Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

Definitely. And when it comes to the maintained special schools at transition points, it would be physically impossible to accommodate all those who name it as a preference.

And when I was a special school SENCO, we had to admit children through tribunal who just weren't appropriate for our setting. Their needs were less complex, the curriculum wasn't appropriate, they had no peer group. Some parents really know what is best for their kids, but not all (even though they are really well intentioned).

I think the system has collapsed and become adversarial and it has got to the point where the LA are seen as being underhand for accepting a negative consult response and not naming in line with parental preference.

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.

@StrivingForSleep Yes. As I said. The LA is entitled to determine this and the parent has the right to appeal the decision. This is what we all do.

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.

I didn’t say it was a criminal trial.

LAs are required to comply with the legislation. Unless the LA can prove one of the exceptions set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014 they must name the (non-wholly independent) parental preference. By refusing to name parental preference because they claim a placement is incompatible with the efficient education of others or use of resources when they can’t actually meet that threshold, LAs are acting unlawfully.

Tribunal is a formal dispute resolution process, not a criminal trial.
The law allows the LA to make these decisions (they have to, or 100 kids would have a school with 60 places named in section I at year 7 transition).
And some will want to dispute that through tribunal and you have to try and work through it.

I am starting to think working for the LA puts me on a parr with Tony Soprano, all these accusations of law breaking!

Ah bless I can see what that would do your head in. It's also a very common things autistic people do to demonstrate empathy of the situation. Ultimately if you have issues with her work and raise this in an appropriate way that's utterly reasonable.
There are a surprising number of autistic people on our SEN team.

where do you stop.

The law answers this for you. Where the parental preference is not wholly independent, LAs should be naming the placement if they cannot demonstrate one of the lawful reasons set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

you sometimes have to make decisions knowing they will be challenged

Nothing excuses the LA acting unlawfully. Parents shouldn’t have to appeal.

if it's challenged and overturned it doesn't mean it was an unlawful decision.

Yes it does! If the LA could prove one of the lawful exceptions to naming the parental preference, SENDIST would not uphold the appeal. And the unlikely event SENDIST erred in law, LAs would be quick to challenge that decision.

My son’s LA worker is shit.
She tries to blame all of his problems on a very small area of his difficulties and never takes into account that this area is symptomatic of a much wider disability diagnosed by someone far more qualified than her.
in the last review I had to stop her from talking about her own autism. She’s awful.

I know this, but as I say where do you stop. Every additional learner admitted dilutes the provision... The quiet spaces, the breakout areas, the small number of adults they need relationships with. So you sometimes have to make decisions knowing they will be challenged, but you have to draw a line somewhere. It's not done lightly and it's fine that parents challenge it.

Obviously once you are physically over fire safety regs, the statutory guidance about classroom size Vs age/need etc that is more clear cut.

Again of I was a parent despite to get my child a school place I would not care, if I was a parent of an existing student there whose presentation deteriorated due to the number and needs of additional kids admitted I'd be furious.
The LA have to make these decisions, and if it's challenged and overturned it doesn't mean it was an unlawful decision. It's just the process.

As I say I've been there, and the fact that I am beaten down dealing with the system doesn't t mean I'm blase about the effects of this on families.

Showing it is detrimental is not always enough to show incompatibility.

And we come back to the point it is common for LAs to state they can’t name a school because it is full yet cannot prove incompatibility. Hence why Tribunals are successful. LAs don’t have to force parents to appeal. They could comply with the law to start with.

I believe it. I have seen a mainstream primary school refuse to even show around the family of a very clever little boy with physical disabilities who uses a wheelchair sometimes because they were a two story building. Er, reasonable adjustments??

And then special schools that charge 50-100k that won't take learners with behaviours. None of them will. Even the SEMH schools. They only want bright Autistic kids who might sometimes be a bit unregulated. My son is autistic but in Y6 really struggled and had started absconding, lashed out on occasion. The LA had to consult with 21 schools before we got an offer. And even then they wanted to observe him twice etc. it was the August after he left primary before we got it sorted.

The number of schools who will take learners with genuinely complex behaviour needs is dwindling so badly. And when you look at the fees they charge....

Well they can, but if a school provides a lawfully compliant response that they can't meet need, or it would be detrimental etc etc you need to consider that.
So saying we are over out admission number is not a code compliant response, but saying if we admit another child we would exceed the number of children that can safely be in a classroom of X size (quote stat guidance that relates to this) or who can be safely accommodates due to fire regs etc is compliant.

Also, if it is a school where children have been placed because they need smaller groups, break out spaces etc, the more kids you admit it incrementally reduces their access to this and dilutes that provision, so there is a decision to be made by the school in their consult response. The LA can still make the school but would not do this lightly. There does have to be a decision made and of course parents are entitled to challenge that through the tribunal process.

These are the difficult decisions, every child admitted over admission number will have a detrimental effect on the existing cohorts by diluting access to resources, the quietness of the space, but there are times when it is right to admit an extra child. You could do this with large numbers though.

