EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS, LEAS, AND HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Transcription

1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS, LEAS, AND HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS Research Report 60 June 1998 by Alan Dyson, Mei Lin, and Alan Millward Special Needs Research Centre Department of Education Newcastle upon Tyne The views expressed in this report are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Employment. Crown Copyright Published with the permission of DfEE on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationary Office. Application for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty s Stationary Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwicn NR3 1BQ ISBN

2 Acknowledgements The writing team wish to thank the parents, schools, Local Education Authorities, Social Services Departments and Health Authorities which participated in this research and were unfailingly patient in supplying information and accommodating requests for interviews. We also wish to thank the many national organisations which responded to our requests for information and the joint DfEE-DH steering group which offered detailed and constructive advice throughout the course of the project. Finally, we would like to offer particular thanks to Professor Ron Davie and former-hmi John Elliott who made valuable contributions to the design, conduct and analysis of this investigation. Any remaining shortcomings in this report are, however, entirely our own.

3 Contents Executive Summary Page No. 1. Introduction Background to the research The Project Aims of the Project Research Methodology 4 2. Context and issues Multiplicity of responsibilities within hierarchical organisations Lack of clarity over areas of responsibility and issues of joint funding The changing locus of responsibility for agencies The statutory basis of co-operation and the priorities of interventions The problems of values Primary-secondary agency co-operation The impact of local government and agency reorganisation The views of clients The one-dimensional gaze Co-operation and communication between schools and agencies Co-operation and communication between schools and LEAs Contact points between schools and LEAs Systems and procedures in place for statutory assessment Annual reviews and transition planning Co-operation and communication between schools and health authorities Designated officers for SEN in the Health Authority School nurses and school medical officers The range of Health professionals 24 Page No.

4 Involvement of Health professionals with pupils at stages 1-3 of the Code Statutory assessment, annual reviews, and transition planning Issues in co-operation between schools and Health professionals Provision of services Co-operation and communication between schools and social services Designated officers for SEN in Social Services Department Systems and procedures for communication between schools and Social Services Statutory assessment, annual reviews, and transition planning Perspectives on issues of communication and co-operation with Social Services Provision of services Overview A note on parental views Communication and co-operation between agencies Collaboration at the operational level between the LEA and Health Services Collaboration for statutory assessment Collaboration for annual reviews and transition planning Other issues in communication and co-operation between LEAs and DHAs Collaboration at the operational level between the LEA and SSDs Collaboration for statutory assessment Collaboration for annual reviews and transition planning Issues in communication and co-operation between Education and Social Services 49

5 Page No. 4.3 Strategic communication and collaboration between the LEA, Social Services, and Health Services Communication between agencies at the senior management level Joint planning and provision for children with SEN Improving understandings and sharing values between agencies Co-operation at the margins of SEN Inter-agency co-operation: from principles to practice The virtuous circle of co-operation Co-operation as a core issue Aims for inter-agency co-operation Objectives of inter-agency working Emerging Models of Inter-Agency Co-operation Mutual Co-operation Model Shared Responsibility Model The Natural Lead Model The Community Services Model The analytic framework Recommendations for good practice General recommendations: a strategy for review and evaluation Information collection and management Values, principles and targets Training and staff development Planning for the future Planning and monitoring of progress Partnership with parents 79

6 Page No. Appendix 1: Identification of samples 80 Appendix 2: Case Studies 84 Appendix 3: A selective literature review of key factors and issues of inter-agency co-operation 92 Appendix 4: An analytic framework 103 Abbreviations References

7 1. Introduction This report presents the findings of a research project into co-operation between Local Education Authorities (LEAs), Health Authorities (HAs), and Social Services Departments (SSDs) in assessing and meeting the needs of children with special educational needs (SEN). The research was sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and the Department of Health, (DH) and undertaken by the Special Needs Research Centre in the Department of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne between September 1996 and July The Report has six sections. Section One describes the aims and research process of the project. Section Two provides a brief contextual background to the issue of inter-agency cooperation. Sections Three and Four present findings on the current state of communication and collaboration between schools, LEAs, Social Services and Health Authorities. In Section Five we suggest some aims and objectives of effective inter-agency co-operation and present a number of emerging models. In Section Six we make a series of recommendations as to how inter-agency collaboration might be developed. 1.1 Background to the research Calls for co-ordinated action between the various caring agencies (defined for the purposes of this report as Health, Education and Social Services) have been a long-standing feature of the debate about how to achieve the most effective response to meeting the needs of children and young people described variously as in need or having special educational needs. These calls have been endorsed in recent legislation and guidance (Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs [DFE, 1994]; 1996 Education Act; 1989 Children Act). However, concerns still exist about the actual extent and effectiveness of inter-agency co-operation on the ground. This research has as its particular focus the extent to which inter-agency co-operation is proving effective in the light of the guidance in the Code of Practice. Although only guidance, the Code is quite specific about the importance of inter-agency co-operation for 1

8 children with special educational needs. In this respect it reflects earlier legislation targeted at the other agencies. For example, the 1989 Children Act places a duty on LEAs and District Health Authorities to provide services which are deemed necessary for children identified as being in need (Section 27). Similarly, the 1996 Education Act requires Social Services Departments and Health Authorities to comply with requests from the LEA in regard to children with special educational needs (Section 322). In the Code of Practice there is specific reference to the legislative frameworks established for Health and Social Services which is clearly intended to reinforce the importance of co-operation and also to remind all the agencies involved of their shared responsibilities in this respect. For example, it quotes from paragraph 2:38 of the 1989 Children Act: District health authorities, LEAs, grant maintained schools and City Technology Colleges must comply with a request from a social services department for assistance in providing services for children in need, so long as the request is compatible with their duties and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions. and also from Section 322 of the 1996 Education Act, to point out the obligations that agencies have to each other to meet requests for information: Social services departments, subject to a qualification similar to that in section 27 above, and district health authorities, subject to the reasonableness of the request in the light of available resources, must comply with a request for help from an LEA in connection with children with special educational needs, unless they consider that the help is not necessary for the exercise of the LEA s functions. However, as we have indicated, the Code of Practice itself is only guidance (although all those to whom the Code applies have a statutory duty to have regard to it) and cannot bind schools or LEAs, let alone Health Authorities and Social Services Departments to particular forms of action. While the Code of Practice can advocate collaboration and point out the legislative context which requires or encourages it, there are limits to what it can actually require agencies to do. This is noticeable in Paragraph 2:40 of the Code which goes only as far as suggesting that agencies should meet on a regular basis to coordinate activity: 2

9 In order to achieve full collaboration at both school and local authority level, representatives of LEAs, social services departments and the health services may choose to meet on a reasonably regular basis to plan and co-ordinate activity. Such arrangements will vary according to local circumstances, but the principles of partnership and close working relationships between agencies, supported by meetings to discuss both strategic and operational issues, will have general application. In 1992 the Department of Health produced guidance (Circular (92)18) recommending that each local authority develop a Children s Services Plan (CSP) which would specify the provision of relevant services for children and young people in need. The guidance outlined in broad terms the content of CSPs, by identifying key features that it assumed would form a common core of all plans; it also suggested the type of information that should be included in these plans. The circular pointed out that drawing up such plans would encourage local authorities to make explicit their policies, to recognise the implicit resource implications, and thereby to enable more effective monitoring of service provision to be undertaken. It became a requirement to produce CSPs from April 1996 (OAC 1996) which was shortly before this research commenced. The requirement to develop CSPs is a further incentive to develop greater inter-agency co-operation and its impact on the responses and attitude of the three statutory agencies will be noted in the course of this report. In the light of the impetus to inter-agency co-operation given by recent legislation and guidance, this piece of research is most timely. As recently as 1994, the Audit Commission noted that, while parents and Health, Education and Social Services shared a common concern for the well-being of children, only in a very small number of local authorities had effective inter-agency working been developed (Audit Commission, 1994). This report explores how far this picture has changed and, in particular, the extent to which the Code of Practice has provided a new framework for co-operation. 3

10 1.2 The Project Aims of the Project This project aimed to: identify obstacles to effective inter-agency co-operation between schools, LEAs, Health Services and Social Services in the context of the Code of Practice; establish models of effective inter-agency co-operation; and recommend ways in which co-operation and decision making in the context of the Code of Practice can be improved, and set out practical measures to achieve this improvement Research Methodology The research project was conducted in three phases: Phase 1 : identifying a sample of LEA areas, and conducting interviews with: teachers, and parents; senior officers and professionals in the LEA; the SSD; the Health Service and with General Practitioners, if relevant; Phase 2 : conducting case-studies of significant and effective practice which were identified from nominations by national professional bodies, from the literature and from Phase 1 data; Phase 3 : the development of models and recommendations, validated in regional and national workshops with the intended users of the research. A full account of the way in which key personnel, schools and LEAs were identified is given in Appendix 1. 4

11 2. Context and issues Inter-agency co-operation is not, of course, a new phenomenon - and problems in cooperation are likewise not at all new. There is, in fact, an extensive literature stretching back over many years, which describes the ways in which attempts at co-operation have been made and analyses the difficulties they have encountered. A selective review of some of the more recent contributions to that literature is presented as Appendix 2. However, it may be useful here to summarise some of the main themes which have emerged as consistently important for understanding inter-agency work. Despite the fact that much of this literature focuses on the difficulties of co-operation, it allows us, by implication, to identify some of the features which are necessary if inter-agency work is to be effective. These features are, therefore, highlighted in the sections which follow. 2.1 Multiplicity of responsibilities within hierarchical organisations Each of the three statutory agencies - Education, Social Services and Health - are required to operate with complex service responsibilities. They have a multiplicity of responsibilities to a number of client groups and the issue of special educational needs is only one of many to which they have to respond. Most of these other responsibilities are front-line and interventionist in that they seek to meet immediate and often pressing needs of their various client groups. Such services are by their very nature resource-intensive, placing a pressure on the overall budget of the agencies. In such a situation any one responsibility will undoubtedly be in competition for resources with other responsibilities in the same agency. Any new initiative required of an agency such as inter-agency co-operation, which may not have observable benefits for responding to front-line work, has either to argue its case for additional resources from the agency itself, or seek a redistribution of existing resources within its own area to accommodate to new demands. If such an initiative does not relate to front line interventions then it may prove more difficult to argue for additional resources or obtain a redistribution internally. Moreover, the complexity of the provision that is made by agencies such as Health or Social Services may be such that individuals at operational level develop expertise in their own area 5

12 but lose touch with or are unaware of the resources and expertise that exist elsewhere in the agency. We can characterise this as a problem of information retrieval and exchange which arises when complexity of responsibility within an agency is combined with a management structure which is hierarchical. In such a situation opportunities for information sharing and exchange within an organisation may become lost as professional specialization combined with competition for resources forces individuals or teams to become highly focused in relation to their own areas of responsibility. In such a situation the possibility of sharing information and resources between agencies becomes highly compromised. This suggests that an important determinant of effective inter-agency co-operation is, therefore, the extent to which individual agencies have in place internal mechanisms which allow them to share information and deploy resources flexibly in support of initiatives which go beyond the most immediate front-line interventions. Without such mechanisms the organisation is unlikely to be effective in sharing information and resources with other agencies. 2.2 Lack of clarity over areas of responsibility and issues of joint funding We have referred above to the separate statutory basis of the three agencies. This does have clear advantages in certain respects. For example, it is abundantly clear that in cases of Child Protection the Social Services have a clear responsibility for taking the lead in assembling information and taking action. However, the absence of a statutory basis for action by the three agencies in certain areas can sometimes cause problems in a number of areas. For example, the clearest statutory requirements tend to apply to individual agencies in cases where the most serious problems have already emerged - but less so to earlier joint interventions which might prevent those problems emerging in the first place. It is often not clear which agency should take the lead in such interventions, nor what contribution can reasonably be expected from other agencies. Similarly, there are often situations where the three agencies are faced with taking joint responsibility for making long-term provision for children with special educational needs whose dependency on different agency provision may change over time. In the absence of statutory requirements, or at the very least guidance, territorial disputes may emerge in which there is disagreement about the locus of 6

