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

Did you quote me by mistake?
Your reply doesn't make any sense in relation to my comment.

TLDR: Most parents are fighting for some semblance of an education for their children, not free extra curricular activities.

It isn’t paraphrasing. It is completely changing the meaning to something that is incorrect.

Drumming lessons, Gym Sessions, Horse Riding are extra curricula and support holistic health and social wellbeing.
they are above and beyond what is required

Depending on the child’s needs, they can all be considered special educational needs under the law. If they were ‘above and beyond’, they wouldn’t be able to in F of EHCPs because it only covers what is reasonably required. For CSA children unable to attend school, they can also be part of AP to ensure they receive the broad and balanced curriculum all CSA DC are entitled to as part of a suitable full-time education under s.19 of the Education Act 1996.

Have you missed the umpteen times I have pointed out that I am also a parent of children with significant SEND? it doesn't give us carte blanche to abuse people.

Where has someone tried to gaslight you? I .sick of hearing this word every time someone is told there are not unlimited resources.

I have seen both sides of the situation as a SEND parent and working for the LA. The situation you are in sounds horrendous, I have been in similar, but name calling people on the internet won't change that. And I am pretty sure there is not a silver bullet solution that your caseworker is sitting on, being too lazy and uncaring to put in place. My son's crisis began at the end of year 5 and we couldn't get it sorted until year 6 to 7 phase transfer when he got a special school place. This was not because of laziness or incompetence, my caseworker consulted with 21 schools unsuccessfully. They went back and tried to negotiate with some. When he began to really struggle he developed some tricky behaviours and it's near impossible to get schools to offer a place then, particularly in that age range.

I had to draw the line at them consulting further away because I didn't want him travelling any further and accept a bit of tutoring/AP for a few months (which basically ended my 20 year teaching career and gave me a mental health crisis). Thankfully we got through that and are now a couple of years down the line, I have a new job anf he is now settled.

Stamping my feet and shouting "it's the law" would not have made a place at a school magically appear. We had to work through the broken system like everyone else. It's shit and the system needs changing. That doesn't mean my caseworker was evil or untrustworthy, that I was gaslit, or that it's ok for me to insult people on the internet.

My son and daughter both attended out of County independent specialist school because in our LA there is no provision available for autistic academically able CYP. For my dd at Tribunal I was fighting against them placing her at a generic special school where academically the chosen peer group were functioning at the same level as she was aged five. The school and LA sat and argued that in two years they would sit and pass higher level GCSEs as d would. Thankfully panel saw past the bullshit. LA are currently crowing about spending £3 on extra places for SEND at generic special schools some Ofsted thought ill thought out and unlikely to help the many academically able CYP without school places. Until our LA make suitable provision parents like me are going to fight to have our children placed in independent specialist and until there is a maintained alternative parents are going to win at SENDIST. As for horse riding I was offered that by LA as part of d’s EOTAS package, d has anaphylactic allergies, has never shown any interest in horses and her OT assessment would give plenty of reasons why it would be inappropriate so of course I said no but you can’t blame parents for saying yes when LA are pushing it at parents.

Sadly there are far too many people profiting from failings of the system

I am really sorry that this is your situation. And I hope you find a new job that you are happy in.
Just remember that you are actually out there helping people in impossible situations which is much harder than being a keyboard warrior on an anonymous forum

People on virtual school teams, like SENCOs, often receive the same training as LA caseworkers. You made a statement about independent expert evidence which was simply incorrect, and I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in that connection. I'm happy to stop doing so, if that is what you want. This was not a matter of my "view" on the legal situation, but a direct quote of the relevant statutory wording. I note that nowhere in your post do you seek to uphold your original statement, but equally nowhere do you have the grace to accept that it was incorrect.

You seem to have missed the fact that I agreed with you upthread about the fact that caseworkers aren't evil etc, and that they are grossly overworked and badly trained and supported. So your suggestion that I am in a "little echo chamber" is, again, simply untrue.

But we need to make sure everyone gets the basics before anyone gets the bells and whistles.

This really is a counsel of despair. If the severely disabled child is not entitled to get the "bells and whistles" of the right specialist teaching and facilities till absolutely every other child is getting the basics, we will never meet their needs, and they will essentially be thrown on the scrapheap. The law requires that the actual needs of every child are identified and met, and we can't and shouldn't ever just shrug our shoulders on that and give up because resources. The lack of things like adequate specialist school places is as much due to a failure of LA planning as a lack of government resources, and LAs also have to accept a share of blame for wasted funds in many aspects of their functioning.

The other side of the coin on the assessment issue is the number of schools that are in denial about children's difficulties, and all too ready to assume that parents are exaggerating. Everyone who works in this field has come across cases where schools have been rigorously opposed to assessment, claiming there is nothing wrong with the child in question, only for proper assessment to reveal quite serious problems that were being exacerbated by the school's refusal to acknowledge their existence. It is truly astonishing how many teachers seem to be quite ignorant of the concept of masking, for instance, or the existence of sensory difficulties and how they affect the ability to learn. As for the EP shortage, it is astonishing how often LAs manage to find one when faced with the prospect of being ordered to do so by a court.

