Really interesting report on NEETs. What do you think happens next?

[SomedayIllBeSaturdayNight]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/23/uk-young-people-workplace-anxiety-alan-milburn

Such an interesting report by Alan Millburn in why the UK has so many young NEETs.

' “[Young people] are different, not worse, not lazier, not less intelligent. They have grown up in a digital world that has rewired how they communicate, form relationships and manage stress. They have fewer experiences of workplaces and they present with higher levels of anxiety and depression.”

Does this ring true to you? And what are the next few years going to look like?

I personally can't see any reason for the government not to ban social media for under 16s in this context.

One of mine had what was considered an excellent EHCP, but in reality it relied on teachers putting things into place with limited resources and not enough funding. It also relied on him being able to access the support - as a child with raging and unsupported PDA presenting ASD he was unable to because 98% of his teachers over his 7 years in school felt they knew best and wanted to punish the autism out of him. Shockingly this didn’t work.

I maintain that the changes in education, the introduction of academies with their pressure and arbitrary rules, the increase in SATS pressure, have contributed to the rising number of children being unable to cope in school and being unmotivated and a large proportion mentally ill. Schools could be improved, but people would rather blame young people than look at how children’s needs could be met more effectively.

That’s not to say more diagnoses, more EHCPs - they’re very much a symptom of the problem. Humans are a diverse bunch. If you change guidelines to suit a narrow range of them you cause more problems for those who don’t fit in that range. People are forced to get diagnoses now to understand why they can’t cope. What a pity we live in a world where our differences are considered disabilities and greed and financial success are the be all and end all.

You do realise that a MN thread does not reliable data make. Most teachers I know don’t have time to be sitting on MN.

And yet there’s an entire subsection called ‘the staffroom’

They don’t. They cost a fortune and do very little.

What complete rubbish.They are the difference between having an education and not. How can you say they do very little. Just ridiculous.

EHCPs name a achool - a school that otherwise might not take the child. That can be very important to the outcome.

@Hopss. I know the figure for SEN overall is 20% but some teachers do have 50% SN in some classes. Combined with mental health issues, it is unmanageable. I know EHCPs are needs led but some parents do use private assessments and diagnosis to get one. Usually, middle class parents who can afford it. The cost of funding children on EHCPs is taking away from funding and support from other SN children who don't have one. Children from middle class families are more likely to have an EHCP than children from lower income families.
This means the system is unfair. Why are more middle class children being given free transport to school and SEN private education?
What is the cost in terms of resources and money for other SN children? What is the cost for local councils and the ordinary taxpayer? Some people are on the breadline and struggling to pay council tax rises while sending their children to the rubbish local state school. In contrast. middle class parents are getting free transport for their EHCP children to school and sending their children to private SEN schools that cost £100,000 + a year. We need to get the balance right. The cost of EHCPs is leading to underfunding elsewhere.

Which you can challenge.

Like many my child’s has been the difference between getting an education/ employability and not.

They are highly successful when implemented effectively.

The system does need restructuring however demonising children with SEND is not ok. We also must not throw the baby out with the bath water or ignore the need for SEND provision in the interests of all children.

Im not a big fan of the ehcp in its current form but the evidence is children who have sen and an ehcp have slightly better education outcomes than those on sen support alone. I also take issue with the outcomes measured because the relevant outcomes are those in the ehcp, rather than passing SATs, and might include thing like using a toilet independently which makes a significant change to quality of life.

Ehcps by thier nature 'cost a fortune" because the main principal is that the support cant ordinarily offered by a mainstream school. However the amount varies hugely.

You can change ehcps for something better but i"d wager that the support would still costs money.

Whether or not ehcps are bankrupting councils depends whether you are reading an article about adult social care which takes up even more of council funding, in which case that is declared as bankrupting councils instead, or one that is about how central funding to LAs has reduced leaving them struggling to..

The good news is ehcp funding is going to be centrally funded from 2028 and we can stop hearing how it is bankrupting councils.

I think I agree with you about the problem, but maintaining the system as it is (which IMO has created the boom in SN and mental illness) and simply dropping the support will result in disaster for many families.

The whole system needs to be overhauled, and I optimistically believe we’re headed for a crisis that will force things to change for the better. In the meantime the government is sticking their head in the sand about the growing numbers of SN children.

Too many services are not fit for purpose. Society is becoming more and more hostile to those with needs, whilst losing the flexibility we once had to just live our lives, work at jobs that suited us, and is leaving lots of people behind, then having the audacity of blaming them for being the problem. Those in a position of relative privilege - those whose children are so far managing, those who are currently thriving - suck it all in and double down blaming the very people being hurt by the changes. Like I said before, you’re either going to reach a point where you or your children are the ones struggling and you’ll understand, or you’ll keep blaming those who have already been damaged and are suffering. It’s very easy to assume people are being lazy and making poor choices that lead them to these situations, but in reality that’s not the case, people think it because they haven’t experienced it for themselves.

I totally agree that a needs based system has created all kinds of perverse incentives. And it’s impossible to deliver multiple contradictory EHCPs in your average classroom setting.

We need to move away from needs based to outcomes based.

@Hoppss
I agree the system needs an overhaul. IMO, schools should not be run by academy trusts but by the LEA as too much money is going to leaders at the trusts rather than frontline services. In the past, the LEA would run more than 100 schools but the leaders earnt much less than the academy trust leaders. Research shows there is no difference in outcomes between LEA and academy trust schools overall with Pupil Premium and SEN children doing slightly worse in academy trusts. As academy trusts are a more expensive model and the outcomes are no better than LEAs, we should move to the cheaper leadership model leaving more money for frontline teaching, SEN children, counsellors etc. We also need to introduce more outward bound education, forest schools etc to build resilience. We should have fewer exams at GCSE-why are there three exams for maths? We should stop measuring schools just on exam success. This is creating an pressure cooker environments in schools. We should measure schools on more holistic measures such as curriculum balance between academic subjects and enrichment, extracurricular participation, teacher turnover, staff absence rates, pupil wellbeing scores etc.

Education funding has fallen in real terms per child for 15 years now.

It's not EHCPs draining the system.

The system is drained so support that used to be "ordinarily available" in the past, now isn't.

But SEND kids and their parents are easy targets.

If LAs complied with the law, parents wouldn’t need to seek independent assessments.

If independent assessment are required, but parents can’t afford them, there is support available. For example, if eligible for legal aid, or rather legal help for appeals to SENDIST, that can fund independent assessments if necessary. If parents aren’t eligible for legal aid but can’t afford them, there are charities who can help. I’m not advocating for it, but I know parents who have resorted to theft in order to fund assessments. Independent assessments absolutely aren’t limited to middle class families.

Seeking independent assessments doesn’t automatically buy provision. DC don’t get provision they don’t reasonably require. LAs don’t include provision they don’t legally have to provide. Neither does SENDIST Order it if it isn’t legally required, and if LAs genuinely thought they had erred, they would be quick to challenge the decision.

Independent SS wouldn’t be funded if the LA could find a state alternative who could meet needs.

Pupils with EHCPs are actually more likely to be eligible for FSM than those with SEN Support or without SEN.

Transport isn’t limited to DC with SEN. Nor those from middle class families.

The fact some DC with SEN don’t receive the support they need isn’t the fault of those parents who have advocated for their DC and enforced their DC’s rights. The sharp-elbowed middle class parents buying a gold-plated EHCP rhetoric isn’t correct and doesn’t help anyone.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream

The Sutton Trust research suggests you are wrong.
www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/massive-inequalities-in-accessing-send-system-revealed/

Another ban thread 😭can we ban these ban threads?

My first paragraph is correct. Parents are forced to seek independent assessments because LAs act unlawfully. If LAs acted lawfully they wouldn’t be forced to seek independent assessments.

My second paragraph is correct. Yes, many have to appeal. Many seek independent reports. Of course this is easier when you have money. I didn’t say otherwise. As I said, it is possible to secure funding even if parents can’t afford them. I support parents to do this day in day out and have supported thousands of parents over the years. The link’s statistics on parents spending money is somewhat flawed. It doesn’t take into account working class families are more likely to be eligible for legal aid or some grants/services are means tested so working class families may be eligible for some middle class families are not.

