Pathways to Work is a central plank of the government's Welfare Reform Bill. The idea is that Incapacity Benefit claimants (i.e. people too ill or disabled to work) are forced to attend a number of "work focussed interviews" or lose a good chunk of their benefits, with the anticipated result that a good percentage of them will be able to work after all. The govt. commissioned research into how effective the Pathways pilot has been, which is viewable here http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/rrep398.pdf

Some representative samples from the research report are

Other people who had not been thinking about working talked of how their views had been reinforced by their contact with Jobcentre Plus. They felt more confident in saying that they were not fit for work after speaking to an adviser. The personal adviser had agreed that it was unlikely that they could return to their previous earning capacity or that they could work again. Poor health remained the most significant barrier to work.

There was little evidence of increased interest in or movement towards work among people whose compliance was driven by fear of losing benefits

There was little evidence of the use and helpfulness of action plans. What evidence there is supports earlier findings that action plans had little relevance or meaning for people

The important influences on moving towards work were seen to be, in retrospect, people’s own determination and wanting to work, the support and help of families and for one person, inadequacy of incapacity benefits income and wanting no contact with Jobcentre Plus.

The govt. say they want to invest public money in making Pathways a compulsory national scheme. Apparently, the fact that is a waste of time is seen as irrelevant.

Pathways to Work goes 'live' in Sheffield on 29th January and it will affect benefit claimants whether they like it or not!

Only new claimants will be 'forced' to attend workshops etc, although previous claimants will be strongly encouraged to take advantage of resources available if they want to get back to work.

The scheme is about getting those 'I've got a bad back, honest' types off Incapacity Benefit, whilst giving those who are genuinely sick the support and guidance they need should they want to return to work. Once the people who shouldn't be on IB are taken off it, the theory is that there will be more money available to offer appropriate support to individuals who would like to work but find that a JobCentre/GP advisor saying, 'Oh, you'll never work again' is the only 'help' they're currently getting.

Pathways is aiming to offer a more 'holistic' approach to getting back into work, with input from Occupational Therapists, workshops on confidence-building and supported job applications etc.

Many people on long-term Incapacity Benefit feel disempowered by the current thinking that if they return to work they will be worse off financially, lack the skills/qualifications/experience to get back to work or are simply terrified at the prospect after having been out of the jobs market for lengthy periods.

I don't work for the JobCentre, or indeed any government-lead organisation. My job involves supporting people with enduring mental health problems back into employment and my employer is a not-for-profit organisation. So many of us take for granted the associated mental, physical, financial and emotional benefits that gainful employment can offer. Any scheme that opens up these benefits to the marginalised and largely ignored sectors of the community has my full support.

Of course, there are bound to be teething problems and it may be found that the scheme hasn't worked as well as anticipated. A great deal of it's success will be determined by how the scheme is delivered in Sheffield also. I agree that the last thing needed is a lacklustre, cynical attempt to get people into work they don't want/can't do - this filters down from the top and the creeping despondency affects everyone. Clearly, it may be tricky to evaluate the delivery of the scheme - most of it would be unquantifiable and I doubt many workers who'll be implenting the new guidelines would admit to not giving a stuff! Still, it's worth seeing what difference it can make before we dismiss it out of hand.

The "honest, I've got a bad back" people account for only 0.5% of claimants, according to the DWP, so it would be a monumental waste of money and effort to develop and implement this whole programme just for them.

The point is, they have trialled Pathways fairly extensively, and the research that has been done doesn't find any particular usefulness in it. At what point do you say "this doesn't work, so we won't waste money on it"? Several years down the line, apparently.

Nobody's saying that we shouldn't give people support, just that it shouldn't be down the barrel of a gun with the threat of a benefit cut. The researchers found that people involved in the pilot did return to work, just that it had nothing to do with Pathways. They came to the obvious (although not to the government) conclusion that people don't want to live on £74 a week, and will start trying to get work once their health allows. Trying to get them back into work before that happens just doesn't work, and the report bears this out.

