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

But you can’t build special schools that cater to a small number of extremely challenging but different children in every village and small town. These things work on economies of scale.

I didn’t say you could “build special schools that cater to a small number of extremely challenging but different children in every village and small town.”

I think what baffles people though is that the ‘well equipped but mainstream’ school you describe honestly sounds like a SEN school in all but name, and the enhancements you describe just weren’t the norm 30 years ago, when outcomes were actually better. It’s a total riddle.

You could certainly have sufficient special school places within a Borough or county. My London Borough has been "exporting" 20% of its SEND kids, for years!

I agree with this completely and I think your example of 50 houses does a good job of illustrating just how expensive this whole arena is. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse the public of being tight when they’re paying an extortionate amount already and simply don’t want that to rise.

Poverty? It makes everything harder.

I really think we underestimate the effects of the austerity since 2008.

I think far more children live chaotic lives, fed absolute garbage and barely stimulated beyond being yelled at. But those parents won’t be the ones on here so they will be invisible for the purposes of the thread.

I agree @caringcarer

Several things should happen: schools say “turn up when you can, as close to 9am as possible but don’t worry if it’s 11am” so that it’s less difficult for parents to get all their kids to school. Taxis should never be used only LA or school owned transport

Second: abandon SATs at Y6. And we should abandon GCSEs entirely. One certificate for competence in English and Maths at end of Y11 then a baccalaureate-style set of 7 or 8 major and minor subjects sat in y13. Or 4 major and minor subjects and a Btech or practical qualification.

Non academic kids can go down an apprenticeship route age 16+.

This would cost the country vastly less in terms of exams and teaching subjects kids don’t need (my dd is sitting 11 GCSE’s! Totally unnecessary and demanded by her school!)

When my dad was at school he did 6 O levels, pass/fail. He studied more than six subjects but it was deemed he only needed 6 o levels. He left and did an apprenticeship and had a thriving career in Engineering and made a big contribution later in life to research at Imperial College. We have massively over complicated our education system and it’s breaking under the strain. We need to strip it back and accept that most kids won’t do brilliantly at school and that is FINE. They need to emerge able to read , write, do maths, use a computer, be ready to work.

Then we wouldn’t be so stressed about provision for minor SEN and we’d have the right amount of resources left to fund major SEN.

i think they will move towards what our youngster’s secondary does. It’s a relatively new school so purpose built.

There are a couple of separate classrooms for pupils who find the mainstream classes overwhelming. They have separate break and lunchtimes, and have work set, they can attend classes they want to, the school allows or works with school refusers and tries to get them to attend as much as they can. And the mainstream classes continue for the other pupils.

Teacher retention is really high, they seem to attract the better teachers from other local schools, attainment is high and SEN pupils on register is high.

So it seems to be working for as many as possible.

I hear much the same from the teachers I know. It’s all so worrying, particularly thinking 20 years ahead. Out of the children I know (kids of my mum friends, DC’s friends) I would say a quarter will likely never live a typical life of independence and work.

We have a similar set up @frozendaisy - or at least we did - we really struggle to staff it. Our staff retention is good but our SEN HLTA retention isn't, because the salaries are so small.

The funding needs to go on staff, not just buildings.

I think what baffles people though is that the ‘well equipped but mainstream’ school you describe honestly sounds like a SEN school in all but name, and the enhancements you describe just weren’t the norm 30 years ago, when outcomes were actually better. It’s a total riddle.

What do you mean? The outcomes for high need SEN pupils were better 30 years ago?

oh definitely this is what people forget, I think the leadership of this school is very firm and protective of it’s staff so they do keep staff. The head is just as concerned about his teacher’s wellbeing as the pupils because without a teacher there is no class for anyone.

But this I think will be a big part of the proposals, provide schools with money to convert part of their school to accommodate SEN pupils unable to cope in a mainstream class and allow the attendance and results of those pupils to not be reflected I their published results. Because realistically these pupils who cannot learn at the pace of mainstream are not going to be able to sit 8 or 9 GCSEs, especially if you mix in school refusal. And just taking our own limited experience of GCSE experience- 3 days ill and you need to catch up, missing a lesson or two each morning coming in late or not coming in at all, it’s hard to catch up, so that pupil has no idea what the class is studying when they go back, possibly becoming more distressed in class.

So a school with a safe, equipped environment, teachers on hand and a more gentle approach of “do what you can” seems better for everyone.

There is a great 6th college with provisions for GCSE resits at a slower pace, you can wear what you like and it’s part time, plus there are many vocational courses.

It’s not ideal, but nothing is. It just seems to work better at his school for more teachers and pupils alike - and that surely is a step in the right direction.

No, primary schools weren’t enhanced with sensory rooms and all the additions mentioned above, yet the outcomes were better.

