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

You are part of the problem. You really are.

Woven through your post is the implicit justification for ignoring the law. And you may tell yourself that you’re actually doing the Right Thing by applying these Benthamite principles but actually you’re undermining the very system which, if applied properly, can work well.

Instead of demonising parents with sharp elbows and who also have boned up on legal matters, you should see that they are forced to provide specific and quantified probate reports because the service from the LA is deliberately poor.

And as for giving yourself a pat on the back for advocating for children in care, you’d be better signposting them to IPSEA and SOSSEN and then having a good sit down.

people will genuinely consider 32k a year caseworkers to be lawbreakers because they are following policies based on the resources that actually exist.

The issue is that the policies don't always follow the law. The real issue is with those who make the policies but as parents and teachers we only have access to them through our caseworker.

You “don’t agree with.”

So you’ve given yourself permission to ignore the law.

You are not the arbiter of justice here. Thankfully.

No, I'm telling you some hard truths and you are taking an arsey attitude.

I wonder if you are an advocate? Many advocates would argue they are helping people, some would argue they are profiting from families in crisis. We can all twist these things against individual but is not helpful. Or ok.

@CleverButScatty well you obviously don’t understand if you posted “It has to have been commissioned as as statutory advice for an EHC needs assessment.” When that isn’t true.

Whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law.

You don’t get it. Your “hard truths” are not what is set out in the legal framework. You don’t have the right to bend the law or simply ignore it because it doesn’t suit your perspective. Can you imagine if that was acceptable in any other legal scenario?

And yes, I’m an advocate. And I also never ever charge.

Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour.
The rules that cover SEN law are clear, and the governmental institution closest to the heart of them in their delivery, is the Local Authority. So it is something of a conundrum when the LA repeatedly ignore the law in order to stay within budget.
Let’s think what might happen if other agencies did this:
The Police. Murder investigations are very expensive so unless we catch the killer red handed, or there are more than 3 people murdered at the same time, the police will then call all deaths accidental. Ok?
HMRC. Working out everyone’s tax code individually is really expensive and we don’t have enough staff to do that, so we’re going to just put everyone in the same rate. Ok?
Home Office. Passports are terribly expensive to administer, and anyway the internet is so fast that you don’t have to actually be there because you can Skype, so all travel abroad is stopped. Ok?
SEN Office. Your child needs OT but we haven’t got enough OTs so we’ve sent his school a leaflet with some exercises the teachers might do with him. And he needs regular breaks to a quiet space? Here’s a pop up tent. Ok?
No. No not ok at all. Yet you seem to operate in this way. Despite very clear legislation and duty of care, they regularly flout the law until pushed to conform.

The SEND caseworkers are not EPs. If they are presented with a report that has not been commissioned by the LA as part of the statutory process (which the code says it should usually be) they need to determine whether it can be used for the needs assessment.

They do this by getting a view from an LA EP. As the caseworkers are not EPs. Where the code says that the LA must take decisions e.g. in whether the report can be used (is for for purpose), they need to take steps to ensure that they do this with due diligence. This is what People who have read the statutory guidance but never had to apply it in a real life setting miss. And what my post-grad NASENCO qual looks at, as well as my experience of applying the law in a range of real life situations.

When advice is requested from professionals for the purpose of the EHCP needs assessment the request makes clear that this is the purpose.

If a report has been written for other purposes then it is not clear that the information in it is considered by the professional to be everything they would want to share for the statutory assessment. In addition the code specifies that the EP report should usually be commissioned by the LA. You are right to state that advise which has already been sought should not be sought again, hence the fact that the EP would consider the external report and give a view.

You are not the only person in the world who has memorised the code of practice. Applying it in the real world is a skill above that and comes from many years of being a practitioner.

None of that changes or overrides the legislation.

The LA judging whether existing evidence is sufficient is not the same thing as it having “to have been commissioned as as statutory advice for an EHC needs assessment.”

As I have already pointed out “They do this by getting a view from an LA EP.” isn’t always the case. Sometimes LAs decide it isn’t sufficient without an EP even seeing the existing evidence.

I didn’t say I was the only person in the world… You aren’t the only one years of real life experience either.