This scheme is already running in Derbyshire. I went through it and came out worse for trying. It has set my depressive illness back some years as they have confirmed I really am ill and the therapy they are offering will not work because my problems are too deep seated. Thanks a bundle.

Ugh, I've been on these types of courses before and believe me they're a COLOSSAL waste of mine and everybody else's time IMHO!

No good ever comes of 'em, and their only purpose is to placate the Daily Mail readers into thinking the long term unemployed are actually doing something about their situation! :rant:

No good ever comes of 'em, and their only purpose is to placate the Daily Mail readers into thinking the long term unemployed are actually doing something about their situation! :rant:

I think you've hit the nail on the head Rich. If it's an exercise in changing people's perception of the long term disabled and their willingness to work then it could be considered money well spent.

ive been on a 'gateway to work' scheme, back in 2001, as a way to get on a new deal course.

was a waste of time. and the fella who sat next to me for most of the two weeks was a bit of a mess too.

Ugh, I've been on these types of courses before and believe me they're a COLOSSAL waste of mine and everybody else's time IMHO!

No good ever comes of 'em, and their only purpose is to placate the Daily Mail readers into thinking the long term unemployed are actually doing something about their situation! :rant:
If you're capable of sitting in front of your PC at home and typing messages onto the forum you're capable of doing some work - you merely have to be realistic in your expectations and accept that if you don't have much to offer an employer, you won't be paid much.

I have come across plenty of people who claim incapacity benefit, and three quarters of them are professional scroungers. They are mostly perfectly capable of sweeping a floor, stacking shelves, or filing invoices, but too lazy to work while the taxpayer feeds, clothes and entertains them.

If you're capable of sitting in front of your PC at home and typing messages onto the forum you're capable of doing some work - you merely have to be realistic in your expectations and accept that if you don't have much to offer an employer, you won't be paid much.

I have come across plenty of people who claim incapacity benefit, and three quarters of them are professional scroungers. They are mostly perfectly capable of sweeping a floor, stacking shelves, or filing invoices, but too lazy to work while the taxpayer feeds, clothes and entertains them.

Obviously the exercise in changing people's perception hasn't worked. :rolleyes:

Obviously the exercise in changing people's perception hasn't worked. :rolleyes:
No, not if "changing perceptions" means "making people unconditionally accept others' rights to choose not to work at the expense of the taxpayer".
That, indeed, is unlikely to work.

If you're capable of sitting in front of your PC at home and typing messages onto the forum you're capable of doing some work - you merely have to be realistic in your expectations and accept that if you don't have much to offer an employer, you won't be paid much.

I have come across plenty of people who claim incapacity benefit, and three quarters of them are professional scroungers. They are mostly perfectly capable of sweeping a floor, stacking shelves, or filing invoices, but too lazy to work while the taxpayer feeds, clothes and entertains them.

It's obvious nonsense to suggest that being able to post the odd message on t'internet means that a person can work. Just about anyone can type out a few sentences - by your logic, only dead people would be able to claim IB.

Employers want people to turn in a full day's work on a regular basis, week in week out. If you go to an interview and point out that you will be able to do bits of work as and when you are able, you won't get the job. Similarly, 40% of new IB claimants have mental health problems. A survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that about half of all employers would never consider offering a job to someone with a history of severe mental illness. So, hardly the claimant's fault if they find they can't get a job.

More from the report:

Across all these groups findings from the third cohort showed widespread and often intensive use of NHS healthcare, including specialist services and clinics, and mental health services

People’s different trajectories of recovery of health, deterioration or chronic unchanging conditions, and their different hopes and expectations of such trajectories are key to understanding experience of, and response to, Pathways interventions. There was no doubt that many people in this panel of incapacity benefits recipients faced particular disadvantages and problems in thinking about and making progress towards work

In other words, people are on IB because of their health. If and when this improves, people move back to work. If it stays the same or deteriorates, they tend not to. The premise of Pathways is that people only think they're ill, but the research says that this is untrue.

A survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that about half of all employers would never consider offering a job to someone with a history of severe mental illness. So, hardly the claimant's fault if they find they can't get a job.Did it really need a survey to discover that most employers don't want loonatics on their payroll????

In other words, people are on IB because of their health. If and when this improves, people move back to work. If it stays the same or deteriorates, they tend not to. The premise of Pathways is that people only think they're ill, but the research says that this is untrue. Yes, in many case, but there are many, many others who are just scroungers.
On that note, why should somebody who cannot work and has never paid tax be paid more benefits than somebody who has worked and is only out of work short-term? It should be the other way round - the longer you leech on the system, the less you get. That's an incentive for the idle to get off their arses and find work.
The very idea of giving people extra benefits because they are even less employable is just wrong. These people are just raised to see the welfare state a a big free for all - and they all feel entitled to something for nothing.

So for a start you complain that people are on benefits, and then call people with mental health problems "lunatics" and say that they shouldn't be allowed to work :huh:

Plus, you grudgingly admit that there are "many" genuine claimants (99.5% according to the DWP), but then say that allowing them more than JSA is an incentive for them not to work. But if they can't work because of illness or disability, no amount of incentive is going to make any odds is it? If you can't work, you can't work. Simple as.

The point made repeatedly in this independent research is that these people are not malingerers, they have genuine difficulties with working, and that no amount of spinning it changes that. It also acknowledges that many people on IB are trying to get back to work, if their health allows. Hardly the picture you paint, is it? Something tells me that a team of researches from one of the country's best public policy research departments, who have been working for some time on this, know more about it than you do.

Ironic that this thread is created as someone on disability benefits gets 6 months for defrauding the taxpayer whilst running marathons (when he's not in his wheelchair)

Somebody always has to spoil it for the genuine cases.

Ironic that this thread is created as someone on disability benefits gets 6 months for defrauding the taxpayer whilst running marathons (when he's not in his wheelchair)

Somebody always has to spoil it for the genuine cases.

Very true. Sadly, the media (for obvious reasons) are not too interested in running "Benefits Claimant is Disabled" headlines - not much of a story is it? They have, however, been extremely one-sided in their coverage of welfare issues, and have left many people with the impression that fraud is widespread, when in fact it is about as low as is possible to get without spending ridiculous amounts of money on weeding out the few remaining fiddlers.

Very true. Sadly, the media (for obvious reasons) are not too interested in running "Benefits Claimant is Disabled" headlines - not much of a story is it? They have, however, been extremely one-sided in their coverage of welfare issues, and have left many people with the impression that fraud is widespread, when in fact it is about as low as is possible to get without spending ridiculous amounts of money on weeding out the few remaining fiddlers.
Do you honestly believe that almost one in ten people of working age are genuinely unable to work through 'incapacity'?

Very true. Sadly, the media (for obvious reasons) are not too interested in running "Benefits Claimant is Disabled" headlines - not much of a story is it? They have, however, been extremely one-sided in their coverage of welfare issues, and have left many people with the impression that fraud is widespread, when in fact it is about as low as is possible to get without spending ridiculous amounts of money on weeding out the few remaining fiddlers.

Fraud in the welfare system is widespread. Only the cases that come to the notice of the Court Services are reported and even then, few make news. Billions are lost because of theft, misrepresentation or organised crime. Most are dealt with before it gets to the prosecution stage. Unfortunately, due to the inadequacies of the system, little will change for the foreseeable future.

Do you honestly believe that almost one in ten people of working age are genuinely unable to work through 'incapacity'?

