Whatever it is, for the government’s plans for the education of children with special needs, they cannot cope in the same, catastrophic manner as the reforms of personal independence payments (PIP). As stated with great force during the low commemoration of the first year in the post of Labor, the lessons should be learned.
The Secretary of Education, Bridget Philipson, is a leading minister in the preparation of White Book schools in October, which will include proposals for changes to the special needs framework. It has already sparked some concern by refusing to exclude the change in the system of plans for education, health and care (EHCP), and the rights and backup groups in her party are mobilized in response.
Honestly, D -Ja Philipson and her colleagues have talked about changes to EHCP in the past. However, the recent reform of Bill’s well -being to exacerbate anxiety and has intensified the confidence of the poor people of labor that they could oppose the party leadership and block the reform. The manifestation of the general election of labor was also inclined to do this.
An element of fear, if not paranoia, entered the debate and task of G -ja Philipson was much more difficult because of the mistakes made by her colleagues -Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, Liz Kendall as secretary of work and pensions, and the Prime Minister, Sir Kir Starmer.
D -Ja Philipson is one of the greater stars in the employment company, but it will have happiness if it comes out of this process with an improved EHCP regime or its reputation. Trust is eroded.
For each government of any party, reforming special educational needs and disabilities (sending) for children and young people represents specific challenges and rightly. They are among the most vulnerable of humans and cannot be subject to discriminatory treatment, both by law and morality. As a society, it has an obligation to provide children and young people with physical and teaching disabilities and to offer them the best beginning in life, maximum maximum their independence and life chances.
Their parents need and deserve support and any failure to do so is unconscious. Unlike PIP reforms, there should be no feeling that the reform is solely or even mainly led by the Ministry of Finance and the need for savings, although there is no avoidance of financial realities. As D -Ja Reeves and D -Ja Kendall have found for their own expenses, there are red lines that this generation of Labor MPs will not go solely in the name of fiscal rules.
Therefore, Da, Philipson, must win the arguments – and, as far as possible, carry all those affected by it while it reshapes the regime and improves it. Therefore, different groups representing the sending of children and parents must be closely involved at every stage of policy development.
This is something that she is well -placed now, given the recent events. In any case, due to the incident of PIP rights, it has no alternative. The parliamentary Labor Party, reinforced as it is now, will insist that it be consulted. When it comes time to publish white paper, there should be no nasty surprises. If so, it will be as doomed as the Welfare Reform Bill.
Second, this process cannot be hasty or perceived as hasty. The October Deadline for the White Book of Schools is reasonable, but it should not have an advantage over good policy. If the Send sections are not ready to publish, then they must be postponed. In fact, there is a strong case to provide a policy for sending a policy and its own White Paper, given the sensitivity and complexity. Again, the lesson of recent events is that a late policy is preferable to bad politics.
There is also a real need for a better understanding – entirely separate from the costs – about the merits of special schools or the inclusion of children in the common school system, which, of course, will vary depending on individual cases. It is also wrong, as it seems now that variations in providing different local authorities can be so great – a lottery with a zip code.
Third, there must be some knowledge of the financial trends: why they happen and how they will develop. Not everyone is well understood even by experts. Many more children receive legal rights according to their hard-earned EHCP, but the reasons for a sharp increase of about 70 percent in less than a decade are less transparent. Next year, the estimated annual expenses for support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities should reach £ 12 billion.
The finance system must also be changed. Currently, the costs of legal sending obligations are being implemented by school guides and local authorities in the first instance, and they tend to extract other important, albeit less vital priorities. This will put local councils in a large cumulative deficit of 8 billion British pounds by 2027, according to the Institute for Fiscal Research. In other words, more tips will break up, which does not help anyone. It would be far more satisfying if there was a national system for funding on the basis of consistent criteria.
Finally, again, to take advantage of an important submission system and EHCP should be based on inter-party consensus. This, of course, is unlikely, but for obvious reasons it would help children and parents, as well as schools and local authorities to plan forward and avoid stigma if those with special needs are “arms” for a political advantage. This may be beyond the abilities of G -ja Philipson, but she must certainly know that she and her government cannot afford another such debate.
This time, unlike G -Ja Kendall, she can remind Sir Cayre and D -Ja Reeves of certain political realities.