To think that Local Authorities Education depts are often dysfunctional org. cultures

[StarlightMcKenzee]

I have read this today:

www.specialneedsjungle.com/why-send-department-targets-mean-culture-change-reform-may-never-happen/

It doesn't surprise me.

Does it surprise any of you, especially those in Education?

Our LA education dept is excellent. Many outstanding schools in a small LA.

Ah okay ghosty.

'Most who work in SEN are in it for the right reasons'.

Not my experience unfortunately. Perhaps at the frontline, though still woefully under trained, but the ones that fulfil LA roles appear at least to me, to be those who were promoted OUT of actually haven't to work with kids because they were rubbish at it.

The ones in Management seem to be the ones who if ever WERE on the frontline, were so in the days of 'dyslexia is just a middle-class problem' and 'poor parents who can't admit their children are defective'.

And if those that get promoted do so because they get away with illegal behaviours, they'll be the ones who recruit to support their further plight along those lines.

I understand lack of money. What I don't understand is the amount of money and work hours they throw into denying services and support. That money they waste could have been used to help provide support for more children.

That's good to hear Lulu but outstanding for who? Children with SEN too? Would their parents say that? Does your LA never have tribunals?

The reason I ask is because it is generally thought by parents of children with SEN that schools considered 'outstanding' by Ofsted care more about their paperwork and streamlining a 'type' of children's education that has little flexibility for those who don't fit and so scout for 'particular' SEN children that will enable them to tick the SEN box without having to use too much resource.

I don't know the detail of it Alice but I agree with your sentiment entirely.

starlight I'm afraid I haven't really understood what you are getting at with that post, although I don't think LAs are hotbeds of "illegal" activity.

I agree Alice - zipping my gob now xxxx

Illegal meaning
-'decisions in direct opposition to, or falling far outside the margins of the statutory SEN code of practice'
-LA advice to parents/staff which ignores or undermines said SENCOP, as set out by Upper Tier Tribunal judges in their decisions (which form official 'case law')

Illegal as in simply not specifying and quantifying provision in an EHCP or Statement?

Illegal as in not providing full-time education to children who would be costly to place?

Illegal as in refusing to do a full statutory assessment of a child with complex needs in order to avoid being responsible for meeting those needs?

Illegal as in failing to disclose or address the fact that a school is not providing the provision detailed in a statement?

Illegal as in encouraging schools to use one child's statemented 1:1 TA resource for other children?

No, - LA's would NEVER do this for fear of being sued!!!!!!! - not

So why aren't they bring sued? Sorry for silly q if obvious

Because there are a million expensive, time-consuming and resource-intensive hoops that you must jump through before you are allowed to take formal legal action. And all the hoops work for the Local Authorities and have very poor knowledge of the law.

Whilst you jump through them, the Local Authorities full paid-up legal team will batter you, demand access to your medical records to undermine your claim on the grounds of mental health and place further pressure on you via removal of vital services for your children and possibly instigate social services investigations.

Eventually, after many years and further deliberate and vindictive deterioration of your family life by the Local Authority, you may be in a position to finally take legal action, but you need to fund initial legal costs.

You will not win money, but you may win an apology and a promise to treat you better.

When the child is 16, you can sue for educational negligence but by then it is almost impossible to pin-point exactly WHAT caused it and you will have a list of records from the original corrupt hoops finding the LA to have not been at fault. Any failure of your child will be blamed on their SEN and the fact that their parents have been tied up in all-consuming battles for years instead of focusing on their kids.

Not illegal as in 'criminal act which you can be arrested for, and in extreme cases go to jail as a result of'

Illegal in the sense of obviously dodgy and outside-the-rules practice which is then denied, justified and obscured, causing more trouble and expense to chase up than any one individual resident could justify

say...

a mayor deliberately parking the official limo on double yellow lines every time, knowing there is no way the CCTV guys will send a ticket, and even if they did, another bit of the council would pick up the bill.

a housing department hounding a seriously unwell adult for bedroom tax arrears, so they will stop opening their mail, and an eviction will follow. Knowing as an arrears case, they'll be voluntarily homeless, so council get a 3-bed back and the ex-tenant is off the housing list.

a social services department saying that because your granny can't produce her printed bank statements, she can't be assessed for the (means-tested) provision of an essential home care package 'at this stage'

the head councillor for planning being heavily involved in decisions regarding a scheme which is opposed by the residents' association. Which he also heads

telling social services that parents seem to be inventing their dc's diagnoses, despite these having been made by the NHS through the usual channels

(of the five examples above, one is an urban myth, one is from Private Eye, and the other three have happened to people I know well, who have detailed relevant paperwork to prove it really did take place like that)

OK which ones actually happened and what can be done to tackle la corruption, especially in SEND?
Thanks for the extremely informative thread by the way.