Nope. I'm going to stop engaging with you because it's like talking to a child.
I do not agree with using the law to try and squeeze every last drop out of the system.
My autistic son is now at a special schools and thriving. If I was to pay a private SALT I could definitely get them to write a report saying he needed twice weekly therapy outside of school and no doubt they would be happy to deliver this at a cost to the LA. I am more than capable of chasing that through a tribunal.
The truth is the NHS SALT at school is fine and I think it would be morally wrong to do this, whilst others are still in the situation my son was in a year ago. And he would rather be kicking a football in the garden.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
That would not be good for businesses for advocates though...who unlike LA caseworkers do have a personal financial interest in this...

It’s like talking to the wall. This is they do it in her LA, and therefore that’s the legal process whereas clearly we know it isn’t.

Can’t you see that you are equating tribunal action with an amoral stance on legislation? You’re applying your own dubious moral compass and legal understanding, and have concluded that just because you can follow the law doesn’t mean you should have to.

And personally speaking, I’m a pro bono advocate. I have nothing to gain whatsoever from these cases apart from the personal satisfaction of righting some of the wrongs that are delivered by attitudes like yours.

I paraphrasesd. Because it's Mumsnet not a tribunal hearing. I'm not at work and can't be arsed 😂

Absolutely not. No one from the LA ever has your child’s best interests at heart. The lie and gas light you.

No you have repeated the same incorrect point.

The reality is those SEND children with sharp elbowed parents treat SEND as access to a private education with the state funding it.

you are away with the fairies. My child doesn't have any education. I want a maintained specialist setting (as opposed to having no school). The majority of the parents want the same. Just a suitable education for their child to attend. You should become a case worker if you aren't one already. You would fit right in with your gaslighting and the lies you produce.

That's like saying, because a few exaggerate their depression/back pain/disability of choice everybody's PIP should be reduced and DWP should make illegal decisions.

99% of parents want the LAs to follow law because they want their child to access their legal right to an education. They want to fight so their 10 year olds are not suicidal because of unsuitable provision. They want to give their child a fair chance in life. To have the possibility of an actual future. To not have their family torn apart by the trail of destruction the LA cause. To be able to work to provide for their family Which they can't do because the LAs illegal practices mean their DC don't have access to education.

Not fucking horse riding lessons!

(Although I pay privately for RDA lessons for DC and at £132 a term it's massively cheaper than weekly OT).

You think you can do better? Apply for a caseworker position, train as an EP, apply for a virtual school post

Unfortunately, parents like me are pushed out of the workforce by local authorities as there are no schools for our children to attend, and unfortunately , I cannot leave my suicidal child alone at home. but thanks for the patronising crap.

Can you try and outline your arguments without making personal insults at people.
I am really sorry for your situation. I have been there and it was horrific for all of us.

Do you have any idea just how many of the workforce around SEND either have SEND themselves it children with SEND. A significant proportion, it is often the driving factor.

I had to leave my on site job at a school for one I can do remotely for some of the week b cause of my children's mental health and SEND needs. I took a significant pay cut to do so. I realise that my level of education and experience makes that an option for me and that is not an option for everyone, so I am lucky in that respect.

Stop making personal insults at people, it is not ok. I know you are having a hard time but you are underestimating how many of us have been or are where you are.

what aren't you concerned about the poster making nasty accusations against parents who fight the system? Why are you more concerned with my reply stating that this simply isn't true (we are not trying to get out kids a private education and horse riding lessons). It's such an absurd statement. But you aren't bothered by that??? Accusing of SEN parents of such thing is exactly the sort of lies and gaslighting we are exposed to by the LAs. What issue do you have with calling it out? You surely read the post yourself?

This thread is highlighting everything I’ve seen in my now eleven years experience of this. I’m an advocate on a voluntary basis because my caring responsibilities are incompatible with a paid position. And yes, I am care experienced, sadly to the teeth.

Step back and think about the cases which cost the LA hundreds of thousands. In my county and the one neighbouring it there is NO specialist autism provision provided by the state. None. Zero. So the kids who need specialist are bussed into another LA or placed in residential autism schools. No one wants that. No one wants their child on a huge round trip or away from them all week. But when there is literally no accessible alternative then that’s what happens. And yes of course that £100,000 could go a long way when spread across multiple children but what happens to the individual child who still legally must have an education? Do they simply “take one for the team”?

Thank God they have the legal protection of the CAFA from those who seek to bend it to their own beliefs about the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

And the suggestion that EHCPs are a way to get a private education is absurd. Utterly. I’m case hardened, experienced and legally trained and it took 2 years’ tribunal and JR action just to get SLT for one of mine. And prior to this it was self funded by the parent.