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

I edited that for that purpose...i didn't mean it to be taken that way. Re-reading made me see what you've pointed out.

What I meant was that I use that phrase a lot to point parents to services and towards help that they didn't know was out there. Or to a dept of the LA they need to access. Or the next thing they need to do to support their child. Every parent I've used it with has appeared to have been grateful for the information I've shared with them, as they didn't know about it.

Seriously? The majority of send funding is denied at first. Then the majority is accepted after tribunals. It takes years, that's why they do it! In the meantime the child gets worse and is uneducated. If your child had no education would you be fine with it as long as you could waste years of your life going to tribunals?

Why do you think that isn't what happens? The system doesn't aim to put all children through university; it does however, rightly, aim to provide the best possible outcomes for that child. The Code of Practice fully recognises that, for some children, the best possible outcome may well be an apprenticeship leading to a steady career rather than becoming a captain of industry. For some, it may simply be something that leads to the greatest possible degree of independence which limits their reliance on carers. Applied properly, funding proper resources for SEN is an excellent investment.

Exactly.

The divorce rate for parents of disabled children is 87%. . 87%!

Unless people walk in their shoes they will never understand how incredibly stressful and exhausting it is.

You’ve made an inaccurate assumption there.

We should not be spending £100k per year on any one single child's education it’s a ludicrous amount of money and someone will be getting very rich off the taxpayer

"Critical thinking is fine, however those saying provision is too high, costs need to be cut somewhere often have no experience of parenting a child with complex needs."

Of course parents should fight for whatever they can get for their kids.

The country already makes decisions on rationing/ medical care based on cost benefits cutting pensions provision both in public and private sectors and ultimately will need to do the same for Sen needs. The country is getting poorer as it is and the demographics means the costs are going up and the working population going down.

If a school costing £200k was named over a £30k one, the LA’s case didn’t prove one of the legal exceptions for refusing to name the parent’s preferred placement. If it had, the parents’ appeals would not have been upheld. If SENDIST had erred, the LA would have been quick to challenge the decision.

SEP isn’t included in F if it isn’t legally reasonably required, either. It isn’t based on what other pupils require, written to fit a particular school, given just because parents want it, or because it is the best provision (there’s no legal entitlement to the best possible education/outcomes).

I have 3 DC with EHCPs. 1 in mainstream. 2 with very expensive EOTAS/EOTIS packages. I'm sure some think they cost too much (my LA certainly do. They tell me all the time!). I’m sure some think it is overprovision. It isn't. SENDIST agreed. The professionals wouldn't have risked their good reputation with SENDIST by writing a medico-legal standard report that they could not justify. If my LA thought SENDIST had erred in law, they would have challenged the Orders. They didn’t because they although they didn’t agree with them, they know they were legally sound.

Yes I can see what you mean, sometimes you just don’t know what’s out there.

So your child has SEN and you are happy for them to be written off?

I don’t know many SEN parents who feel that way.

Exactly! My DDs go to a school where every student has 1:1 support at all times and they are taught individually with bespoke timetables. So if student A is comfortable learning in a bean bag chair with music on, and student B needs a formal chair with complete silence, and student C feels more comfortable doing their lessons in the car park, and student D prefers to learn off-site, and student E needs staff to visit them at home, and student F needs staff to sit on the driveway (my DD3 for a long time!), they can do it.

Yes, it's expensive, but it's made education possible.

Do you think all policy makers should be driven by emotional trauma?

No… do you?

What a horrible, patronising post. If you don't think parents of SEN children know all about their childbearing responsibilities, you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land.

The point is that most parents rely on the fact that their children are in school when making work arrangements. If they can't rely on them, obviously they know only too well that it means they won't be able to work. But do you think it is in any way sensible for society to have a lot of individual parents forced out of the workforce to look after children who should be in school, meaning that not only are those parent not paying tax but they are dependent on benefits as well?

The SEN system is really challenging, even for other professionals with some experience of it, I have been fighting to get a child I work with into a school for nearly a year now, it's not really within my job remit but it's just so ridiculous that she doesn't have a placement that I had to try to help.
There must be ways of making the system more accessible without spending more money.

About 25% for us where both parents work.

My SEN school is low on those who are medically vulnerable though. Plus some of those parents have set up their own businesses so they can manage their working hours around their child's needs.

Unless much more money is raised from taxes we can’t afford to give every child the best start and opportunities

if we can’t afford that then choices become very limited and it will tend to prioritise those with the greatest capacity to help the country in the future

not saying their might not be improvements possible as the sure start program does seem to have been value for money

but you can see how in the past disabled children and adults were locked away with minimal opportunity and life. Inclusion costs and someone needs to pay for it

No, I’d hope policy makers were informed by professionals who know what they’re talking about. But if policy makers are going to talk about trauma informed practice, or therapeutic support in education or raising attainment its fair to expect that to mean something beyond words.

Read what minnienono · Today 08:41 she describes it perfectly.

Not every child can benefit from an educational setting, using the toilet and buttering bread are skills more valuable that don’t need or cannot be properly supported in a school setting.

It’s not about writing anyone off, it’s about recognising limitations and capabilities of each child. Those most profoundly disabled who can’t write their name, wear nappies 24/7 will come and go to school without having absorbed any knowledge inbetween. Then at 22 they are spat out the education and if you’re lucky, they’ll get some LA supported day centre. If not, the parent will have to provide 24/7 care without the support of school - which was essentially respite for them.

Quite.

Reminds me a lot of the issue of ‘parent experts.’

I will also preface this by saying I believe parents are experts in their own children.

But (with obvious exception), parents are not experts in education/psychology/medicine/speech and language etc etc.

Im astonished at the number of parents ts who simply ‘disagree’ with what the experts say. As in, no, your child is not autistic, and then writing to the paediatrician arguing the toss and saying ‘with respect, yes he is.’

Thats not respect, that’s a total disregard for professional opinion and actually making themselves look foolish when they are asked for their reasons and don’t have any valid reasons that haven’t been taken into account already.

They disagree because the reality doesn’t align with their expectation, and this is a whole new generation of parents now who are experienced in getting what they want.

The economics are what they are, and the country needs to decide where to direct limited funds available to improve the life chances of all children, including educating and training the next generation of tax payers into the best skilled workforce, funding the NHS, fixing the roads and so on.

As the OP rightly says, a bottomless pit will never be available, even if you tax and tax, the public will not necessary agree that this is the best use of their additional spend.

I don't understand your reply. I was replying to the OP implying it is wrong that decisions get overturned at tribunal and I don't see why there should be criticism of a parent putting their case and winning. Of course it is wrong that it has got that far but good that the parents get the education their child needs even if the OP thinks they shouldn't be able to get the original decision overturned.

I'll leave you to it as I can't be bothered with your aggression.

Please tell me you don't believe that the only benefit of physio is being able to walk.

If we have a school system whereby an increasing number of children are needing extra support then surely that should actually be indicative of changes being needed to the system overall?

what we have now isn’t working. Most schools are trying their best to meet needs but it isn’t possible with the system as it is. We need to stop trying to make children fit the system and change the system!

They should be driven to do what they can to stop children and parents from suffering repeated emotional trauma. Surely everyone agrees with that