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.

Or to grow the size of the economy.

Let me think, what can do that?

Oh yes: education.

In another post, I said cuts across the board, no service or recipient would be exempt.

"Potentially, but in many cases the overall cost to the state will be less than the cost of expensive placements. "
The expensive placements exist largely because of a high ratio of support by trained staff is required, sometimes 3 or 4:1. You can't reduce the staffing because it is unsafe for the young person and remaining staff.

EHCPs are not "through the roof". They are up from 3% to 5%. 95% of schoolchildren do not have them.

You’re probably not aware of how stretched and “cut” those services already are.

Autistic people are reported to offend at lower or comparable rates to non-autistic people. However, autism is overrepresented within male prisons due to a number of suggested reasons including an increased chance of being caught and a lack of autistic sensitive interventions which lead to longer stays in prison. The prison-reported prevalence of female autism is currently 4.78%.

It is part of a wider narrative of blame, divisiveness and creating a "them and us" culture, of making people out to be "The Other" not one of us. Disabled children and people are being systematically targeted as scapegoats for budget mis-managment, both by local and national government.
Why is SEND specifically identified as the cause of potential bankruptcy for Councils? What about the other non-statutory services, the "vanity" projects that Councils spend money on? Failed IT Systems, for example, then there is the cost of Local Government Reorganisation, foisted on them by the Government.

That shows that the money tree is already struggling to cope.

What would you suggest? Every other councilil service and welfare claimant to be hugely cut but SEN to remain? Now that would be unfair and entitled.

This is correct, but public perception is that they are “through the roof” - I don’t think people realise that they and their children are as vulnerable as anyone else to a road traffic accident, brain injury/tumour, uncontrolled epilepsy, etc. We are all at risk of becoming disabled.

I agree. There does seem to be a prevailing belief that every single penny that could be spent on SEN, should be spent on SEN, and if it’s spent on anything else it’s somehow proof we have more money to spend on SEN.

You’re not going to like this.

As a Higher Rate tax payer, I think we should pay more of it, and a certain amount ringfenced for services that provide for any vulnerable person. Whether that’s the disabled, elderly, abuse survivors. Take more and put it into where the highest need is.

We evidently more “in,” and some of us can (or should) be able to afford to pay more in.

I would cut unemployment benefit for people who can work, and are choosing not to, and I wouldn’t allow anyone who is staying at home by choice access to EYFS childcare.

I don't think this is surprising. You clearly have a vested interest in SEN. You can see firsthand the impact of cuts and you obviously want to prioritise it.

You don't realise lots of high tax payers literally can't afford to pay more into the system. Some are disabled themselves or have disabled children. Some are young people that don't own a house or any real assets, already get taxed and additional 9% to cover their student loads and can't get started in life because you are taxing them into oblivion. Other higher rate tax payers are parents trying to raise a family in expensive areas and paying childcare.

Cutting unemployment benefits could mean children lose out of their parents don't work. This could mean they don't have their basic needs met. Do they not count as vulnerable people? What if you're unemployed but you're an abuse survivor or a care leaver or someone with mental health issues? The world isn't black and white.

I wouldn’t allow anyone who is staying at home by choice access to EYFS childcare.

Do you only mean funded EYFS childcare?
Are you including the 15hrs all 3 and 4 y/o’s (in England. I know rules differ in other nations) get in that? Because those choosing to stay at home don’t receive more than that or funded childcare when their DC are younger.

Do you know every LA employee who works in SEND? How do you know they are not trying to whistleblow or change things from the inside?

I have a friend who posted on here last year. They were trying to share from the SEND LA employee side. They have autism and physical disability and a major fight to access education after been failed as a foster kid. They worked hard to lead by example and trying to change the system from the inside, facing barrier after barrier not wanting a life on benefits.

The response from the MN SEN parents was to bully and belittle them. Saying they were the problem and why not quit if they care that much. It broke them and they actually had thoughts of SH and suicide at one point. Is still struggling at times at continuing working in SEND/Public Sector. Could go work for a private with the skills/education they have. Yet believes in giving back to society where possible.

What the MN bullies did not know was they were battling with their senior management to have any RA in the work place. They are planning on exposure, It is now going to an ET as a way of exposing and whistleblowing. It cannot be made public until they are in a new job and safety passed probation.

