To wonder how a £36k a year education can meet DS’s needs if a £250k one can’t?

[GoneBatty]

Private residential SEND college (out of area) costs £250k a year. They are saying DS’s needs are too high for them to manage.

Council are saying a £36k a year local outreach provision can meet his needs.

It’s all very fishy as SEND college at first said they felt they could meet DS’s needs so we visited, all was OK. As as soon as the council (who will have to fund it) got involved, college backtracked and said they couldn’t meet his needs.

They have given nonsensical reasons which I have mitigated numerous times. Both the college and council have told blatant lies and I’ve caught them out in two big ones!

Now we have reached Tribunal the college is suddenly full which was not an issue a few months ago so know they’re lying again as they would know numbers of students months in advance due to Tribunals and the time it take to get funding. Also most Tribunals due to take place over the summer were postponed for this age group.

AIBU to suspect the council has given the college a backhander to say they can’t meet his needs? It would cost council £750k for a 3 year program. They could have given a £100k ‘investment’ per se? Still saves a lot of money!

There is literally no other provision like this in the country. I have approached 21 other colleges, local and out of area. DS has had no proper provision for over a year and he is running out of time as age 20 - EHCP is to 25.

Do I sound nuts (I feel it)? Can this actually be possible?

OP I think from what I can see that the place was refused due to it not being s41 provision, which it sounds as if it was temporary. If they are now S41 again and that was the only reason, I would imagine that tribunal will find in your favour?

I’m sure you have already done this, but in preparation for tribunal, I would do Subject Access Requests for both the college and the Council.

I doubt that the council have given a backhander to the college. I’ve worked in local authority SEND and it’s more likely they have seen something in the EHCP that allows them to refuse.

I'm heading to tribunal for my son, for a school placement of £75k a year for the next 13 years (and obviously that cost will rise annually too). I am literally having to compare with costs of young offenders institutions and potentially a lifetime in prison or in residential care. The £750k investment now will save millions in the long run.

Better start fuming, then, because the chances are that your council is paying that sort of sum out for the care and/or education needs of quite large numbers of children and adults. That is what it costs. What should happen to them otherwise? Shall we not bother to educate them at all and just expose them on the nearest hillside?

Your suggestion that parents should just teach children and young adults with serious learning difficulties at home is laughable. For many it requires training and 2:1 care, and many parents have to work to keep a roof over everyone's heads. You can't possibly claim that your son is representative of every other disabled child. You seriously need to educate yourself.

You think it's utterly obscene that the care and education needs of a disabled child should be met? Why?

.

OP, you really need to move this to the SEND boards. You are getting some really badly uninformed replies.

If this school is no longer a s41 school, there really is no point in arguing against this or looking for conspiracy theories. Unfortunately you have no option but to look further afield for alternatives, if necessary asking the tribunal to adjourn to let you do so.

The DFE manages section 41 approval (LA is consulted in process)
Are they on Dfe list- it is online
Recent Ofsted ? If inadequate they may have been removed

Well yes, not for one person.

Student loans are irrelevant to this situation because OP isn’t talking about higher education. She is talking about further education for a young person with an EHCP, therefore education is funded.

How do you know if it "sounds reasonable" if you don't know what support OP's child needs? Realistically how much expertise in meeting SEN do you imagine "local outreach support" can offer, let alone the requirements of a Plan which, if properly written, provides for full time support? Bear in mind also that OP has no obligation to continue providing care and if she chooses not to do so the council will have to pay for a supported care placement as well.

Except it’s not higher education, it’s further education.

So what do you say should happen instead?

Bear in mind that that investment can very literally make the difference between a child growing into a self supporting taxpaying independent adult, and being dependent on care all their lives

The way I understand it is that OP's DS is 20y old young man and it looks like that he won't be independent or paying taxes in the near or far future. Yet alone earn enough to cover his care costs.

The council has offered a "suitable" placement ...
It's really sad to see that so many people are let down by companies telling them this could be your child's future while in reality there isn't enough money to fund these places by councils.

When the college say they can't meet his needs people are focusing on his day to day need. Do you think they could mean the "learning outcomes" of the 3 year course? What is the end goal of him going to the college?

If the council are to spend £750,000 on a young adult they may be setting key result areas they want achieved eg. able to live independently." at the end.
Could it be the college are saying they can't meet this?

If OT, SALT and MH therapies are specified and quantified in section F of the EHCP they have to be provided. If they aren’t you can force the LA to provide them. Unfortunately can’t be done if the EHCP is vague and woolly though. Just because the college have onsite therapists doesn’t mean DS will receive therapies if they aren’t in the EHCP.

If there isn’t another suitable provision and the college won’t give an offer of a place have you considered asking for EOTAS?

There are many who wont be able to access further education. So this person shouldn't have any priority over them.. well not at 750k.

@GoneBatty you're not going to get sensible replies on here.

Have you got a local EHCP fb group? I'm in Surrey and there's a group called EHCP experiences Surrey. Everyone on there is facing similar battles and they have the experience and knowledge to fight it and help you get what your son is entitled to. I know other areas have similar groups so if you have a local one it would be worth joining to ask for advice there.

The council hasn't offered any placement. It's offered "local outreach support". That is usually a couple of hours a week from non specialists at best. It is assuming OP will continue to provide free care, although she has no legal obligation to do so. If she bows out, it will cost the council a hell of a lot more.

Those posting the LA don’t have enough funds would be shocked at how much LAs spend each year on representation to defend indefensible cases at Tribunal against unrepresented parents when they know they are going to lose the majority of cases.

The £750k investment now will save millions in the long run
If that could be proven, then of course the council would fund.

Sadly, it's very, if not never the outcome. It's sold to the family and the council to get the funding. The reality is that if £750k could mean that no young person with MH issue ever needed any further support and could become a tax payer for 50 years afterwards, then of course the council would fund!

Everyone in England has the opportunity to access further education.

@Thatsnotmycar not at age 20-23

*Worthyornot · Today 09:49

There are many who wont be able to access further education. So this person shouldn't have any priority over them.. well not at 750k.*

Are you confused about what further education is? Because it is now a legal requirement for children to be in further education after leaving school at 16. Whether that is college, or an apprenticeship or training. The Young adult in question is entitled to this and has so far been prevented from it because of his disabilities.

What has probably happened is that the grossly overpriced private provision have, with dollar signs in their eyes, told you that they can meet his needs. Then, faced with the prospect of tribunal they have been forced to consider this seriously and realise that actually, hey can’t.

It baffles me that some parents think that local authorities are somehow invested in NOT paying out for children’s provision.

Why on earth do you think they would do this?

Do you think that council staff get to personally KEEP the money saved or something??

When councils refuse to pay, its simply because, given the provision options available, funding the expensive option isn’t justified.

The more tribunals are brought to challenge this professional opinion it leads to there being even less money available. And round we go.

If that could be proven, then of course the council would fund.

Very naive view. LAs act without the best interests of the child/young person at the fore &/or unlawfully all the time. You do realise the majority appeals are upheld?