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

I didn't claim that private professional are unpaid. People have to earn a living. None of that means that they must automatically be advising on expensive provision rather than the provision a child actually needs. The reality is that successful professionals are in demand not because they do that, but because they build up a track record of producing reports that are accepted by their peers and the tribunal. It is not in their interests to exaggerate provision, because they will simply be torn apart in tribunal time and again, and word about unreliable experts gets around very quickly in SEND parent world.

I don't think there is anything wrong with more children with SEND being in mainstream schools, provided that that is underpinned by early identification and support and by adequate support in schools. Ideally, that would probably involve more and smaller mainstream schools with smaller classes. I'm not holding my breath for that, though, and sadly I fear that we will just carry on short-changing disabled children.

What everyone seems to forget is that investing in proper support to enable every child to meet their full potential will in itself carry massive financial benefits For so many children, it literally means the difference between being forever dependent on the benefit system - or, worse, constantly in and out of the justice system - or becoming independent taxpaying contributors. Short term savings now can be incredibly counter-productive.

Parents don’t gain provision their DC aren’t legally entitled to. If that was happening and it was because SENDIST had erred in law, LAs would be quick enough to challenge that decision and appeal to the UT.

What examples am I ignoring? I simply commented that I personally hadn't come across drumming in an EHCP, but pointed out that it could be capable of being genuine SEP for children who are demonstrated to need it. It's so easy to sneer at the including of things like riding for the disabled and gym clubs in EHCPs if you don't apply your mind to just why they might be really helpful for disabled children.

You keep making things up about what I have said. I have acknowledged that there are not enough resources, but this thread is about LA caseworkers and their response to that situation. I haven't anywhere said they are solely responsible for any crisis. Just one of the many problems is that, faced with the choice of lobbying for more resources or taking steps to save money that mean a disabled child doesn't get provision they desperately need, far too many LA employees opt for the latter.

If you mean me, I simply don't see the relevance of GDPR. It's all too easy to cite that rather than give evidence through published statute, case law etc which would involve no GDPR breach whatsoever. The reality is that quoting individual cases with which one poster claims to have dealt would get us absolutely nowhere, because we have no means of checking either how accurate or full her account might be.

Do you think caseworkers can control these issues? I agree with what you are saying it would take for SEND needs to be met in mainstream. I wish my DS could go to a local school and have friends on our estate etc, instead of in a specialist school 8 miles away. I genuinely believe that could have been possible if Ofsted's requirements had motivated schools to be more inclusive etc. but we are where we are.
And that definitely can't be changed by caseworkers.

I am aware of quite a few local providers that will write reports insisting that a child needs expensive counselling/equine therapy/swimming lessons/LAMDA acting lessons ... That they would be the ones providing.

Don't get me wrong, there will be tonnes of excellent private professionals, I used a private SALT for my DA due to the length of the NHS waiting list but that's quite different from what the pp was describing.

Same with independent advocates, I am aware of some excellent ones in our area and some who are complete cowboys profiting from families in crisis.

I think my overall point is that when people say its simple, or pretend LAs can ignore the lack of resources they are being ridiculous.

When I was a (maintained) special school SENCO we had to admit children via tribunal who really didn't need to be there. And then subsequently turn away children with much higher needs. As a parent or advocate you can just focus on one child, as a school or LA you cannot.

It's just naive to pretend otherwise.

Don’t let facts get in the way of excuses.

You don't see the relevance of GDPR... Err okay.. let's just ignore and share details of the families we work with online ?!

Literally no one has asked anyone to do such a thing.

It might be really helpful. That does not mean it is a need.
My son's football training sessions help his mood and confidence, but I would be paying for this whether or not he has SEND.
Same with my daughter's guitar lessons.
Non SEND learners get benefit from these activities too but still have to pay for them outside of school.
The EHCP should be making provision for them to overcome their barriers, caused by their needs, to accessing their educational offer, whether that is at mainstream, special or through an alternative.
So it should be making sure they can access a PE offer at school (for example) but not paying for coaching sessions outside of that.

If we all accept that ;
Caseworkers don’t have any power really

The system is no longer fit for purpose and has been warped out of shape by increasing demand and underfunding

The decisions made, even unlawful ones, are made further up the food chain

There are some eye wateringly expensive cases, the funding for which could make a difference for a large number of children

and

The LA only pay out when forced to, generally by tribunal or JR

THEN

if the answer is to reduce the spending on the expensive cases, eg out of county provision and a transport package, what becomes of that child?

Genuinely curious.

No, I'm asking the LA to comply with actual statutory wording, and indeed the wording of the CoP. You imply that LAs can only seek advice and information from EPs employed or commissioned by them, but that is not what either the statute or the guidance says. When the reality is that they have advice available that is more than adequate for the purpose and they cannot get LA EP advice until weeks or months past statutory deadlines, there is simply no excuse for not working on the basis of the existing advice.

