Most authorities were effective in ensuring that their procedures for implementing the Act were in line with the duties of the Act and the associated Code of Practice. The most effective had built on existing good practice and developed joint strategic approaches with other agencies to meet the needs of children and young people with additional support needs. However, authorities varied in their effectiveness in implementing the key requirements of the Act. Most authority plans focused on the process of implementation. Few had given sufficient consideration at strategic management level to monitoring the impact of these processes on families and on the learning experiences of children and young people. Quality assurance arrangements linked to these plans were not sufficiently robust and authorities needed to move the focus from planning to action in meeting the needs of individual children and young people.
A clear relationship existed between the quality of strategic planning and the effectiveness of implementation across authorities. HM Inspectors found encouraging evidence that the broader concept of additional support needs was well understood by staff in education authorities and schools. In almost all authorities, the Act was seen within the broader context of inclusion and support for children and families. However, much work needed to be done to ensure that health and particularly social services staff were equally aware of their responsibilities within the Act and understood their roles. Most parents felt that their children were well supported by schools. However, children and young people and their parents were not well informed about either the new concept of additional support needs or their right within the new legislation to be involved in making decisions about the education provided.
Almost all authorities used a model of staged intervention6 or staged assessment to guide and support their assessment and resource allocation. In the best practice, staff had reviewed their processes to focus on outcomes and on improving the learning experiences and achievements of children and young people. Such approaches were clearly helpful in providing a framework for intervention. A few authorities had combined their approaches to staged intervention with those of health trusts and social work departments. However, many parents felt confused about the status of non-statutory support plans introduced by a few authorities in addition to CSPs and individualised educational programmes (IEPs). Parents were also unclear about the alternative planning mechanisms used in a few authorities to establish whether a child or young person met the criteria for a CSP.
Multi-agency planning was beginning to have a positive effect on the educational experiences of some children and young people. Such planning was particularly effective at the pre-five stage where the work of pre-school assessment teams (Pre-SCAT)7 and provision from pre-birth that was embedded within strategic planning processes was leading to earlier identification of children’s additional support needs. Such work improved the co-ordination of support aimed at meeting their needs more effectively. A few schools had experienced difficulty in accessing health services and speech and language therapy services. However, school nurses were often delivering high quality training for school staff, advising on appropriate support and providing direct support to children and young people. In schools, joint assessment teams (JATs) or school liaison groups (SLGs)8 offered approaches to meeting needs that focused on finding solutions and overcoming barriers. A small number of authorities had jointly funded a clinical post in mental health with health services. Practitioners in such posts played significant roles as part of strategic groups and in working with school nurses to provide effective support for young people with mental health issues. Family support and home-school workers provided valuable support by acting as a link between families and agencies at transition review meetings.
In most authorities, new systems had yet to be implemented for identifying and meeting the needs of young people who had ongoing support needs beyond school age. In particular, through care and after care arrangements for children and young people with learning disabilities and looked after and accommodated children were unclear. Capacity issues existed in terms of the availability of adult services to support successful transitions. Although the task team found some evidence that support for looked after children was beginning to improve, most authorities required to co-ordinate services more effectively for these vulnerable children and young people.
Interpretation of the term ‘significant’ in the context of eligibility for a co-ordinated support plan varied greatly among education authorities. Almost all authorities felt that they needed clearer guidance on the criteria for such eligibility in order to reduce confusion surrounding the term ‘significant’, and advice as to whether the terms ‘complex’ and ‘multiple’ meant the same.
Arrangements for resolving disagreements between authorities and families were well established in most authorities. All had identified independent mediation services and provided training and general information to a few key staff and some parents. In the best practice, school-based co-ordinators, educational psychologists or parent officers provided direct information to parents prior to or at reviews of their children’s progress. However, quality assurance arrangements for strategic planning in authorities did not make sufficient reference to the analysis of disputes to help inform improvements to the services provided. Most authorities had included information about the role of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland9 in leaflets for parents outlining their rights under the Act including recourse to the tribunal. Where families had used mediation services, both they and key staff in authorities felt that intervention had been effective and helpful in resolving the dispute.