My third and fourth paragraphs are a matter of law. Legally, SEP is only included in F if it is reasonably required. If it isn’t reasonably required, it won’t be included no matter who you are. Again, legally, if there is a state school that can meet needs, independent schools aren’t named because it would be inefficient use of resources/unreasonable public expenditure - depending on whether it is a s41 independent or wholly independent. If SENDIST erred, the LA would be quick to challenge the decision.

My fifth paragraph is correct. If you actually read the link, you would see that DC with EHCPs are more likely to have FSM than those on SEN Support or without SEN. It says “Despite only 26% of children qualifying for free school meals, they account for 44% of those with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), and 39% of those receiving SEND support without an EHCP. This means pupils from low-income families are disproportionately more likely to have special needs that require extra support.”

Although that data is out of data, and the most recent government statistics show “43.8% of pupils with an EHC plan and 39.3% of pupils with SEN support are eligible for free school meals in 2025. This compares to 22.2% of all pupils in schools without SEN.”

My sixth paragraph is correct. Again, a matter of law that transport isn’t just for DC with SEN &/or middle class children.

My seventh paragraph is also correct and acknowledged as so in the link since it covers that parents who enforce their DC’s rights being a symptom of the system, not the cause of the broken system.

My son and daughter both attended independent specialist school in two different neighbouring Counties. LA picked up the tab for fees and transport.
I secured them just have many others before and after me because there is no equivalent in county maintained provision.
Son left nearly 14 years ago there is still no equivalent maintained provision in County.
It isn’t the fault of parents that LAs have failed to ensure that there are suitable maintained in County provision for those with SEND who need it.

It sounds like SEND provision is not going to have the investment needed though, they are going to reduce overall costs by putting everyone through mainstream by offered a safe space and turn the taps off for transport and make challenging anything take so long it will be ineffective.

For more immediate results with NEETs it might be better to concentrate on those without SN or mental health issues and leave the state support in place for them. To at least get the ball rolling again and inspire a bit of confidence with businesses employing young adults.

Maybe have a cash incentive for X amount of training days a month which are given to 18-25 year olds via a tax break or actual payments.
Or credit NI contributions for 18-25 yr olds without the company paying.
Or loosen the employment laws for that age group, allow probation to be 2 years say.
Or the government pays the pension contributions up to age 25.

These are things that could be implemented almost instantly. And might give businesses renewed confidence that it’s not just them shouldering the costs on the possible risks of hiring as yet unproven in the workplace young adults.

As they are, the proposed SEN reforms might save money in the short term, but they won’t save money in the longer term. Not meeting needs in the short term increases costs longer term.

Pushing more into mainstream when it is inappropriate for them won’t benefit anyone in schools. Not the child, not others with SEN, not other pupils without SEN and not staff. Hubs/units within MS won’t change that.

The SEN reforms do not include amending the legislation around transport.

Right now we are paying an ever increasing fortune on SEN provision though and it’s having zero long term benefits. The outcomes do not improve the more money we spend.

That’s because the money isn’t spent wisely or with ling term solutions in mind. It’s all spent on soundbites and “plaster” solutions.

I feel like whatever we did though people wouldn’t be happy and would deem the system ‘broken’ and a failure.

Yes I know this.

But 18-25 year olds right now need something not to wait for SEN provision during compulsory school age to be sorted out. They are already out of school.

Getting those NEETs who can work but there aren’t employers willing to take the risks at the moment into employment by relaxing some of the employment laws for that age group and providing cash incentives (instead of paying out of work benefits) could start to have quite quick effects.

Waiting until SEN provision is sorted out in schools, which is not even guaranteed to ever be accomplished, could mean some NEETs now are in their 30s before that happens.

SEND provision in schools, whilst connected, only addresses some of the reasons a young adult is NEET. There are many who can work, have no additional needs, did decently at school, can cope with a work environment, maybe at least get them into work first. If nothing else they will be part of future tax payers to contribute towards future required welfare payments. It should be ok to allocated some resources aimed at this group of the population from time to time we will all benefit from it long term.