To be so angry that people like this are in charge of SEND budgets

[Dalmatron]

Has anyone seen the thread on twitter/X about the Warwickshire Councillors at the scrutiny panel for SEND spending?

I am so angry!

Some quotes:
(Talking about institutions) "They had better ways of dealing with them at that time. Let's go back to those ways"
"I don't know what the fix is, I just look back at years gone by those people by whatever means, it was right at the time".
"Is it something in the water?"
"Families are swapping tips to get diagnosed"
"Why are there so many people jumping out with these needs? Where were they when I was at school?"
"Why do so many people have this badge of SEND and special needs?"
"To stop this spend fix the problem at source"
"the plea of a Mother saying Little Willy has ADHD when Little Willy is just really badly behaved & needs some form of strict correction"

How can people like this be in these positions? Why has nothing been done to remove them or apologise? I felt sick watching these clips.

Warwickshire Council thread

Anecdotally attitudes to SEN children need to change.

I remember about 7 years ago despairing that my son was being denied an education by the LA because there was no school to meet his needs. He is autistic, bright and is one of 1000s of children who fall between the gaps in education. Couldn't cope in mainstream but the SEN schools couldn't meet his needs either because he's too bright and didn't have behavioural problems.

Our local councillor for education literally said 'why should we fund education for autistic children when budgets for gifted and talented are being cut'.

Anyway years on, no school was found for my DS and he was educated other than in school eventually after a massive fight by me for some funded provision. He has reintegrated into 6th form is on track for 3 A*s at A level and will be off to UCL in September (a top 10 in the world university).

Now he is exceptionally bright, but how does it benefit society to fail children in education?

People just don't get this.

it's so shortsighted to fail sen kids.

Part of the reason for LAs defending appeals, they can’t hope to win, is LA maths - for every year you spend with a kid in tribunal, that’s a year you can put off the inevitable and avoid meeting the cost of a suitable placement…you can call me cynical…

Totally true I believe the same. They have a fundamental misunderstanding though that the kids needs remain the same whereas they deteriorate while waiting, so a kid that needed some 1-1 support in mainstream delay it for two years and you think you’ve saved but they then end up going to £100k independent specialist as by then it’s the only school that can meet needs

My cousin is in his 40s, like me. Diagnosed with ASD, ADHD and dyslexia in his late 20s. I'll tell you where he was when we were at school: in the bottom sets, dismissed as a no-hoper, a thicko and a troublemaker. He came on so much once he had proper help but imagine if he'd had that before he got expelled from two schools with no qualifications.

I'd take your time here. My DS's needs are really only evident at school, but crikey, they are so evident at school and he needs lots and lots of support - more with each year that passes. At home, we don't see the anxiety, overstimulation, sensory discomfort, social gaps that are ever-present at his (small, extremely supportive) school.

Completely @Morph22010 it is so bloody short-sighted. And incredibly sad for the children involved.

If anybody is interested BTW, here is the link to the whole meeting. I don't have time to watch it now as have both small DC home but I might try to watch it later.

https://warwickshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/831659

I thought it was interesting that Nigel Minns pointed out both that the Warnock report suggested that 20% of children are likely to need some kind of SEN support (and this was in 1978, so during the time where they apparently "didn't exist" or were magically invisible) AND that there are approx 4x as many children in Warwickshire getting SEN support from their schools without an EHCP as those getting SEN support with an EHCP.

In all of England, it's about 4% with an EHCP and 13% with SEN but no EHCP. So 17% which is not yet 20%.

It seems to me like the need is increasing because we have been chronically under-identifying and meeting the need. But far from just increasing forever and ever and ever (which is what these councillors seem to be afraid of) it probably isn't going to keep increasing much more because it sounds like we're near the point where it should be.

The other issue will probably be the massive strain schools are under in the first place with staffing crises and buildings that have been neglected for decades.

I think any man who has to bring his little willy into every discussion is best ignored.

On a serious note, as someone whose child would have been referred to this council, I am alarmed and sickened by the levels of contempt and ignorance displayed by people who should know better.

I did a post graduate qualification in the 90s and worked as an advisory teacher in primary and secondary schools. Mainly with children with specific difficulties, but also with children with ADHD and autism.

From 2002, I was in charge of a S&LT unit in a mainstream school, as well as the SEND department. We had speech therapists who were in school two days a week. We had a dedicated Ed Psych, support from lots of other outside agencies too. I had two full time teachers, with specialist qualifications, who worked on interventions with groups and individuals. I had 25 TAs, who supported in class.

Now, in that school, there’s no outside support, no therapists, no teachers and 8 TAs.

Conservative Councillor. Exactly the views you might expect.

Yes - locally waiting lists for assessment for autism for children is 2 years, for adults 3-4 years.

Covid and the lockdowns absolutely had an impact on DS - though in many ways I think it was a good thing as I suspect otherwise things would have started to go badly wrong when he went to secondary, whereas now he has support in place, a diagnosis of ASD, and is much more able to control his emotions and avoid meltdowns.