The Code of Practice is not the law. I quoted above what the law actually says on this subject. When a caseworker is delaying producing a decision about whether or not to issue an EHCP because they haven't got EP evidence, when actually they have but are faffing about waiting for an LA EP to look at it, they are compounding their ongoing clear breach of the law. The courts have said time and again that these are hard-edged and absolute legal duties. I've seen LAs refuse to accept reports that have clearly been written to assist with the assessment decision and the wording of any EHCPs, in circumstances where they know full well that the author is very reputable, better experienced and qualified than their own EP, and is regularly upheld by the Tribunal. I've also come across caseworkers who claim that they will never accept a private report - so it is not because they have any doubts about any individual report, but a totally unlawful blanket response.

If the LA is unclear about anything in an independent report, there is absolutely no reason why they can't contact the expert concerned and ask. That is the sensible response, not to reject the report or insist on prolonged delays till their own EP gets round to having a look at it.

You seem to be wholly supporting caseworkers who ignore the law because, in your view, they are applying it to "the real world". Yet, time and again, both the tribunal and the courts find them to be wrong about that. Can you not understand that it is hardly unreasonable for the parents of very vulnerable children to expect that LAs just obey the law without having to be dragged kicking and screaming in front of the courts first?

LAs have not been allowed to open new maintained special schools for a long time hence the reliance on the independent sector.

At the point of court hearing cases are leap frogged to the top of the list. Not ideal. There was an EP upthread who's LA has a waitlist of 1500. Pushing 1 to the front of the queue illustrates nothing more than that they have jumped to the front of the queue. The other 1499 are still in the queue waiting to be assessed by a team of a dozen EPs.

The problem with the discussion about 'bells and whistles' is that there is an entire industry of people that can profit from presenting themselves as need. So noone is disputing that there may be need to for SALT, OT, physical therapy in section F. But increasingly there are requests for extra curricular extras. My colleague next to me lists LAMDA acting lessons, horse riding, singing lessons as examples she has seen people try and force into the plan through tribunal.

Another increasing trend is feepaying mainstream schools saying that they can meet the needs of kids that mainstream state schools can't, keeping them for a couple of years, pocketing the fees and then moving them on before exams. And parents who just want (mainstream) private school fees paid.

The point of the EHCP is to meet need to the point that kids are accessing an education in line with that of their non-SEND peers, it is there to remove the barriers.

I'm not saying there aren't genuine cases, there will be loads where therapjes are needed in section F. But an industry is building up around trying to get all sorts of other things paid for through section F.

And as much as you don't care about the overall availability of resources the LA have to, they have to manage on a finite budget. And that doesn't match up with their unlimited statutory duties so you are going to get disparity.

Is it really morally wrong to accept expert opinion and try to do the best for a disabled child? If my child had communication problems I would feel I was failing them if I didn't do my best to get the right provision for them. If for some reason I felt it was morally wrong to make the LA pay for it, I would bust a gut to be able to afford to pay for it myself, but I wouldn't let my child suffer for my "morals".

It's far too convenient to claim that everyone who disagrees with you must be an advocate in it for the money, or in a social media echo chamber. Just for the record, I'm neither. It's also somewhat idealistic to claim that LA caseworkers have no personal financial interest. No-one forces them to stay in their jobs or to uphold and promote very dodgy policies, and they aren't doing the work for free.

Can you not understand that I both work for the LA and am a SEND parent and can appreciate the challenges on both sides, instead of stamping my feet and taking the simplistic view the LAs need to provide infinite provision with finite resources.

It's also far too convenient to claim that all of the private professionals who recommend expensive input (by them!!) are not in it for the money. This is what we are navigating. This is why the LA do need to robustly consider what is being asked for.

If you are financially motivated, don't become a caseworker. At 32k it will take you a long time to make your millions!

The reality is there are some parents desperately wanting what their children need, some trying to get the bells and whistles, some amazing caseworkers, some mediocre and some poor.
There are some entirely ethical professionals advising on required provision and some on the make. And the LAs are trying to navigate this with limited budget.

The likely outcome of all this is that the legislation ( and yes we all know the difference between CFA/Regs/code but don't quite it in detail on an informal social platform) will be changed so that the threshold is higher, less can be provided through the LA. This is partly because of the exponential increase in need post pandemic but definitely contributed to by those who want their pound of flesh from the system. The government are already moving towards more kids with SEND in mainstream.
When the current legislation was written EOTIS etc was expected to be very rare cases, more and more want these bespoke packages and the line will end up being drawn by the government.

The reality is those SEND children with sharp elbowed parents treat SEND as access to a private education with the state funding it. Drumming lessons, Gym Sessions, Horse Riding are extra curricula and support holistic health and social wellbeing. I guarantee a child in care is not necessarily accessing these provisions they are being supported to stay in school by hard working professionals during additional challenges from being in Care which shall also be impacting their SEND requirements. is right a lot of these activities are not necessarily required for education they are above and beyond what is required as I said essentially a private education funded by the state. They are not education they are extra curricula activities not open to a non-SEND children unless parents fund it which creates a societal divide. An unintended consequence of CaFA 2014 and SEN CoP 2015 unfortunately.

