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

About fullness - in our area (not just LA but all surrounding LAs) every single specialist setting and ARP is full. For the children who no one is arguing they should go to mainstream, every consult comes back with the statement about being incompatible. I really think at this point it is not acceptable for the LA to just hold their hands up and say a tribunal should decide. One of the schools is going to get forced, why wait over a year while child is out of school just to have a judge direct a school rather than the LA? This is what's happening in our scenario.

It actually feels a bit cowardly on behalf of the LA. For what it's worth they're not even saving money because child's package is so large (and a bloody rip off). They admitted to me it's "difficult" for them to maintain relationships with neighbouring LAs if they direct too much. I thought it was spineless if I'm honest, not that I said that! Of course it's my child and my friends' children who suffer.

Agree somewhat with this. I was forced to go to SENDIST after LA agreed EOTAS but then refused a very modest package and instead used the wait to save money. We had evidence from independent specialist school and their on site therapists. In the ten month wait LA refused to make any provision and had no care for d’s wellbeing. This incensed me, I got independent Ed Psych, OT and SALT who all provided evidence that d needed even more than the modest package. When they pushed for an adjournment I secured an advocate to fight it off. They conceded to a package costing about £40k more than the one I had asked for originally that I would have happily accepted. Day after Tribunal, hearing that wasn’t freed up as LA conceded day before, I pushed the formal complaint over their failure to make any provision in the wait for SENDIST which they had refused to answer as in Tribunal process and they paid me just over £10k in total. They could have saved themselves £50k that year and £40k the following year and the year after too had they behaved with any sort of integrity.

The tribunal only look at the case in front of them in isolation.
The system is crap.
You have vague legislation that puts far higher duties on LAs than they are resourced to deliver, parents understandably get pissed off, the tribunal will give.parents what they want on a lot of cases but this just couldn't be replicated across the cohort for exactly this reason.
As both a parent and a professional I find the tribunal process deeply flawed.

Definitely it's like a trauma response.
Copying and pasting the legislation into a Mumsnet post and kicking off if other people just wasn't an informal chat because it's a social platform.

It's a complex and multi layered issue. But vilifying people doing a job isn't ok and I think that's the difficulty. I know of a caseworker who took their own life after a period of horrific work stress and leaves behind two young children. I know several really kind and gentle people who went off sick and left and almost have a PTSD like condition which still affects their everyday life and ability to work.

It's the talk of unlawful behaviour as though someone who is given more work than they can get through is a criminal. It's taking it out in the only people they have access to, not those responsible for the system. Like caseworkers are viewed as some kind of fictional villain, not actual people doing a job at the council.

That's really frustrating. I think it reflects the changing landscape. A few years ago it was rare to direct, but as you say schools are saying they can't meet need for every EHCP leaner and it has now become common place.
But there was definitely a period of change in the middle.

It's also a system that was set up long before the current situation of needs being so much higher than available resources. It was envisaged that tribunals would be rare, most kids would be in mainstream and those in specialist would have all their needs met by that offer. That's a really long way from the current situation.

The whole system, down to the legislation needs to be overhauled.
The legislation, code of practice, resources allocated to LAs, expectations of Ofsted and tribunal process need to align. They are all completely mismatched at present.

And that's terribly sad but it's also not unheard of for unsupported / failed families (parents or children) to end their lives.

It's a risk that is not isolated to public sector roles (in fact I think it's more prevalent in construction and agricultural roles) and does not mean that parents can't express their concerns including with individual Case Officers where they have behaved unprofessionally or done something wrong.

I don't think we should block people saying someone is a liar if they have, in fact, lied. Surely it's important that professionals who lie get called out?

I bet they accept school evidence when it suits them, e.g if the school says the child doesn't need to be assessed.

I think this would risk lowering expectations of provisions and support for disabled children.

The vast majority of parents feel like the reforms were a great thing and would not want them rolled back to meet lower standards because of resource issues.