With a bit of luck he will get a place in a specialist unit for secondary or if in mainstream we at least get to negotiate reasonable adjustments in advance (I hope, though I'm not so optimistic about this given how evasive the schools in question were).

Society and school environments are now very much one size fits no one. The child who likes quiet structured predictable route learning would have coped well in the past and gone on to something like accountant, book keeper, network engineer without needing a diagnosis to cope.

Now many of these careers need more networking so are less accessible to someone who would have been considered "antisocial" but accepted for their technical skills 30 years ago.

Now schools at primary level are more free flow, child led leaning based and more of a problem for the quiet child who wanted to be told what to do, how and when. Better for others but worse for that type of child.

I also think that lifestyles are less mentally and physically healthy now - more sedentary (movement is so key for mental health), less chance for controlled risk taking, learning to lose and win gracefully, cope with failure etc. plus screens, instant endorphin fixes etc. harder for addictive personalities to avoid gaming.

Possibly add in impacts of older parents plus children surviving where they wouldn't have before.

Something needs to be done, children are having more and more diagnoses requiring specialist intervention - why? It's a fair question.

The total education budget is finite, an individual my require a certain level of support but across the population that can have a knock on effect meaning less support in mainstream education pushing even more into sen provision.

When my dd was at primary (she's autistic) there were 7 children with statements, out of 320 pupils, compared to now and there's 7 in dn's class! Why are out kids having more problems. I don't have the reason, just questions and this predated Covid. I've heard permissive parenting has contributed, but not sure if that's the full explanation

Absolutely sure unless the council are lying about it. It’s on the information pages about the budget cuts that are coming. I can post a screenshot but don’t necessarily want to as will out my location. No wonder they are in trouble.

In the meeting they said the figures estimated 20% of children have SEND in 1980 and that the figure in Warwickshire is 17% - that's not a rise?

Why does it feel like a rise? Maybe because the children who would have been denied an education in the past are now in schools and that SEND school places have reduced and so more children are in mainstream. In Warwickshire all of the SEND nurseries were closed so these children are all in mainstream. That might seem to people like there is sudden increase of disabled children, when really it's just that your seeing them for the first time.

I agree with others who have pointed out that disabled children are also surviving where they wouldn't have in the past. And ofc we have more understanding about neurodiversities and better testing to pick up genetic conditions.

So from the evidence I can see there's no rapid increase in children with SEND but there has been a massive cut to LA budgets with a decade of austerity. Ignoring the facts let's politicians blame kids and families. If they could find the money for dodgy covid contracts they can fund SEND.

But if the issues were in large due to prematurity this would’ve been identified as a major factor as it’s very obvious and easy to document.

I acknowledge part of the problem is due to the closure of special schools but I don’t think it accounts for all of it, or even most of it. Consider that in the past many many many more children were born with conditions that are now ‘screened out’ - Downs Syndrome, Spina Bifida, brain conditions. So on paper, we should have a smaller proportion of children with disabilities but that isn’t what is happening.

As PP said, while special schools would’ve been primarily for children with the aforementioned conditions and physical disabilities (including schools for children with haemophilia), they are now mostly populated by children with ASD, ADHD or very usually both. And in many cases they’re simply not children who would’ve flown under the radar years ago - they’re non verbal with a low level of understanding.

I think we need to acknowledge there has been a true rise in ASD/ADHD as well as better diagnostics and contributing factors like prematurity. Virtually every professional who has worked with disabled children for 20+ years will tell you this. My gran was a childcare professional who knew literally thousands of families, in and out of their homes, from the 60s through to the 80s. She never met a child who couldn’t speak at 5 unless there was a clear reason such as cerebral palsy or Down’s. It was quite unheard of for children to simply not develop language without an obvious disability that came before that. Yet now it seems frighteningly common.

The problem is people seem to think believing there has been a true rise is synonymous with saying it’s ‘just naughty children being medicalised’, when it really isn’t. I think there has been something causing delays and subsequent diagnoses in children although I have no idea what the cause is and wouldn’t like to guess.

If we don’t face the truth and find the root of the issue then we’re simply condemning children to needless struggle because we find the conversation uncomfortable.

As a PP said: "It’s an adversarial process that takes time, energy and knowledge lots of parents don’t have."

It's only this hard because there's no money in the system. If there were special school placements available, well-staffed resource bases and SEN hubs in mainstream primaries and secondary schools, and if waiting lists for assessments did not notch up to literally years, the process of seeking support for one's SEN child would be much more efficient.

When I started teaching close to 30 years ago, primary school classrooms were like another country compared to today's learning environments. Much more creative and child-led and much better supported in terms of available adults. The pace was relaxed and there was time to be much more reflective of practice and make time for SEN provision.

I'm pretty sure that my DC1 who is currently unable to attend their mainstream setting due to unmet SEN, despite an EHCP, would have felt much more comfortable and safe in a 1990s classroom.