This is right out of the LA playbook and really doesn't bear any sort of examination. If you really think having a child in an independent specialist school confers some sort of social kudos, you really are deluded. I've never seen drumming sessions in an EHCP, and I've seen an awful lot of EHCPs, although I can see that it could be demonstrated as being helpful to children with, for example, sensory or hearing problems, or simply as a calming activity when a child is very dysregulated. I have seen provision like specialist PE and Riding for the Disabled, but no-one ever gets them unless there is good evidence that they have a need for which this is appropriate provision and that it will help them. It doesn't take Einstein to work out how such support can be very helpful to disabled people.

Yes, they're not open to children without SEND, nor indeed are they open to children with SEND unless it can be shown as providing genuine special educational provision. But which would you rather have, a child with SEND who accesses riding lessons to assist (say) with mobility, balance, and severe anxiety, or a child without SEND? I can assure you, those supposedly sharp-elbowed parents would give up the lessons in a heartbeat if it meant their child no longer had learning difficulties.

For what it's worth, children were getting similar provision well before the CFA came into effect, so it's not a product of that Act or the Code of Practice.

In some cases, drumming (and other musical instrument) lessons, singing lessons, acting lessons, gym, horse riding… can be SEP. That is why they can sometimes be secured if F. If they could never be SEP, that would not be possible.

I'm not saying there aren't genuine cases, there will be loads where therapjes are needed in section F. But an industry is building up around trying to get all sorts of other things paid for through section F.

Seriously, what is the evidence of this "industry"? Parents struggle to find appropriate experts to advise on their child's difficulties at least as much as LAs do, if not more; independent special schools don't have capacity to take on everyone who comes to them, so they're not out that pushing parents to exaggerate their children's difficulties; it's equally difficult for parents to find solicitors and advocates to help them, and the SEN charities are overwhelmed. If the cases were not genuine, how do you account for the stupendous percentages of tribunal cases that LAs lose, or the fact that tribunal judges are regularly pointing out that their time is wasted far too often by LA decision makers who blatantly have no idea what the law is?

The simple fact of the matter is that, particularly post lockdown, there are an awful lot of children out there with very genuine difficulties, and the system simply is not catering adequately for them. And the LAs who are paid to help them are instead regularly putting obstacles in their way by breaking the law, rather than lobbying for the necessary resources.

I fully understand what your position is, but was responding to a post that was wholly supportive of LAs who break the law, and was continuing to misrepresent the legal position with regard to accepting independent reports. If anything, you would think LAs might be grateful to accept those because they take the pressure off their own EPs. Those with long experience of the system can see that the reason they don't is not that they have any doubt about the quality of the reports, but because they are high quality, accurately analyse and describe children's difficulties and advise on the support needed in specific and detailed terms fully backed by evidence - as opposed the vague and difficult to enforce terminology regularly used by LA EPs.

@CleverButScattythere is institutional abuse resulting from workplace culture and then individuals who are just plain mean. A SARS is helpful. I requested one when going to tribunal for DS1 and it highlights deliberate obstruction by individuals. Eg my legal rep asking for an electronic version of the draft EHCP for working document. The case worker copied it up to her boss asking should she send a paper copy - laughing emoji. My son had no school placement for months. This was not due to overwork. Just believing that the child has no needs until tribunal tells them otherwise so delaying that happening.

The EOTAS staff were little more than spies concocting evidence that child had no needs and maligning parents. We even had one saying that the elderly family pet was an attack dog and claiming need for safeguarding!

After we had spent thousands on expert reports and witnesses for tribunal the LA conceded to special school within half an hour of proceedings starting. Complete waste of LA time, resources and money and caused untold stress and financial hardship to the family.

Well someone who actually works in a SEN team has given you some examples, you are just ignoring them
You acknowledge that demand has risen exponentially since the pandemic and will be aware that high needs funding block has not risen in line with this. Yet you still position the crisis as being an issue with LA decision making and fault with individual caseworkers.

Unfortunately I think we all know that the long term outcome will be government legislation to reduce the number of kids not in mainstream , and a move back to a focus on school level support as was the case pre 2014. Unfortunately this will take a major culture shift from the mainstream schools (who are currently less inclusive than I have ever known). Things are going to get worse. But referring back to he topic of this thread, none of this is the case workers' faults.

And not being in the LA you get to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'lalala' when anyone mentions that critical lack of funding.

If I gave you £10, made you responsible for buying a £2 lunch for all the children you are responsible for, and then made you responsible for 20 kids, it's no good anyone jumping round shouting that you are breaking the law and don't care about the children you are responsible for.

And I think you know that really.

The previous OP knows well enough that you are bound by GDPR and will choose to ignore it.

You are asking the LA to ignore the statutory guidance around EPs because of demand on capacity...careful, that sounds a bit like that you are accusing the LAs of doing!!! I thought everything was black and white and simple regardless of context...