a kid with complex needs i usually only hear the views of people who are in a similar situation. Which is mainly why i started the thread.

How will you feel if the changes go on to impact your children which most seem to agree will happen as there is a lot of doubt around extra money, staff etc for the proposed units in mainstream please?

Do you believe some children just shouldn't be educated but rather kept in a sort of babysitting service due to the fact they likely won't contribute financially in adulthood (severity of need) therefore reducing costs? I actually think this already happens in some schools- this was a view that i heard from another parent of a child with send but a child that could in theory go on to exams, job...

How about life skills? I think these are incredibly valuable and will save overall spending later on as well as giving soe independance. More important than learning eg history for some children.

Please feel free to ignore, i'm just genuinely interested in what "average/ normal" parents think about the send system.

The EHCP needs assessment and the issue and then maybe you get the provision promised but probably you don’t situation is completely soul destroying for parents. I don’t think anyone goes through it for fun or believing their child doesn’t need it.

What is the government saying here apart form let’s go back to underdiagnosis of girls and black and brown kids, under provision of needed support for everyone, more kids in mainstream without support which affects all the kids in the class including the ones already there with less externalised needs..?
I can’t see any up side in what’s being provided here at all.

Can we not be those self serving people going ‘ well my child needs this but your child definitely doesn’t’. Let’s trust other parents to know what’s right for their child. Anything less and you’re playing right into the hands of politicians who would love to be able to take away needed services and support from those other kids AND yours.