SEN funding isn't a bottomless money pit

[Sogfree]

I'll preface this by saying I really enjoy my job working in a SEN school. I care deeply for the children and families I work with.

I've had 4 different conversations this week with parents where they expect an excessive amount of additional resource to be allocated to their child. They expect this as, in their opinion, it's needed. I disagree with 3 of the 4 parents that this is needed.

All 4 of the parents are going to fight the decisions county have made. Their decision to fight will mean county spend more money arguing the challenge.

Services are already broken with the increase in need. Recruitment fails, as there aren't enough speech therapists/OTs/CAMHS practitioners etc to employ.

One parent demanding extra from one of these services means another child gets less.

One parent demanding a child goes to school X at £100k per year when a place at school Y at £30k is going to meet their needs means the child who needs the place at school X doesn't get it, and extra £70k per year is wasted. And the parent keeps their child out of school for 12-18 months whilst they fight for the place at school X.

That's the reality.

Every parent wants the world for their child. I understand that. But taxpayers can't afford to give every child the world.

AIBU - parents know their child best and we should fund what the parents say the child needs

YANBU - there's only so much money to go around and parents need to accept hard decisions have to be made without challenging them

It's easy to take pot shots at parents who are trying to do their best for their children. I'm one of them, with two children with EHCPs. Neither go to the very expensive private special schools but one is at a school so far away that the LA pays over £30k pa just on his transport.

I had to take the same LA to tribunal to simply allow my son to sit five GCSEs - they were prepared to fight me all the way to a hearing to deny my son this basic level of education, including instructing a barrister to defend their indefensible position.

This is the reality of being a special needs parent - we are not getting anywhere near the best for our children, only the basics, and too often we have to fight for them. My son was being written off at 14. If I hadn't pursued the tribunal hearing he would not be now sitting his GCSEs, with excellent predicted grades, a place to do A Levels and plans to go to university.

Instead of criticising parents like me, direct the criticism at a system where profit making companies have stepped into the space that should be occupied by the state. There used to be many many more state run special schools. These were closed down, and in their place the private sector has moved in, charging vast sums to LAs and making fortunes for their owners, including middle eastern royal families.

schoolsweek.co.uk/how-investors-are-making-millions-from-the-bankrupt-send-system/

Parents don't want a £100k pa special school for the sake of it, but when that is the only way a child's basic needs can be met, because there is no state alternative, of course they will fight for it.

I'm on a Facebook group for parents who have children out of school with a budget for education.
These parents encourage each other to push for sailing lessons,horse riding lessons, driving lessons.
They push for new computers,gym membership..it's sickening
And it all gets agreed
This is an expensive area to live so these parents use solicitors to get what they need.
The council LEA don't have a policy in place for what is to be agreed with the budget..or indeed any limits on the budget..it is a free for all ,with the parents pushing for more constantly

There is a weird propaganda-like turn I’ve noticed in the last few months that paints SN children and their parents in a very bad light, and it doesn’t match up to the reality you know and understand well when you are a SN parent.

We get that schools are underfunded, we get that things have changed in the last few years (some of us were lucky enough to experience SN parenting a couple of decades ago when school's approach tended to be more flexible and worked better not only for SN children, but for all children, and we’ve seen the changes over the years).

What with the increase in gaslighting these parents, berating parents for wanting better for our children (because SEN provision is fairly shit and very hard to get right now), proposed government policies that would make things far worse, it really feels like it’s convenient to scapegoat SN and those pesky parents, but it’s disappointing because going down this route isn’t going to improve things for non-SN children, it just narrowing the accepted standards of who deserves an education. It’s a slippery slope, because if the SN lot aren’t there to demonise who will be next? I’m reminded of that poem:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Any one of us (including our children) is one accident or illness away from being disabled at any time. How would you like to be treated? How would you like your child to be treated? Because right now you and your child would just join the ranks of being inconvenient and not productive enough, or even a scrounger. The way society is right now is actively disabling people. Instead of picking off the most vulnerable how about we try to make society better for everyone?

It’s not a question of how these children should be treated

its a question of how do you raise the money to be able to do so

man’s if you don’t want to raise taxes , you take the money off someone else - who?

winging without solutions isn’t very helpful

This is also true. My second son is thriving in a small independent school which is mainstream but child centred. The LA agreed to it without much of a fight because our local comprehensive was not able to make some simple adjustments which could have enabled my son to attend there. There is actually not that much difference in cost between the two schools.

I don't for a second think that parents are doing anything other than wanting the best for their kids.
However, the idea that tribunal outcomes prove inadequacy by LAs is wrong.
Firstly, tribunals make orders without any concern about the costs. LAs do not have that luxury. They are not trying to 'save money', they are trying to stretch what little there is between too many kids. I don't think there is a single LA in the country whose SEND budget isn't in serious deficit.
I have also seen tribunal decisions which are utterly bloody outlandish
They are in the public domain though, so like anyone else working for an LA couldn't share details as it is likely that it could identify the child or young person.

The system is not fit for purpose. There are many aspects of SEND legislation/regs/stat guidance that was written to provide for the most complex of complex cases. Parents of children with moderate needs are taking cases to tribunal and using this legislation (in some cases, obviously not all) to obtain huge amounts of expensive and personalised provision for children with moderate needs.
This has created a complex web of case law that has created a level of expectation.