I think truthfully these situations are navigated by all on a case by base basis. But everywhere is in crisis. Two of the special schools in my LA can't recruit a permanent headteacher for love nor money because these are horrific pressures on special school heads. That's definitely not doing the kids any good. I don't have know what the answer if other than to create more specialist places and that is neither quick nor manageable without huge levels of investment from central government.

Honestly, you should have seen the response a school came back with regarding us naming it as parental preference for one of my DC. It's less than 10% oversubscribed and wrote this whole story basically about children spilling out into the corridors with dangerous incidents. When pressed on how many dangerous incidents had happened in corridors in the last year it was exactly 0 and only 1 child in the whole building had been temporarily suspended in the year at all. There was just so much drama, I won't write it all out. I know why they did it, because they feel full and a bit stretched but they lied at several points (again, very literally caught out but it's outing) and the LA just bloody ran with their lies even though there us strong evidence they knew it wasn't true.

where it's schools judgement and less clear cut.

For non-wholly independent schools, it isn’t the school’s judgement, it is the LA (and then SENDIST, obviously, for those who appeal) who makes the decision. The school can be named against their will. And to prove incompatibility LAs need to do more than just prove there is an adverse effect on DC.

Apologies that other post is the one I was responding to.

I suppose the case for incompatibility on capacity would just be a bit stronger with each child admitted. Generally schools reference fire safety regs, the statutory guidance about how many children of an age/need etc can be in a physical space of X size. Clearly it's detrimental to have a child not in a safe speca as per fire regs, ratios etc but there will be a very area where it's schools judgement and less clear cut.

We definitely need a better system and a huge uplift in the number of special school places.

We had some good caseworkers, but the very worst case worker we had, the one who lied and didn't turn up to meetings and who SENDIASS made it clear wasn't to be trusted and who fucked up countless other cases of people I knew, was promoted. I can only think that he was good at managing demand and or budgets.

You are confusing me with another poster. I wasn’t the one who posted “i wish to god that the other 60 parents all went to tribunal”.

I did, however, earlier in the thread post, “All parents should be supported to advocate for their child and enforce their child’s rights.” I stand by that. It would force the LA to comply with the law. So, where LAs state the (non-wholly independent) school is full by can’t prove incompatibility, the school would be named and forced to admit.

Absolutely, there is also definitely a minority of professionals who seem to only be there for the paycheck, treating both colleagues and families with thinly hidden disdain. We all know who they are, they know who they are, managers know who they are, but the process of getting rid of nhs and LA employees is so weighted towards the employee that's it's almost impossible to get rid of poor staff members. The majority of us are genuinely trying our best in a very challenging system though.

No I'm not saying you said anything. You said you hoped they all took the LA to tribunal, what outcome would you envisage? Genuinely curious

Back to the original question, there will be Case Officers who:
a) Are good but leave due to the system.
b) Are good and need the job so do the best they can within the confines of the system.
c) Are just bad and/or bad at their jobs.
d) Have disdain for parents / are actively dishonest and thrive in the system.

Unfortunately every option often leads to a lot of harm although only half of the options are unintentional harm. There is more to it though than just some people are bad at their jobs. Public sector jobs attract candidates who genuinely want to do good in the world, but they also attract people who actively abuse their positions and wish to cause harm for whatever reason. This can be seen in the many scandals of public sector professional roles: teaching, policing, LA, NHS, social care etc. You never get massive supermarket staff scandals or groups of electricians who use their profession to harm their clients.

Healthy and polite cynicism is the best way to deal with the LA in my opinion.

Are you honestly suggesting that the LA should have named a school with a capacity of 60 in section I of 100 plans?

Can you quote exactly where I said that? Because I think you are reading different posts to the posts I am posting. I didn’t say that.

My point in my last post that you quoted wasn’t about whether LAs can prove incompatibility or not. It was commenting on the fact non-wholly independent schools can be named even if they object. Where the parental preference is not wholly independent, LAs should be naming the placement if they cannot demonstrate one of the lawful reasons set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014. This bar is far higher than many LAs admit.

Are you honestly suggesting that the LA should have named a school with a capacity of 60 in section I of 100 plans? I'm not sure what you're suggesting should have happened here?

By the way this a fictional but realistic situation, obviously I'm not going to post real details. It's also a wholly unacceptable situation, but I'm just interested about what you feel the LA or school should have done different?

It is lawful for the LA to determine that a different school should be names, and of course the parent has the right of appeal over this.

It is a wholly shit situation though.

They have to have an offer of a place that the LA have refused for a section I appeal.

An offer of a place is only needed for wholly independent settings. Other settings can be named even if they object.

Would that magic up another 60 places? We have filled all the special schools (maintained Nd independent). They have to have an offer of a place that the LA have refused for a section I appeal. That's why the other 60 don't there are no places and therefore no offer of places... And they will mostly be SEMH kids with behaviours stuck like this who can least take the uncertainty.
Ir.wpjld be interesting that did happen, to see if you would get a tribunal judge attempting to force a school with capacity for 60 kids to take 100. Clearly that couldn't happen either.