Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

What if they cant access via the local offer?

No, I'm asking the LA to comply with actual statutory wording, and indeed the wording of the CoP. You imply that LAs can only seek advice and information from EPs employed or commissioned by them, but that is not what either the statute or the guidance says. When the reality is that they have advice available that is more than adequate for the purpose and they cannot get LA EP advice until weeks or months past statutory deadlines, there is simply no excuse for not working on the basis of the existing advice.

If we all accept that ;
Caseworkers don’t have any power really

The system is no longer fit for purpose and has been warped out of shape by increasing demand and underfunding

The decisions made, even unlawful ones, are made further up the food chain

There are some eye wateringly expensive cases, the funding for which could make a difference for a large number of children

and

The LA only pay out when forced to, generally by tribunal or JR

THEN

if the answer is to reduce the spending on the expensive cases, eg out of county provision and a transport package, what becomes of that child?

Genuinely curious.

It might be really helpful. That does not mean it is a need.
My son's football training sessions help his mood and confidence, but I would be paying for this whether or not he has SEND.
Same with my daughter's guitar lessons.
Non SEND learners get benefit from these activities too but still have to pay for them outside of school.
The EHCP should be making provision for them to overcome their barriers, caused by their needs, to accessing their educational offer, whether that is at mainstream, special or through an alternative.
So it should be making sure they can access a PE offer at school (for example) but not paying for coaching sessions outside of that.

Literally no one has asked anyone to do such a thing.

You don't see the relevance of GDPR... Err okay.. let's just ignore and share details of the families we work with online ?!

Don’t let facts get in the way of excuses.

Do you think caseworkers can control these issues? I agree with what you are saying it would take for SEND needs to be met in mainstream. I wish my DS could go to a local school and have friends on our estate etc, instead of in a specialist school 8 miles away. I genuinely believe that could have been possible if Ofsted's requirements had motivated schools to be more inclusive etc. but we are where we are.
And that definitely can't be changed by caseworkers.

I am aware of quite a few local providers that will write reports insisting that a child needs expensive counselling/equine therapy/swimming lessons/LAMDA acting lessons ... That they would be the ones providing.

Don't get me wrong, there will be tonnes of excellent private professionals, I used a private SALT for my DA due to the length of the NHS waiting list but that's quite different from what the pp was describing.

Same with independent advocates, I am aware of some excellent ones in our area and some who are complete cowboys profiting from families in crisis.

I think my overall point is that when people say its simple, or pretend LAs can ignore the lack of resources they are being ridiculous.

When I was a (maintained) special school SENCO we had to admit children via tribunal who really didn't need to be there. And then subsequently turn away children with much higher needs. As a parent or advocate you can just focus on one child, as a school or LA you cannot.

It's just naive to pretend otherwise.

If you mean me, I simply don't see the relevance of GDPR. It's all too easy to cite that rather than give evidence through published statute, case law etc which would involve no GDPR breach whatsoever. The reality is that quoting individual cases with which one poster claims to have dealt would get us absolutely nowhere, because we have no means of checking either how accurate or full her account might be.

What examples am I ignoring? I simply commented that I personally hadn't come across drumming in an EHCP, but pointed out that it could be capable of being genuine SEP for children who are demonstrated to need it. It's so easy to sneer at the including of things like riding for the disabled and gym clubs in EHCPs if you don't apply your mind to just why they might be really helpful for disabled children.

You keep making things up about what I have said. I have acknowledged that there are not enough resources, but this thread is about LA caseworkers and their response to that situation. I haven't anywhere said they are solely responsible for any crisis. Just one of the many problems is that, faced with the choice of lobbying for more resources or taking steps to save money that mean a disabled child doesn't get provision they desperately need, far too many LA employees opt for the latter.

Parents don’t gain provision their DC aren’t legally entitled to. If that was happening and it was because SENDIST had erred in law, LAs would be quick enough to challenge that decision and appeal to the UT.