All the whole more and more kids are moving to expensive independent placements and the mainstream schools, who need to be overhauled, are being let off the hook.

This is why the law needs revisiting. It does not allow a great enough ability to discern different levels of need.

I completely understand why as a parent, you are not going to worry about the infrastructure, your concerns are about your child and rightly so.

However the government does need to concern itself with the infrastructure.

sailing lessons,horse riding lessons, driving lessons…computers,gym membership..

None of which would be funded if it wasn’t reasonably required.

Not sure if you mean personal budget or direct payments (which is one way a Pb can be funded), but either way it is limited by the SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F. And how the monies can be spent is determined by the PB/DP agreement.

If SENDIST had erred in law, LAs would be quick to challenge the decision. This rarely happens because LAs know that while they disagree with the decision, it is rarely an unlawful decision.

Absolutely
But funded by their parents,not the council

I don't understand how it's a free for all.

In that the ehcp is supposed to have a need, an outcome and a provision and so there should be mechanisms to ensure it is appropriate.. if the LA thinks they can achieve whatever outcome is supposed to be supported cheaper than a riding lesson, they need to get on and provide it!

I live in an expensive area and am on a number of Facebook SEN Facebook groups. I see parents describing PTSD style symptoms because of their experiences with local authorities, not hearing back from their caseworker for months, having their child out of education for 18 months plus and then once provision has been agreed, it being suddenly halted because the council haven't paid the invoice.

No one has mentioned sailing etc. Where do you live?

@Rainbowpony6 that isn’t how SEP works.

It's not a free for all.

This kind of thing is why has destroyed the system.
Nobody needs a state education system to pay for these things (with the exception of a computer which is clearly a legitimate learning tool)
That isn't to say that a child won't benefit from them, but that is different from a basic level of need.

Lots of us pay for things our children will demonstrably benefit from- brownies, scouts, activities, dance class, holidays etc but they are not basic needs that should be publicly funded.

Unfortunately this is a prime example of the things SOME parents will use legislation designed for incredibly complex learners (the type of learner whose needs are so complex they will never be able to go sailing or learn to drive in a million years) to rinse the system.

Around this a profitable and unregulated industry has built up for advocates to chase these things through tribunal. (Again, some advocates are amazing, but it is completely unregulated and some are absolute cowboys).

This is one of the things that has contributed to the system being overwhelmed and a reason why a new and much tighter system needs to be introduced. A significant level of responsibility and equivalent support needs to be put back on mainstream settings and away from the high needs budget.

That is the current system. And I guarantee it will be changed imminently.

using alternative provision so that a child is actually able to engage is not rinsing the system.

I'm in enough groups myself,and help out in SEN ,to know some parents are absolutely pushing for all they can get ,using solicitors to push through things like climbing lessons,that they can afford themselves.
It gives other parents,the ones who don't push for everything and just want their child to have an education ..a bad name
It absolutely isn't a endless pot of money.

I work for an LA
Most parents aren't asking for these things.
Most parents are trying to navigate the fact that the mainstream school is being crap so their child can't cope, and this wasn't the case they wouldn't need a special school,.and the LA is trying to manage this with the resources they have.
However there are a significant minority of parents who demand the extreme and will push it through tribunal using legislation written for incredibly disabled and complex learners. I haven't seen sailing lessons but have seen scuba diving, drumming, private mainstream schools fees ( it would blow your mind how many parents have wangled a place at a fancy private school with fees paid by the LA) and endless equation requests (loaning a horse, stabling a horse, riding lessons, kit etc).
I'm not saying children don't benefit from these things but they are not a basic educational need.

That is not what I said.
The focus still needs to be on improving mainstream school so alternative provider is relied on less heavily.
In most cases it is used by schools who just want kids out the way, usually those with challenging behaviour.

Nobody needs

Then you don’t understand EHCPs, EOTAS/EOTIS (with or without the C on the end) or some DC’s SEN.

If DC didn’t need it, it wouldn’t be in F.

For example horse riding, gym membership, sailing can help with emotional regulation, it can support mental health difficulties, it can work on motor skills, it can act as physical activity/exercise/physio, it can be about DC accessing the community and engaging with others, for some it can be part of leading to work experience… Driving lessons can be part of PfA and independent travel training, and also about accessing the community/supported work experience - some SS fund driving lessons, why should DC whose needs are complex enough that educating them in a school/college is inappropriate be disadvantaged.

Absolutely it can and does do all those things
But it is the parents responsibility to pay for them
Not the LEA

@Rainbowpony6 thankfully, the law disagrees with you.

Well said.

I didn't say they aren't beneficial. I said that they aren't basic educational needs that the state needs to pay for. All children and YP with or without SEN will be more independent if they learn to drive.

If young people have mobility difficulties they are already able to get a rate that allows them to pay for driving lessons and they can use their higher rate PIP to obtain a mobility car.

At the moment the law does allow people to push these sorts of things through tribunal and the legal points you make are not incorrect. (The ethical question of using them to obtain sailing lessons and driving lessons is pretty questionable though).

It will be a moot point soon as I think the current government realise this system has got to be overhauled.

While DC aren’t entitled to the best possible provision and no-one gets provision just because they want it, they are entitled to what is reasonably required, and case law determines that is considered to be more than just what is adequate.