Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

Can’t you see that you are equating tribunal action with an amoral stance on legislation? You’re applying your own dubious moral compass and legal understanding, and have concluded that just because you can follow the law doesn’t mean you should have to.

And personally speaking, I’m a pro bono advocate. I have nothing to gain whatsoever from these cases apart from the personal satisfaction of righting some of the wrongs that are delivered by attitudes like yours.

It’s like talking to the wall. This is they do it in her LA, and therefore that’s the legal process whereas clearly we know it isn’t.

Nope. I'm going to stop engaging with you because it's like talking to a child.
I do not agree with using the law to try and squeeze every last drop out of the system.
My autistic son is now at a special schools and thriving. If I was to pay a private SALT I could definitely get them to write a report saying he needed twice weekly therapy outside of school and no doubt they would be happy to deliver this at a cost to the LA. I am more than capable of chasing that through a tribunal.
The truth is the NHS SALT at school is fine and I think it would be morally wrong to do this, whilst others are still in the situation my son was in a year ago. And he would rather be kicking a football in the garden.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
That would not be good for businesses for advocates though...who unlike LA caseworkers do have a personal financial interest in this...

None of that changes or overrides the legislation.

The LA judging whether existing evidence is sufficient is not the same thing as it having “to have been commissioned as as statutory advice for an EHC needs assessment.”

As I have already pointed out “They do this by getting a view from an LA EP.” isn’t always the case. Sometimes LAs decide it isn’t sufficient without an EP even seeing the existing evidence.

I didn’t say I was the only person in the world… You aren’t the only one years of real life experience either.

The SEND caseworkers are not EPs. If they are presented with a report that has not been commissioned by the LA as part of the statutory process (which the code says it should usually be) they need to determine whether it can be used for the needs assessment.

They do this by getting a view from an LA EP. As the caseworkers are not EPs. Where the code says that the LA must take decisions e.g. in whether the report can be used (is for for purpose), they need to take steps to ensure that they do this with due diligence. This is what People who have read the statutory guidance but never had to apply it in a real life setting miss. And what my post-grad NASENCO qual looks at, as well as my experience of applying the law in a range of real life situations.

When advice is requested from professionals for the purpose of the EHCP needs assessment the request makes clear that this is the purpose.

If a report has been written for other purposes then it is not clear that the information in it is considered by the professional to be everything they would want to share for the statutory assessment. In addition the code specifies that the EP report should usually be commissioned by the LA. You are right to state that advise which has already been sought should not be sought again, hence the fact that the EP would consider the external report and give a view.

You are not the only person in the world who has memorised the code of practice. Applying it in the real world is a skill above that and comes from many years of being a practitioner.

Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour.
The rules that cover SEN law are clear, and the governmental institution closest to the heart of them in their delivery, is the Local Authority. So it is something of a conundrum when the LA repeatedly ignore the law in order to stay within budget.
Let’s think what might happen if other agencies did this:
The Police. Murder investigations are very expensive so unless we catch the killer red handed, or there are more than 3 people murdered at the same time, the police will then call all deaths accidental. Ok?
HMRC. Working out everyone’s tax code individually is really expensive and we don’t have enough staff to do that, so we’re going to just put everyone in the same rate. Ok?
Home Office. Passports are terribly expensive to administer, and anyway the internet is so fast that you don’t have to actually be there because you can Skype, so all travel abroad is stopped. Ok?
SEN Office. Your child needs OT but we haven’t got enough OTs so we’ve sent his school a leaflet with some exercises the teachers might do with him. And he needs regular breaks to a quiet space? Here’s a pop up tent. Ok?
No. No not ok at all. Yet you seem to operate in this way. Despite very clear legislation and duty of care, they regularly flout the law until pushed to conform.

You don’t get it. Your “hard truths” are not what is set out in the legal framework. You don’t have the right to bend the law or simply ignore it because it doesn’t suit your perspective. Can you imagine if that was acceptable in any other legal scenario?

And yes, I’m an advocate. And I also never ever charge.

@CleverButScatty well you obviously don’t understand if you posted “It has to have been commissioned as as statutory advice for an EHC needs assessment.” When that isn’t true.

Whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law.

No, I'm telling you some hard truths and you are taking an arsey attitude.

I wonder if you are an advocate? Many advocates would argue they are helping people, some would argue they are profiting from families in crisis. We can all twist these things against individual but is not helpful. Or ok.

You “don’t agree with.”

So you’ve given yourself permission to ignore the law.

You are not the arbiter of justice here. Thankfully.

people will genuinely consider 32k a year caseworkers to be lawbreakers because they are following policies based on the resources that actually exist.

The issue is that the policies don't always follow the law. The real issue is with those who make the policies but as parents and teachers we only have access to them through our caseworker.

You are part of the problem. You really are.

Woven through your post is the implicit justification for ignoring the law. And you may tell yourself that you’re actually doing the Right Thing by applying these Benthamite principles but actually you’re undermining the very system which, if applied properly, can work well.

Instead of demonising parents with sharp elbows and who also have boned up on legal matters, you should see that they are forced to provide specific and quantified probate reports because the service from the LA is deliberately poor.

And as for giving yourself a pat on the back for advocating for children in care, you’d be better signposting them to IPSEA and SOSSEN and then having a good sit down.

I understand the. I just don't agree with using them to squeeze blood out of resources whilst other children are stuck in an overburdened system with nothing.
The fact that every time I disagree with you try and claim I don't understand is getting silly.

If it is included in an EHCP, it has been deemed to be legally reasonably required. Therefore, if that amount of therapy has been included, it is required and the child or YP does have needs complex enough to require it. It isn’t about receiving the best possible provision, there is no legal entitlement to that. It is about what is reasonably required. Thankfully, case law determines that is considered to be more than just what is adequate. No one gets provision just because they want it if it isn’t legally reasonably required. It is nothing to do with social media - I don’t actually use any other than MN.