I didn't claim that private professional are unpaid. People have to earn a living. None of that means that they must automatically be advising on expensive provision rather than the provision a child actually needs. The reality is that successful professionals are in demand not because they do that, but because they build up a track record of producing reports that are accepted by their peers and the tribunal. It is not in their interests to exaggerate provision, because they will simply be torn apart in tribunal time and again, and word about unreliable experts gets around very quickly in SEND parent world.

I don't think there is anything wrong with more children with SEND being in mainstream schools, provided that that is underpinned by early identification and support and by adequate support in schools. Ideally, that would probably involve more and smaller mainstream schools with smaller classes. I'm not holding my breath for that, though, and sadly I fear that we will just carry on short-changing disabled children.

What everyone seems to forget is that investing in proper support to enable every child to meet their full potential will in itself carry massive financial benefits For so many children, it literally means the difference between being forever dependent on the benefit system - or, worse, constantly in and out of the justice system - or becoming independent taxpaying contributors. Short term savings now can be incredibly counter-productive.

You are asking the LA to ignore the statutory guidance around EPs because of demand on capacity...careful, that sounds a bit like that you are accusing the LAs of doing!!! I thought everything was black and white and simple regardless of context...

The previous OP knows well enough that you are bound by GDPR and will choose to ignore it.

Well someone who actually works in a SEN team has given you some examples, you are just ignoring them
You acknowledge that demand has risen exponentially since the pandemic and will be aware that high needs funding block has not risen in line with this. Yet you still position the crisis as being an issue with LA decision making and fault with individual caseworkers.

Unfortunately I think we all know that the long term outcome will be government legislation to reduce the number of kids not in mainstream , and a move back to a focus on school level support as was the case pre 2014. Unfortunately this will take a major culture shift from the mainstream schools (who are currently less inclusive than I have ever known). Things are going to get worse. But referring back to he topic of this thread, none of this is the case workers' faults.

And not being in the LA you get to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'lalala' when anyone mentions that critical lack of funding.

If I gave you £10, made you responsible for buying a £2 lunch for all the children you are responsible for, and then made you responsible for 20 kids, it's no good anyone jumping round shouting that you are breaking the law and don't care about the children you are responsible for.

And I think you know that really.

@CleverButScattythere is institutional abuse resulting from workplace culture and then individuals who are just plain mean. A SARS is helpful. I requested one when going to tribunal for DS1 and it highlights deliberate obstruction by individuals. Eg my legal rep asking for an electronic version of the draft EHCP for working document. The case worker copied it up to her boss asking should she send a paper copy - laughing emoji. My son had no school placement for months. This was not due to overwork. Just believing that the child has no needs until tribunal tells them otherwise so delaying that happening.

The EOTAS staff were little more than spies concocting evidence that child had no needs and maligning parents. We even had one saying that the elderly family pet was an attack dog and claiming need for safeguarding!

After we had spent thousands on expert reports and witnesses for tribunal the LA conceded to special school within half an hour of proceedings starting. Complete waste of LA time, resources and money and caused untold stress and financial hardship to the family.

I fully understand what your position is, but was responding to a post that was wholly supportive of LAs who break the law, and was continuing to misrepresent the legal position with regard to accepting independent reports. If anything, you would think LAs might be grateful to accept those because they take the pressure off their own EPs. Those with long experience of the system can see that the reason they don't is not that they have any doubt about the quality of the reports, but because they are high quality, accurately analyse and describe children's difficulties and advise on the support needed in specific and detailed terms fully backed by evidence - as opposed the vague and difficult to enforce terminology regularly used by LA EPs.

I'm not saying there aren't genuine cases, there will be loads where therapjes are needed in section F. But an industry is building up around trying to get all sorts of other things paid for through section F.

Seriously, what is the evidence of this "industry"? Parents struggle to find appropriate experts to advise on their child's difficulties at least as much as LAs do, if not more; independent special schools don't have capacity to take on everyone who comes to them, so they're not out that pushing parents to exaggerate their children's difficulties; it's equally difficult for parents to find solicitors and advocates to help them, and the SEN charities are overwhelmed. If the cases were not genuine, how do you account for the stupendous percentages of tribunal cases that LAs lose, or the fact that tribunal judges are regularly pointing out that their time is wasted far too often by LA decision makers who blatantly have no idea what the law is?

