Are SEN case workers to be trusted?

[Ricecakesaremyjam]

Are local authority SEN case workers to be trusted? Do they work to serve the child, or on behalf of the school who aren’t delivering EHCP interventions?
Can anyone advise?! Thanks x

SEP doesn’t only have to be provided during traditional school times. It can be provided outside of that. EHCPs are written based on the child’s needs, not to fit the school day.

Provision should be based on what is reasonably required to meet the child or YP’s needs. Outcomes are the result of provision. Outcomes are not targets (which are an aim). Many LAs claim not to know the difference.

There is nothing stopping LAs going back to professionals to request they comply with their duties. And since many have to appeal to get a watertight EHCP even if the evidence is there, waiting just delays DC getting the correct support.

And this is the trouble. I accept it's not directly the caseworkers to blame but who are the invisible people above them who are forcing parents to gp to tribunal by acting ilkegally? I will win a tribunal with no trouble at all - the provisions my DD needs are clearly specified into the EP report, it's just the LA who refuse to copy them over. Tribunal will kick the can down the road but then my DC will have missed too much education to get her GCSEs so not only will they have wasted money on court fees, they will then still need to pay for provision for her to be able to sit them post-16. It will probably end up costing them more.

@lavenderlouexactly this dd has missed three years in total waiting for Tribunal multiple times. She had a SSEN at 3 before setting foot in any educational placement. Prior to EOTAS she attended out of County independent specialist so LA were paying about £75k a year for provision. You would have thought they would have been happy when they agreed EOTAS and a significant saving on costs with a modest package but no they decided they would kick it down the road by issuing an unenforceable EHCP and refusing all provision. Now they are funding more than 30 hours a week EOTAS plus all materials and resources plus £50pw for sundries for dd to spend whilst out with a PA and saving next to nothing and because they can’t seem to get their end sorted and sort out how to sit external exams there is no end in sight as there is no way for her to meet the objective to secure level 3 qualifications.

@hiredandsqueak It makes no sense.

Yes, absolutely, they are broader than that, with social care supossed to be included, although I am yet to see one where it does, except in the case of residential provision.
Yes, outcomes are not targets, bit they are connected.
As most professionals work similar hours to school day, provision for PT, OT, SLT does tend to need to fit within the school day, or the child needs to come out of school for it, which is not ideal for the child or for working parents, but provision also needs to allow time for a child's non directed social development - making friends etc, and actual learning time, rather than just being therapy based.

although I am yet to see one where it does, except in the case of residential provision.

Then you have only seen poor EHCPs. Which isn’t surprising since many are poor.

provision for PT, OT, SLT does tend to need to fit within the school day, or the child needs to come out of school for it

This is not the case. Some DC have provision outside of the school day. Some even have provision at the weekend &/or outside of the school term times.

which is not ideal for the child or for working parents

Parents aren’t responsible for the provision. It is the LA’s responsibility. Professional time &/or transport to enable the provision to take place is the responsibility of the LA. It isn’t EHE.

but provision also needs to allow time for a child's non directed social development - making friends etc, and actual learning time, rather than just being therapy based.

I haven’t said otherwise. Both can happen.

@hiredandsqueak if DD is ready to sit exams (or will be ready soon since exams needs organising in advance especially if more complex EAA are required), I would be telling the LA if they don’t pull their finger out you will be forced to pursue JR. It is won’t rather than can’t. The LA knows full well DC with EOTAS can sit exams and that they are responsible. It is yet another delaying tactic.

Most therapists work within a standard working day, except a few private practices, as we also have families too! Yes to some provision during school holidays, but that is usually the health aspect of provision and funded by the nhs rather than LA. Not all provision within an EHCP is LA funded, it depends on the section it's stipulated within.

I appreciate that, but some EHCPs fail to look at the child as more than a group of outcomes. Unfortunately most caseworkers seem to have very little health knowledge, and limited educational knowledge, and the EHCP's are just a copy and paste exercise from the various reports they receive, which isnt holistic or often even sensible. So yes I agree there are many very poor EHCP's due to caseworkers with limited knowledge, time pressures, sometimes conflicting advice from different professionals in same document. I feel EHCP's may be better written by someone who knows the child, such as their SENCo, but that would also comes with its own issues. The whole system is a bit of a disaster tbh, very expensive without accountability on whether the (often very costly) provision is actually making a significant difference to the child's long term outcomes.

Of course not all therapists do, but there are lots of independent providers who work outside of school times. LAs can’t use the fact they want the provision to be delivered by their preferred provider as an excuse to limit provision.

that is usually the health aspect of provision and funded by the nhs rather than LA.

Not in a good EHCP, it isn’t. If it educates or trains, as therapies mostly do, it is deemed special educational provision rather than health care provision. Therefore, it should be in F and the LA is ultimately responsible.

I disagree that SENCOs writing EHCPs would be a good idea.

There would be a conflict of interest. This is sometimes evident now with AR paperwork, consult responses, and evidence for SENDIST. It would be the same with writing EHCPs. It isn’t uncommon for schools to fail to recognise some or all of a child’s needs or the provision they require. EHCPs should be written based on the child’s needs, not on what a placement can or wants to provide. All too often, EHCPs are written in a way that attempts to shoehorn a child into a particular placement. That wouldn’t change. It would give schools the opportunity to scaffold the provision in a way they can and want to deliver or conversely in a way that reads as though mainstream is completely incompatible even when it isn’t. Then you move to the more complex cases involving EOTAS/EOTIS/with or without the C on the end. Many SENCOs do not have the first clue about the law surrounding that. And there are DC who are not on the roll of a setting e.g. EHE DC or some below or above CSA.

There would also be problems with schools either intentionally or through ignorance believing the unlawful LA policies and myths and toeing the party line. This happens now. You only have to look at what nonsense some schools tell parents about EHCPs to see this. For example, this LA doesn’t do 1:1, the EHCP gives us suggestions and we decide what to implement, that (therapies, equipment…) doesn’t go in EHCPs…. Many are not aware SCP/HCP which educates or trains is deemed SEP and therefore belongs in F. Many are oblivious to the requirements for PfA provision or what it entails. Lots do not recognise woolly and vaguely wording and fail to understand the implications of woolly and vague wording. Look at how poor some SEN Support plans/IEPs/provision maps etc. are and they are far simpler than EHCPs.

Tbh dd is really loving her current provision her tutors have used the LAs incompetence to really enrich her learning so she isn’t being taught to purely pass the exams she is enjoying a broad knowledge. All the while she is maturing and growing in confidence so for now it suits us to carry on as we are. I know others with EOTAS who will force the issue before we will need to so it will be addressed. It just amazes me how much money they are prepared to waste through their own lack of planning and action.

@hiredandsqueak the general public would be aghast at the amounts wasted. It is lovely to read DD is enjoying learning.

D’s SALT and OT are in F so funded through education. SALT takes place in the evening as dd is busy during the day. She was discharged by NHS at 4 but still receives SALT fortnightly at 22 through the EHCP delivered by an independent SALT likewise the OT. Education also fund her PA a provision often funded through social care but we have no social care input and dd wouldn’t fit social care criteria anyway. Instead Education fund 10 hours per week as preparation for adulthood. We argued that dd received PfA at independent specialist which would have continued had the college that followed on from school been suitable and so it should continue as EOTAS.

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.

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

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.

Sorry, ‘them’ being some SENCOs.

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?

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'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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.