The Mail has a piece by Dr Max Pemberton about the deeply uncomfortable truth concerning special educational needs children in the UK:
A significant chunk of the money that should be spent on educating all children is being hoovered up by the special educational needs system, and it is increasingly being gamed by sharp-elbowed middle-class parents.
A report published last week by the think-tank Policy Exchange lays bare what many working in children’s services have suspected for some time. SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) spending has risen in real terms by 58.5% in the last six years, with a greater rise – 65% – in wealthier local authorities compared to poorer areas, where it increased by 51%.
Seven of the 10 councils that saw the biggest rises were in the most affluent areas, such as Hampshire, Kent and Surrey.
Since 2015, half of all new school funding has been spent on SEND. Let that sink in. Half.
Nearly one in five children in England are now classed as having a SEND need, and the number of EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) has more than doubled since 2015.
You can find Policy Exchange’s report here.
As Pemberton explains:
There are children with profound and serious special educational needs who desperately need support. Children with severe autism, significant learning disabilities, complex physical needs.
These children and their families deserve every penny of funding and then some. The system exists for them but it is failing them. And that is the problem.
The problem, he says, are certain parents who are incapable of or unwilling to accept that their offspring might not be geniuses:
Some middle-class parents simply cannot accept that their child might not be that bright, or that sociable, or that talented. When two successful, high achieving parents produce a distinctly average child, the idea that their charge is just, well, ordinary is intolerable. There must be something wrong.
There must be a reason he or she is not top of the class. And so begins the frantic quest for a diagnosis, a label, something that explains why their offspring isn’t the genius they expected.
Policy Exchange’s Report (p. 8) states:
Despite clear evidence linking SEND needs to deprivation, spending has risen fastest in the most affluent 50% of local authorities. Over the six-year period average SEND spending increased in real terms by 65% in the 50% most affluent local authorities in England, whilst rising by 51% in the 50% most deprived council areas – a difference of 14 percentage points. 70% of the councils that saw the highest increases in SEND spending were in the 50% most affluent local authority areas. This inequitable growth, despite clear links between deprivation and SEND need, highlights how factors beyond natural increase are driving spending growth in the SEND system. Previous research by the Sutton Trust has found that middle class families were more likely to appeal to the SEND Tribunal to secure an EHCP and more likely to secure a special school place for their child.
Pemberton explains, and as usual you only need to follow the money:
It couldn’t possibly just be that not every child is exceptional. Far easier to get an ADHD diagnosis than to accept that your child finds maths hard because maths is hard.
What makes this worse is a growing trend of parents bypassing the usual assessment routes altogether by going private. NHS waiting lists for autism and ADHD assessments can stretch to years.
A BBC Panorama investigation in 2023 exposed how some private clinics were diagnosing ADHD after rushed online consultations. One senior NHS psychiatrist told the programme that almost everyone who paid for a private assessment was being diagnosed.
There is, of course, a clear financial incentive for private clinics to do this: parents are paying customers, and a diagnosis is what they are paying for. No diagnosis, no repeat business.
Local authorities are legally obliged to consider privately obtained reports, and many parents know this.
So they hire SEND consultants and commission independent educational psychologist reports at over a £1,000 a time, and if the council says no, they appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
It requires money, confidence and time – the kind of resources that affluent, entitled families have and that families in deprived communities do not.
This site has already carried pieces about this scandal by Mary Gilleece, for example on how SEND spending should be cut.
The Policy Exchange Report concludes:
The Government’s upcoming reforms must grapple with the funding challenges in the system. With the Government committing to assume responsibilities for SEND funding – and the deficits councils have accrued – from the end of 2028, placing the SEND system on a secure financial footing will be essential for public finances. The system cannot offer fairness to schools, families and young people with SEND if financial sustainability – and the reassurance that support can be sustained for as long as it is needed – cannot be restored as part of future reform.
The Mail’s piece is worth reading in full.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply