Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

Your comments have been fine in tone (if inaccurate in my opinion at times) it's that of others on the thread, and some that you see on social media.

In terms of statutory assessment the school's teachers are not specialist professionals. They are generalists and it is beyond the remit of a teacher (I say this as a previous teacher, Special school teacher and SENCO). I know that's frustrating that there isn't enough capacity amongst those who are specialist professionals but it is what it is. The specialists have years of experience on one particular aspect of SEND, masters quals (or doctorates for EPs). And there are still issues with quality of reports amongst these professionals. They were trained to help children not write medicolegal reports that would be picked apart. It's an imperfect system for sure.

In terms of agreeing placements etc, it baffles me that people expect this could be agreed at caseworker level. There are statutory requirements around the management of public money. It's not confined to the public sector. In a previous life I worked in financial services and was involved with underwriting mortgages and business finance. There were very similar safeguards around decision making and releasing funds. And that was in a bank that made profits in the billions, not a cash strapped LA. Yet nobody takes issue with this.

Agency staff are paid more, but anyone can see the link between people being abusive to caseworkers and problems with recruitment and retention of staff. There are no caseworkers on long term 60k salaries. They are sometimes used as a short term measure to clear a backlog etc.

It's like teaching. Everyone who has ever been in a school thinks they know how to run one.

It's also a system that was set up long before the current situation of needs being so much higher than available resources. It was envisaged that tribunals would be rare, most kids would be in mainstream and those in specialist would have all their needs met by that offer. That's a really long way from the current situation.

The whole system, down to the legislation needs to be overhauled.
The legislation, code of practice, resources allocated to LAs, expectations of Ofsted and tribunal process need to align. They are all completely mismatched at present.

@Agenoria and that's completely incompatible with a very clear messaging in the job description that the job means signing up to churn out 2 EHCPs per day, come hell or high water. Volume trumping quality on every level.

I also get very frustrated that our LA rejects recommendations from school, deeming it "not professional evidence". In our case evidence from senior leadership who knows our child very well, has years of experience in teaching and leading a SEN school and a sodding PhD in SEN. But nope, "not a professional". Whereas someone who's never met him writing "not known to our service" is taken as professional evidence that he doesn't need support in that area. It's an absolute travesty.

Definitely it's like a trauma response.
Copying and pasting the legislation into a Mumsnet post and kicking off if other people just wasn't an informal chat because it's a social platform.

It's a complex and multi layered issue. But vilifying people doing a job isn't ok and I think that's the difficulty. I know of a caseworker who took their own life after a period of horrific work stress and leaves behind two young children. I know several really kind and gentle people who went off sick and left and almost have a PTSD like condition which still affects their everyday life and ability to work.

It's the talk of unlawful behaviour as though someone who is given more work than they can get through is a criminal. It's taking it out in the only people they have access to, not those responsible for the system. Like caseworkers are viewed as some kind of fictional villain, not actual people doing a job at the council.

@Bushmillsbabe "Why do you tribunals not take account of this though I wonder? Our LA keeps saying they have run out of money, so after promising funds, now cannot provide."

My guess is that the law is set out like this to avoid a postcode lottery and wealthier people moving to areas with better support (which already happens with schools), which then deepens existing inequalities.

About fullness - in our area (not just LA but all surrounding LAs) every single specialist setting and ARP is full. For the children who no one is arguing they should go to mainstream, every consult comes back with the statement about being incompatible. I really think at this point it is not acceptable for the LA to just hold their hands up and say a tribunal should decide. One of the schools is going to get forced, why wait over a year while child is out of school just to have a judge direct a school rather than the LA? This is what's happening in our scenario.

It actually feels a bit cowardly on behalf of the LA. For what it's worth they're not even saving money because child's package is so large (and a bloody rip off). They admitted to me it's "difficult" for them to maintain relationships with neighbouring LAs if they direct too much. I thought it was spineless if I'm honest, not that I said that! Of course it's my child and my friends' children who suffer.

i have noticed more parents like you describe however in my experience it seems to be parents who have had to fight for the absolute basic sen support in the first place so it’s like they’ve gone into a permanent fight or flight mode and everything is approached as a fight. Often the parent has had to give up work due to their child being out of school either through not being able to attend or by the school excluding them and expecting parents to be there at the drop of a hat. So them not being at work then means their whole focus becomes the child and fighting to have their needs met to an extreme. Maybe I’m over simplifying but if the basic support could have been given on early on this could have even avoided.

if parent are having to go to tribunal anyway to get any support then they are going to ask for the best, they have the costs of going to tribunal anyway, emotional cost, time cost as well as actual costs why would they fight for mediocre. If mediocre is given without tribunal or a fight then parents are much more likely to settle for mediocre

Why do you tribunals not take account of this though I wonder? Our LA keeps saying they have run out of money, so after promising funds, now cannot provide.

It's hugely frustrating to see the teachers and staff put under so much pressure. 3 TA's are on long term sick - 2 due to stress of being hit everyday by children who are overloaded due it not being the right setting for them, and 1 was pushed off a stage by a child and broke both arms. No money available for cover for them, and no support in classes now for children below EHCP threshold who were previously supported in small groups by class TA, so teacher has to give them more time. Every child in the school is loosing out, and it's really sad.

i have noticed more parents like you describe however in my experience it seems to be parents who have had to fight for the absolute basic sen support in the first place so it’s like they’ve gone into a permanent fight or flight mode and everything is approached as a fight. Often the parent has had to give up work due to their child being out of school either through not being able to attend or by the school excluding them and expecting parents to be there at the drop of a hat. So them not being at work then means their whole focus becomes the child and fighting to have their needs met to an extreme. Maybe I’m over simplifying but if the basic support could have been given on early on this could have even avoided.

if parent are having to go to tribunal anyway to get any support then they are going to ask for the best, they have the costs of going to tribunal anyway, emotional cost, time cost as well as actual costs why would they fight for mediocre. If mediocre is given without tribunal or a fight then parents are much more likely to settle for mediocre

The case workers role is what is is under law, not what you think it should be.
Of course you have to have evidence, that's the whole point, it's an evidence based assessment.
That said, schools can be crap at following the graduated approach when needs escalate and change, which is where the evidence would come from. Partly due to capacity issues at school and partly due to a less inclusive culture than I have ever known in mainstream schools.

That doesn't mean anyone can start making it up as they go along.

No case officer or manager is on 60k.
Case officers are on 32-38. Their team manager about 45-50. The overall SEND manager 54k. The service lead (senior management) is on about 65-75 and manage functions across inclusion (perm ex's etc), SEND, Educational Psychology, virtual school. It's a really senior position. Not a case manager. And no they still can't hand out funds on a whim. They are rightfully checks and safeguards around handing out taxpayers money.

In our LA out case officers have a caseload of 300+. That's as well as managing annual reviews for 300, transfers for about 50, movers in and out, placement breakdowns, perm exclusions, consults for school moves, attending mediations, prepping reapons to tribunal, new assessments for about 30 they are also the people answering the phone, responding to emails etc. They aren't 'not bothering ' to reply, they are prioritising. Making difficult decisions.

My team like the SEND team is in crisis, and when. I arrive at 7.30 they are mostly in and when I leave at 6-7 the same.

I have 3 children with SEND, EHCPS, I've had one I crisis and put of school for a year, had to pay for a private autism assessment for one due to waiting lists, had to leva my teaching job because of his struggles to get into school. Had to pick up the pieces of his distress. My life is exhausting with them. Still doesn't mean I have the right to rest people working in the system as their own personal punchbags.

I know what it like I have lived it. The system is in crisis due to underfunding, and increasing mental health needs post pandemic that are being lumped in with SEND, genuine increase in the occurrence of SEN and a serious increase in parental expectations.