No, I wouldn't say it's quite that high, because I know there are a lot of people who want to work but find that employers take the approach of "I wouldn't employ a lunatic" or similar. For example, an NOP poll carried out for the Disability Rights Commission found that 1 in 6 young disabled people had been turned down for a job, with the reason given relating to their disability. Numbers of people on Incapacity Benefit are actually falling, although oddly no-one seems to want to find out why it is that mental ill-health seems to be increasing massively.

What we face is contradictory attitudes: people like to feel sorry for disabled people and donate to disability charities, but hate paying them benefits. They also don't see why employers should have to make adjustments for disabled people - and then complain that too many are on benefits. I know people who are on IB that genuinely couldn't work, but who have to constantly justify this. I also know a few who really want to work, but employers won't employ them. It doesn't help that 41% of disabled people of working age have no qualifications, compared to 18% of non-disabled people, which is partly a result of discrimination in education, which continues despite the Special Educational Needs Discrimination Act.

It doesn't help that 41% of disabled people of working age have no qualifications, compared to 18% of non-disabled people, which is partly a result of discrimination in education, which continues despite the Special Educational Needs Discrimination Act.
We all know that a hugely disproportionate amount of teachers' time is spent on dealing with children who have disabilities or learning disorders, to the detriment tof bright children whose potential deserves just as much effort but often remains only partially revealed because of the PC-help-the-poor-disabled initiatives that the government thrusts on schools.
You call this discriminatory? Damned right it is - against normal, non-disabled children.

We all know that a hugely disproportionate amount of teachers' time is spent on dealing with children who have disabilities or learning disorders, to the detriment tof bright children whose potential deserves just as much effort but often remains only partially revealed because of the PC-help-the-poor-disabled initiatives that the government thrusts on schools.
You call this discriminatory? Damned right it is - against normal, non-disabled children.

I resent that! :rant:

Disabled children are just as "normal" as able bodied ones, define "normal" anyway?! :loopy: :rant:

And if teachers were more clued up on teh needs of disabled children they wouldn't have to "waste" as much time on them...

I resent that! :rant:

Disabled children are just as "normal" as able bodied ones, define "normal" anyway?! :loopy: :rant:

And if teachers were more clued up on teh needs of disabled children they wouldn't have to "waste" as much time on them...

'Disproportionate' amounts of time have to be spent with a variety of children from differing backgrounds varying from the disabled, slow to learn, ESOL to the most gifted. How can one teacher be expected to cure all? Selection based upon need has to be the only way.

I resent that! :rant:

Disabled children are just as "normal" as able bodied ones, define "normal" anyway?! :loopy: :rant:

And if teachers were more clued up on teh needs of disabled children they wouldn't have to "waste" as much time on them...Stop ranting, or medication.
Anybody who doesn't think that the special needs kids in mainstream schools suck up the resources must have special needs themselves. And, as it happens, teachers all do receive training in identifying special needs and dealing with them.
Perhaps you think that all teachers should train as much in dealing with the disabled as they do in dealing with normal kids? Don't be silly.
Don't forget that the disabled are a minority. They should not therefore be the recipients of the majority of funding and attention.

We all know that a hugely disproportionate amount of teachers' time is spent on dealing with children who have disabilities or learning disorders, to the detriment tof bright children whose potential deserves just as much effort but often remains only partially revealed because of the PC-help-the-poor-disabled initiatives that the government thrusts on schools.
You call this discriminatory? Damned right it is - against normal, non-disabled children.

So what would you sugest we do with these children then? do we not allow them to reach their full potential and give them benefits to live on? what do you sugest ? it would be interesting to know!

So what would you sugest we do with these children then? do we not allow them to reach their full potential and give them benefits to live on? what do you sugest ? it would be interesting to know!
We have to help them of course and give them as much a chance as we can - my comment was in response to the claim that the education system is 'discriminatory' against the disabled, which is utter rubbish, and doubtless the view of somebody with a fairly large chip on their shoulder.

