Reform councils to cut SEN spending

[LookingForRecommendation]

.. according to the Lib Dem’s. Can they even do this? My DC isn’t SEN but her class has 5 TAs mainly as 121s and I dread what would happen if their funding is removed. Our council isn’t Reform led but they’re pretty neck on neck in no overall control.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/apr/24/ed-miliband-energy-pricing-keir-starmer-nigel-farage-latest-live-uk-politics-news

Not to mention what DLA covers.

For my son it is extra therapy, incontinence pads, adapted shoes so he can wear his braces and on and on.

Where would the money then come from to cover those expenses?

@OneDeepReader you have changed your tune. Earlier in the thread you were advocating for parents to pay someone to be with their DC instead of attending school. Ignoring the fact many families couldn’t afford to do that.

A child on high rate care is in school (assuming full time - as of course many are not) for 14.5% of the time they are cared for. This works out at £16 in DLA.

Then you need to deduct all the extra costs of disability that are still incurred in school time eg incontinence pads bought by the parent, multiple sets of uniform bought by the parent, time attending meetings that parents of children without disabilities don't have to attend, all the times they are sent home with 'd and v' because of one soft movement, etc

I don't think that leaves much that can be reasonably expected to be handed over.

Keep in mind as well that not every child has a EHCP due to autism. My child has one due to a complication from an illness leaving him physically disabled.

He has missed a lot of school because he spent 10 months in hospital so needs academic help in that regard but he has no behavioural issues and is academically capable.

I am glad you have recognised that because for someone who doesn’t like others online judging you and making assumptions, you have done a good job of making assumptions and judging others on this thread.

All this is the LibFems trying to scare reform voters

They already do bring this argument into healthcare.
Some medicines literally do not get prescribed because they are prohibitively expensive: they work, but it is deemed that the benefit derived from using them isn't enough to outweigh their cost.

I'm not saying disabled children don't have a right to an education but if it was going to cost 500,000 per year would that be reasonable? Why is 100k reasonable if 500k is not? Where do you draw the line?

It cannot only be about the benefit to the child, sadly. Society is based on shared costs for mutual benefit.

Nobody ever wants to think about this stuff because yes it involves some really tough decisions but maybe we just cannot afford to give every disabled child their optimum education, just like the 8k spent on all the other state educated children does not deliver anything like an optimum education for many of them.

I can say with a high degree of confidence that if a child is requiring a 100k a year placement (or more!) Then the mutual benefit will be there. These super expensive placements are nearly always children who can not be placed anywhere else and will likely end up in/out the CJS for their entire lives unless they get the support they need.

But we’re not talking about £500k and actually the NHS funds hoards of things that are way more than EHCP packages. So again, why is that ok?

cannot afford to give every disabled child their optimum education

Children and young people with EHCPs are not entitled to an optimum education or the best education. Case law is very clear on that. They are, however, entitled to what is reasonably required.

Arguments around funding medication, QALYs etc. are far more complex than the argument about not funding education for disabled children if it costs above X amount. I have DC on a medication which was originally not prescribed because of the cost and really the arguments are not the same. And campaigning (often long, drawn out campaigns that are heart breaking for families and result in patients dying while waiting) can result in agreements being made.

@OneDeepReader yes, I judge people people who are happy to discriminate against other individuals. If you don’t like that, don’t judge others in the first place.

If you don’t like being called out on discrimination, you shouldn’t post ignorant nonsense on threads.

I was not inferring that Sen children don’t deserve support

That is exactly what you were suggesting when you posted parents should pay for someone to sit with their DC rather than them attending school.

It might also help to know LAs don’t go bankrupt in the same way as a member of the general public does. They can’t be declared bankrupt like the general public can be. Rather than bankruptcy, it is a section 114 notice. Filing a section 114 doesn’t remove statutory duties.

No-one is forcing you to post.

I'm not going to give you a hard time @OneDeepReader thank you for acknowledging things.

I do agree it is bankrupting LAs.

We are starting to see a shift locally towards specialist settings opening stand alone classes within mainstream buildings. If this is done well and funded properly it would actually be a cheaper solution. So say 8 children with a teacher and 2 TAs with a self contained classroom, playspace and toilets is much more affordable.

A huge part of the problem is everything was shut down in the name of inclusion and budget cuts. Then because these children still exist and can't just be forced to cope or thrive ina class of 30, it became a lucrative industry for independent settings. Theres only a handful of LA run settings here and twice as many independents.

Now we have the go ahead to move my daughter to a specialist, the only one that looks able to meet her needs is an independent specialist. There should be a LA run option but there isn't.

@OneDeepReader calling my DC (or anyone for that matter) a ‘retard’ is fucking disgusting. What despicable behaviour.