To ask you to explain SEND funding and bankrupt councils to me?

[Myanna]

I've read a few articles like this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/05/send-costs-bankrupt-english-local-authorities

But I don't understand why the cost of funding SEND is so high that it's going to potentially/actually make most councils insolvent.

It's not like provision is generous or easy to get, from what I've read (I don't have a child who is supported).

Were these kids previously just not supported in any way by the state and was it left to families to cope as best they could?
Are these kids who previously wouldn't have survived, but now do because of better medical care and therefore need a lot of help?
Is this private equity running enterprises and charging huge amounts to local authorities?
Is it just inflation and the cost of employing people?

I really don't know much about this at all but I'm sure many on here do, so I'd really welcome your knowledge.

I work in SEND for a LA.

So the big current issue is the designated grant that is used to pay for SEND funding. This has been overridden by central government and kept of LAs books for several years but this becomes permanent in 2028. There is at least a year gap where the designated grant comes back under LA books. If the gap is not stopped then many LAs will be declaring notices of bankruptcy. It is hundreds of millions of pounds. This is a major issue.

I know. That's why I said it's children with an ECHP.

You literally cannot say if it would be cheaper without knowing the details of their current provision, how much you would pay the parent, what their responsibilities might be i.e. driving their child around and how much additional provision they might need.

I am thinking of a specific child in my life that I'm very close to and I know that paying a parent to care for this child would undoubtedly be cheaper than their current placement even if you factor in some specialist provision/groups. You would save £20k on taxis alone not transporting him to the provider.

Yes, shit is about to well and truly hit the fan. The only option they have is to reduce their legal obligations. The public just can’t stomach any more tax rises. That is all.

My DD also goes to a specialist placement. It is 100k a year and £90 a day taxi. There were no other options for her. I live and work opposite sides of the issue.

I guess the level of enforcement depends on the funding available and what alternative provision is provided. If you literally can't fund SEN education as we know it anymore because councils are bankrupt, the government doesn't want to allocate enough money and the public doesn't have the appetite to pay anymore taxes then what happens? Ultimately you are more invested in your child than wider society is. We all should be wary of relying on the state to care for us or our vulnerable relatives indefinitely.

It reminds me a bit of people's general attitude to national debt and spending where it's assumed that you can just rise taxes as much as you fancy and keep amassing debt. Ultimately the bond market won't stand for huge amount of spending and we are completely beholden to them as a country. No party or politician can override this. We also can't just raise taxes and get more money. The Laffer Curve is relevant and the impact it has on the wider economy and tax receipts. Finally amassing more and more debt is a one way route to an IMF bailout which will see provision cut so drastically that particularly the vulnerable will be left in desperate situations. We need to get a grip now to prevent this at all costs.

I was told of a person who had twins. Them accessing education would cost the LA £1m a year. She has I believe gone to tribunal (more costs heaped on the LA) what to do though?

Wouldn't it be kinder and fairer to everyone if we had sensible discussions about this as a society and has more clear and sustainable rules around what is and isn't possible? We are sleepwalking into financial catastrophe as entitlement ramps up and our ability to fund any of this stuff comes under more and more pressure. It isn't kind to pretend that all needs can be met and that every disabled person can access the education they want and in many ways deserve. Sustaining the lie is cruel.

Absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go when it comes to vulnerable people they see as fair game/lazy scroungers. 6 hours of respite a day, why can't they spend that time driving miles and miles to the nearest suitable school. Child can't keep up with the curriculum, no point in them having an education.

I'd imagine if the government applied the same logic to their situations they would be horrified. Who needs sleep? Make the standard working day 10 hours longer to increase productivity. Child performed badly at sats? Remove them from education at 12.

Could the money just be written off by the government to fudge the issue?

Unless you home educate or send your child to private school, doesn't everyone rely on the state to educate their child?

That's all I want. But if his EHCP is taken away, he won't be able to access mainstream education any more and it will absolutely cost more money to educate him with what the law currently says about children and full time state education.

Even if you paid parents nothing for facilitating the provision, it wouldn’t be cheaper. Even if you aren’t looking at how EOTAS/EOTIS works now, there is evidence it wouldn’t be cheaper by looking at why PBs for EHE are very rare and getting rarer.

Transport costs for those educated otherwise than in school can be even higher than for schooled DC.

Not to mention the wider costs to the state. For example, a higher rate of carer burnout, more seeking children’s services support, more seeking children’s continuing care funding.

