HM Inspectors monitored the quality of planning and implementation of the Act at strategic level during visits to local authorities. In particular, they focused on the quality of leadership and strategic management, planning and quality assurance arrangements, transitional arrangements including consultation and joint working between education, health and social services managers, and advice on the implementation of the Code of Practice.
Overall, authorities varied in their readiness to implement the key requirements of the Act. In those authorities which had built on existing good practice in joint strategic approaches to meeting the needs of children and young people, the implementation was at a more advanced stage and staff at authority and school level were more optimistic about the impact of the legislation.
Quality of strategic leadership and planning
All local authorities had formed multi-agency strategic planning groups at the commencement of the Act. A few had established these groups well in advance of enactment of the legislation. Multi-agency planning groups were often comprised of existing groups such as those involved in children’s services planning. All included education staff and almost all included key players from the National Health Service (NHS), children’s services and social work services. Few strategic planning groups included representatives from parents’ groups, young people, community mental health services or voluntary agencies. Most strategic planning groups were linked to other groups which took responsibility for specific tasks within the implementation plan. Others were linked to discrete agencies to help disseminate and plan within their own service. In around three-quarters of the authorities, strategic planning was regarded by lead implementation officers as a key strength in implementing the Act.
In the best practices, authorities had provided their council, including elected members and school board forums, with early notification of and good information about the implications of the Act. Such approaches had served effectively as markers of the cross-council importance of the new legislation. A few authorities indicated that they had also adopted this approach for pragmatic reasons in relation to possible funding requests, including the appointment of officers with responsibility for taking forward the Act.
All authorities had developed an improvement plan outlining the key targets, timescales, responsibilities and costs involved in the implementation of the Act. However, these varied in quality. In a quarter of authorities, managers at authority level needed to make strategic and operational plans clearer to help those at school level. In these authorities, staff at school level and their partner agencies were less clear about the about the key objectives and timescales for implementation, and the broader concept of additional support needs. In the best practices, headteachers, health and social work managers shared an understanding of the authority’s key objectives and most were confident that the Act would have a positive impact on the learning experiences of children and young people.
In a few authorities, NHS staff were concerned about differences in the way that services are funded by the Scottish Government. They felt that annual funding had created difficulties in retaining staff. Most would prefer funding in three-yearly blocks to address the issue of continuity of staff with additional responsibilities for the implementation of the Act.
Shared understanding of key aims and objectives
In all authorities, the Act was seen within the broader context of inclusion and support for children and families. By March 2007, most had revised their policy on inclusion and other relevant policies and guidelines to take account of the new legislation and the broader definition of additional support needs. Almost all key staff in authorities said that they understood the new definition of additional support needs and its aim to ensure that all children and young people are provided with the necessary support to help them work towards achieving their full potential. However, only half of parents of young people with additional support needs stated that they felt well informed about the new concept and understood its aims. Of the children and young people who were interviewed, only a small number were aware of any difference in the quality of support provided for them. These young people felt that their views were now more likely to be taken account of during and after their review meetings. Parents recognised that the Act had a potential impact wider than education and had significant implications for key partner agencies including health services, social work services and careers advisers. In only six authorities did staff at school level feel that the wider definition of additional support needs was understood fully by other agencies. Most felt that staff at operational level across education and health services were not well informed about the Act and Code of Practice. In half of authorities, there was significant scope to engage social work services more fully with the process of implementation. In these authorities, most social workers were not sufficiently aware of the implications of the Act for social work services as service providers. Several authorities had not yet provided training for social workers.
Voluntary agency staff felt well informed overall about the legislation and were frequently asked by authorities to provide training for stakeholders or mediation services. One voluntary agency representing young people in crisis had conducted its own poll about the impact of the Act with parents and families. It recorded that many parents felt that the Act had made no discernible difference to services and support for their children.
Arrangements for quality assurance
Overall, authority arrangements for evaluating progress towards implementation of the Act and its impact on service users were not well planned. One authority had developed a multi-agency self-evaluation tool designed to monitor the impact of its policies and implementation plan on service users. While most authorities had established some form of quality assurance through, for example, links between quality improvement officers and clusters of schools, quality assurance was generally carried out on a single-agency basis and was not sufficiently evidence-based. Most authorities tended to focus on the process of implementation and 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.