The case workers role is what is is under law, not what you think it should be.
Of course you have to have evidence, that's the whole point, it's an evidence based assessment.

I think the point being made is that some case workers continually demand more evidence when there is ample evidence in place already for the intervention they don't want to write into the EHCP. There are cases where they claim that evidence from medics specialising in the condition in question isn't enough, or evidence from independent therapists, or even school evidence. Yet they will happily accept evidence from a local authority EP who has never even met the child in question.

Your view of the evidence of teachers is not reflected in, for instance, the tribunal. Teachers are obviously professionals, and the advantage they have over experts is that they have the opportunity to get to know children very well indeed, whereas an expert may only meet the child once. That doesn't make them infallible, but it certainly means that what they have to say should not be ignored. If a school is using a particular intervention and can show documented evidence that it is helping the child to make good progress, it would be a very foolish LA that ignored it.

Caseworkers don't make decisions on placements, but they are given guidance that they have to follow when it comes to consulting schools, for instance. Time and again parents report that they are told nonsense by caseworkers, such as that the LA has to consult mainstream schools before they can consult speciailists, or that they have to nominate a.mainstream school in their list of preferences. There is good evidence that some LAs, especially those with safety valve agreements, are putting massive pressure on all employees in SEND to do their utmost to prevent specialist placements. Obviously it is not their fault that they come under that pressure, but I would love just occasionally to hear about a caseworker who is prepared to refuse to give in to it. An employer may struggle to discipline them for insisting on complying with the law.

Same with tribunal. Hundred of EHCPS are written by an LA each months a handful go to tribunal. Sometimes because the parent wants something that the LA can't give (e.g. a place in a full school) that tribunal can. It is what it is.

Why can't the LA give it? They are entitled to overrule a school that claims to be full as much as the tribunal is, provided that it is a qualifying school or a s41 school. If it isn't, the tribunal won't be able to name the school either.

The caseworkers will be as pissed off with EP reports etc lacking specificity as much as anyone else. They still can't overrule what's in the report and make up their own version.

But they can and should go back to EPs and instruct them to do their jobs properly. After all, EPs are paid by the LA.

Posting the actual legislation in response to inaccurate ‘paraphrasing’ that changes the meaning completely isn’t ’kicking off’.

Calling unlawful behaviour unlawful isn’t the same as calling any one individual a criminal.

Looking at the case you mention specifically, @Bushmillsbabe, the school could pursue JR if the LA has named their school unlawfully. This very rarely happens because the bar is high. It isn’t enough for the school to disagree with the decision. It is worth remembering for most ARPs the school should be named in I and the provision included in F. And the LA is ultimately responsible for the SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F. That includes ensuring there is sufficient funding. The school could look at JR if there isn’t, the school could support the parents to do the same if the SEP is being provided. If the problem is the SEP isn’t detailed, specified and quantified in F, the school could support the parents to appeal.

The frustrating thing is, if people put this much energy and vitriol into challenging the government we might get somewhere. Calling Sandra in The LA down the road a cow because she forgot to phone you back at the end of a rammed day is not.

No, the frustrating thing is that LAs themselves do so little to challenge the government. When there have been challenges about inadequate government funding, unlawful funding decisions, safety valve agreements etc, LAs are nowhere to be seen, whether in terms of joining in those challenges or just offering evidence. When ideas about improving the system are sought, LAs are asking for rights of appeal to be curtailed, for making it much more difficult to get assessments, for cutting down the rights of over 18s, but not for better funding.

And the really frustrating thing is the LAs who effectively condone the lack of funding and simply seek to pass it on by operating unlawful policies which their staff meekly follow. How else can you explain arbitrary decisions to take away support despite there being zero evidence that it is not needed, or the number of decisions which LAs themselves reverse just before tribunal hearings? Sometimes they don't even do that - I've seen the decision in a refusal to issue case where, during the hearing, every single witness on the LA side fully agreed that the child needed an EHCP, and the LA representative could only say "I'm instructed to oppose the appeal" but blatantly didn't agree with their instructions. That can't be passed off as a one-off mistake, that was a prolonged course of action.