13 responsibility and hence for resource allocation between the various agencies. Such disputes, whilst they may not delay provision being made, are likely to confirm any existing prejudices within agencies about the value or otherwise of co-operation. The existence of established mechanisms through which boundary disputes over issues such as joint funding can be resolved seems, therefore, to be an important factor in effective inter-agency co-operation. 2.3 The changing locus of responsibility for agencies The absence of a common statutory framework for the three agencies results in individual agencies assuming key roles at certain stages and phases of an individual s life. Thus the statutory requirement for all children to have an education places a major responsibility on the Education Service in the period of compulsory education. For pupils with special educational needs, the Code of Practice places that responsibility jointly in the hands of schools and LEAs. Other agencies will, as a result of this statutory obligation, by and large defer to the role of Education during this period unless of course, they are triggered into action by specific circumstances or particular statutory obligations. Given this situation, important transition points occur where the responsibility of one agency is replaced by that of another. An example of this, to which we shall return in this report, is the transition from adolescence to adulthood. The importance of this issue is recognised in the Code of Practice in the requirement for the drawing up of a transition plan to plan coherently for the young person s transition to adult life (6:45). Such transition points are fraught with potential difficulties in which the successful networking of services is not automatically guaranteed. The potential exists for ownership of any plans to become obscured and for the locus of responsibility for translating them into action to become lost. The presence of mechanisms - such as transition planning as envisaged by the Code - for managing the hand-over of responsibility between different lead agencies at key transitional points and delivering a seamless service to individuals would appear to be an important factor in effective inter-agency co-operation. 7

14 2.4 The statutory basis of co-operation and the priorities of interventions As indicated above, each of the main agencies which form the basis of this research - Health, Education and Social Services - has been the subject of recent important legislation. In each case the concept of inter-agency co-operation formed a significant component of that legislation. However, the legislation also sets out more specific guidelines as to how those agencies should operate in terms of their other roles and duties. One of the complicating features of this legislation is that there is no shared definition of a population which is to be the subject of any inter-agency co-operation. Terms such as special educational needs, additional needs, in need, at risk and so on are subject to different interpretations within agencies and by individuals. This, as a number of commentators have pointed out, does not help in the establishment of a shared understanding between different professionals. The Code of Practice maintains the term special educational needs which has, despite certain ambiguities, attained a currency in the Education system, referring to a broad population of pupils (perhaps as many as one in five) who may experience difficulties at some point in their school career. Amongst Health professionals, as our interviews revealed, the term special needs is also current. However, it is more likely to be understood in a narrower sense than in the Education service, referring to a relatively small group of children who have medical needs (physical or emotional) which are the subject of particular medical interventions. Amongst Social Services personnel, the term special need is often interpreted as meaning those with a severe learning or emotional difficulty which places stress and difficulty on the family as well as the child. Moreover, the understanding of need within Social Services is strongly influenced by the legal definition of children in need in the 1989 Children Act - a definition which is somewhat different from the definition of special educational needs in educational legislation. One consequence of all this is that many children regarded as being in need by one service may not be regarded as requiring anything additional by the other services. For instance, many children who have mild and moderate learning difficulties in educational terms do not warrant intervention from Social Services; similarly, many children who are looked after by SSDs may receive no special attention from Education. The volume of recent legislation and the absence of a common statutory framework has placed a considerable demand on the agencies in terms of the responses they have had to 8

15 make. As well as meeting their own obligations they are also required to respond to requests from the other agencies which arise from a different statutory requirement and a different definition of children with special needs. An important factor in effective inter-agency co-operation is, therefore, the extent to which the separate agencies demonstrate not just awareness of the extent of the obligations of the other service agencies but also to have systems in place which can respond to them efficiently. As the most recent example of this is in relation to the establishment of mandatory Children s Services Plans as a result of the Department of Health (1996a) regulations, it will be instructive to see the extent to which the three agencies have responded to this requirement. 2.5 The problem of values A further complicating factor arises from the different statutory bases of the three agencies and their lack of a common language to describe a target population. Since each agency has a different primary function - the provision, respectively, of education, health care and social care - it is inevitable that each one should act in accordance with sets of values which are implicit in its own function, but which may differ from those underpinning other agencies with different functions. An example may help to illustrate this dilemma. As the SEN Green Paper (DfEE, 1997) points out, the number of children seen within the Education system as having emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) is increasing and many of these children display behaviour which disrupts their schools and classrooms. Some of these children may well be from families where there is Social Services involvement. In attempting to deal more effectively with their disruptive behaviour, the school may well enlist the support of the relevant social worker to intervene on the school s behalf in the home context. However, if the pupil is not presenting as problematic in the home situation, the social worker may see no cause for intervention. Alternatively if the behaviour of the pupil is interpreted by the social worker as the being the result of intolerable social pressures, s/he may respond by providing some form of additional service for the pupil - perhaps in the form of a treat. Both actions may be viewed as inappropriate by the school, thus jeopardising future collaboration. The lack of a shared set of values may well lead to a fragmentation of the response to children s needs rather than a common vision. In particular, it may lead to different 9

