Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

I know.
It's shit, isn't it?

Indeed. Schroediger’s SEN parent; simultaneously shit and yet legally and financially grabby.

You keep mentioning your PhD but do you understand we are fighting just for our children to get a chance at primary or secondary education! If they ever get the opportunity to sit GCSEs it will be a miracle. Higher education and post grad qualifications are not even a prospect thanks to woeful LAs illegally denying our children a basic education.

But no, parents are just demanding private horse riding and drumming lessons and that's causing the SEN crisis

No one is saying that. Literally no one. And you only break GDPR if you use identifying details. Writing in broad brush strokes as illustration is not in any way a GDPR issue.

Blooming hope not. She’s posted quite a lot of tangential dramatic irrelevance.

Apparently by dint of this, you’re a grabby arse who spoils it for everyone else

To get an EHCP to get my child's needs met, I had to commission private reports, use an advocate and take the LA to Tribunal three times though.

Well, that's what a caseworker should be doing, but chances are they aren't.

Just in the last year;

1. SAR showed caseworker refusing to consult parental preference.
2. When forced to consult by manager after a stage 1 complaint, then lying about the outcome. Again, proved by SAR.
3. SAR showed certain documents conveniently omitted
4. Draft EHCP copied and pasted from a historic out of date one still talking about DC wetting themselves when that had been removed in 2021.
5. 6 months of ignored emails and calls.
6. Caseworker "forgetting" to actually tell me DC had a school place
7. Caseworker deliberately not contacting me to tell me of start date
8. Caseworker giving false information about transport application (caught out at tribunal)
9. Caseworker giving false evidence to CC representative for tribunal

That's all I can remember off the top of my head. And that spans at least 5 different caseworkers.

Parents don’t get provision their child isn’t legally entitled to whether they pay for representation, get independent assessments and go to SENDIST or not. Such SEP is only secured if the law legally allows such SEP in their specific case.

The fact you don’t think that should happen doesn’t change the implementation of the law.

Which is as it should be. But there are people who are using advocates, private report and tribunal to get those things.

And your caseworker will be spending ridiculous amounts of time trying to deal with them, increasing the delays for someone like you, who just wants a sensible education offer.

I have had to fight long and hard for an EHCP. I can assure you that there is no horse riding , drumming or anything like that in it. Just basic requirements to help my child access education.

These examples of things like swimming on holiday really take us nowhere. You know perfectly well that no EHCP is going to specify payment for a family holiday. Nor will it prescribe swimming lessons because children need to learn to swim, any more than it will prescribe English or Maths or Science lessons. On the other hand, it might well provide for regular swimming lessons or hydrotherapy for children who need it because they have muscle and joint issues, or co-ordination problems, just as it might prescribe literacy or numeracy support for children with specific learning difficulties. It might prescribe those lessons as part of an EOTIS package, precisely because the child can't access them through school. "Tenuous links" just don't cut it with the tribunal or elsewhere, and no-one has suggested they should.

I suspect she's too busy trying to write EHCPs and consult with placements to be honest.

Lots of people train for sports etc that are not part of their core education. You could go on forever like this.... This is why decisions have to be made. I mean, my son learned to swim on our holiday to Spain last year, he engaged with it better in the sun and open air than the local leisure centre. Should the LA be paying for our family hols because he has an EHCP? I could definitely make a tenuous link to some of the things we did there and his EHCP outcomes. There has to be a robust decision here about what can 'reasonably be provided'.

I keep referring to the fact that you misrepresent what I say, because you keep doing it. I did not say that I saw no relevance in GDPR whatsoever. What I said was that I did not see the relevance of it to this discussion. What is the point when literally no-one is asking her to break GDPR, and it would not help her argument if she did as there is no means of checking the accuracy of what she says about individual cases?

I'm very happy to cite case law where it is relevant, but it hasn't arisen so far. My point was that the poster hiding behind GDPR would do better to cite verifiable examples to support her case, perhaps through case law, if she claims that they exist. Simply making dark references to evidence that she claims she has but is unhappily prevented from producing adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

If the provision educates or trains, then it is an educational need and should not be shoved off onto social care. It is well established that this includes communication and interaction, physical and sensory needs, and social, emotional and mental health provision.

If you disagree with the fact sports sessions can be SEP in some cases, fine, but regardless of your opinion, it is the law. SEP is only legally possible if it is reasonably required to meet needs, no-one secures provision if that doesn’t apply.

Social care provision that educates or trains is actually deemed to be special educational provision. That can include accessing the community.

We are talking about disabled children for whom ordinarily available provision does not work. They would not get things like riding put into EHCPs unless either the LA or tribunal were satisfied that the evidence showed it was genuinely needed to meet an identified difficulty. PE only tends to get put separately into EHCPs for children with EOTIS, or those who need specialist physiotherapy or hydrotherapy provision.

Honestly, why do you think you know better than the caseworkers, panel members or judges who saw the reports recommending this, questioned the witnesses, heard and weighed up opposing opinions, and used their expertise to decide it was necessary?

You literally said you don't see the relevance of GDPR. You keep trotting out he same catchphrases regardless of whether they actually match the content of the quote.

This is a social platform, if you can be arsed looking up case law etc to prove points you want to make great, good for you.

Most people won't bother. It's a bloody Mumsnet talk topic, they're not preparing a bundle for hearing.

The lack of inclusivity previously had caused an increase in his presentation which was why it was agreed. But I believe that his experiences led to this increased presentation which has now settled again.

Sigh. Making things up yet again.

And in fact if it is equivalent to the activities of my kids that I described above, should be accessed through social care. Accessing the community is a social care not educational need.
They need to be signposted by social care to SEND activities, and explore whether a personal budget is needed to help them access it.
This is not education and would come from a social care offer not the nigh needs funding block that SEND manage.

Yet again, you're making up what I'm saying. I have never sought to suggest that caseworkers alone can mend the system, but they sure as hell could make it better than it is now.

You are talking about reports from specialist providers of facilities like horse riding, not independent educational psychologists. Yes, parents whose children are already benefiting from working with, say, horses, may well ask those who provide that resource to explain why because they are best positioned to do so. It doesn't mean that their reports should be ignored. In the same way, you wouldn't ignore a report from a school just because that school is receiving hefty public funding to provide for the child in question.

I'm completely with you about cowboy advocates, and I wish there were better regulation of them. Sadly, in my experience they do parents more harm than good and frequently end up benefiting LAs.

Tribunals would not have named your special school if there was evidence showing that the children benefiting could have their needs met more cheaply elsewhere. It is just possible that they were better fitted to judge than you were; equally it is possible that they knew it might be overprovision, but could not in all conscience order that the child should be in an alternative placement that would be totally unsuitable.

Then support needs to be proportionate, reasonable and focused on what the barriers are.