The Act and Code of Practice advocate early intervention to prevent, as far as possible, disagreements about the provision for additional support needs between the authority and families living in that area from escalating into more serious disputes. Chapter 6 of the Code of Practice provides guidance about communicating with parents to ensure positive relations and effective communication channels.
The Act and associated regulations provide for three ways of resolving disagreements between parents and the education authority in which they live.
Authorities are required to publish information on the independent mediation arrangements they have in place in their area. However, the use of mediation services does not in any way affect parents’ entitlement to take matters to a tribunal.
Authorities had adopted three main approaches to implementing their duties relating to resolving disagreements between the authority and families. They had issued advice through policies on mediation and dispute resolution; they had identified independent mediation services; and, they had provided training and general information to a few key staff and parents. Overall, quality assurance arrangements at strategic planning level did not make sufficient reference to authority provision for monitoring disputes in order to improve provision. In the majority, there was an expectation that schools would do this as part of their self-evaluation process.
Quality of arrangements for resolving disputes
A few authorities had introduced a tiered approach to mediation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on resolving potential disputes at the earliest stage. In most authorities, draft policies set out staged approaches to managing mediation and dispute resolution and outlined measures expected to be taken at local level to prevent matters escalating. Such measures were set in the context of the rights of parents to mediation and dispute resolution defined within the Act and Code of Practice. A few authorities had included a legal representative on their steering or implementation group to provide group members with advice as required.
Several authorities had identified the nature and form of the provider of mediation. Organisations such as Resolve, Govan Law Centre or Parent to Parent included training for staff in resolving disagreements as part of the arrangement. Others had agreed mediation slots on a case-by-case basis. A small number had employed a freelance mediator on a case-by-case basis. A few authorities were considering ways to provide ‘in-house’ mediation services along with external providers.
Authorities which had purchased unused mediation slots often used these instead for raising staff awareness about mediation and dispute resolution. In most of these authorities, staff found this helpful and particularly welcomed training which was multi-agency, solution-focused and based on individual cases. However, some authorities needed to review service-level agreements with mediation providers to ensure that they met the needs of staff and families more efficiently and provided value for money. In around a quarter of authorities, school-based staff expressed concern about whether parents were sufficiently aware of procedures for resolving disagreements. Most parents did not feel well-informed about advocacy and several felt that authorities’ arrangements for resolving disputes were complicated, even in cases where information had been issued to them and direct training had been delivered by the authority. In a few authorities, training in resolving disputes was optional for key staff such as headteachers and training had not yet taken place for health and social services staff and teachers. In the best practices, school-based co-ordinators, educational psychologists or parent officers had provided direct, helpful information to parents prior to or at reviews of children’s progress.
Under a third of authorities had not received requests for access to mediation services or referrals to Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland. Most attributed this to effective working with families at school level and effective support for families from psychological services and parent co-ordinators or advisers. A few authorities with a higher number of requests for mediation or referrals were concerned that parents might be encouraged by independent groups to refer their case to a tribunal before that authority had had the opportunity to resolve the disagreement using its mediation services. In around a quarter of authorities where parents had used mediation services, both parents and key staff felt that intervention had been effective and helpful in resolving the dispute. In most of these cases, disputes had arisen because parents felt that therapy services were not sufficient to meet the needs of their children. There were no examples of mediation used to support families in dispute with an authority in relation to exclusions from school. Few authorities had developed advocacy for children and young people who were looked after and accommodated, although most recognised the role of children’s rights officers as advocates.
Most authorities were considering ways of updating and improving the quality of their information to parents and young people related to mediation and dispute resolution. Some had produced, or were in the process of producing alternative, well-presented communication through publications, DVDs and websites to ensure that parents and pupils were well-informed about the extension to their rights regarding mediation and dispute resolution. However, parents were most well informed about procedures where advice was given to them directly at, for example, review meetings. The majority of authorities reported that many national groups offering mediation services had good background information on the Act and had already produced informative leaflets and information for parents and families about their rights.
Resolving disputes by independent adjudication
Few authorities had received enquiries about involving independent adjudication. Most parents and a few school-based staff including headteachers were unclear about the role of independent adjudicators. A few voluntary agency staff felt that independent adjudication was a valuable and effective means of ensuring that authorities clarified and focused their provision. However, a small number of parents were unable to access independent adjudication or mediation services where a child was placed outwith the authority, because it was not the home authority. Authorities needed to raise awareness among stakeholders about the role of independent adjudicators.
Additional Support Needs Tribunals
All authorities recognised their responsibility for passing on information to parents and staff as required and many had produced handbooks with information about the role of tribunals. The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland published separate guides for parents in 2005 and for education authorities in 2006. Most authorities had included information about the role of tribunals in leaflets for parents outlining their rights under the Act, including recourse to tribunals. However, a significant number of parents did not feel well informed about the role of tribunals and few authorities had experience of tribunals at the time of the visits to authorities.
Key strengths
Areas for improvement