16 interventions with different target groups aiming at different outcomes. It is important to effective inter-agency co-operation, therefore, that agencies seek to develop jointly a common set of values on the basis of which they can agree priorities and targets, and within which they can locate their individual statutory responsibilities. 2.6 Primary-secondary agency co-operation Inter-agency collaboration in the Code of Practice is viewed as essentially a tripartite process involving Health, Social Services and Education. However, as we will indicate below, in some cases this is an over simplification of the situation, especially as it relates to some young people and their families at certain points in their lives. A number of other agencies, both statutory and voluntary, may be centrally involved as key players in the process of providing effective services for children with special educational needs. The role of Housing may, for instance, be crucial in ensuring that young people with complex physical handicaps make the transition from adolescence to adulthood and a greater independence by establishing their own home base. Unfortunately, such secondary agencies are frequently omitted from any attempts to develop inter-agency co-operation. Similarly, the availability of services provided by voluntary agencies in the area of respite care may be an important element in the ability of families to cope with care of young people with particularly demanding needs. The availability of such provision is not consistent throughout the country, thereby bringing about a greater pressure on some SSDs and HAs. This in turn may result in more resources being devoted to this crucial front-line care at the expense of procedures and systems to encourage collaboration. Effective inter-agency co-operation, therefore, is dependent on the extent to which both primary agencies (Education, Health and Social Services) and secondary agencies (such as Housing or the voluntary agencies) are involved and their work is co-ordinated into a coherent pattern of provision. 2.7 The impact of local government and agency reorganisation The operation of inter-agency co-operation in the field of special educational needs is, as we have suggested, dependent on the interplay of a number of factors. Recent changes in the way that agencies are organised has introduced an additional element into the equation. Two 10

17 related trends are evident. First, there is the trend towards decentralisation within the major agencies - as evidenced, for instance, in the growing autonomy of schools or the separation of purchaser and provider functions within the Health Service. Such decentralisation may introduce a market component into previously monopolistic agencies and may thus make them more responsive to client needs, but it also brings with it the danger of complexity and fragmentation. Second, there is the trend towards smaller units of governance. The outcome of the Local Government Review initiated in 1992 was a move towards unitary authorities which it was hoped would bring local government closer to the communities it served, reduce bureaucracy and administrative costs, and provide increased opportunities for greater co-ordination between local services. However, the size of unitary authorities raises real issues about whether they can command a sufficiently large resource base to provide the range of services that are required by, for instance, children with SEN. Inevitably, therefore, smaller LEAs tend to purchase services from neighbouring (or even somewhat distant) authorities. This in turn compounds a long-standing problem which is that different agencies operate within different administrative boundaries. It is, therefore, by no means impossible that, say, a special school in one LEA area will educate children from a number of different LEAs, served by an equal number of SSDs and, quite possibly, by an still greater range of HAs which in turn commission services from yet more Health Trusts. The potential for confusion is, of course, considerable. Under these circumstances, a key factor in effective inter-agency co-operation will be the extent to which agencies are able to put in place systems and structures for overcoming the potential fragmentation of services without losing some of the advantages of decentralisation. 2.8 The views of clients A number of attempts have been made to ascertain the views of the young people and their families who are the recipients of multi-agency provision. There are, of course, many who are highly satisfied with the services they receive. However, a recurrent theme in the literature is the extent to which the voices of service-users are overwhelmed by the voices of 11