We have to help them of course and give them as much a chance as we can - my comment was in response to the claim that the education system is 'discriminatory' against the disabled, which is utter rubbish, and doubtless the view of somebody with a fairly large chip on their shoulder.

Or perhaps someone who has a disability, been through the system and knows what they are talking about?

Or perhaps someone who has a disability, been through the system and knows what they are talking about?
Perhaps, but I've come across 2 types of people with disabilities. those who get on with their lives, blame nobody and don't expect to be provided for by the state just because of their misfortune. The others tend to be embittered, blame everybody and everything for their plight, and blame their own lack of ability, prospects and success on 'discrimination'.

Strange how some people do very well despite being disabled, isn't it?

Or perhaps someone who has a disability, been through the system and knows what they are talking about?

Thank you Max.

As a matter of fact I AM disabled, and yes I HAVE been through the "system", and if you think it's bad now, imagine what it was like 20 odd years ago when I was going through Junior School etc, after all it's 15 years in April since I left.

And no, I do not have a "chip" on my shoulder, if I slag off the system, it's because I was, and still feel, let down by it.

Perhaps, but I've come across 2 types of people with disabilities. those who get on with their lives, blame nobody and don't expect to be provided for by the state just because of their misfortune. The others tend to be embittered, blame everybody and everything for their plight, and blame their own lack of ability, prospects and success on 'discrimination'.

Strange how some people do very well despite being disabled, isn't it?

It's also strange how some people view others who claim benefits without even knowing them or their entire circumstances.

if I slag off the system, it's because I was, and still feel, let down by it.
Please don't over-react to this, but that's what we call having a chip on your shoulder.
Just because you aren't currently the chairman of a major corporation, or employed for that matter, doesn't mean you can blame the education system. Should the taxpayer have to fork out for bespoke training to perfectly suit the needs of every single disabled person, or has there to be a sensible compromise because, strangely enough, the national purse is not infinitely resourced?

Please don't over-react to this, but that's what we call having a chip on your shoulder.
Just because you aren't currently the chairman of a major corporation, or employed for that matter, doesn't mean you can blame the education system. Should the taxpayer have to fork out for bespoke training to perfectly suit the needs of every single disabled person, or has there to be a sensible compromise because, strangely enough, the national purse is not infinitely resourced?

Mate, I've been on the dole and every crappy fudging job club/new deal type scheme probably ever invented in this City and I still can't get anything better than a flipping voluntary job which I spend half an hour travelling to and because there is no actual work to do I just sit and post on here all morning, 2 mornings a week! Bloody ell I may as well stay at home for that! Good job it doesn't cost me anything in bus fares!

Please don't over-react to this, but that's what we call having a chip on your shoulder.
Just because you aren't currently the chairman of a major corporation, or employed for that matter, doesn't mean you can blame the education system. Should the taxpayer have to fork out for bespoke training to perfectly suit the needs of every single disabled person, or has there to be a sensible compromise because, strangely enough, the national purse is not infinitely resourced?

Maybe if people like yourself & the benefits & education set-up was more helpful towards people who have disabilities instead of more towards condemning & against people who need help then there might not be as many claimants?

Please don't over react as I would hate to think you may have a chip on you're shoulder.:P

Hagar's posts beautifully demonstrate the contradictory attitudes at large in Britain. "Lets shunt disabled kids into a corner at school and forget about them, cos their not 'normal', and let's allow employers to discriminate against disabled people and 'lunatics'. Hang on, these ******** haven't got jobs (because we couldn't be arsed to educate them or give them jobs) and now they want something to live on (i.e. benefits)! Scum!"

And by the way, it should be obvious that disabled pupils and students are not recipients of the majority of funding and attention. Only a fool would assert such a thing. The majority of education funding in the UK goes to special needs education, does it?

