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 believe it. I have seen a mainstream primary school refuse to even show around the family of a very clever little boy with physical disabilities who uses a wheelchair sometimes because they were a two story building. Er, reasonable adjustments??

And then special schools that charge 50-100k that won't take learners with behaviours. None of them will. Even the SEMH schools. They only want bright Autistic kids who might sometimes be a bit unregulated. My son is autistic but in Y6 really struggled and had started absconding, lashed out on occasion. The LA had to consult with 21 schools before we got an offer. And even then they wanted to observe him twice etc. it was the August after he left primary before we got it sorted.

The number of schools who will take learners with genuinely complex behaviour needs is dwindling so badly. And when you look at the fees they charge....

Showing it is detrimental is not always enough to show incompatibility.

And we come back to the point it is common for LAs to state they can’t name a school because it is full yet cannot prove incompatibility. Hence why Tribunals are successful. LAs don’t have to force parents to appeal. They could comply with the law to start with.

I know this, but as I say where do you stop. Every additional learner admitted dilutes the provision... The quiet spaces, the breakout areas, the small number of adults they need relationships with. So you sometimes have to make decisions knowing they will be challenged, but you have to draw a line somewhere. It's not done lightly and it's fine that parents challenge it.

Obviously once you are physically over fire safety regs, the statutory guidance about classroom size Vs age/need etc that is more clear cut.

Again of I was a parent despite to get my child a school place I would not care, if I was a parent of an existing student there whose presentation deteriorated due to the number and needs of additional kids admitted I'd be furious.
The LA have to make these decisions, and if it's challenged and overturned it doesn't mean it was an unlawful decision. It's just the process.

As I say I've been there, and the fact that I am beaten down dealing with the system doesn't t mean I'm blase about the effects of this on families.

My son’s LA worker is shit.
She tries to blame all of his problems on a very small area of his difficulties and never takes into account that this area is symptomatic of a much wider disability diagnosed by someone far more qualified than her.
in the last review I had to stop her from talking about her own autism. She’s awful.

Ah bless I can see what that would do your head in. It's also a very common things autistic people do to demonstrate empathy of the situation. Ultimately if you have issues with her work and raise this in an appropriate way that's utterly reasonable.
There are a surprising number of autistic people on our SEN team.

where do you stop.

The law answers this for you. Where the parental preference is not wholly independent, LAs should be naming the placement if they cannot demonstrate one of the lawful reasons set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

you sometimes have to make decisions knowing they will be challenged

Nothing excuses the LA acting unlawfully. Parents shouldn’t have to appeal.

if it's challenged and overturned it doesn't mean it was an unlawful decision.

Yes it does! If the LA could prove one of the lawful exceptions to naming the parental preference, SENDIST would not uphold the appeal. And the unlikely event SENDIST erred in law, LAs would be quick to challenge that decision.

Tribunal is a formal dispute resolution process, not a criminal trial.
The law allows the LA to make these decisions (they have to, or 100 kids would have a school with 60 places named in section I at year 7 transition).
And some will want to dispute that through tribunal and you have to try and work through it.

I am starting to think working for the LA puts me on a parr with Tony Soprano, all these accusations of law breaking!

I didn’t say it was a criminal trial.

LAs are required to comply with the legislation. Unless the LA can prove one of the exceptions set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014 they must name the (non-wholly independent) parental preference. By refusing to name parental preference because they claim a placement is incompatible with the efficient education of others or use of resources when they can’t actually meet that threshold, LAs are acting unlawfully.

I do think this a poor policy though. Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?
My daughters mainstream infants school has a well regarded ARP with 10 places. This year they received 20 requests for reception ARP, for 5 places (other 5 places still needed by year 1 and 2 children) . The school responded with offers of 5 places, with offers for another 5 based on extra funding being provided for teaching assistants. The remaining 10 they felt they could not meet need and it would be harmful for both these children and the existing children to admit them. They were forced to take an extra 5 and it has been an absolute disaster, the funding for extra TA's hasn't materialised but they were essential to keep children safe, so every mainstream class has lost their TA's to the ARP, children already in the ARP are overwhelmed. The school is now in debt through trying to support these extra children, other classes have lost out on support.

I appreciate parental preference, but when a school with a really inclusive ethos says no it cannot meet need/is at capacity, that should be respected. Some schools I appreciate say no without even considering whether can make reasonable adjustments, but for many schools, when they say no, and the LA does not listen, it's really harmful.

@StrivingForSleep Yes. As I said. The LA is entitled to determine this and the parent has the right to appeal the decision. This is what we all do.

The LA ignores advice available to it at the SA stage, in many cases - that’s the problem. My LA were criticised for this in one tribunal report.

Definitely. And when it comes to the maintained special schools at transition points, it would be physically impossible to accommodate all those who name it as a preference.

And when I was a special school SENCO, we had to admit children through tribunal who just weren't appropriate for our setting. Their needs were less complex, the curriculum wasn't appropriate, they had no peer group. Some parents really know what is best for their kids, but not all (even though they are really well intentioned).

I think the system has collapsed and become adversarial and it has got to the point where the LA are seen as being underhand for accepting a negative consult response and not naming in line with parental preference.

"Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?" Well, I've seen some pretty silly examples of schools refusing to even properly consider pupils. It would also mean that some children (my own included) would never be placed anywhere.

The example you've given sounds chaotic but those children do have to go somewhere and when we haven't got enough special school places, and mainstream classrooms of 30 kids can't cope, it is possible the ARP being too full results in a situation that is similar to those children being placed anywhere else. There's no excuse for the additional funding not being provided though, that's really poor.

I haven't experienced this, if anything the main thing I have experienced is frustration if advice is poor quality or delayed. However if that did happen it sounds like tribunal sorted the issue out which is good.

It is the case in many schools that are forces to accept higher numbers than they are resources to take. The tribunal do not take account of this.
To be fair we work with the school on funding when this happens but if we were a safety valve LA for example with rigid funding implications we probably would not be able to use the resources to do that.

We also lucky that our special school heads work with us well in the scenario, but I know in other LAs they are so sick of having to admit over number etc that the schools are now very adversarial to the LA.

The LA is entitled to determine this and the parent has the right to appeal the decision.

Parents shouldn’t have to challenge the decision. LAs should act lawfully to begin with.

Surely schools know better than anyone which children's needs they can meet?

This isn’t always the case. Even when they do understand about the child’s needs, schools aren’t always aware of the legal threshold for proving incompatibility.

@CleverButScatty "Their needs were less complex, the curriculum wasn't appropriate, they had no peer group. " Sometimes children fall between the gaps in ability / presentation types - certainly have experience of this - and placing them in the maintained special school is the least worst option. From the point of view of the school it looks like parents don't know best but actually the parents have considered all the options and their child wouldn't be able to access an appropriate peer group or curriculum elsewhere either. For some children, like my own, every single setting type will say it's unsuitable and therefore whatever school they end up in will likely think I didn't know what I was doing.

The children I am referring to do not fall into that category. And it was very detrimental to their wellbeing to placed with us.

The fact that a parent does not agree with a decision does not make it unlawful.
The tribunal is a resolution focused service hence the emphasis on a working document throughout the process and agreeing on as much as possible.
The LA cannot always decision make in line with parental preference to avoid tribunal challenge.
Honestly, the narrative here is any professional, not matter how qualified or experienced, and no matter how well they know the child, is wrong unless they are recommending what the parents wants. Giving professional advice doesn't work like that.

No, but the fact SENDIST upholds the appeal does.

any professional, not matter how qualified or experienced, and no matter how well they know the child, is wrong unless they are recommending what the parents wants.

I haven’t said any such thing! You really should read my posts more carefully if this is what you think I am saying. I haven’t said that. Just like I didn’t post in the context of what you accused me of previously, and just like I didn’t post I wanted all the other parents to appeal when that was another posted

I think the school is aware of threshold, the SENCo is very experienced. The LA openly admitted that they knew the school wasn't the right setting but 'they had to put them somewhere'.

ultimately it should be about what is best for both the child applying and the children currently in a setting. I know there has to be legal thresholds and guidance, but this should be applied with common sense and compassion.

I get parents frustration at schools not trying to be inclusive. But when they are, they get placed in an impossible position by the LA. The head is now sadly looking at options around shutting the ARP, because having it is threatening the fimancial future of the school as a whole, and the huge pressure being placed on it has undermined its original purpose - it's not actually helping those children it was originally intended to. Of course, the LA will never let her, but the fact that someone who is so passionate about supporting children with SEN is even considering this, is really sad.

I wasn’t commenting on one specific school. The sentence I quoted said ‘schools’ and my reply said ‘isn’t always the case’.

Why do you tribunals not take account of this though I wonder? Our LA keeps saying they have run out of money, so after promising funds, now cannot provide.

It's hugely frustrating to see the teachers and staff put under so much pressure. 3 TA's are on long term sick - 2 due to stress of being hit everyday by children who are overloaded due it not being the right setting for them, and 1 was pushed off a stage by a child and broke both arms. No money available for cover for them, and no support in classes now for children below EHCP threshold who were previously supported in small groups by class TA, so teacher has to give them more time. Every child in the school is loosing out, and it's really sad.

i have noticed more parents like you describe however in my experience it seems to be parents who have had to fight for the absolute basic sen support in the first place so it’s like they’ve gone into a permanent fight or flight mode and everything is approached as a fight. Often the parent has had to give up work due to their child being out of school either through not being able to attend or by the school excluding them and expecting parents to be there at the drop of a hat. So them not being at work then means their whole focus becomes the child and fighting to have their needs met to an extreme. Maybe I’m over simplifying but if the basic support could have been given on early on this could have even avoided.

if parent are having to go to tribunal anyway to get any support then they are going to ask for the best, they have the costs of going to tribunal anyway, emotional cost, time cost as well as actual costs why would they fight for mediocre. If mediocre is given without tribunal or a fight then parents are much more likely to settle for mediocre

@Bushmillsbabe "Why do you tribunals not take account of this though I wonder? Our LA keeps saying they have run out of money, so after promising funds, now cannot provide."

My guess is that the law is set out like this to avoid a postcode lottery and wealthier people moving to areas with better support (which already happens with schools), which then deepens existing inequalities.