The simple fact of the matter is that, particularly post lockdown, there are an awful lot of children out there with very genuine difficulties, and the system simply is not catering adequately for them. And the LAs who are paid to help them are instead regularly putting obstacles in their way by breaking the law, rather than lobbying for the necessary resources.

In some cases, drumming (and other musical instrument) lessons, singing lessons, acting lessons, gym, horse riding… can be SEP. That is why they can sometimes be secured if F. If they could never be SEP, that would not be possible.

The reality is those SEND children with sharp elbowed parents treat SEND as access to a private education with the state funding it. Drumming lessons, Gym Sessions, Horse Riding are extra curricula and support holistic health and social wellbeing. I guarantee a child in care is not necessarily accessing these provisions they are being supported to stay in school by hard working professionals during additional challenges from being in Care which shall also be impacting their SEND requirements. is right a lot of these activities are not necessarily required for education they are above and beyond what is required as I said essentially a private education funded by the state. They are not education they are extra curricula activities not open to a non-SEND children unless parents fund it which creates a societal divide. An unintended consequence of CaFA 2014 and SEN CoP 2015 unfortunately.

This is right out of the LA playbook and really doesn't bear any sort of examination. If you really think having a child in an independent specialist school confers some sort of social kudos, you really are deluded. I've never seen drumming sessions in an EHCP, and I've seen an awful lot of EHCPs, although I can see that it could be demonstrated as being helpful to children with, for example, sensory or hearing problems, or simply as a calming activity when a child is very dysregulated. I have seen provision like specialist PE and Riding for the Disabled, but no-one ever gets them unless there is good evidence that they have a need for which this is appropriate provision and that it will help them. It doesn't take Einstein to work out how such support can be very helpful to disabled people.

Yes, they're not open to children without SEND, nor indeed are they open to children with SEND unless it can be shown as providing genuine special educational provision. But which would you rather have, a child with SEND who accesses riding lessons to assist (say) with mobility, balance, and severe anxiety, or a child without SEND? I can assure you, those supposedly sharp-elbowed parents would give up the lessons in a heartbeat if it meant their child no longer had learning difficulties.

For what it's worth, children were getting similar provision well before the CFA came into effect, so it's not a product of that Act or the Code of Practice.

It's also far too convenient to claim that all of the private professionals who recommend expensive input (by them!!) are not in it for the money. This is what we are navigating. This is why the LA do need to robustly consider what is being asked for.

If you are financially motivated, don't become a caseworker. At 32k it will take you a long time to make your millions!

The reality is there are some parents desperately wanting what their children need, some trying to get the bells and whistles, some amazing caseworkers, some mediocre and some poor.
There are some entirely ethical professionals advising on required provision and some on the make. And the LAs are trying to navigate this with limited budget.

The likely outcome of all this is that the legislation ( and yes we all know the difference between CFA/Regs/code but don't quite it in detail on an informal social platform) will be changed so that the threshold is higher, less can be provided through the LA. This is partly because of the exponential increase in need post pandemic but definitely contributed to by those who want their pound of flesh from the system. The government are already moving towards more kids with SEND in mainstream.
When the current legislation was written EOTIS etc was expected to be very rare cases, more and more want these bespoke packages and the line will end up being drawn by the government.

Can you not understand that I both work for the LA and am a SEND parent and can appreciate the challenges on both sides, instead of stamping my feet and taking the simplistic view the LAs need to provide infinite provision with finite resources.

Is it really morally wrong to accept expert opinion and try to do the best for a disabled child? If my child had communication problems I would feel I was failing them if I didn't do my best to get the right provision for them. If for some reason I felt it was morally wrong to make the LA pay for it, I would bust a gut to be able to afford to pay for it myself, but I wouldn't let my child suffer for my "morals".

It's far too convenient to claim that everyone who disagrees with you must be an advocate in it for the money, or in a social media echo chamber. Just for the record, I'm neither. It's also somewhat idealistic to claim that LA caseworkers have no personal financial interest. No-one forces them to stay in their jobs or to uphold and promote very dodgy policies, and they aren't doing the work for free.