To think this is a shocking waste of taxpayer’s money??

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v12dwddmwo.amp

Not the boy having some form of placement or help of course, but 300k for a little over 4 months! I’m sure this will be ‘controversial’ but I think we need to seriously rethink how much can be spent on just 1 person, unless (for example) they need round the clock nursing care to stay alive and specialist medical equipment of course.

This is a disgusting response.

a lot of the comments on here are diabolical.

just because someone won’t be fully independent (i’d like to know the definition of that!) doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to learn skills, be around people and be cared for. Everyone has a right to an education and everyone will different skills at different rates.

To educate and care for people with such complex needs requires expertise and money.

Alot of people on here seem to be going along the lines of a eugenics programme. The comments are awful.

Like it or not, every child has the right to an education. Sending a child home with no education isn't an option because it is against the law.

Again, residential schools are also often a very last resort. spaces are limited and it can take years and years to get a residential school placement. They are not handed out like sweets.

Would you prefer a child with incredibly high needs end up in your child's mainstream class? It would save money but somehow, I think you'd complain about that too. People can't have it both ways.

But we can’t afford it.

We cut our cloth to suit surely? We do in our personal lives.

Any other child costs about £8k per year to educate in state?

£250k is disproportionate.

No, it isn’t a solution. That is a huge simplification and misunderstanding of how disability can presents. Such placements have multiple professionals working as part of the MDT. Are you a teacher, TA/LSA, SALT, OT, EP, physio, CP, ToD, QTVI, nurse… all rolled into one? If not, why do you expect others to be? And are you prepared for the increased cost to the state when parents reach carer burnout?

Residential school/college placements are only funded where they are required. If living at home with a day placement was suitable, a residential placement wouldn’t be funded.

Just because someone will never be independent doesn’t mean such a placement isn’t required and it doesn’t mean it doesn’t save money in the longer term. For example, the right support as a CYP can be the difference between:
Needing 1:1 or 2:1 (or even 3:1 or 4:1) as an adult.
A residential placement being needed or a placement within the community.
An ordinary residential placement or a secure placement.
Someone needing prolonged hospital stays in the future or not.
24/7 care or only care for some of the time.
Contact with the justice system and not.
Being eligible for CHC funding or not.

Besides, if you limit education spending, for many you will increase social care and health care spending.

If you specifically limit independent placements, you will increase spending on EOTAS/EOTIS/C. EOTAS/EOTIS/C is the easy or cheap option.

It’s proportionate to that persons needs.

you clearly have no understanding or been around a child or adult with complex needs.

But what is the point and end game to all of this input?

Proportionate? No.

I wonder if there’s a reason we employ people to do careful risk assessments rather than getting people who live down the road to do it.

We can all agree these young people (and adults) cost a lot of money each year to house and care for - to those complaining here what would you like to see instead of the current system?

I have skin in the game as my dsd lives in a house with 2 others, dsd has 1:1 in the house and 2:1 outside of the house due to complex health and developmental needs, she’s an adult and did live with her parents until 19 but they were burnt out because respite was just 6 hours a week (their marriage had failed years earlier but too exhausted to split)

Well it seems to be keeping people in jobs doesn’t it…..

The aim is to meet CYP’s needs, which will ultimately save money in the longer term.

If it wasn’t proportionate it wouldn’t be funded.

Lets just send them all to mainstream then. That will save a lot of money (in the short term).

But no one wants that either.

If it was your child would you be concerned about what the money could be spent on instead, or would you want your child to have the best education for their needs?

You have greater confidence than I that it will save money. I don’t believe £250k per year, for however many years, is well spent.

I don’t think you have the first idea what you’re talking about. Children’s and adult SEND services have been gutted over the last couple of decades. And yet still people want to save money rather than fund appropriate care for people. Nottingham is an example of what happens when you fail to provide appropriate care, regardless of cost. And that’s hardly worked out well has it?

And your lower cost solution is..?

If she costs £250k per year to “educate”, that doesn’t sound as if she’ll ever be self-sufficient or working, so what is she being taught (non-medically) that her parents can’t teach her?

Lots of people home-educate if MN is to be believed.

Great, so you don’t mind spending more in the longer term picking up the pieces of unmet needs?

DS1 has a high cost EOTAS/EOTIS package. If you reduced the cost of that, you would increase spending elsewhere. Particularly to the NHS. For example, he would have far more hospital admissions. His continuing care package would drastically increase so the ICB’s cost would increase.

Send her back home. Home education. What is she being taught?

What unmet “needs” at school?

You really don’t understand the scope of education, do you?

I ask again, are you SALT, OT, EP, physio, CP, ToD, QTVI? All those are considered to be special educational provision. Are you also a teacher and TA/LSA?

So your assumption is that parents are all able to teach, have suitable space and resources to do so? Of course they do not.

And then they will have to give up work, rely on benefits and contribute no tax. And you think that’s cheaper?

The provision is to meet needs. If you object to spending money to meet those needs and don’t provide the provision required, those needs will be unmet.

Why do you think parents of disabled DC should be forced to EHE when other parents aren’t?

Will you be happy to have higher social care and health care costs when parents reach carer burnout?

Most people home educate because they want to. If parents don't want to home educate which is absolutely their right, the state by law has to provide an education.