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

It's not deluded. It is happening. Repeatedly.

This is not my opinion. This is fact.

No. It's the narrative you have created to explain th delays, or shortfalls in performance. Honestly, who goes into a job in education and starts playing games like that.

I'm not saying the delays and shortcomings you describe didn't happen, I am saying his idea you have of caseworkers amusing themselves with games and tactic is fanciful.

Err, no I didn’t. I made it in response to you posting “nobody can make this achievable in the current climate.”

That sentence of you posted was at the end of this paragraph

“I am so sick of the phrase 'breaking the law'. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. If a caseworker is meant to issue a plan on 1 June and they don't get the EP report until August what can they do? If the EP can write 3 reports a week and but 10 need to be done this week to be in timescale what can they do? They will probably work late and rush and get an extra couple done but are still behind and the quality might dip a bit too. The LA advertise for locum and addition EPS but there aren't enough qualified in the UK to fill the vacancies. To stamp your feet and say 'it’s the law' is factually correct, but nobody can make this achievable in the current climate.”

If the point of incompatibility was reached then others would not have been successful at Tribunal. If more would have been successful then incompatibility could not be shown in their case and the LA should have named the placement.

If LAs acted didn’t act unlawfully to begin with those DC you talk about wouldn’t be failed.

No one has suggested it’s for amusement. But some actions are absolutely tactical. I’ve just represented a case where the LA disclosed that they were delaying so that the child could be absorbed in the following year’s intake. She had already had a year out of school but the LA argued it would be easier for them and the school if placement was delayed until the next September. If that isn’t tactical I don’t know what is.

Definitely this happens in our LA. Had to threaten JR to force issue of phase transfer EHCP (because there are never any staff in at phase transfer deadlines so 66% miss deadline, likewise at the start of the school year in SEND transport.) EHCP issued a pile of pish submitted appeal. LA sat on it then, offered no evidence, made no case, 2 weeks before hearing LA ask for adjournment because they then realise that Tribunal will rule in my favour. Fought off adjournment LA conceded day before hearing.
Local support boards are full of parents who start out expecting our LA to meet their statutory duty and then don't understand why, what should happen isn't happening. How they have emails ignored, no contact at all for weeks and months and they don't know how to move forward. SENDIAS have no availability and only support parents who are disabled themselves. Ofsted found SENDIAS don't even meet minimum standards so unsure of quality of support there anyway. I compose at least 5 formal complaints a week for parents on the local boards, if I had time I could probably triple that figure only now the formal complaints are being ignored as well. Little wonder that parents are frustrated and angry tbh

The tribunal ignore the fact that schools have too many kids for that not to affect the education of others (or something do, they are very inconsistent). The LA can't , they have to manage their resources properly and if the tribunal throws a couple of curve calls absorb that. You can't absorb 50 odd curve balls into a year group of 60. It's another example of what a flaw d system it is.

That’s not the law. Case law demonstrates that it doesn’t matter if another child’s education is affected. It rests on whether the education of That child in That class is incompatible with the effective education of others.

i wish to god that the other 60 parents all went to tribunal to force your LA to meet its statutory requirements.

If the LA can’t prove the attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others or efficient use of resources (or the setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of DC but that isn’t relevant to the current point) the LA acting unlawfully by refusing to name parental preference. If Tribunals are successful, the LA obviously haven’t met the legal threshold. If SENDIST erred, LAs would be quick to challenge.

I'm paraphrasing. And it's bullshit.
I used to be the SENCO of a maintained special school, and I have sat in tribunals as a witness explaining all of the ways in which it would be detrimental to the others to admit another child, or that particular child with their needs and it was ignored. Some judges were good. Others just on an ego trip.

Refusing to admit kids if it takes you over PAN id not lawful. Refusing and spelling out the circumstances at your school as to why it would be detrimental is lawful, but tribunals do frequently ignore this.

There are occasions where we had to recruit an extra teacher to be in ration because of tribunal decisions like Thai, and that came out of the budget for new playground and sensory room equipment which affected all.

SENDIST ignore when LAs cannot meet the legal threshold for proving incompatibility. If LAs really thought SENDIST had erred, they would challenge the decision. That rarely happens because the bar is far higher than many LAs outwardly acknowledge and LAs know this. Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant.

SENDIST are no more perfect than LA caseworkers, schools etc. there is good and bad. Half the time only one person on the panel is from an appropriate professional background anyway. It's very hit and miss.

If LAs really thought SENDIST had erred they would challenge the decision. As I said, this usually doesn’t happen because LAs know the decision is lawful.

In my extensive experience I strongly disagree. The tribunal are only there to force the LA to apply the law correctly and that’s a remarkably simple thing to do, hence the 97% of decisions being in the parent’s favour. These cases end up at tribunal because the LA including caseworkers appear not to be able or willing to discharge their legal duty unless forced to by the courts.

I call BS on tribunal judges making decisions based upon ‘an ego trip’.

For one thing, the tribunal Judge is a lawyer, well versed in SEN Law. If the panel makes a mistake (ie a decision with no legal basis) which leads the LA to appeal the decision on a point of law (which is their only basis to appeal), then the judge of that tribunal is going to come under fire. It puts their reputation and professional integrity on the line. And they will be held accountable for mistakes made which clearly could and should have been avoided.

For this reason, Ime at least, the decision is usually extremely detailed and covers all bases, with disclaimers such as ‘we did not consider X to be determinative’ when talking about one source of evidence.

Don't be daft. It's a system that we work in, it's imperfect but legally binding. You implement the order from that case move onto the other eleventy thousand you are dealing with.

You're being very naive about the impact of their decisions in existing cohorts though. And about their decision making being impeccable. Again the difference between decision making for one child and decision making for thousands.

Good on you for using that system for the individual kids you support though. Nowt wrong with that. Just don't go round calling caseworkers untrustworthy or whatever because they're stuck in the same system.

Agree, I also dispute that some tribunal judges are just "out on an ego trip" but that all LA Case Officers are genuinely trying their best and if they get caught out lying it's because they "forgot".

For fucks sake.

The decision making for one child should be the same as the decision making for all children because the decisions should be informed by the law, NOT by some “greatest benefit for the greatest number” type axiom.

Why can’t you see that?

It isn’t ‘daft’ or ‘naive’ (for someone who doesn’t want parents to use similar wording about caseworkers, you are showing how hypocritical you are). It is true. The FTTs decisions can be challenged when they have erred in law.

You call bullshit all you like. I am recounting my experience. Talking down to and over parents and LA alike, general unpleasant attitude.
They are well versed in law, but not working. With children with SEND. they are very different occupations and skill sets.
When I was a special school SENCO we had kids placed through tribunal where is was a ridiculous decision, inappropriate curriculum, no peer group etc. we also had some who it was the right thing and would have slipped through the net. Just varies on individual judges.

Have you attended many hearings or JDARs? It is this just anecdotal evidence of a couple of cases or supposition?

Daft and naive are tamed compared to evil, tactful game players, illiterate, devoid of morals and some of the other gems on this thread.

@CleverButScatty "varies on individual judges" just as it does on individual Case Officers or indeed teachers / headteachers / SENCos.

Not all of them are out for the best I'm afraid.

Just because you feel that those descriptions don’t represent you, doesn’t mean they’re untrue. I’d have thought that was obvious.