18 service-providers. This seems to be particularly the case where users are held to be incapable of articulating their needs effectively - where, for instance, they are young or where their behaviour seems threatening or disruptive. Despite the significant advances in this area in recent years and despite the recognition given to the voice of the child in the 1989 Children Act, it nonetheless remains true that the major agencies, whether they work separately or collaboratively, tend to find the voice of the professional the easiest both to listen to and to articulate. This uncertainty in relationships with clients is reflected in the plethora of terms which are used in the literature to refer to the individuals on whose behalf agencies supposedly operate. The term clients, with which we persevere in this report, is often taken to imply a relationship of undesirable dependency, and others, therefore, prefer terms such as serviceusers, consumers of services, partners and so on. Each one signals a different relationship between the agency and the people to whom services are provided - as do the equivalent terms used within single agency - pupil, student, patient, children, young people and the rest. All of this points to the difficulties which agencies have in balancing the voices and needs of their own professionals against the voices and needs of the wider population for whose benefit they exist. The effectiveness of inter-agency co-operation, therefore, has to be judged against not only the extent to which it meets professional concerns, but also the extent to which the voice of the child and parent is heard in decisions about how, where and to whom services will be provided. 2.9 The one-dimensional gaze An all-pervading theme which emerges from the literature is the extent to which attempts at inter-agency collaboration are regularly thwarted and constrained by what we might call the one-dimensional gaze of professionals. In many ways, indeed, this theme encapsulates all the other issues which we have raised in this chapter. A history of separate development in the different agencies has resulted almost inevitably in the emergence of strong - and strongly differentiated - professional cultures within each of them. This, of course, is a great source of strength: agencies with a clear focus and rationale 12

19 are often able to deal in an efficient manner with single item issues and specific statutory responsibilities. However, separate development has inevitably produced problems when multi-dimensional issues arise which transgress neat statutory limits and departmental boundaries. These problems are compounded by a number of factors. Because agencies work to different sets of legislation, there is a tendency for them to concentrate on their own area rather than on co-operative activities, which may in turn lead to an emphasis on reactive rather than proactive responses. It is further reinforced by the recent trend of devolving responsibility to individual units within services, further limiting the opportunities for collaboration and at the same time reinforcing a sense of individual agency identity at both strategic and operational level. One consequence of this is the emergence of the onedimensional gaze - the view on the part of both individuals and agencies that it is their particular professional expertise operating from the base provided by their own agency which is central in the meeting of needs. The adoption of this restricted gaze is further reinforced through patterns of initial professional training which allow few if any opportunities for collaborative learning and the sharing of understanding of the different but complementary roles that are necessary to meet the often complex needs of many young people. In much the same way in-service training, although allowing greater opportunities for shared professional development, is always likely to be dominated by the agency s own priorities arising from specific or new statutory responsibilities. It is interesting to note the increasing emphasis that is being given to multiprofessional training in certain key areas such as Early Childhood. However, there is still no initial training tradition equivalent to, for example, the multi-professional role undertaken by the social pedagogue or social educator found in many European countries. With distinct separate statutory bases and routes of training, it is not surprising that many individual professionals find it difficult to have anything other than a one-dimensional view of the needs of a particular child. Rhetoric aside, the force of statutory responsibility compounded by a real lack of understanding of the professional rationale and operating domains of other professionals and agencies often produces a situation in which the child s needs are compressed into the those defined by the individual agency. This reductionist view 13

20 of the child s needs can produce a number of often unintentional outcomes. Firstly, it can often lead to duplication of effort in areas such as assessment, producing frustration at the level of the child or their parent. Secondly, it can result in delay in accessing services until the process is formally completed. Thirdly, it can often lead to a misunderstanding between agencies or individual professionals over issues such as communication and informationsharing, or even the attribution of blame when delays in service delivery arise. These issues can become particularly problematic at points of transition, such as the entry to and exit from full-time education where the need for effective inter-agency co-operation becomes crucial. It is evident that the one-dimensional gaze is an important component in the failure to develop an holistic view and response to the needs of the child; it is likely to compound problems of co-ordination and to inhibit strategic planning of a preventative nature. Effective inter-agency co-operation, therefore, depends crucially on the development of a multidimensional gaze through which individual professionals and agencies as a whole can see problems from each others perspectives, appreciate and utilise each others expertise, and come to some shared understanding of children s needs. 14

