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.

That would be joined up thinking though. Too hard. They're all too busy profiteering. I'm in Kent and Reform are currently following the Tory trend of selling off large buildings to London Boroughs to home families on benefits. Again. Gentrifying London and profiteering from the poor hasn't stopped on Reform's watch.

Because many of these young people can't sit on a bus with other children or because a bus would mean that the first children on the bus would potentially have a bus ride of over an hour to collect the others.

Many but not all.
I also think they need to cap what is paid to taxi drivers - they can't be allowed keep charging these amounts just because these kids have an SEN tag. Imagine if disabled cabs cost x5 as much just because they have space for a wheelchair?

I have points to add to this really interesting and challenging discussion.

1. when I was a baby teacher, in 2006/7, my local authority offered all the NQTs employed in the county that year special training on behaviour and other things. They were held in a large building the council owned, and were really useful for us to meet other new teachers in different schools around the county, as well as the tools and techniques we learned.
2. this county also had at the time literacy co-ordinators who visited the schools with literacy programmes that they developed and the county funded- this was a valuable extra to the work done by teachers inside schools. They also employed attendance support workers who met with kids in and out of school to try and remove barriers to them attending school (some of our kids were carers for their parents, for example).

All of this stuff went when all the schools became academies. The LA lost the funding for education because it went directly to schools, but it meant that no school could afford to pay for roles like those, because they were all doing it individually. There was no saving for sharing across the whole county. So it stopped. In my school, attendance plummeted.

Sure start centres also closed at the same time so that source of early help was also removed (mine had offered functional skills, Young And Pregnant support, loads of things).

There was a long running study done in Chicago which started in the 60s and which shows the value of early-years education over the course of a lifetime. Children who had the preschool access consistently had more success in education, work, relationships and happiness, so they were net contributors economically and also brought up children of their own with better resources and resilience, so passing it through the generations.

Politicians don’t like this sort of thing though because they have very short-termist outlooks on spending. It’s a real shame.

But the cost often cover provision of an escort, an allowance for damage to the cab, which includes the time off the road. I'm not saying savings can't be made but often this really is not like transporting a youngster in a wheelchair. There are youngsters who will attack drivers and escorts, spits, smear, rip upholstery etc. We've had to pay for modifications to taxis as well.

And this is another scandal and a situation I could never understand…

These state secure homes accommodate children who are secured on “welfare” grounds after being at significant risk of exploitation/having been exploited/risk to themselves or others alongside children who are accommodated there on criminal justice grounds such as those on remand for serious crimes such as attempted murder or exploiting other children. So two ends of the vulnerability scale accommodated together!!

All children in secure homes are only there by way of a court order which has a very high threshold.

It cost too much because of Conservative government cuts to LA’s.

The black hole and catch 22 is yet to be fixed. Increasing taxes to cover the inherited shortfall is not popular either.

LA’s are going bankrupt as they try and meet increased demand and limited council, provision.

I'd love to know which MP’s have invested in private SEND provision. I remember Michael Fallon ((Con.MP) with his chain of private nurseries, at a time when these were making loads via the tax payer and parents.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/nov/14/special-educational-needs-services-schools-england-collapse

No, they kept very separate, only a few of the homes take offenders And in the home that I worked in they were extremely conscious of ensuring the children that they accepted would be safe around those already living in the home, even though they have often had minimal contact with each other

I'm going to get ripped to shreds here but please can we keep it civil and try and have an informed civil debate.

When I was looking after elderly relatives there came a point in their lives where the quality was very poor, often physically and mentally. At the same time the costs to care of them became astronomical. For family members trying to do it the cost to their own health was huge and did not seem right (younger person losing time and health to prolong life of sick person often with dementia).

I did often think I could see a very logical reason for assisted dying. Kinder for everyone all round and obviously a huge financial saving so the money could be put to more productive things - more police, more education, better healthcare for the general population etc.

A huge amount of money was spent on my relatives having carers come into their house 4 times a day who quite frankly did next to nothing and seemed only a step up from a waste of time. There was the odd good one but most couldn't care less and it was obvious. Meanwhile the council was paying huge amounts of money for them from a private care agency. This is where all the council tax goes by the way (ok not all but a huge proportion)

Eventually said relative went into nursing home and disrupted all the other residents, cost a fortune, poo'd and pee'd herself, couldn't eat much, couldn't sleep at night, used to get hugely distressed etc

Now I get that no-one wants to be the one to say 'for the love of god just put us all out of our misery' and obviously we would need to insure that the decision had been well thought out and was 'for the best' and not just say greedy relatives wanting to bump them off to get their hands on their money early.

Okay so now onto the point. I read time and time again on mumsnet about these children who are unwell to staggering amounts. Unable to speak or ever look after themselves, getting sent in taxis to special placements that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Violent, smearing shit everywhere and all kinds of stuff. Attacking their siblings, mum having nervous breakdown and no life of her own.

To me the child must be in a huge amount of mental distress or physical distress/pain and of course the huge cost whilst all our other services fall apart.

At what point do we say it would be better for them (and yes others too and financially too) to 'put them out of their misery'

I often think when I hear of people jumping in front of trains, hanging themselves, jumping off bridges that there should also be an assisted dying option here. By all means give the person antidepressants first and then hopefully therapy (from all the savings above) but at the end of the day if they still want to die why make them go through such a horrible end. Why not give them somewhere they can go which is warm and peaceful with caring nurses where they get injected and go to sleep.