There are provisions in the legislation, regs and guidance that were written in he expectation that they would be used for very rare cases. The landscape has changed and people are asking for things like therapy packages, AP, EOTIS all over the place. And I get why, we all desperately want our kids to be happy and have opportunities. There is no judgement from me on this.

However there is an increasingly toxic group of parents, who are very vocal who take pleasure in trying to attack those who work in the broke system. It's like listening to the bitchy clique on the playground.

They genuinely think their actions are beyond reproach because they are a SEND parent. Well so am I. And it doesn't mean we are entitled to be bitches to anyone we feel like.

Unfortunately, many SEN are hereditary and there is also the environmental issue. So unsurprisingly the incidence of parents who can't regulate their emotions appropriately or communicate appropriately or see things from other people's perspectives are higher in this group. I say that as a SEN parent who is almost certainly ND. I know that I have to be hyper aware of these things for myself. But there are some parents who feel entitled to be abusive twunts simply because the have a SEND child and that nobody has the right to pull them up on it.

It is the case in many schools that are forces to accept higher numbers than they are resources to take. The tribunal do not take account of this.
To be fair we work with the school on funding when this happens but if we were a safety valve LA for example with rigid funding implications we probably would not be able to use the resources to do that.

We also lucky that our special school heads work with us well in the scenario, but I know in other LAs they are so sick of having to admit over number etc that the schools are now very adversarial to the LA.

The LA is entitled to determine this and the parent has the right to appeal the decision.

Parents shouldn’t have to challenge the decision. LAs should act lawfully to begin with.

Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?

This isn’t always the case. Even when they do understand about the child’s needs, schools aren’t always aware of the legal threshold for proving incompatibility.

The LA is entitled to determine this and the parent has the right to appeal the decision.

Parents shouldn’t have to challenge the decision. LAs should act lawfully to begin with.

Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?

This isn’t always the case. Even when they do understand about the child’s needs, schools aren’t always aware of the legal threshold for proving incompatibility.

@CleverButScatty "Their needs were less complex, the curriculum wasn't appropriate, they had no peer group. " Sometimes children fall between the gaps in ability / presentation types - certainly have experience of this - and placing them in the maintained special school is the least worst option. From the point of view of the school it looks like parents don't know best but actually the parents have considered all the options and their child wouldn't be able to access an appropriate peer group or curriculum elsewhere either. For some children, like my own, every single setting type will say it's unsuitable and therefore whatever school they end up in will likely think I didn't know what I was doing.

"Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?" Well, I've seen some pretty silly examples of schools refusing to even properly consider pupils. It would also mean that some children (my own included) would never be placed anywhere.

The example you've given sounds chaotic but those children do have to go somewhere and when we haven't got enough special school places, and mainstream classrooms of 30 kids can't cope, it is possible the ARP being too full results in a situation that is similar to those children being placed anywhere else. There's no excuse for the additional funding not being provided though, that's really poor.

The LA ignores advice available to it at the SA stage, in many cases - that’s the problem. My LA were criticised for this in one tribunal report.

I do think this a poor policy though. Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?
My daughters mainstream infants school has a well regarded ARP with 10 places. This year they received 20 requests for reception ARP, for 5 places (other 5 places still needed by year 1 and 2 children) . The school responded with offers of 5 places, with offers for another 5 based on extra funding being provided for teaching assistants. The remaining 10 they felt they could not meet need and it would be harmful for both these children and the existing children to admit them. They were forced to take an extra 5 and it has been an absolute disaster, the funding for extra TA's hasn't materialised but they were essential to keep children safe, so every mainstream class has lost their TA's to the ARP, children already in the ARP are overwhelmed. The school is now in debt through trying to support these extra children, other classes have lost out on support.

I appreciate parental preference, but when a school with a really inclusive ethos says no it cannot meet need/is at capacity, that should be respected. Some schools I appreciate say no without even considering whether can make reasonable adjustments, but for many schools, when they say no, and the LA does not listen, it's really harmful.