And I speak as someone previously employed there.

Naming and shaming?

Personally, no chance. Because example 5 is one of the real ones.

Name and shame?

You know that LAs stalk parents online right? They get away with that because it is unbelievable.

My LA had me in front of the Benefits Office for allegedly claiming DLA fraudulently. They claimed it must be true because I was helping people online with the wording on the forms. They implied I was overstating my child's needs (despite the fact that a charity actually filled in my child's form not me).

They reported me two days after I had informed them that my DF had been given two weeks to live and required an extension regarding an appeal document to their illegal removal of my child's provision. The benefits office did not tell me what I was summoned for and insisted I bring all (but not easily to hand) details of my financial circumstances (despite DLA not being a means-tested benefit).

I spent at least a week of those final two of my Father's at home going through paperwork.

When I got there, the benefit office told me why I was called in and mentioned MN. Luckily I was confident in my integrity, honesty and could explain why the fact that my child could walk had nothing to do with whether Autism was a physical disability or not, and could admit to and defend my online activity.

A circular to all HTs or local schools was also sent, encouraging them to impose strict restrictions on my involvement in my child's education should I apply to them, with claims that I record meetings. I got wind of this from a professional with integrity and had it confirmed through a DPA request.

My story is a fraction of the evil that has hit other families I know.

Incidentally I have spent nearly my entire working life either directly or indirectly employed by Local Authorities. I have been expected to fill out bogus questionnaires to lead to consultation results that meet the preferences of councillors, and give charity hall-hire rates to friends of colleagues.

Not exactly the life chances of vulnerable children at risk through my actions but an illustration of the general culture and attitude within these organisations.

OK. I'll report my own post and have it removed. But there must be some way to fight back?

Sorry I know that sounds so gutless. I do want to stand up to this corruption I just don't know how

Not at all surprised. We've been "lucky" so far and have had well-meaning but not that competent, with a smattering of 'just say no for as long as you can and maybe they will go away' at the top level.

We are now awaiting another decision on change of schools and the consequent slight funding increase (including ABA). So I may change my tune in a couple of days if the gloves suddenly come off.

Of course we've already been on tenterhooks for 6 months and lost one school after the LA did nothing for the first 2 months, so the incompetence is wearing to say the least.

What they've done to you Starlight over the years really is jaw dropping - limp

My dd is NT but suffers with anxiety due to extensive bullying. We moved her in year 5. 6 months later the bully was moved from his school to dds new one. This increased her anxiety and ended up with police involvment this year. Dd did not get into our secondary school. Her doctor and the school Senco were worried about the impact on her going to a different school to the friends she has made, which was difficult enough given her anxiety. She has also been recently refered to camhs.

Anyway at the appeal the woman representing the council was awful. She told us we were bad parents because we hadn't 'made her get over it' and that dd would have to 'expect not to get her own way by having a panic attack' Even the appeal panel were visably shocked. The amount of information she had about me personally including the fact that I worked from home, that we had to get the police to deal with the bullying etc. she even noted that we said dh works away but works for our business which is based at home. I, thankfully, produced a contract that proved dh was a sub contactor for another company on the other side of the country and I run the business myself.

She was truly vile and had no understanding of people with anxiety. I even commented that I thought the councils had left the days of poo-pooing people with anxiety and mental health problems.

Dh remarked afterwards that you would have thought that she personally would have to pay to educate my dd if we won. I starting to think that might be true of sorts and she possibly was hoping for a bonus. It was bad enough for us, I can not imagine how hard it is for the people whose children need this funding to get their children an education.

Worst case senario for us was that dd would have to be homeschooled. Which is not an option for so many.

My experience is nothing compared to the people on the article or on this thread. I just wanted to say that I have had a small glimpse of this and I am so sorry you and your children are being treated like that.

Oh and during the appeal process we found that the same woman from the council had wrote to all schools in the LEA telling them that under no circumstances should the teachers (including the SENCO) write letters supporting appeals. They were told they should all present a united front with the council regardless of whether they agreed with the decision or not.

I didn't get an answer at the appeal, when I queried if they were saying that a SENCO should not act in the best interests of the child when they disagreed with the council. The appeal panel couldn't get a straight answer but did manage to ascertain that they should not have done that (it broke the standards and framework act) and therefore admitted the SENCO statement.

Just so awful.
Is this not of interest to investigative reporters?