It is a shame someone who is a SENCO and now part of the VST doesn't understand the requirements surrounding Reg 6 and Reg 7.

Are you under the impression that I am a caseworker?

I work in a virtual school team, supporting looked after children with SEND to attain in line with their peers. Perhaps I'm untrustworthy too?

I studied IPSEA legal qualifications to level 3 as a special school SENCO, but thank you for sharing your views on the legal situation. Your tone is very patronising.

I think the problem is, and I say this as someone has 3 children with SEND (one of whom has a crisis year, unable to attend for months, delayed EHCP, late decision on secondary school) that a lot of SEND parents and advocates spend a lot of time on social media groups etc which are basically an echo chamber, you can see they are taken back when people outside that context challenge them for calling caseworkers evil and having no conscience, because they are so used to spouting this nastiness unchallenged.

There is someone on here saying that a child should be having hours of therapies per day outside of school because they can demand it under law -which they can-(because a parent commissioned EP has put this in their report). This attitude is causing a lot of issues in capacity. There is no reason why any but the most complex of children could possibly need hours of therapy outside of school and the LA funding travel time for the therapist etc.I'm not saying they wouldn't benefit from it. But we need to make sure everyone gets the basics before anyone gets the bells and whistles. And there are so many kids stuck in the system not getting the basics.

The problem is that the legislation is written on the assumption that people will just ask for what is needed, not the world on a stick. So you have a handful of entitled people with solicitors etc who are getting the world on a stick because they will throw money at private reports etc which say what they want (and I'm sorry this does happen) and then challenge through tribunal.

And I know you won't care about the lack of funding but the LA have to. They're not being tight. They have a finite level of resource. I understand that as a SEND parent and as a professional.

The main reason behind the EP capability problem is that the two part rule for assessment is ridiculously low and vague... Child may have SEN and may need provision through an EHCP. this could describe just about anyone. So previously LAs would expect a school to follow the graduated approach properly, and try to establish what needs there where and then request assessment in it was needed. Then increasingly huge swathes of decisions where challenged, and fair enough because the two part rule is so low, but that means that many more children went into assessment and into the list for EP advice creating huge backlogs, when it was bloody obvious from the start it would be no to a plan for many of them. This isn't the parents fault they are using their rights. And it's not the LA's fault, they are managing levels of demand over 200% of what it was previously. As a SEND parent I would like to see the two part rule changed for a more robust test because it would free up the system for those who really need it.

Because you then have next group of parents who are trying to navigate a broken system for what they genuinely need. And finally the poor sods I work with who are in care and have never had anyone to fight their corner. Thankfully my role exists.

You are not in your little echo chamber here where people will genuinely consider 32k a year caseworkers to be lawbreakers because they are following policies based on the resources that actually exist.

And this is the problem the caseworkers are schooled in LA policy and genuinely believe that their LA policy trumps the law. That’s why parents will insist caseworkers lie by spouting policy when a parent has taken time to research education law. The only time a caseworker has quoted law to me was to inform me I was in breech of Section 42, she genuinely believed I was because I had informed them we wouldn’t be continuing with an unsuitable provision I almost felt sorry for her when I’d stopped laughing.

Absolutely this. You could not pay me enough to do that job - awful. You please no-one ever, because it’s impossible within both the system and funding constraints.

Had a few dreadful ones, the 2 we have now are both pretty fantastic! They're actually restoring my faith a little bit.

I'm sure you genuinely believe this to be the case, possibly because it is the training your employers give, but it simply is not what the law says. Indeed, it specifically says that LAs must not seek such advice if it has previously been provided for any purpose and the person providing that advice, the LA and the child's parent are satisfied that it is sufficient for the purposes of an EHC needs assessment. I have seen LAs routinely reject any and all private reports, even when they are blatantly much better quality than anything the LA is receiving from its in house EPs.

This is a classic example of the sort of incorrect excuses parents regularly receive for not getting private advice and being made to wait months for an LA EP, and really illustrates the problems parents deal with.

A report commissioned by local authorities based on direct research with local authorities. Unless you are going to accuse ISOS of making up what they were told when they conducted their research? That would be rather a dangerous thing to do, they're a rich organisation.

I know caseworkers aren't entering into these agreements. However, the fact is that complying with them requires caseworkers to act unlawfully, for example by following policies under which requests for assessment are routinely refused no matter how serious the child's difficulties are, ditto requests for special school places. I haven't heard about any caseworkers whistleblowing when required to operate these policies, have you?

Sorry, ‘them’ being some SENCOs.

Legally, it isn’t just the training aspects that are SEP, even for physio. This is something many LAs claim to not understand. Lots of physio don’t realise this either.

It isn’t uncommon for them not to have a good understanding of the child or their needs and the provision they require.

I'm guessing she is older? So more able to participate in the evening than a younger child.

Many families prefer provision to be in school, I'm yet to meet one which doesn't, after school many children are tired, weekends are quite rightly felt to be family time.
Yes, the training aspect comes under SEN provision, but many aspects do not, especially for physio.

I did say there would be flaws with SENCo's completing the ehcps, but at least they have a good understanding of the child, see them every day, meet with the other professionals involved on a regular basis. Yes there is potential for bias, but this is also true for SEN caseworkers, who are trying to stay within budgets - as much as the law says budgets do not limit provision, the reality cannot be true, money is not limitless. The system is in crisis, and it's clear the current one is not working, so something needs to change to make it work better for both children and schools, within the current budget, but it will take a pretty smart and creative person to acheive this.