If you want to reduce EHCP spending and the 5% with EHCPs don’t have SEN at “the lower end of the scale”, why do you think withdrawl of support for those at “the lower end of the scale” is going to reduce EHCP spending?

"I wasn't suggesting an EOTAS etc in its current form though. It was a different concept where the parents would care for the child and educate them at home and be paid for this."

So you would pay parents for there time. Teacher rates for parents that are qualified teachers. Pay for all the specialist equipment etc?

You write as though SEN children are some binary and homogenous group of children.

No, you write as though SEN support is binary.

Is mainstream school totally accessible to even the majority of people? I would argue it isn't.

Are you even hearing yourself? Of course mainstream is accessible to the majority. Even many with diagnosed conditions can access mainstream school with little to no support, but there's a huge group of children for which all they can do is simply turn up, but can't access an education because they do not have the right support. What little support is already offered shouldn't be removed for these children and their outcomes worsened.

I think we have to accept to some extent that barriers will exist for lots of children in the educational system and that's the price we pay for universal provision.

I think it's naive to assume that we have universal provision already. We don't. In some cases it's for the better and necessary because not all children access education in the same way and in other cases it is for the worse with schools saying they can't meet need and children ending up without a placement at all for years.

1. No, I'm not talking about SEN provision as if it's binary.
2. I wrote that mainstream education isn't totally accessible to the majority. I disagree with you for the reasons I outlined in my post then it simply isn't designed for different NDs, ND traits or chronic health condition etc. Even if you think of how many children claim they 'can't do maths'. 40% lack confidence or feel anxiety about maths. It's super common but this indicates an accessibility issue. The fact that a third of people sitting GCSEs fail indicates an accessibility problem, especially as there is a strong correlation between socio-economic factors and attainment. Accessibility isn't all about disability.
3. There is a universal entitlement to a state funded education in this country. Whether the provision meets the needs of all children is a different case (see point 2).

Why would you pay parents teacher rates? I have never suggested that. Not all children with expensive placements need a lot of specialist equipment. A lot of families have a lot of specialist equipment at home.

I accept that the model wouldn't work for everyone but there is a family I know we'll where it would. The money would enable a parent to stay at home and educate/care for the child. To dismiss it out of hand just seems a wasted opportunity

Again, no. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about EOTAS. They absolutely can be cheaper than placement in a specialist independent school.

https://www.empoweringsendfamilies.co.uk/post/is-eotas-eotis-eotic-the-ultimate-package-that-i-read-about-on-social-media

Also for the millonth time, transporting your own child to places won't be more expensive than taxis/minibuses.

Done correctly, EOTAS/EOTIS/C absolutely isn’t the cheap option. Done properly it can be every bit as expensive of independent SS. And more. I know because this is what I do day in, day out. I have 2 DSs will EOTAS/EOTIS packages and have supported numerous families to secure the same. This is why LAs don’t like proper EOTAS/EOTIS packages.

If you actually bothered to read the link you posted, you would see that where it is ‘cheap’, it is because the LA is not providing a proper EOTAS/EOTIS package. They are providing a little bit of AP and calling it EOTAS/EOTIS/C. Fobbing parents off. EOTAS/EOTIS is far more than that.

Transporting individual DC can be more expensive because not all school transport is individual transport. Some are buses/minibuses or taxis transporting more than one DC. And many DC travel further for settings providing education otherwise than at/in school than they would if they attended school - in part because they also have journey during the day, not just to and from school at the beginning/end of the day.

The fact that a third of people sitting GCSEs fail indicates an accessibility problem

You clearly don’t understand how GCSE grading works. It is designed so that some ‘fail’. What you are calling a fail isn’t actually a fail. Grades 1-3 are still passes, level 1 passes.

Besides that link is not totally accurate. For example, there are more than two ways EOTAS/EOTIS packages can be funded e.g. a third party (so not the LA commissioning directly and not parents being paid the PB via DPs) can be given the funds to manage.

We are finding at work that tribunal won't sign off on poor EOTAS packages anymore. Which is good for the child but a lot more expensive than LAs managed to wangle.

One of the arguments that got my DD's 100k ISS place agreed was that a package for her education through AP and tutorijg was being quoted at 180k+transport

Would the family that you know want a parent to stay at home and educate them over the current placement the child has? Or do you just mean work well financially?

in her case it sounds more like wants than their needs.

Parents don’t get provision just because they want it. It has to be reasonably required to meet needs.

Yes I know this but it does sound like she is being entitled in this case. They could go to an FE college which would be suffice

If a FE college would suffice, the LA wouldn’t need to spend £1m to educate DTs.

I’m honestly not so sure.