Hagar's posts beautifully demonstrate the contradictory attitudes at large in Britain. "Lets shunt disabled kids into a corner at school and forget about them, cos their not 'normal', and let's allow employers to discriminate against disabled people and 'lunatics'. Hang on, these ******** haven't got jobs (because we couldn't be arsed to educate them or give them jobs) and now they want something to live on (i.e. benefits)! Scum!" Perhaps you missed th part where I said “We have to help them of course and give them as much a chance as we can”. Stop ranting, you come over as being of limited intellect.

And by the way, it should be obvious that disabled pupils and students are not
Quote:
recipients of the majority of funding and attention.

Only a fool would assert such a thing. The majority of education funding in the UK goes to special needs education, does it? If you’re not going to quote accurately and within context, don’t quote at all. I did not say that they were “recipients of the majority of funding and attention”, I stated, quite unambiguously so that any dullard can understand “Don't forget that the disabled are a minority. They should not therefore be the recipients of the majority of funding and attention”. I think my dog can understand the difference there.

You're very rude Hagar

You're very rude HagarPerhaps Teafan is allowed to call me a fool and I'm not allowed to respond? I'm hardly going to do that when he's talking out of his funnel.

Perhaps Teafan is allowed to call me a fool and I'm not allowed to respond? I'm hardly going to do that when he's talking out of his funnel.

Enough.

You've been agressive further up this thread as well. Just walk away, chill.

And the same applies across the board - discuss the isue in a civil manner, please.

Thanks.

Methinks Hagar is the new Bartfarst, stereotypical Daily Mail reader who needs to get a flipping clue! :rant: :loopy:

Mods I apologise for this but his whole attitude stinks IMO.

Naah,Rich, he's just been to the Jade Goody school of argument. If he thinks that IB claimaints fall into merely two categories then the limit of his knowledge matches that of his intellect. Behind every statistic there is an individual - a single life in which someone is trapped because of what they are.

Ranting and stereotyping helps no one. Part of being civilised is helping the weaker members of society - otherwise we might as well have stayed in caves and allowed the survival of the fittest to be the rule. If we can't judge every single case on its merits than I believe we are failing in some of the qualities that make us human.

Naah,Rich, he's just been to the Jade Goody school of argument. If he thinks that IB claimaints fall into merely two categories then the limit of his knowledge matches that of his intellect. Behind every statistic there is an individual - a single life in which someone is trapped because of what they are.

Ranting and stereotyping helps no one. Part of being civilised is helping the weaker members of society - otherwise we might as well have stayed in caves and allowed the survival of the fittest to be the rule. If we can't judge every single case on its merits than I believe we are failing in some of the qualities that make us human.Some of us believe in an elitist society in which there should be rewards for ability and achievement, and through which the future of the human gene pool is indeed protected by survival of the fittest, rather than the current state of affairs in which we allow the genetically-challenged to reproduce.

Some of us believe in an elitist society in which there should be rewards for ability and achievement, and through which the future of the human gene pool is indeed protected by survival of the fittest, rather than the current state of affairs in which we allow the genetically-challenged to reproduce.

Sounds like an episode of Logans Run :rolleyes:

Then some of us are fools if we think of people as disposable units in the way your philosophy espouses. Wait til someone decides you belong on the out-cast side of the divide.

Some of us believe in an elitist society in which there should be rewards for ability and achievement, and through which the future of the human gene pool is indeed protected by survival of the fittest, rather than the current state of affairs in which we allow the genetically-challenged to reproduce.

In which case, why don't you just advocate the murder of everyone you don't like?

Anyway, back to the issue in hand. A pilot is designed to test the effectiveness of something, before deciding whether to implement it wholesale, right? So the govt. have piloted Pathways, had it independently researched, the researchers say "it doesn't work", and so the govt......

...implements it anyway. So isn't that a complete waste of public money?

. The majority of education funding in the UK goes to special needs education, does it?

The majority of resources within the individual school certainly does.....to the detriment of the mainstream kids. FACT!!!!!!