There are those in SEND for the right reasons trying to change and challenge from the inside. There are those who manipulate the system including parents who can buy private reports from unscrupulous Advocates, OT’s, EP, SaLT, Social Workers they are in the minority yet are the ones contributing to the financial crisis.

Like teachers/TA and other school staff the LA employees are drowning and burnt out from the abuse. SLT and Management hiding away and throwing the front line workers to the wolves. The decent ones are trying to hang on, yet finding it is not worth the stress for the abuse so leave. Meaning the LA get agency workers who do care they leave in a few months onto the next job.

Education curriculum needs an overhaul, a return to a balance between academic/vocational aspirations being equal.

Independent schools need a fee cap. A lot of the independents are being difficult about what pupils to accept. While charging £60,000 +

AP’s selling the product to parents and CYP with extras that are not education and not offered in schools to entice them in. The YP then leaves without any qualifications to sign on at 25 with no real job prospects.

Taxi firms the same the same making vast amounts from the public purse.

This is not a situation where money can just be thrown at it. It needs systemic change from the top down. Consistency blaming those on the front line is not helpful.

We all have different opinions. I am not against SEN but realise the funding is not sustainable.

If you are a higher rate tax payer you could make much higher voluntary contributions? Infact why don't all the parents make contributions?

All parents make contributions through taxes.

I’m referring specifically to state funded EYFS provision.

My brothers partner has never worked, but uses 15hrs free childcare for her youngest. She’s at home, by choice, why would that be paid for by the tax payer.

There should be, as a minimum, the expectation that if your child is in nursery for 15hrs - you’re working them.

These threads never seem to focus on the many, many people who could be contributing more by not choosing to either work part time or not at all, for absolutely no good reason, and instead focus on those who are a cost through no fault of their own.

Meanwhile, if a parent suggests a part time timetable for their child or that they need time off because of burnout, then schools often refuse. Which is madness really!

My child cannot cope in some lessons. The one where she feels like attention is on her. I've already given up work to try and give her the best chance at an education as I know she burns out. It would make sense perhaps, that I am permitted to keep her home during those lessons and educate her myself. I know of other parents who are denied part time timetables which they feel their child needs. They have been denied it. All of this would take pressure off the school.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with your comment. I don't. Off roling is illegal and every child deserves an education. But there's this funny paradox where by some kids with SEN could cope better if there wasn't such high pressure on attendance.

Funding independent reports does not make parents unscrupulous. It is essential for many because most LA reports are inadequate. For those who need to appeal and can’t afford them, there are ways they can seek funding - e.g. if eligible for legal aid that can fund reports and if not there are charities who can help.

AP’s selling the product to parents and CYP with extras that are not education and not offered in schools to entice them in.

This shows you don’t understand SEN or SEN law. If it wasn’t education, it wouldn’t be in F. It isn’t about extras.

If it is the thread I think it was about SEN caseworkers being trusted, your ‘friend’ wasn’t bullied.

The universal 15hrs for 3&4y/o’s is more for the child’s benefit, which is why it is universal. It is about early years education. Communication, socialisation, motor skills, life skills, preparation for school, early intervention. Rather than traditional childcare.

Everyone on here says being with parent best at that age though?

Not the ones already on welfare.

No, they don’t. Not everyone says the 15hrs (not more, the universal element for 3&4y/o’s is only 15hrs) for 3 and 4 years olds isn’t in the child’s best interest.

Some people think full-time childcare &/or childcare from a younger age isn’t in DCs best interests, but that isn’t what I was talking about.

I actually think that being in nursery is the best place for the child, in terms of development and socialisation. I’m a former teacher, I absolutely believe that education at all levels is important.

But - it cuts both ways. If someone is choosing to stay at home because they’re a SAHP who believes their child is best with their mum, or they’re unemployed by choice with no real reason - don’t make me pay for your childcare.

You can’t have it both ways. If you want to stay at home, look after your children, otherwise - get a job.

A lot of SENd parents are on “welfare” because it’s not possible to meet theirs and their child’s needs and work.

There are appointments to attend, forms to fill in, sleep to catch up on before said child comes home from school, etc etc.