What if they cant access via the local offer?

Then support needs to be proportionate, reasonable and focused on what the barriers are.

Yet again, you're making up what I'm saying. I have never sought to suggest that caseworkers alone can mend the system, but they sure as hell could make it better than it is now.

You are talking about reports from specialist providers of facilities like horse riding, not independent educational psychologists. Yes, parents whose children are already benefiting from working with, say, horses, may well ask those who provide that resource to explain why because they are best positioned to do so. It doesn't mean that their reports should be ignored. In the same way, you wouldn't ignore a report from a school just because that school is receiving hefty public funding to provide for the child in question.

I'm completely with you about cowboy advocates, and I wish there were better regulation of them. Sadly, in my experience they do parents more harm than good and frequently end up benefiting LAs.

Tribunals would not have named your special school if there was evidence showing that the children benefiting could have their needs met more cheaply elsewhere. It is just possible that they were better fitted to judge than you were; equally it is possible that they knew it might be overprovision, but could not in all conscience order that the child should be in an alternative placement that would be totally unsuitable.

And in fact if it is equivalent to the activities of my kids that I described above, should be accessed through social care. Accessing the community is a social care not educational need.
They need to be signposted by social care to SEND activities, and explore whether a personal budget is needed to help them access it.
This is not education and would come from a social care offer not the nigh needs funding block that SEND manage.

Sigh. Making things up yet again.

The lack of inclusivity previously had caused an increase in his presentation which was why it was agreed. But I believe that his experiences led to this increased presentation which has now settled again.

You literally said you don't see the relevance of GDPR. You keep trotting out he same catchphrases regardless of whether they actually match the content of the quote.

This is a social platform, if you can be arsed looking up case law etc to prove points you want to make great, good for you.

Most people won't bother. It's a bloody Mumsnet talk topic, they're not preparing a bundle for hearing.

We are talking about disabled children for whom ordinarily available provision does not work. They would not get things like riding put into EHCPs unless either the LA or tribunal were satisfied that the evidence showed it was genuinely needed to meet an identified difficulty. PE only tends to get put separately into EHCPs for children with EOTIS, or those who need specialist physiotherapy or hydrotherapy provision.

Honestly, why do you think you know better than the caseworkers, panel members or judges who saw the reports recommending this, questioned the witnesses, heard and weighed up opposing opinions, and used their expertise to decide it was necessary?

If you disagree with the fact sports sessions can be SEP in some cases, fine, but regardless of your opinion, it is the law. SEP is only legally possible if it is reasonably required to meet needs, no-one secures provision if that doesn’t apply.

Social care provision that educates or trains is actually deemed to be special educational provision. That can include accessing the community.

If the provision educates or trains, then it is an educational need and should not be shoved off onto social care. It is well established that this includes communication and interaction, physical and sensory needs, and social, emotional and mental health provision.

I keep referring to the fact that you misrepresent what I say, because you keep doing it. I did not say that I saw no relevance in GDPR whatsoever. What I said was that I did not see the relevance of it to this discussion. What is the point when literally no-one is asking her to break GDPR, and it would not help her argument if she did as there is no means of checking the accuracy of what she says about individual cases?

I'm very happy to cite case law where it is relevant, but it hasn't arisen so far. My point was that the poster hiding behind GDPR would do better to cite verifiable examples to support her case, perhaps through case law, if she claims that they exist. Simply making dark references to evidence that she claims she has but is unhappily prevented from producing adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Lots of people train for sports etc that are not part of their core education. You could go on forever like this.... This is why decisions have to be made. I mean, my son learned to swim on our holiday to Spain last year, he engaged with it better in the sun and open air than the local leisure centre. Should the LA be paying for our family hols because he has an EHCP? I could definitely make a tenuous link to some of the things we did there and his EHCP outcomes. There has to be a robust decision here about what can 'reasonably be provided'.

I suspect she's too busy trying to write EHCPs and consult with placements to be honest.

These examples of things like swimming on holiday really take us nowhere. You know perfectly well that no EHCP is going to specify payment for a family holiday. Nor will it prescribe swimming lessons because children need to learn to swim, any more than it will prescribe English or Maths or Science lessons. On the other hand, it might well provide for regular swimming lessons or hydrotherapy for children who need it because they have muscle and joint issues, or co-ordination problems, just as it might prescribe literacy or numeracy support for children with specific learning difficulties. It might prescribe those lessons as part of an EOTIS package, precisely because the child can't access them through school. "Tenuous links" just don't cut it with the tribunal or elsewhere, and no-one has suggested they should.