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.

People on benefits in the UK do pay taxes, particularly VAT. VAT is included in the price of most goods and services, so anyone who buys VAT-rated items pays it regardless of whether their income comes from wages or benefits.

People on benefits may also pay other taxes such as council tax (often reduced but not always eliminated) and excise duties on fuel, alcohol, and tobacco.

Although some benefits are not taxed as income, indirect taxes mean that people receiving benefits still contribute to the tax system, and lower-income households often end up paying a higher proportion of their income in VAT than wealthier households.

I don’t claim any benefits.

If you divide the sen education funding between the total number of tax payers you get something the £290 a year per tax payer. For context you get to around 4.5k per tax payer for pensions (not complaining, I want a pension).

I cannot name a single family locally that doesn't have a least 1 child with a diagnosis. Including my own. It's insane.

I think this is where we differ. I don’t see the universal provision for 3&4y/o’s as childcare. I believe it is early years education. Therefore all should be entitled and the DC shouldn’t be punished for their parents choices.

Your proposal would mean some children with SEN would miss out on earlier identification and early intervention. It may well increase costs in the longer term.

I am an EP. My time is charged out at 800 a day. I don't earn that. My company has to pay office space, admin, taxes etc. EP pay scales have dropped a lot in real terms as we had almost 10 years of pay freeze in austerity. Top of standard pay scale is 63k.

And people not on benefits pay all of that PLUS PAYE. Even the low paid.

That is insane, because that’s not the percentage of SENd diagnosis that exists.

My mum has 6 grandchildren, one with needs. I know personally (outside of school etc) one other family with disabled children - they have two.

I agree - it’s early years education. We’ve already had posters saying parents of children with SEND should give up work and keep their children at home. We’ve had compulsory primary education in England for 155 years, through two World Wars, and suddenly we can’t afford it for certain children. It makes no sense.

My 8 year old son pays VAT. I don't think many people would deem him to be a taxpayer.

Let’s hope you never get ill and can keep looking down on others from your high horse.

Yep.

I worked full time until I was let go for having a disabled child. I'd love to work but no one wants to hire someone who would have to leave regularly for therapy, hospital appointments, school meetings etc.

When there are welfare cuts the NHS will be reduced, we will all suffer.

Not sure why you think SEN will be exempt?

We are very (very) fortunate to have employers that are flexible to the various reasons we would need to log off or come home.

The idea that working would be possible if that wasn’t the case, is frankly insane, and could only be the opinion of someone who’s never had a diary full of meetings for their child.

It’s not about giving anyone a kicking. It’s recognising that there is a finite amount of funds and the situation is becoming untenable.

You could have one parent working? With the advancement of AI, I can see families returning to one SAHP.

But nowhere near enough to cover the cost of their child’s attendance at school.

I would encourage you to try getting up at 2am and going to bed at 10pm, for the next few months, then tell me how inclined you are to work. I would say try it for the next few years, but that feels unfair.

Lots of SENd families do have one SAHP, it’s usually an exhausted mother.

"It’s not about giving anyone a kicking. It’s recognising that there is a finite amount of funds and the situation is becoming untenable."

And your solution was that disabled children should be at home with their parent(s)full time with no education.

Well exactly my son is 16 in a few months ,I still have to put him on and off school transport everyday
I need to be around when school call me if hes ill ( which isn't that often ( )
This,week i have three appointments for him during the daytime
He's not a typical teenager who can trundle off to school and back by himself and let himself in the house etc
Its like looking after a large pre schooler.

Well, no child whose parents claim benefits should go to school then. I’m sure that won’t cause any societal problems.

A “solution” that would lead to an illiterate and economically dependent adult population.

There are many children on £1 million + per annum packages, it’s just not sustainable long term.

There are no nice and easy options left. Anyone pretending otherwise is either deluded or deliberately misleading SEN parents. There is no easy way to raise lots more money to fund all the SEN service people want now. Demand is set to increase further and the funding available is likely to come under more and more pressure.

In this context then parents need to be realistic about what can be offered. I mentioned the cancer patients being refused treatment on cost grounds upthread. This is the reality of what limited funding does. Nobody hates cancer patients or wants to give them a kicking. It's just what happens when there isn't enough money to go around and we need to allocate resources in a way that meets a lot of people's needs. Some needs inevitably aren't met.

Parents may find that they do need to carry more responsibility for their disabled children. It's crap and shouldn't be this way but it has been this way for millennia and there has only been an extremely short time period where parents have been able to rely on the state in the way they currently do now. The system though simply wasn't envisaged with this level of demand. It can't cope. Something has to give.

Referring to disabled children's education as 'babysitting' is hard to be taken as anything other than a kicking.

Then what’s your solution? Tax people
more? That will also result in higher rate tax payers leaving the country.