21 3. Co-operation and communication between schools and agencies Our primary focus in this part of the report is on inter-agency communication and cooperation. As our primary, though by no means exclusive, data source was schools we will begin this chapter by presenting our findings in relation to schools experiences of cooperation with other agencies. In later sections, we will report what other agencies told us about the extent to which they experienced problems and successes in respect of co-operation with schools. In a final section, we will report briefly the views of the small sample of parents that we were able to interview as a means of setting professional concerns in a wider context. Throughout this chapter and the next, our data compel us to dwell at some length on the problems of inter-agency co-operation. However, we also observed or were told about many examples of effective practice. Since it is these examples upon which practitioners and policy-makers will need to build, we have highlighted them in the text. Interested readers will be able to find additional examples described in greater detail in Appendix 2. Schools are engaged in a range of relationships which significantly affect their capacity to meet pupils special educational needs. The interviews with headteachers and other school staff who were responsible for liaison with outside agencies focused on: the formal systems and procedures for schools obtaining information and guidance from the LEAs, Health Authorities, and Social Services; the involvement of each of the above agencies in operating the procedures recommended by the Code of Practice (e.g. pupils at stage 3 of the Code, statutory assessment, annual reviews, transition planning, etc.); their views on the factors which contributed to or inhibited co-operation; strategic planning for pupils with special educational needs (insofar as schools were involved in this activity). The overall findings suggest that schools are following the procedures recommended by the Code of Practice. In general, there are systems in place for them to communicate with the LEAs and Health Authorities. Some difficulties are experienced in communicating with Social Services although there are examples of good practice in certain key areas. Our detailed findings are presented in the remainder of this chapter. 15

22 3.1. Co-operation and communication between schools and LEAs Contact points between schools and LEAs The relationship between schools and LEAs has historically been very close, particularly, it might be argued, in special needs education, where responsibilities have traditionally been shared. However, it is a mistake to treat schools and LEAs as one and the same. Not only have legislative changes over the past decade given schools considerably more autonomy, but many schools - particularly special schools and schools with special units - work with children from more than one LEA area. Moreover, LEAs themselves are far from homogeneous, and schools can expect to have contact over special needs matters with a range of personnel - educational psychologists, support service teachers, education officers, adviser/inspectors, education welfare officers and so on. The scope for difficulties in communication is therefore considerable. Our findings reflect this complex picture: Schools generally reported that communication and co-operation between themselves and LEAs was easier than with Health and Social Services. In every case, they were able to describe formalised lines of communication. Moreover, schools had a range of contacts with front-line professionals (educational psychologists, support service teachers) within the LEA who were readily accessible to provide more informal advice and information. It should be borne in mind, however, that most of the schools in the sample had relatively high numbers of pupils with statements and were therefore familiar with the relevant procedures. Previous research (Crowther et al, 1997) indicated that some schools (such as small schools with relatively few children with statements) might have much more limited contact with LEA personnel. Schools were always able to name an officer in the LEA with whom they liaised over SEN matters. However, the names given were not always consistent within schools. This sometimes reflected the position of the informant within the school. Headteachers, for example, were often able to identify an officer or senior officer within the authority; other staff were more likely to identify an educational psychologist or a member of the learning support services as the point of referral and source of professional advice and help. It was also notable that experienced SENCOs might name many officers whom they had come to know over the years rather than naming one person as a first contact point. It would 16

23 Some LEAs had taken particular steps which, intentionally or otherwise, increased the understanding in schools of SEN systems and structures within the LEA. The provision of written information, perhaps in the form of SEN handbooks, was common. However, a number of authorities had created generic support services (for learning difficulties, sensory impairments, behaviour difficulties and so on), perhaps with educational psychologist input. One authority in particular had located all of its Special Services in one building in order to create a one-stop shop for schools seeking advice. Schools reported how helpful it was to be able to phone a single number and to know that, even if the first person was unable to deal with the query, s/he would be able to find someone in a nearby office who could. Similarly, some LEAs routinely involved heads and SENCOs in policy issues regarding SEN. One beneficial side-effect of this was to make teachers more familiar with personnel and systems within the authority Systems and procedures in place for statutory assessment All the LEAs that participated in the project had produced guidance for schools on the statutory assessment procedures set out in the Code of Practice. The extent and detail of this guidance varied. Some LEAs had taken the opportunity offered by the Code to produce an SEN handbook which covered a wide range of issues related to special educational needs. Most LEAs had also developed standardised pro-formas for schools which had to be completed where a request for statutory assessment was being made. In some cases LEAs had 17