I just think that keeping people alive no matter what the mental, physical and financial cost is a little bit nuts.

I get this is a morality issue as well and I hope we can have an informed debate about this without people getting accused of being a monster/Hilter etc

Does anyone else agree with any of this?

And the politicised academy system (Conservative remit to remove democratic control of education and severely diminish the role of LA’s) has impacted the provision of schools for pupils with SEND.

Under the academy programme, LA’s can no longer open any new schools. They can plan for them but require the DfE to find academy trusts to open and run them.
We have three schools planned locally, but either no trust interested or the process with the DfE just takes so long. From conception, we are seven years along for one school and still not open.

I think we definitely need to look at how we treat or don't treat some newborns in the same way we need to look at end of life care.

Yes I agree.

@DontDieInTheFrostPlease It sounds like you are in a lot of pain from something.

No I don't think "putting children out of their misery" is a viable way forward. I do think there is a fine line that needs to be re-examined about removing kids from situations at home that can exacerbate emotional behaviours that result in dismay and distrust of adults and authority.

We have now changed the law so parents with PR aren't automatically assumed to have the best interests of their child in mind, which I know caused a huge amount of damage. I hope that this begins to filter through.

No wonder we’re broke

Maybe we just need to reconsider who has kids .

Try telling every man over 35 his sperm is deteriorating and he might contribute to the rocketing SEN costs in the country by waiting until he is 40+ to jack in all the womanising and have a family.

It would be interesting...

No I'm not in a lot of pain right now but have had pain at various points in my life.

I'm not talking about children who have bad parents where their homelife will give them mental problems. These children have nothing wrong with them except they are not being raised properly (and that is certainly an issue to be looked at seperately - people who have kids that really shouldn't)

What I am talking about is where this child is ill and despite having parents who are running themselves ragged and costing a huge amount of money. There must be a level of illness where putting them to sleep is kinder than keeping them alive and suffering. The child is suffering, the parents have a terrible quality of life, the cost to the state is huge.

I do understand that there can be a cross over ie child gets brought up by mentally ill parents and has poor mental and physical health as a result.

I suppose it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Where the damage is so huge that the cost to maintain only generates a tiny bit of quality of life then surely a peaceful end is kinder.

Where a moderate amount of money/help could result in the person being a fully functioning member of society and living a quality life then yes we should on balance do it.

That we had state owned and run facilities, not private equity companies running childrens homes for large profits with very high profit margins. Or at least more regulations about the margin thst is reasonable.

I agree with this though what goverment would actually have the balls to do it.

I mean I had two mentally ill parents. Not their fault, they both had bad childhoods. They went on to produce a larger than number of children - the father didn't actually want all of them and the mother wanted to have lots of children so they would look after her.

Clearly it would have been better for all concerned to give treatment to the parents and probably stop them breeding.

Instead all their children have mental health issues to varying degrees and in some cases physical illness caused by huge amounts of stress/abuse.

I often wonder why so many children nowadays seem to have 'sen' or autism etc. I do wonder if it's because older mothers and fathers are having kids later in life etc because something has to be causing it. Or are rates the same as before and it is just diagnosed more.

By the way I'm not suggesting all kids with sen or autism should be put down before anyone jumps on this.

I read time and time again on mumsnet about these children who are unwell to staggering amounts. Unable to speak or ever look after themselves, getting sent in taxis to special placements that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Violent, smearing shit everywhere and all kinds of stuff. Attacking their siblings, mum having nervous breakdown and no life of her own.

Thats another thing where has this even come from?! I hate sounding like some kind of pearl clutching Karen, but I don’t remember a single case of this nonverbal autism when I was a kid. Now I know 3 or 4 in real life, loads more on here. Of course we had Down syndrome and things like that but this seems rampant all of a sudden. Is it just me?!

It's because councils don't have in house provision so placements are provided by profit making companies.
For example there are children in my area who attend a specialist independent school 30 miles away because there is no state school for children with autism.

It's funny you should say that but when I look back over all my past serious relationships they either didn't have kids because they died young (one died at 50 from cancer). The others all had one kid each all in their forties. Often the 2nd half of their forties with the mother being early forties.

I do wonder how it will turn out. Certainly some of them wanted kids younger and it didn't work out for them. Others were too busy with their careers and didn't want to lose their freedom.

It's definitely time private SEN schools were banned from making a profit. I've recently dealt with a case where an independent SEN school for complex autism charging £110k p/a for day placements refused to take an 8 year old because he had high profile behavioral needs and they 'couldn't' provide 1:1 support. Where is the money going then?

Kids with Downs were routinely sent away, families would pretend they didn't exist. My mum used to work in a specialist home as a matron/nurse to 5 at a time who were getting help back into the community. Being hidden away is something that was meant to be improved as the stigma left, but I don't know if this has ever really happened. I actually feel there are less Downs kids about but to be honest I probably saw more than most because of my mum's job growing up. I don't know if jobs like my mum's old job still exist. I was a bit young to know her title.

"I hate sounding like some kind of pearl clutching Karen, but I don’t remember a single case of this nonverbal autism when I was a kid"

Unless there was someone in your family, the sibling of a close friend or a neighbour, you wouldn't have known.