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

Well people say “oh look at 30 years ago”
what good is that?

it’s not just SEN parents, all parents are very different in their communication and expectations from schools and teachers

everyone wants state bespoke education - which is impossible

our head teacher sent out a letter politely explaining “highs including legal highs” are not allowed on school premises - this is to the parents

when did that start needing to be explained?

so for education to move forward right now isn’t is also possible we all as parents need to consider our own demands and actions?

David Blunkett closed many special schools with the emphasis being on including SEN children in mainstream. A laudable ambition but it was always going to be much more expensive and less effective. A special school will have smaller groups, trained staff, curriculum geared towards the children’s needs - to expect the same provision in every single mainstream classroom is never going to happen. Every teacher is expected to include every child whatever their needs - an impossible task. A friend’s autistic child was found to be in his mainstream class for less than 12% of the day. The rest of the time he was isolated with an ever changing assistant. He was eventually changed to a special school where he has thrived. What I’m trying to explain is that mainstream is not for everyone and you can’t expect mainstream to be able to cope with everyone without a huge increase in funding, resources, training, staffing which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

But maybe the schools have to change to reflect the working world (which will probably be the teacher’s fault as well) - you can’t just walk into a job at 16, especially if you can forget to bring what you need or not turn up if you don’t feel like it?

don’t employers also say teenagers aren’t ready for work when leaving school, they don’t want to start at the bottom and work up, they think they should be paid thousands for just being them.

as you say it’s not the same world - and ironing out every issue for our children or worse expecting schools to isn’t helping.

I don’t think schools should be penalised via results tables or inspections on the pressure to make all pupils aim for 9 GcSEs, they should be able to be more realistic and if there is a pupils who could pass 5 GCSEs that they are able to suggest a reduced timetable with parents

I think our youngster’s school is doing this, there is one pupil I know of, there’s clearly more, they come in every other week. They are taught in the SEN block because as things stand there is not a chance they can be part of the mainstream classes on that attendance, there isn’t the time to recap a week for one pupil whilst also teaching this week to the rest of the class. So what’s the answer? This pupil is allowed to come in every other week, and I am assuming that is great progress for them, but it’s impossible to see how that can happen and they follow the same mainstream classes. There are no simple solutions

And if the white paper leaks are correct the government are looking to reduce costs

We can but hope that the intentions a going forward are for as many pupils (SEN or not because there are non-SEN pupils in mainstream as well) to get the most out of their local educational establishments with the manpower and resources available during each given academic year. They only get 5 years at secondary - it’s not that long, 2 years to do GCSE courses. Pupils need changes now, which means working with what is here.

Again, I think '30 years ago' is a bit of a red herring. Of course a lot has changed since 1996 (though I was at school then, and am not sure I recognise the picture some posters are painting of it). We don't need to go back to 1995 to see really rapid, destablising change. Since 2015, demand for EHC plans has increased 140%. There's been a 58% increase in real terms SEN spending since 2015. There were 109,000 children in special schools in 2015, now it's 194,000. The number of ECHPs went up by 10% in 2024 alone. This isn't slow, incremental, changing societal norms kind of stuff, as you might see from a generational difference between parents. It's too quick for that.

What I’m trying to explain is that mainstream is not for everyone and you can’t expect mainstream to be able to cope with everyone without a huge increase in funding, resources, training, staffing which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

I completely agree.

We had three consultations for placement for our EYFS class last year. All of them said the child needed a completely bespoke curriculum based on their individual interests and all said that they couldn't tolerate being in a group of more than 8. All were in nappies, had ASD, were non-verbal and 2 were smearing in the home/preschool setting.

How is being in (the same) class of 30 possibly going to be successful for those pupils.

The situation needs to be tackled because the numbers have grown so much, quite why is a separate issue. How it’s tackled is more up for debate

Advances of modern medicine is definitely a factor I think and not just from prematurity.

My son wasn't premature but he is here today thanks to modern medicine. 30 years ago, he may have survived but I think it would've been less likely as he almost didn't survive nearly 2 years ago but 50 years ago? He wouldn't have had a chance.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909

I don't know why we don't do what many other countries do and have technical and academic schools which are of equal prestige so one route isn't seen to be better than the other. It's such a shame that this route doesn't really exist. Maybe it's a cultural issue, I don't know.

Govt have got to save money, it's just not sustainable. They knew this would happen as it was stress tested. I just hope that they don't make a bad situation even worse but we can hope.

Govt have got to save money, it's just not sustainable. They knew this would happen as it was stress tested. I just hope that they don't make a bad situation even worse but we can hope.

I genuinely can't see how they can't make it worse?

If the proposal is for all schools to have a small special school base, with lots of high need children shoved in them with a few LSAs (on a revolving door as they won't stay as the money is crap), then that is awful.

For them now, for them in the future, for the staff, for the parents and for society.

That's not inclusion, it's just cheap. Cheap and short-sighted.

I hate to be brutal but I think the future is bleak no matter what we spend.

I’ve never known a child to benefit in the long term from a £100k a year placement. They’re happier at school, and there’s slightly more engagement, but their entire life seems to turn into expensive ‘management’ and ultimately they don’t go on to be independent self sustaining workers (I’m specifically referencing SEMH rather than severe disability where obviously that wouldn’t be a reasonable goal anyway).