24 also developed criteria or benchmarks which might be related to age or National Curriculum attainment targets which provided additional indicators for schools. On the whole, all the schools visited found such guidance useful. However, they did raise a number of issues concerning its effectiveness: The preparation of evidence for statutory assessment. Schools reported that this was a skill that teachers had to learn if they were to keep the administrative load within reasonable bounds and if they were to present the case for a particular child effectively and convincingly. As one primary head commented, I can do the paperwork much more quickly than a class teacher does, simply because I know the format, what should be written, and how to write it. For a class teacher, they don t know where to start with it. Inadequate guidelines. Schools sometimes felt that there was a discrepancy between the formal procedures as described in the LEA guidelines and the operation of those procedures in practice. One school, for instance, reported that it had invested a good deal of time in preparing evidence precisely as requested by the LEA s procedures, only to be required to provide yet more information. Such cases produced considerable frustration in schools. Inconsistency of the criteria for statementing amongst schools and between LEAs. Schools reported that this causes problems for those pupils who are in the process of moving schools as there is still inconsistency in the attitude of receiving LEAs to the assessments carried out by other authorities. Practice varies considerably In some LEAs the whole statementing process is carried out again; in others the LEA would automatically instigate a stage three review. Some schools and LEAs reported to us cases where parents had postponed moving until a statutory assessment had been completed fearing that if they moved to a new area while the assessment was in progress they would have to begin the whole cycle again. LEA officers were, perhaps understandably, less critical of such guidance and consistently reported the positive impact which such guidance had on the process of statutory assessment. In one LEA it was pointed out that with schools having different notions of special 18

25 educational needs the presence of guidance based on the Code of Practice was essential in supporting the process of statutory assessment. It was, however, clear that such guidance was best developed co-operatively between LEAs and schools rather than simply imposed. For example, one LEA reported that where this co-operative strategy had been followed, the overall quality and utility of the evidence provided by schools for statutory assessment was greatly improved. The more consistent schools were in documenting evidence according to agreed procedures, the less likely it was for cases to be stalled through the absence of appropriate information, bringing about an overall improvement in the time taken to process cases. Most of the LEAs participating in the project had instigated systems by which statutory assessments could be reviewed. Although practice varied in respect of participation in such review systems it was clear that these procedures provided a valuable opportunity for schools and LEAs to share their understandings and to develop their practice. In areas characterised by considerable volatility in the school population it might be useful for LEAs to share practice regarding the operation of these moderating systems to lessen the need for reassessment Annual reviews and transition planning Schools and LEAs reported that LEAs initiated annual reviews of statements by notifying schools of the dates when annual reviews were due, and specifying the professionals whom schools should invite to contribute to reviews and to attend the review meetings. Schools, therefore, had the responsibility of inviting other professionals and parents, chairing the actual meetings and producing the report. Schools varied in the way they arranged annual reviews. With the agreement of the LEA, some schools - particularly those which had a large number of pupils with statements - spread annual review dates over the academic year to avoid conducting them all at the same time (at the end of the academic year, for instance). Others, however, preferred to cluster reviews to suit their own internal timetables. A secondary school with a SEN unit, for instance, targeted annual reviews immediately after school reports so that use could be made of the reports 19

26 produced by subject teachers as part of the normal assessment and reporting cycle. This school also conducted annual reviews for year 11 pupils at the beginning of that year so that a report could be ready for those who were to go to Further Education. Schools were aware of the demands on other professionals for attending annual review meetings, so they tried to target key people in order to ensure that they could attend annual reviews. Some schools found it helpful to secure educational psychologists time by making appointments with them at the beginning of each academic year. Other schools organised annual reviews around dates convenient to key people. Tensions could, however, arise, between the school s preferred timetable and the commitments of other key personnel; for both parties, annual reviews were just one amongst a multitude of commitments and harmonisation of diaries was not always easy. This evidence points to the need for the three agencies to give some thought to the establishment of compatible data bases which would allow the sharing of information and the generation of review meeting dates on an annual basis giving adequate notice to all those who might wish to attend. Variation was found in terms of the attendance of educational psychologists at annual reviews. All the educational psychologists working with our sample of schools submitted written or oral advice for annual reviews, but only a small number of educational psychologists actually attended the review. Some educational psychologists worked on the basis of contracted hours with each school and used some of these hours to attend reviews. In these cases, the consequence was, of course, that each review attended reduced the amount of psychologist time available to the school for advisory and assessment work. Some psychologists attended annual reviews outside their allocated time. In this case, it was the psychologist s commitments elsewhere which suffered. In order to keep these demands under control, some educational psychologists only attended annual reviews if they felt they had a significant contribution to make - if, for instance, there was need for change in provision. Some educational psychologists gave priority to attending transition planning meetings, preferring only to write reports for annual reviews. Both LEAs and schools recognised the 20