The majority of resources within the individual school certainly does.....to the detriment of the mainstream kids. FACT!!!!!!

Really? What are you basing that on? Anyway, SEN funding is on top of the funding a school would normally receive. So if there are no disabled kids in school, that school is no better off.

Or something from 'Brave New World' LOL

This refers to elitism - some posts seem to have disappeared making this senseless! (Nothing new there then!)

Really? What are you basing that on? Anyway, SEN funding is on top of the funding a school would normally receive. So if there are no disabled kids in school, that school is no better off.


First hand experience!! 100% been there, done that, type of experience.

SEN funding does not cover the issues of disruption, lack of balanced teaching time, nor redirection of mainstream staff time due to under-funding.

One SEN support worker leading a group of 4 or 5 SEN kids in the corner of a class of 25 other kids results in the SEN kids getting extra input ..... but the other 25 mainstream kids getting unnecessary interference and disruption, and therefore less than the 100% education they deserve.

There are NEVER enough resources in a school to cover the SEN needs without taking away from the smooth teaching of the other kids.

First hand experience!! 100% been there, done that, type of experience.

SEN funding does not cover the issues of disruption, lack of balanced teaching time, nor redirection of mainstream staff time due to under-funding.

One SEN support worker leading a group of 4 or 5 SEN kids in the corner of a class of 25 other kids results in the SEN kids getting extra input ..... but the other 25 mainstream kids getting unnecessary interference and disruption, and therefore less than the 100% education they deserve.

There are NEVER enough resources in a school to cover the SEN needs without taking away from the smooth teaching of the other kids.That essentially mirrors what I've been told by teachers I know. SEN kids should be in SEN establishments, otherwise we are disadvantaging the mainstream kids who are up against it enough as it is.

Some of us believe in an elitist society in which there should be rewards for ability and achievement, and through which the future of the human gene pool is indeed protected by survival of the fittest, rather than the current state of affairs in which we allow the genetically-challenged to reproduce.

What?! So by your reckoning, Mum should've aborted me when she found out I would be born disabled?! :loopy: :rant:

And you probably reckon I should have "the snip" in case I father any disabled children?! I'm sorry but you sir, can bloody teacakes cos I'm bloody likely mate.

First hand experience!! 100% been there, done that, type of experience.

SEN funding does not cover the issues of disruption, lack of balanced teaching time, nor redirection of mainstream staff time due to under-funding.

One SEN support worker leading a group of 4 or 5 SEN kids in the corner of a class of 25 other kids results in the SEN kids getting extra input ..... but the other 25 mainstream kids getting unnecessary interference and disruption, and therefore less than the 100% education they deserve.

There are NEVER enough resources in a school to cover the SEN needs without taking away from the smooth teaching of the other kids.

Saying that SEN money is inadequate is NOT the same as the majority of total resources going to those with a statement. The "mainstreaming" debate is a separate one. Sounds from the scenario you describe that no-one is getting all the input they deserve. Why pick on the statemented kids? This is what happens when there aren't enough resources going into something; people start looking around at what everyone else is getting, and thinks "if we got rid of them, there'd be enough to go round".

Saying that SEN money is inadequate is NOT the same as the majority of total resources going to those with a statement. The "mainstreaming" debate is a separate one. Sounds from the scenario you describe that no-one is getting all the input they deserve. Why pick on the statemented kids? This is what happens when there aren't enough resources going into something; people start looking around at what everyone else is getting, and thinks "if we got rid of them, there'd be enough to go round".


No.

What I am saying is that where there are shortages of resources, the SENs never seem to be the ones who suffer the shortfall ....... usually, resources are shifted from the mainstream to fill the SEN shortfall at the expense of the mainstream kids.

There will never be enough to go around, but making enough for the 5 kids out of 30, whilst ignoring the best practice for the remaining 25 is just a mirror of the 'ignoring the less able for the benefit of the majority' scenario which you are against.