But for now, we're fighting every day. And the adversaries are the frontline professionals who gatekeep provision with one hand and punish the consequences of their withholding of services with the other. Thousands of families are fined for their children's inability to attend unsuitable provision, kiss much loved careers goodbye in order to non-electively home educate as there are no other safe options, receive criminal records if unable to pay fines which can run into thousands, and even go to prison.

Who actually benefits from this?

This is from the executive summary attached to the webcast I shared above.

The total number of children and young people with SEND in Warwickshire’s state-funded schools is 15,575 (11,943 at SEN Support, 3,632 with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)). This is 17.4% of the school population. The total number of children and young people within Warwickshire with an EHCP from birth to 25 is 5,898 (as at Jan 2024). This represents an increase of 37% over the last five years.

So it's EHCPs which have increased by 37% - meaning they would have been at approx 4300 in 2019.

This would seem like a positive thing to me, since there are way more pupils with SEN than pupils with SEN + EHCP. I would have thought that it's positive for all pupils with SEN to have an EHCP. Given the relative numbers of SEN and only a proportion of them having EHCP, it doesn't really make sense that the councillor is suggesting an increase in EHCPs represents an increase in the amount of SEN diagnoses.

However they do seem upset about the cost specifically.

I suppose then I'd want to ask is this even a relevant comparison to be making? Do more EHCPs = more spending, is it a direct relationship like that?

Anyway the next paragraph in the executive summary has some more numbers. Bolding is mine.

There has been increasing pressure on the High Needs Block driven by increasing numbers of children with EHC plans, higher costs per child across all settings, and increased numbers of children in specialist provision. At the end of October 2023, the forecast expenditure of High Needs Block funding (excluding place funding that goes directly to schools) was £95.3m. This is an £17.5m overspend against the allocated budget. As a result, the cumulative overspend at the end of 2023/24 is forecast at £32.5m.

I don't know what the High Needs Block is and this document doesn't really explain. I have to say that when I was listening earlier, it sounded like he was saying the overspend in the academic year 22/23 was £17.5m and the forecasted overspend by 23/24 will be £32.5m, which sounded like the overspend would double, not that he was adding the two years together. It was a bit misleading perhaps intended to show this idea that "it's not a bottomless pit".

Anyway I bolded because they claim that the increased spending is due to more EHCPs, but it's also increased due to higher costs which affect all children whether they have SEN or not, so don't single out SEN as though they are too expensive please. Or it's to do with specialised places (which I don't know figures, but I'm guessing this will be much more expensive than an EHCP, particularly residential places which I know are extremely expensive.)

If a child needs a residential school placement due to their SEN I think anybody would be hard pressed to argue that child does not need a diagnosis or support, even if you wanted to make that argument for some of the children who have an SEN diagnosis. It is also, weirdly, an institution - which he seems to think is the solution to all the budgeting problems (which makes no sense at all.)

Lastly with the 37% over 5 years - those 5 years go right back to pre-covid which surely has an effect here, and I'm out of date but when did it change from Statement to EHCP? Is it possible that some children under the old system were still being counted as not having EHCPs and they have now aged out of the school system, or was every child with a Statement moved over to EHCP when that came in?

This has some info about pupil demographic numbers too - they are saying that the primary school population peaked in 2019 and is now in decline due to demographic decline in this age group, whereas secondary school population is due to peak this year and will likely then stay stable for a few years before declining. Which surely suggests that over the last five years, the secondary school population (which will represent more of the EHCP numbers given that an ECHP is supposed to stay with you until the end of education) has been rising.

All those people saying “these children weren’t around when I was at school” - think of the kids at school who were labelled ‘stupid’, ‘naughty’, ‘weird’. Think of the classmates you had who had a sibling who mysteriously didn’t go to school, or didn’t live at home. SEN children have always been there. Their needs were just being ignored.

I agree that the comments quoted in the OP are disgusting, but I don't agree that the increase in SEND is purely down to better recognition/diagnosis. I've been a teacher for nearly 30 years and no, I am quite sure the proportion of students with SEND now do not match with the very small number of 'stupid' 'naughty' or 'weird' (not my words) students early in my career who I now suspect were undiagnosed.

And, basic maths too - overspending doesn't necessarily mean MORE spending.

Overspending could mean less budget but the same spending.

(I think in this case there is more spending because it referenced costs increasing across the board for all pupils. But just to nitpick.)

But if they truly did not exist then why did the Warnock report in 1978 recommend that 20% of pupils are likely to need SEN support? 20% in a class of 30 is 6. And that's a bit fudged, because the 1994 class of 30 would already have not included the children who had the most severe needs. (I don't know what proportion of the 20% they make up).

I wish this were true but it’s not. The additional children we’re seeing coming through the system are non verbal with significant behaviours. They wouldn’t have been sitting in a class at the back.
i work in send and my county is constantly having to open more asd classes for children with more significant needs. The places are going up but not as fast as the number of kids needing them.