Transitional arrangements including consultation with partners
All authorities had issued guidance to schools and partner agencies which stated the key principles and objectives related to the Act and outlined their assessment procedures to support the transitional process10 from Records of Need to CSPs. The majority of authorities made effective use of existing good practice, including staged assessment and intervention systems and approaches to managing and quality assuring IEPs. This was particularly helpful in anticipating the number of children and young people within the authority who might have additional support needs and those who might require a CSP. Under the new legislation, the factors which give rise to additional support needs include children’s family circumstances, disability or health, social and emotional well-being, care and protection, or the learning environment. Most authorities had now taken account of the broader definition of additional support needs in reviewing their staged intervention processes. They recognised that staged processes would need to be expanded to take into account the wider definition of additional support needs and that current intervention strategies would require to be reviewed to encompass wider groups such as those supporting able children, looked after children and young carers. A small number of authorities had not yet undertaken an audit of existing provision. In several authorities, the pace of implementing transitional arrangements was slow. Some authorities were awaiting the results of pilot studies intended to help staff to determine which children would require a co-ordinated support plan.
A few authorities had yet to clarify, for school staff and other professionals, the procedures for managing transition from Records of Need to co-ordinated support plans for children and young people in residential special schools or secure accommodation services, including timescales and arrangements for monitoring the process. There was concern in a few authorities that a shortage of places for children and young people who are looked after and accommodated meant that they were accommodated with independent providers who were less likely to fulfil the terms of the Act.
In a few authorities, information technology was used well to organise and support joint developments and ensure effective dissemination of information. Some authorities made good use of their additional support for learning websites. All recognised the potential of using information technology for effective sharing of assessment information about children and young people with health and social services colleagues. Although most were exploring a range of communication systems for this purpose, there were very few examples of good quality management and central recording of information.
Joint training and awareness raising
Education services, social services, health professionals and other agencies have continued to strengthen their links to ensure joint working. All authorities had carried out some form of multi-agency training with key staff in raising awareness of the Act and Code of Practice. In three-quarters of the authorities, joint training was seen by staff as a key strength. A few authorities had appointed external consultants to audit existing provision and advise key staff on the main priorities for development in relation to the Act. Most had appointed additional staff such as development officers or implementation officers to take forward initiatives at school level. In a few authorities, key staff, including headteachers, were unclear about who had overall responsibility for managing and implementing the Act and Code of Practice. In these cases, staff were also unaware of the main contacts in education, health and social services.
In the best practice, those authorities which had contiguous health boards were working along similar lines to neighbouring authorities so that health staff were able to develop similar procedures and practices. A multi-agency working group had been established in one region with representatives from three local authorities. Although there were separate steering groups in each area to take forward local issues, these authorities felt that there was added benefit in working collectively on some aspects of the Act, including mediation and producing information leaflets.
Almost all local authorities and NHS Boards had nominated lead implementation officers to work on planning for local implementation of the Act. A few NHS Boards had been particularly proactive in raising awareness of the Act with their practitioners. In the best practices, they had perceived the Act as an opportunity to further promote integrated working amongst partner agencies including health and education staff, particularly in relation to developing joint assessment procedures. One NHS Board had produced a helpful common language guide to assist partner agencies to understand health terminology across its authorities.
The nature of information disseminated to promote awareness of the Act and its implications varied widely. In addition to training sessions for key staff, all authorities had produced a range of written information for parents and staff across agencies. For example, most had issued leaflets and posters to teachers outlining their role in supporting the needs of all pupils. Most had issued, or were in the process of issuing, leaflets to schools and letters to the parents of young people with a Record of Needs to inform them of their rights. Almost all authorities had provided some opportunities for parents to familiarise themselves with the implications of the Act. Whilst many authorities noted that uptake of parent places at training and awareness-raising days organised by the authority was often poor, the majority of parents interviewed by inspectors did not feel well informed about the Act. Most said they were more likely to receive information about the Act through friends and voluntary agencies. To some extent, this perception may have resulted from attendance at awareness-raising sessions where voluntary agencies had been commissioned by several authorities to provide training for parents. Parents did not always see these as education authority-organised events. Few authorities had taken particular note of the kinds of communication to which parents were most able to relate.
In a few authorities, in recognition of the wider definition of additional support needs, key staff understood the need to raise awareness of the legislation amongst all parents and staff and had written to and sent information about the new Act to teachers and the parents of all children within their authority.
Key strengths
Areas for improvement