What I am basically pointing out is that the SEN - whether physical or mental - have the advantage at our schools. They are targetted, monitored, rewarded, catered for and have a lot of time and effort put into them. The mainstream kids however have to accept what they get ....... what time and effort is left ........ and realise that no matter how willing they are to learn, they will only get the attention the staff can fit in after the SEN have been seen to.

No.

What I am saying is that where there are shortages of resources, the SENs never seem to be the ones who suffer the shortfall ....... usually, resources are shifted from the mainstream to fill the SEN shortfall at the expense of the mainstream kids.

There will never be enough to go around, but making enough for the 5 kids out of 30, whilst ignoring the best practice for the remaining 25 is just a mirror of the 'ignoring the less able for the benefit of the majority' scenario which you are against.

What I am basically pointing out is that the SEN - whether physical or mental - have the advantage at our schools. They are targetted, monitored, rewarded, catered for and have a lot of time and effort put into them. The mainstream kids however have to accept what they get ....... what time and effort is left ........ and realise that no matter how willing they are to learn, they will only get the attention the staff can fit in after the SEN have been seen to.

Right, fair enough, I can see what you're saying there. If that is indeed the case, then it would be a mirror (as you say), of the kind of thing that I'm against. Thing is, I'm up for everyone getting a fair crack. I don't see this "them" and "us" business (that's not directed at you, by the way, but other people on this forum). Universal services are meant to be just that - you get them if you need them, regardless of disability, non-disability etc.

Similarly with welfare benefits (which this thread is about), if you qualify for the benefit, it should not then be assumed that you are defrauding the system, especially if you have had to go through the most rigorous eligibility test in Europe.

Right, fair enough, I can see what you're saying there. If that is indeed the case, then it would be a mirror (as you say), of the kind of thing that I'm against. Thing is, I'm up for everyone getting a fair crack. I don't see this "them" and "us" business (that's not directed at you, by the way, but other people on this forum). Universal services are meant to be just that - you get them if you need them, regardless of disability, non-disability etc.

Similarly with welfare benefits (which this thread is about), if you qualify for the benefit, it should not then be assumed that you are defrauding the system.

Agreed.....as long as the beneficiaries are entitled, and not 'on the bandwagon', then they have my full backing. Those who are 'pulling a fast one', however, ought to be put on forced labour for the rest of their lives.:)

Agreed.....as long as the beneficiaries are entitled, and not 'on the bandwagon', then they have my full backing. Those who are 'pulling a fast one', however, ought to be put on forced labour for the rest of their lives.:)

This is the point though, and why I started the thread. People in Britain choose to believe that the majority of claimants are bogus, when it is in fact a tiny minority. There is also the perception that living on incapacity benefit is a life of luxury, when in fact it is a life of poverty, on top of whatever illness or impairment you happen to have. Forget football, the most popular pasttime in this country is fretting over whether someone, somewhere, is getting something you're not. I swear there are people out there who would begrudge other people having herpes.

This is the point though, and why I started the thread. People in Britain choose to believe that the majority of claimants are bogus, when it is in fact a tiny minority. There is also the perception that living on incapacity benefit is a life of luxury, when in fact it is a life of poverty, on top of whatever illness or impairment you happen to have. Forget football, the most popular pasttime in this country is fretting over whether someone, somewhere, is getting something you're not. I swear there are people out there who would begrudge other people having herpes.
Do they get extra benefits for it?

What?! So by your reckoning, Mum should've aborted me when she found out I would be born disabled?! :loopy: :rant: Stop being silly Rich, or I'll tell your mum. That said, if we'd known how annoying you'd turn out to be . . . . only kidding!

And you probably reckon I should have "the snip" in case I father any disabled children?! I'm sorry but you sir, can bloody teacakes cos I'm bloody likely mate. No, though in some people's cases they manage a very safe level of contraception by their personality alone.