How much lobbying are you and your colleagues doing, @CleverButScatty?

Absolutely, it's a case of those which shout loudest get the most. And I don't blame the parents for asking for more, everyone of course wants the best for their child. But the system needs to balance the needs of all children fairly. That may mean some getting less than they ask for, but it does need to be more equitable for all children, both those with and without SEN.

It's got nothing to do with what parents want, and everything to do with what the child is legally entitled to!

All those parents who are fighting for support for their children want is the basic ability for their child to be able to access education appropriate for them.

Nobody should be having to fight for a suitable school placement or the right support in school. It should be a given for all children but the system we have makes it so that’s not the case

People keep mentioning the best. DC aren’t entitled to the best possible education or the best possible outcomes. They don’t get provision just because their parents ask for it or want it. Provision is only included in EHCPs if it is reasonably required.

Yes, all DC should have their needs met. That is why all parents should be supported to advocate for their DC, appeal when required and enforce DC’s rights when that applies.

It's also really annoying when professionals make out that parents are well meaning but stupid and just don't understand the system or pressures of lack of resources. We absolutely do, we just don't agree with the actions the local authorities take and the law is on our side.

You’re getting a hard time because of your contempt for the legal framework.

You simply cannot make such absolute statements in relation to every LA, because you do not know. The simple fact is that there is ample evidence that LA use things like tribunal delays tactically. Indeed, the tribunal itself has had to intervene in relation to LAs arbitrarily demanding that Refusal to Assess hearings take place in person rather than on the papers, because it is obvious that they are doing that to buy time and save money in providing for the needs of children. You cannot dismiss the experience of hundreds of parents as just those of a "toxic" group. Why do LAs put resources into defending hopeless cases, time and again, if they are not prepared to put time and headspace into defending? Why do they regularly concede so late? Every person who works in SEND has countless examples of cases where it is blatantly obvious that the LA's case is hopeless but they are doing their utmost to string things out as long as they possibly can.

Just one example: the LA has named a school which has said unequivocally that it cannot meet needs and has explained why. This is not stuff that is debatable, it relates to things like the requirement for facilities which the school just does not possess. The LA was ordered by the tribunal in its original directions, as usual, to file a witness statement from that school. It didn't file a witness statement, and ignored four emails from the parents asking them to do so. So the parent applied to the tribunal for an order that they file the statement. The LA still did nothing. The tribunal ordered them to file the statement last week. At that point, the LA suddenly sprang into life and claimed it couldn't obey because it's the school holidays, FFS. Is that really just down to overworked caseworkers, or are they delaying because they know the school witness statement will go against them?

Your refusal to believe things just because you do not have personal experience of them is incredibly frustrating. It does not help your case to call people childish simply for recounting their actual experiences.

And this is a hallmark of LA SEND dept behaviour tbh.

We had a phone tribunal a couple of years ago and the Judge was angry that the LA people dialled 10 minutes late into the call. He was like ‘Why are you late? This isn’t acceptable and you aren’t taking this seriously’

I believe that, generally speaking they don't do it just to amuse themselves though there are a few who do seem to believe the false narrative about grabby parents and take some pleasure in thwarting them. However, that doesn't mean that they don't use games and tactics in order to promote their employers' dodgy policies and tactics. Some very obviously do.

So your evidence did not persuade the tribunal that admitting the child would be incompatible with efficient education of others, and that there were no reasonable steps that could be taken to avoid the incompatibility. That does mean the tribunal was wrong. It can only decide on the basis of the evidence given to it.

Did your LA appeal against the decisions in these cases? I'm guessing not, or if they did they were not successful, as there are relatively few reported decisions in this area where the LA was successful. So even they didn't think they had a strong enough case.

In that situation the cost of the extra teacher should have been funded by the LA, not the school. If your school didn't insist on it, it's down to them.