Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

Bog off with your victim hood nonsense. If you can only make points by name calling you're argument is very flawed.

I can't be arsed, I'm trying to cook tea, not participate in preparation of a fucking tribunal bundle.

If you want to believe all tribunal panels are flawless, knock yourself out I cannot be bothered convincing you otherwise.

All you ant to hear is LAs are awful and SEND parents (apart from me obvs) are saints who are wronged at every turn. There is no nuance or variability to this of course.

Surely saying some advocates are "crap" is the same as saying some Case Officers are crap? I mean, that's the exact word I would use for a lot of Case Officers, definitely not evil but certainly a bit crap.

I agree with you about SENDIASS, Some are good, but far too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies. I also agree about some advocates. Whilst some are good, there are some who do more harm than good. Neither of which excuse unlawful behaviour by LAs. If LAs and other services acted lawfully, the demand for such services would dramatically reduce.

It’s not our problem. We have enough on our plates so forgive me - I’m rather disinclined to get my tiny violin out for the poor LAs who can’t possibly provide children with what they need.

How would it go down for you if your house was burgled and the police did nothing? This is happening atm because of stretched resources.

Absolutely. Not by calling caseworkers names but to successfully navigate the system.
Another area that needs attention in my opinion is advocacy services.

I have always worked in areas with good SENDIASS organisations, but I don't hear this is the case everywhere.

Independent advocacy is like the Wild West, completely unregulated. Some amazing independent advocates, some mediocre and some who are crap and even worse financially exploiting vulnerable families.

Also advocacy needs to start earlier, at the school level graduated approach so the quality of reports etc can be influenced by schools etc rather than later on in the process.

Actually, my experience has been that the SEND panel will try to give the LA the benefit of the doubt as much as they can. They are required to do this - they will need to be very sure that it’s reasonable to allow a parent’s appeal.

I have three questions to ask you about the experience you describe;

1. if the judge in your case made a legal error because he was only concerned with his ego, did your LA appeal against this decision, as would have been reasonable?
2. How did you know that his decision making was to do with his ego?
3. Did you read the decision in its entirety?

I would ask that you stop aiming your victimhood at me - it’s tiresome.

Yes. Absolutely. If the LA were properly held to account and made to follow the law, for each and every case, they would quite likely have to declare that they’re about to go bust. Then the mechanism is that central government step in and ensure that the statutory duties are discharged and usually another set of management are brought in too.

And that’s what needs to happen.

By your misguided efforts in trying to do what you can with an inadequate budget, you become part of the problem. And your solidly unlawful stance means that the most vulnerable members of society get fucked over - the very people that you personally purport to be helping.

So either follow the law or go and do something else.
There. Fixed that for you.

By the way I know what the answer is .. more financial resources, caseworkers, special school places, pressure from Ofsted on mainstreams to be inclusive, more resources provisions, better SEND training in initial teacher training and clear funding to support the cure cohort of learners through the current crisis. That would go a long way. And reviewing the current 2 part rule for assessment being so low. This is what is causing the EP bottle neck.

Sat like the caseworkers, none of this is in my remit.

All parents should be supported to advocate for their child and enforce their child’s rights. Everyone can do this and everyone should be supported to. That works.

I understand that, but the LA have to manage provision for all of the kids. Stamping your feet and shouting 'its the law' doesn't create enough capacity to implement every aspect of the law for all those kids. We can all stamp our feet and shout that. The tricky bit is making the inadequate resources make this possible for all of those with an EHCP. Any words of wisdom on how to do this, or are we back to stamping our feet and shouting 'its the law' like a broken record?

None of which I have said. So hypocritical of you to use those words towards me.

And if anyone had said caseworkers were on an ego trip you would have accused them of bullying and personal attacks, so it is hypocritical of you to describe someone else as that.

Ah, got it. So when it's your experience we should all take it as fact. But when others recount their experience then they are "delusional" or "ridiculous".

(But parents are doing the name-calling not you)

Just because you feel that those descriptions don’t represent you, doesn’t mean they’re untrue. I’d have thought that was obvious.

@CleverButScatty "varies on individual judges" just as it does on individual Case Officers or indeed teachers / headteachers / SENCos.

Not all of them are out for the best I'm afraid.

Daft and naive are tamed compared to evil, tactful game players, illiterate, devoid of morals and some of the other gems on this thread.

You call bullshit all you like. I am recounting my experience. Talking down to and over parents and LA alike, general unpleasant attitude.
They are well versed in law, but not working. With children with SEND. they are very different occupations and skill sets.
When I was a special school SENCO we had kids placed through tribunal where is was a ridiculous decision, inappropriate curriculum, no peer group etc. we also had some who it was the right thing and would have slipped through the net. Just varies on individual judges.

Have you attended many hearings or JDARs? It is this just anecdotal evidence of a couple of cases or supposition?

It isn’t ‘daft’ or ‘naive’ (for someone who doesn’t want parents to use similar wording about caseworkers, you are showing how hypocritical you are). It is true. The FTTs decisions can be challenged when they have erred in law.

For fucks sake.

The decision making for one child should be the same as the decision making for all children because the decisions should be informed by the law, NOT by some “greatest benefit for the greatest number” type axiom.

Why can’t you see that?

Agree, I also dispute that some tribunal judges are just "out on an ego trip" but that all LA Case Officers are genuinely trying their best and if they get caught out lying it's because they "forgot".

Don't be daft. It's a system that we work in, it's imperfect but legally binding. You implement the order from that case move onto the other eleventy thousand you are dealing with.

You're being very naive about the impact of their decisions in existing cohorts though. And about their decision making being impeccable. Again the difference between decision making for one child and decision making for thousands.

Good on you for using that system for the individual kids you support though. Nowt wrong with that. Just don't go round calling caseworkers untrustworthy or whatever because they're stuck in the same system.

I call BS on tribunal judges making decisions based upon ‘an ego trip’.

For one thing, the tribunal Judge is a lawyer, well versed in SEN Law. If the panel makes a mistake (ie a decision with no legal basis) which leads the LA to appeal the decision on a point of law (which is their only basis to appeal), then the judge of that tribunal is going to come under fire. It puts their reputation and professional integrity on the line. And they will be held accountable for mistakes made which clearly could and should have been avoided.

For this reason, Ime at least, the decision is usually extremely detailed and covers all bases, with disclaimers such as ‘we did not consider X to be determinative’ when talking about one source of evidence.

In my extensive experience I strongly disagree. The tribunal are only there to force the LA to apply the law correctly and that’s a remarkably simple thing to do, hence the 97% of decisions being in the parent’s favour. These cases end up at tribunal because the LA including caseworkers appear not to be able or willing to discharge their legal duty unless forced to by the courts.

If LAs really thought SENDIST had erred they would challenge the decision. As I said, this usually doesn’t happen because LAs know the decision is lawful.

SENDIST are no more perfect than LA caseworkers, schools etc. there is good and bad. Half the time only one person on the panel is from an appropriate professional background anyway. It's very hit and miss.

SENDIST ignore when LAs cannot meet the legal threshold for proving incompatibility. If LAs really thought SENDIST had erred, they would challenge the decision. That rarely happens because the bar is far higher than many LAs outwardly acknowledge and LAs know this. Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant.