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

On the contrary, most judges in SENDIST are very good. The relatively low rate of appeals to the Upper Tribunal demonstrates this. The judge doesn't have to have expertise in a particular field to know what they are doing: they have to rely on the evidence presented. If the LA doesn't present adequate evidence, that's down to them, they can't expect the tribunal to fill in the gaps.

Do you actually have experience at the sharp end of making decisions about whether to appeal tribunal decisions? If you did you would know that LAs tend not to appeal because they know that their evidence wasn't strong enough, that they never had a strong case in the first place, or simply that the tribunal didn't get the law wrong. One factor is whether the point of law in question has relevance to other cases, so the reality is that this is decision making for thousands as Upper Tribunal decisions set binding precedents.

You have said you support children in care. Do you support them in appealing to the tribunal, and do you refer them and carers to solicitors and charities that could help them to do so?

I strongly agree about regulating the advocacy industry. Too many are taking parents' money in return for doing a poor job. But that is not the magic wand to solving what is wrong with the SEND system, because if they all disappeared overnight we would still have LAs making blatantly unlawful decisions and sticking by them, and we would still of course have serious underfunding. LAs would certainly discover that parents are unhappy for good reason, not because they are being egged on by advocates or indeed other parents, but because too many LAs are doing a very poor job.

Would you take the experience of tribunal judges? They have regularly pointed out that defences to appeals filed with the tribunal demonstrate that LAs have not been following the law on their own admission. For example, the reasons they give for refusing to assess a child bear no resemblance to the statutory criteria.. They have also said publicly more than once that, when LA decision makers appear in front of them, it is astonishing how many apparently simply do not know the law and change their mind once it's pointed out to them. Hence the success rate for the JADR process. I wish it could be extended further.

All of this arguing on here is a bit silly when we know, by virtue of the fact that so many Sen Tribunals go in favour of the child, that LAs are not properly discharging their legal duties to the child.

You must have the hide of a rhinoceros to go about your day to day job in full knowledge of the fact that you are being paid to deny children an appropriate education.

I have never been impolite to case workers and I've come across a few, I understand their remit, which is to gate keep LA spending. Most are over worked and doing a thankless task. But a few are just awful. It depends on the council.

Our council had the gall to tell me that they, an education authority, had no means to provide GCSE exams to a child on an EOTAS arrangement. I ended up having to speak to the head of Children's services to unblock that one in time for my son to actually gain GCSEs. It absolutely beggars belief.

How about thinking what would happen if all case officers insisted on obeying the law?

Do you think it might actually help, inasmuch as they would have fewer unhappy parents pestering them, and would be spending far less time on appeals?

Yes, the LA would probably go bankrupt, but maybe that is what it takes to bring the funding realities home to the government?

The LA's statutory responsibilities would still have to be met in that event: the government would have to appoint another body to ensure that happens. Have a look at the Birmingham precedent.

Yes, that is the EHCP concept. But we all know that their are poorly written EHCP's, which either underprovide, inappropriately provide or over provide.

As a team lead for paediatric physio, many new EHCPs in our borough which mention physio come to me for comment on whether appropriate provision (in line with national and local guidance, both SEN and NHS and in line with our assessment of the child's needs and potential) has been included. I have lost count of the number of tribunals I have attended to dispute an excessive recommended provision by a private therapist. There were some insane provisions which made it through when i first started, I came with a naive belief that no qualified paediatric professional would recommend extra to make themselves money, making recommendations which actually were not in the bests interests of the child's broader wellbeing or education, so I didn't go in prepared enough. Now though, the initial ehcps themselves are mainly pretty good, it's actually getting them fully implemented by schools which is the biggest challenge, as what the LA gives them does not fully cover costs of providing. And then the challenge of getting them updated in a timely way when needs change.

There are some dodgy therapists and advocates out there, who emotionally manipulate parents into believing 'if only your child gets physio/speech therapy every day they will walk/talk age appropriately, which for some children, no matter how much therapy they get, is not going to happen. And then we are left supporting the families through anger and grief when promises made by private therapists never happen, not because of a lack of input, but because it was medically pretty much impossible.

The system does need an overhaul to make it more family centered, more respectful of schools and more efficient use of resources.

I agree many EHCPs are poorly written, but DC don’t get provision they aren’t legally entitled to and they certainly don’t get the best possible education beyond what is legally required. LAs don’t include provision beyond the legal requirement (and getting them to do that much is difficult enough). Neither does SENDIST - if they did, LAs would be quick to challenge.

LAs are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the SEP in F.

@CleverButScatty

So what would happen to all of the kids who are awaiting a plan or placement or get perm wxcluded etc during that process. Do we just write them off for the good of future generation? Do I take it we aren't including your kids in these written off cohorts?

A high number of children are excluded during the process. It is exactly our situation, and that of at least 6 other families I know locally (I recon there are far more). Our DC cannot cope in mainstream, mainstream is refusing to let my child attend. In the meantime, the EHCP process lead to nothing other than that the local authority agreed months ago to issue an EHCP (which stipulates a specialist setting) but the 'panel' of the EHCP is refusing to finalise and is not replying to emails or returning phone calls. Exclusion is, at least in my LA, standard practice whilst the LA takes 50/60/70/80 weeks to finalise. My friends DS's plan was finalised in week 85 - with mainstream even though the boy cannot attend mainstream and all reports made that clear. You are hugely naive if you believe if you think this isn't standard practice. It may not be in your LA but it is in many areas. We cannot even appeal, as nobody is finalising. EP report etc were all done on time. so it's not even the standard EP delay holding us up bit simply the EHCP team with their delaying tactics which only have one aim: to save money. Nobody has the wellbeing and education of our children at heart!

I'm on two LA steering groups at work (AP development and EBSNA), work with the parent carer forum in my work LA as a link and my home LA as a parent rep. I volunteer my time to a group run by my local MP to lobby the government on SEND reforms, am the SEND Governor at my son's school as well as working 50 hours min a week and being parent to 3 SEND kids. What about you? Enough to leave me physically and mentally broken to be honest but if I don't who will? Someone bitching that their caseworker is a cow ...that's going to achieve sweet FA.

It's a lot more than someone who is in a couple of parent FB groups, reads special needs jungle and bitches on MN (not saying you but plenty on here clearly met that description).

Like many of you, I have navigated nearly 20 years of being a SEND parent with 3 children wth SEND (actually that's a lot more than some on here feeling like their nastiness should be untouchable)pre pandemic, during and post. Working in mainstream schools, special schools, SENCO roles and as an LA. Post-grad quals in SEND, Autism and a level 3 legal qualification.

I have a very broad view of the challenges of the system, the nuances and parental difficulties.
I have never posted the depths of my children's struggles on here, that is their business and not a means of me point scoring against some random on the interne. But according to some random up thread I have had an easy time of it in the SEND system ..Have I heck!! Because I have an ounce of intelligence I know that this is because of funding and government policy, not because only people who are untrustworthy and 'have the skins of rhinoceros' become SEND case workers.

Some people were nasty cows before they became a SEND parent, but they now feel they are justified. And brush off what my colleagues have experienced all you like. Just know that people who are abusive to them are completely contributing to the lack of stability in the workforce and the impact on delays etc. A bit like people who are awful to teachers then whinge that their child has a new one every term.

@Bluebell865 I sometimes think that some professionals in the field who have children with SEN are a bit dismissive of other parents. They don't realise that if they are a professional and the people who work with their children know this, they will be automatically treated a LOT better than non-SEN professional parents. Like when a doctor turns up to be treated at A&E. I was definitely given preferential treatment when I worked in the field, and believed straight away.

Also, they tend (and this is hard to say because it comes across as equally dismissive) not to have children with extremely high needs. They don't have the children who have stabbed their parents with a kitchen knife, or whose parents are talking about putting them in care aged 8 due to such challenging behaviour, or children who are admitted to mental health hospitals. This is because many parents who have children with these kinds of needs rapidly find they can no longer work. So when they are talking about LAs not being able to make placement decisions and instead waiting over a year for a tribunal while their child has nothing they're not really emotionally invested in it.

This is my experience, I am sure there are professionals with children in the system or are at edge of care stage or in mental health hospitals but, I haven't met any many. When one of my children had a crisis it nearly destroyed our lives completely and there was no way I could work.

My post was a response to someone suggesting that the way to improve the situation is for all caseworkers in the country to immediately leave their jobs and leave the roles empty. Because then the government would apparently fix everything straight away 🙄 I wish.

The situation with perm exclusions is an outrage. I work with care experiences children who are probably the biggest groups affected by this. It is an underhand way of schools offrolling SEND learners and the SEND teams are as disgusted as parents. Our service lead went through a phase of attending the governors panel to try and force the point .. it specifically states in the perm ex and suspension stat guidance that a child can't be excluded due to unmet SEND needs but schools (academies especially) ignore this and use it to unlawfully off roll.
The LA font have a legal redress route for this it's the parents who would go to tribunal for disability discrimination but most don't.

I don't work in my home LA and my older children went through their difficulties before I worked in the LA.

You are turning yourself inside out to invalidate my experience as a SEND PARENT It is not invalid. It gives me valuable insight onto both sides of the process.
It's a bit bitchy really, trying to silence my voice as a SEND parent because I am disagreeing with some of nastiness towards individuals who work within the LA.

The reason I am able to work is because my partner sees these things as his responsibility too and my qualifications and experience give me the option to take a hybrid role. I still took a 40% pay cut to do this. I have ended up on hospital with sepsis from a minor ailment twice in the last 4 years and both times the doctor was adamant it was stress related. How dare you try and minimise my experience. The difference in being able to work is about the training and career decisions I made 30 years ago. I frequently end up completing work at the weekend and late at night when my partner can take over. If you have an entry level, or service based job, or shit partner who doesn't pull their weight etc if course that will be different. But that's nowt to do with the caseworkers.

I don't think that's what's happening to be honest.

I don't think your recent comment was even directed at anything I'd said up thread because I was typing my comment pretty much at the same time as you.

Does no one in your home LA even know you're a SEN professional? I didn't work for my home LA and they do know.

I think your recent comments really betray your disdain for other parents who might not have the resources and experience you do, 'an ounce of intelligence' and the sarcastic special needs jungle comments were quite hard to read.

Nobody in my home LA knows me, why would they? I have never taught or worked there and don't know anyone who does.

And the truth can be hard to swallow. Especially when you are used to being in an an echo chamber where everything is oversimplified and you are constantly told you are a saint.

@CleverButScatty "If you have an entry level, or service based job, or shit partner who doesn't pull their weight etc if course that will be different."

Now I know you don't really understand the experiences of the wide and diverse people you are meant to serve, no matter how senior you are.

Don't? I was a single parent with my older two and my ex was a waste of space.
You didn't know anything about me, my background or things I have overcome to drag myself and children to the position I am currently in.
None of that is related to caseworkers personal character traits.

You will not invalidate my experience as a SEND parent of nearly 20 years because I don't fit the stereotype in your head (and I would be curious about who you class as a Valid SEND parent) of a SEND parent.

I'm not easily bullied.

Posters have literally given you loads of examples of Case Workers or LAs lying or behaving terribly, and every time you have dismissed them saying they are just 'overworked' even though - as you've pointed out yourself - you know nothing of the personal situation of any of these posters.

However, you have repeatedly dismissed other parents, who you apparently represent, saying they are stupid, ridiculous, don't understand, naive, don't have experience etc.

The one poster who called her LA (anonymously) 'evil' has had a very extreme and horrific experience. You have no knowledge of whether the professionals did or did not act badly (let's face it, we can all name some high profile evil ex public sector workers) but immediately jumped to conclude that these parents are abusive and connected parents on this thread to a suicide of your colleague. Calling someone you have had a bad experience with 'evil' on an anonymous forum with no way to identify them is not abusive.

It's clear that you have a wide and deep professional knowledge base but your attitude to other parent carers is a perfect example of why parents automatically distrust professionals. This links back to the main question: no, I would not trust LA Case Workers because even if they do have personal experience they are likely to look down on you, assume you are unintelligent and follow the LA party line.

I used the data protection act to force the LA to cough up my daughter’s files in the run up to one tribunal we had. That shook them up pretty badly because I was then privy to all of the unprofessional things that they had said. One EP had started an exegesis on my character stating that I was a passive person who was easily pushed around by others and probably was autistic myself. I mean, WTF did that have to do with my daughter.

Another part of the report said that the provision I was asking for was too expensive. Nothing about my daughter. Nothing about her presentation. Nothing about what provision they intended to give, what they thought was suitable or why.

It can be helpful to uncover this information that the LA would prefer to remain private, but which you are entitled to see. It can be a good tactic to use to see what exactly their thought process is (if there even is one!)

Also, when schools make decisions it is often on the basis of the inaccurate and/or out of date EHCP which is the only document LAs send for consultation purposes in many cases. I've seen schools believe, for instance, that a child is cognitively really low because no-one has bothered to update the EHCP in years so they think he has made no progress since nursery days.

You ignore the parents and children driven to despair and suicide by lack of co-operation and communication from caseworkers who make promises and don't keep them, ignore reasonable requests for proper assessments, lie about what children are entitled to, and in some cases act as outright bullies. Of course that is a minority of caseworkers, but it is naive to deny the facts and make out that they are alll living saints.

No, it isn't. It's a case of tribunals upholding the law, rather than local policy or whatever it is the LA would like the law to be.

You should threaten judicial review and if necessary get a formal pre-action letter sent.