I’ve never known a child to benefit in the long term from a £100k a year placement. They’re happier at school, and there’s slightly more engagement, but their entire life seems to turn into expensive ‘management’ and ultimately they don’t go on to be independent self sustaining workers (I’m specifically referencing SEMH rather than severe disability where obviously that wouldn’t be a reasonable goal anyway).

But if their needs are that significant that they have to have a £100k a year placement, what on earth would it be like if they didn't and they were left in a mainstream class?

How would that look for them? How would it look for the mainstream class teacher trying to teach? How would it look for the 29 other pupils in the class all day every day?

You seem to be suggesting that money is a waste of resources, but what's the alternative?

There’s options other than ‘mainstream or 100k a year’. I think we have overpromised and set unrealistic goals which remain expensively unfulfilled. We need to make the placements themselves cheaper, and realistic.

I definitely think there’s been a true and enormous rise in SEN, probably not due to 1 or even 2 things.

I think your numbers illustrate why this isn’t just a financed/lazy council/resentful taxpayer problem though - no department can deal with a rise like that in the space of a decade, especially not in a post austerity climate and where the service users themselves need far more complex and rapidly changing services. I doubt equine therapy was in mainstream use 15 years ago.

I have once child age 15 in a specialist independent with an EHCP. He was mainstream until the end of year 7, then went into crisis as the mainstream secondary could not meet his needs. He is academically capable and sitting 6 gcse's and one btech with predicted grades of 6 or 7. He will do a levels and I am fairly confident he will be able to work. If he had stayed in mainstream I think he would not be getting gcses and not even considering paid employment. Part of the progress is the right school environment and the therapies on site. He has gone from practically non verbal to able to hold a sustained conversation.

His school is over 20 miles away in a different county. He gets a taxi with 5 other children from my local area. Both my husband and I work. There wasn't a closer school that could meet his needs, and the cost of driving him to school, with only half of it being funded (the part where my child is actually in the car), and the fact that in traffic it can be a 2 hour round trip would have meant giving up work or reducing hours, which might have led to benefit claims etc.

I hate he is at school so far away, although I love what the school is doing for him. Meetings at school necessitate at least half a days leave from work, hospital appointments normally mean missing a whole day because of the time it would take to get him back to school and if he is sick at school it can take me up to an hour and a half to collect him.

Meanwhile my other son with no additional needs is at mainstream high school 10mins from home, and is a million times easier to manage.

I know SEND spending is an issue, but there is I think no solution that will not require an initial outlay of a lot of money. The government should be thinking long term, because although I don't have the answers I think money spent in the right way now could cost us all less in the future.

Equine therapy wasn’t uncommon 15yrs ago. Some DC had it in their Statements of SEN - the previous statutory plan before the transition to EHCPs. There was even virtual reality equine-assisted therapy 15 years ago.

If there were existing placements that could meet a CYP’s needs which didn’t involve spending such large sums of money, the LA wouldn’t agree to name such a placement in the CYP’s EHCP and neither would SENDIST Order such a placement be named.

But the point is to create such placements would cost even more. It’s like the expensive tribunals - sadly they happen as still cheaper than instantly placing the child

Yes, in the short-term. The problem is the government and LAs are shortsighted. It would save money in the longer term.

In the meantime, if there were options between mainstream and £100k pa placements that could meet needs, the £100k pa placement costing large sums more wouldn’t be named.

In the meantime, if there were options between mainstream and £100k pa placements that could meet needs, the £100k pa placement costing large sums more wouldn’t be named.

So alternatives need to be looked at then. Can something be run that costs much less?

In some situations, cheaper options could be built. However, see the point about governments and LAs being short sighted so they only focus on immediate costs.

For some, there will never be a cheaper option. Some will always cost £100k (or even more) no matter what.

EHCPs detail the provision that must legally be given and frankly many of them hugely overpromised. For the placements to be cheaper the EHCPs must be scaled back which is why I’m guessing this is happening.

I am a teaching assistant in mainstream secondary. Am I going to be made redundant?

I think this is misleading. There will almost always be a cheaper option than £100k but this may mean that some needs aren't met in the way that they currently are. I know this sounds cruel but this is what is happening in other essential services already.

I used the health analogy upthread because it's super relevant. Cancer and dementia patients are being denied life extending treatment on cost grounds. Basically if the Quality-Adjusted Life Years measure comes back too expensive then people will be denied treatment on the grounds that it isn't cost effective. People's most basic 'need' to want to stay alive and have their life extended are put through a cost effectiveness measure that SEN education isn't. How does this make sense?

ECHPs have essentially put almost unlimited unfunded legal obligations into LAs. Even if you fund this centrally it's obvious why this is such a problem, especially in the context of spiralling demand and worsening public finances. Something has to give.

There's a lot of things different about SEN to other areas of public policy.

One being that LAs are losing close to 100% of tribunals.

Even DWP and Immigration are nowhere near that!

Yes, but that's because of the way that the current law is written. That's my point! LAs have to legally fund the provision outlined in the ECHPs irrespective of cost. Unreasonableness, cost effectiveness etc doesn't come into it in the way that it does in other areas. That's why I specifically state that they have placed an unlimited unfunded legal obligations on LAs. A law change would also change the success rates of tribunals.