No, primary schools weren’t enhanced with sensory rooms and all the additions mentioned above, yet the outcomes were better.

Outcomes for who were better 30 years ago? All pupils? Pupils with SEN?

Can you link to this data so I can understand?

Reminds me of COVID data and crime statistics. If we don't know how to deal with a problem in this country we just stop tracking it or reclassify it so it not longer counts as a problem. 🙄

Parents, generally, gad much more respect for teachers 30 years ago.

Perhaps that is a contributing factor. And with modern parental attitudes what used to work just cannot be implemented now.

https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/educational-outcomes-for-send-pupils-have-failed-to-improve-over-the-last-decade-despite-costs-of-these-services-trebling-new-independent-report-reveals/

I am worried on a number of different levels about SEND reform.

1. Schools are having to pick up a lot of the slack where the NHS is not providing services or there is a waitlist list of years. My son waited 3 years for speech therapy of the NHS and then it was a maximum of 6 sessions. Children are being identified with speech delays but it takes years to get any support apart from signposteding to websites or leaflets. There needs to be investment in children’s health services as some of the barriers to learning are health related. My DD also had severe glue ear and couldn’t hear properly for 18 months (and therefore couldn’t learn at school). The NHS was very reluctant to do anything.

2. General underfunding of schools. All schools get element 1 funding based on pupil numbers but this is barely enough to cover salaries. All schools get element 2 funding which is meant to be used for SEN support but in many schools this gets used for essential things in school. In some schools the there is very little SEN support. In my experience the TA in the class end up dealing with multiple children with high needs (who may be going through the EHCP process which can take years). Therefore, if your child needs a low level support and is quiet and well behaved then they are left to sit at the back of the class. My DD was slipping further and further behind despite me doing daily reading/writing/spelling practice at home. For a proportion of my DDs last year of school there was no TA in class so the teacher was effectively acting as crowd control.

3. Academies. They don’t seem to be accountable to anyone and they are funded using tax payers money. One of my local academy trusts has 13 staff getting paid over 100k a year! Yet they are well known for being awful with children for SEN and providing little to no support. As a consequence many parents will push for specialist for Y7 as there is no way there child will cope with zero support at secondary and harsh draconian rules.

4. If there is no statutory right to support for children in mainstream (which is what an EHCP provides) then more parents like me will push for specialist schools. Some mainstream schools will try to put parents off sending their child to their school as they don’t want children who are more expensive to educate. If my son loses his EHCP (or the funding attached to it) then it is very unlikely that any mainstream school will want him as he requires significantly more support and therefore is much more expensive to educate than a typical child.

Again I think parents played a bigger role in yesteryear. People weren’t diagnosed as much when I was young but around where we lived looking back with modern hindsight there were a few children who were not academic, struggled to sit still in class, their dads taught them to mend cars at the weekend or build fences, girls helped around the house. Yeah very gender chauvinistic but car mending skills or cleaning could be put to use and become jobs.

Ive seen this report before. It would be great if ehcps led to improved educational outcomes but they do measure the outcomes in very narrow academic terms. It may never have been realistic that a child was going to get more gcses, but the outcomes in thier ehcp might have led to them being able to emotionally regulate themselves. This is still a win for society.

I am in agreement that we need more evidenced base spend that actually does something useful but I dont know that saying this non verbal child still didnt get maths, when we spent more on them, is measuring the right thing. Did the spend achieve what it was supposed to achieve. Was what is was supposed to achieve useful and necessary from a public purse point of view.

My blind godson had funding in his ehcp to learn how to use a cane and navigate public transport safely. I doubt that got him a higher english grade.

We can pick over the individual circumstances, but if you tax children’s education then children’s education is going to decline overall. We’re just seeing the beginning of it, in the end it will affect everyone.

I think the cohort of SEND children between 30 years ago and now is very different as well.

Increasing numbers of our SEN register over the last ten years have been premature-I don't think this is a coincidence. Survival rates are much higher with the advances of modern medicine, but with this, often brings complex difficulties. Many of these children wouldn't have survived 30/50 years ago, let alone been anywhere near a mainstream classroom.

Expecting one teacher to manage 30 pupils, with very high numbers of Sen and no TA, is probably going to lead to worse outcomes. For everyone.

Where's the bingo card

parent blame - big fat tick.

is there anything parents of Sen children don't get the blame for?

So much has changed. Lots more specialist schools back then. Not such a focus on academics so much less pressure. Creativity was valued as much as academics. Ofsted (who started the mess) had only just come in. Schools didn't care so much about attendance or if you did your homework. You knew you could just leave school at 16 and walk into a job with few qualifications and work your way up. None of this forget your textbook 3 times = a day in isolation.