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

Yeah in that handful of cases, not for the whole system.

Yes You’ve said that you have disabled children multiple times. That doesn’t absolve you responsibility from dismissing, gaslighting and looking down on those of us who are talking from our own personal experiences.

It can be successful for all cases.

Well over 20 both as a SEND parent and education professional... Does that qualify me to have an opinion? Or only if it is in agreement with yours?

You called me ridiculous and I responded.

Can you please give some examples of when I have done these things?

I will remind you that the thread is asking about the personal trustworthiness of SEND caseworkers, I have pointed out repeatedly that they system is failing a lot of people, but my point is that this is not because of character flaws caseworkers. And that name-calling them and abusing them out of frustration with the failings of the system is unacceptable.

Being a frustrated SEND parent doesn't absolve is from being decent people.

I called your assertion that people write the plan after deciding what the provision will be ridiculous. Not you as a person.

Yes, for one you called my lived experience ridiculous and you tried to say that LAs never lie - it’s just stupid parents not being happy with what the reports say.

That’s just in the last 10 minutes or so.

You've already described your EHCP dealings and compared to many, you got away lightly. So no, you don't know what others have been through.

Stop defending outright lying! These lies have been caught out but indisputable paper trail.

Other example; telling parents their parental preference said cannot meet need, when a) they hadn't got back to the LA until a month later and b) they actually said they could meet need (with stipulations). Again lies caught by paper trail.

Another; parent makes formal complaint they had not been told vital information (LA told current school SENCO child was no longer allowed to attend at 3pm, beginning the following day, because they had named a school child was unable to attend instead and expected child to start there the following day with no transition and no way to actually get there. No contact with parent whatsoever). Senior manager tells parent they don't contact parents directly. Which is absolute bollocks! Imagine not telling the parent!

Another: Caseworker telling parents not to include anything about work commitments or other children's schooling on transport application because it won't be considered. Then LA representative telling tribunal parents have given no logistical/work/childcare reasons to not facilitate the journey themselves.

Do you need more examples?

This is a slightly changed examples for GSPR, but very realistic of what happens most years.

Our maintained SLCN/ASD/MLD school has a Y7 intake of 60. Over 100 parents named it their preference. 3 of those who didn't get a place were squeezed in following tribunal. A couple of others accepted independent specialists after the tribunal listed to the school's witness statement saying they could not take them. This is manageable. Squeezing an extra 40 isn't.
There are other laws around ratios, fire regs, number of kids in a physical space of certain sizes that would be broken. It would be completely unworkable.

This is the difference in perspective of looking just at your own child, or a couple you are advocating for. The fact that 2 or 3 kids could be squeezed in because of tribunal (not enforcement, do you think you're a bailiff?!) does not mean everyone could if everyone went to tribunal. That's does not mean I'm judging the parents who went to tribunal negatively, we all want the best for our kids. But it does not mean that all of those kids could have gone to that school.

Then that’s the point at which the argument “incompatible with the effective education of others” comes in.

But the point is that the Tribunal will direct the LA to apply the law. If the LA was following the law in the first place then they wouldn’t be at tribunal, would they?

But what seems to happen is that specialist or independent specialist (ie section 41) only get named after the parents have appealed. The LA kick it into the long grass. It absolutely is not the case that the tribunal is there to make a decision, it’s there to ensure that the LA makes the right one, and that nuance appears to be missing from your understanding of it from your posts.

Ah you know every I have been through with my kids, from a couple of sentences on a Mumsnet post.

Nope I have been thought all sorts over me at years. I don't think it gives me a free pass to take my frustrations out on individuals.

And again....

Legal timeframe is a legal requirement but most parents wouldn't care too much if what they received at the end was a truthful and well written document.

Illegally denying children the necessary provision is my biggest gripe. Using the delay tactics so parents have to waste months waiting for tribunal so they can save a few months paying for provision. This is a WELL KNOWN tactic used by LAs.

And I'm not talking about caseworkers leaving! A consistent caseworker ignoring contact for 6 months over the key stage transfer period is not just 'not good'. It ended up being catastrophic for that YP.

Sometimes I agree with tribunal decision I have seen, some are shocking. Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that there are far more people wanting special school places than there are places or funds to pay for them.
The fact that a few outliers for places through tribunal doesn't t increase that for all the others.
I'm not saying these right. Just that it's the system we are working in.

Gaslighting:

On terms of your experience, maybe your caseworker lied, maybe (more likely in my opinion) they made a mistake, forgot what they said, thought they had said something they hadn't etc.)

Thing is, I don't think anyone on this thread has actually said they've taken it out on individuals. I've certainly never shouted/screamed/threatened a caseworker. Moaning on MN is not taking it out on individuals.

I don't doubt it happens, same with any public-facing role.

“When all reasonable steps are taken” - surely it’s reasonable then for the LA to explains the capacity of the school? My son’s junior school had a bulge class, porta cabins appeared very quickly, and 22 other kids were accommodated. Why can’t that be done for specialist? And the answer is that it can. It absolutely can. But at the same time the same kids can be shoved into a poor fit in mainstream and left to sink.

Just because that is what happens in your LA doesn’t make it lawful. If 3 could be admitted without reaching the legal threshold for incompatibility then that should have happened without the LA originally acting unlawfully and forcing parents to appeal.

When I was talking of enforcement action, I was talking about JR, not SENDIST. That is taking enforcement action. The comment I was replying to was about LAs not adhering to the timescales. That is dealt with via way of JR, not appealing to SENDIST. You seem confused about the processes.

This is what is deluded. I have worked for 2 LAs, been a SENCO at a school in a 3rd and a special school teacher in a fourth.

This idea of 'tactics' and purposeful delays are just made up. And this so the kind of bullying language that is unacceptable.

You must get have got a faster response when you complained or appealed or whatever, because you will have jumped to the front of the queue. Not an ideal situation but understandable.

The idea of caseworkers deliberately delaying things (for what reason you claim, I am unsure, but as part of some 'tactical game').

This is what is childish. It is a significantly overburdened system and nobody has the time or headspace to play fucking games.

But there are umpteen social media groups out here where people tell each other these things until they believe them.

Use your bloody intelligence.

I’ve seen LOADS of lies. Most recent - “your child doesn’t meet the criteria for referral to SLT.” And actually the child absolutely did, but the LA hadn’t commissioned any Speech Therapy that year. None.

Whoa! The tone of that is appalling.

This idea of 'tactics' and purposeful delays are just made up.

Except it is not.

You’re unbelievable. Just because you haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen!

You might have meant it in relation to timescales, but you included the comment with discussion of admissions which is SENDIST remit.
And as you bloody well know, if 3 over PAN had been admitted, then next 2 or 3 of the other 40 odd would have gone to tribunal.
What you are saying works, for supporting one child or a small caseload as an advocate, and food one you. Those few families will really benefit from that. Doesn't help all the others and especially not the poor buggers in care that I work with.

The “poor buggers in care” do you support them to tribunal too?