Working with Parents of SEN Children after the Code of Practice

Sheila Wolfendale

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134091652
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First Published in 1997. This book forms part of a series that brings together wide-ranging contributions which: are written from both professional and parental viewpoints; offer an assessment of what has been achieved; explore a number of problematic issues and experiences and illustrate developments that are beginning to take shape. It will appeal to those with a special interest in and commitment to home-school work in all its actual and potential facets. The intention in this book is to report upon the early impact of the Code of Practice (1994) within its legislative context, the 1993 Education Act, Part Three. The book blends a number of ideological perspectives on partnership with descriptions of collaborative ways of working between parents and professionals.

1
Delivering services for children with special needs: the place of parents

Sheila Wolfendale

The purpose of this introductory chapter is to set the scene, describe the reasons for and rationale of the book, introduce the authors and their chapters and provide commentary on key themes and messages emerging from the book.

Reasons for and rationale of the book

The analogy considered to be most apt is that the book is a barometer, an ‘indicator of change’ (Chambers Dictionary), or to vary the metaphor in the same vein, it is a weathercock, ‘showing the way the wind blows’ (Chambers Dictionary).

The intention is to report upon the early impact of the Code of Practice (1994) within its legislative context, the 1993 Education Act, Part Three, not because such an account can yet be definitive; rather, the authors hope that readers will find it useful to have an indicative set of chapters individually and collectively examining the various facets of partnership, as a kind of benchmark.

The book blends a number of ideological perspectives on partnership with descriptions of collaborative ways of working between parents and professionals. It is a celebration of a number of soundly based initiatives that are standing the test of time (e.g. Portage, parents’ groups); it affirms the commitment to forging enduring working links between parents of children with special needs and practitioners who work with children or on their behalf (e.g. new and contemporary ventures like the parent partnership schemes); it highlights inherent issues within a legislative framework (e.g. the SEN Tribunal); it focuses attention on the main locus where partnership practice should be visible, namely, schools, and it identifies barriers to partnership, while at the same time proposing solutions.

The overall message of the book is a positive and affirming one, namely, that:

• progress towards parent-professional co-operation is evident and increasing;
• commitment to variations on partnership is manifest in a variety of ways.

Yet the authors are nothing if not realistic about the fact that partnership is far from achieved for many parents; too many parents remain unreached and seemingly, unreachable; that the power balance is unevenly weighted towards professionals (teachers, educational psychologists, social workers, health workers, etc.) who too often retreat behind their ‘barricades of mystiques’ (Midwinter 1977).

The imperative to ‘have due regard to’ the Code of Practice is not one that can be ignored by schools and LEAs and indeed the recent OFSTED survey (1996) confirmed conscientous and progressive adoption of Code principles and procedures. However, the same survey identified a differential pace in take-up and implementation of these principles and procedures and in respect of parents, the survey noted that many schools had, understandably perhaps, concentrated more in the early days of implementing the Code of Practice, on ‘formulating their SEN policies, establishing an SEN register … having in place improved arrangements for assessing and teaching pupils’ (p.25, para.84), than on developing viable home-school links. The survey is a salutary reminder that the principles of partnership with parents are comprehensively articulated in the Code of Practice with practical suggestions offered at each of the Stages to operationalise them.

The authors

Between us, we are parents, education lecturers, educational psychologists, education officers, administrators, voluntary organisation workers – and much else besides, as can be seen from the brief biographical sketches. So we portray an inclusive, multi-faceted approach to the business of ‘partnership’, optimistic yet realistic, based on collective, profound, first-hand experience and responsibilities.

Organisation of the book

The ordering of the chapters denotes a progression and some continuity between the provisions and statutes of the 1981 Education Act and those of its successor piece of education law in the area of special educational needs, the 1993 Education Act, Part Three (Part Three of this Act is entirely devoted to SEN and constitutes the replacement to the 1981 Education Act). Initiatives described in the first three chapters predate the 1993 Education Act. Mollie White provides a review of Portage which was introduced to the UK in the late 1970s in two areas and which has had subsequent spectacular take-up nationally. Portage had been cited in the Warnock Report of 1978 as an example of good practice, epitomising parent partnership. Robina Mallett gives an account of one post-1981 Education Act initiative in southwest England, contextualised by reference to personal experiences, and Alice Paige-Smith focuses attention on the rise and impact of parents’ groups and their lobbying function. Between them, these three authors illustrate graphically the effects and effectiveness of collective groupings of parents. Sally Beveridge’s chapter, while concentrating on the relationship between schools and parents post-1993 Education Act, contextualises the notion of partnership by reference back to the Warnock Report. The ingredients for home-school partnership therefore predated the Code of Practice and Sally deals with a number of these main ingredients, refracted largely through the recorded views of parents and teachers.

The ensuing chapters relate specifically to the 1993 Education Act and post-Code of Practice developments. Collectively these four chapters examine early-appearing effects and impact of the new legislation and the Code of Practice. Philippa Russell’s chapter is intentionally juxtaposed between the earlier chapters which illustrate continuity and progression in the area of parental participation in SEN procedures and provision and the final three chapters which focus on post-1993 EA initiatives. The chapter by Philippa is pivotal for it picks up on and deals with a number of the key requirements and provisions of the legislation, namely: Named Person, parent partnership schemes, the Individual Education Plan (IEP), the role of the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO), the SEN Tribunal, and school SEN policy.

Teresa Furze and Anna Conrad’s chapter provides a wide-ranging descriptive account of the advent and growth of the GEST-funded parent partnership schemes in all their diversity, including discussion of Named Persons and Named Officers, and Sheila Trier tells the story of the setting up, operation and evaluation of one such scheme. The chapter by Katy Simmons reminds us of the legislative context and the double-edged sword that constitutes the SEN Tribunal. The reminder is salutary, for as Katy says (page 125) ‘it may be that the existence of the Tribunal is fundamentally at odds with the notion of promoting partnership’. This speculation offered at what is still early days in the Tribunal’s existence, brings us back full circle to the checks and balances needed to operate any relationship, and particularly one that is predicated on partnership principles.

The final chapter by Vincent McDonnell initially strikes a cold note of reality when he identifies a number of structural and human barriers to partnership. But he is optimistic enough to think that carers and families should become active partners in determining service delivery, and is of the view that school can play a pivotal role in multi-agency collaborative work.

Themes and messages

A number of themes and messages emerge from these accounts – several of these are now highlighted and discussed.

On partnership

A number of authors have closely examined the notion and feasibility of ‘partnership’, whether it is or can be equal, reciprocal, mutual, and the nature of differential responsibilities within partnership. Wolfendale posits a number of partnership principles which should explicitly underpin the practice (Wolfendale 1992); Gascoigne (1995) provides a parental perspective and, within a reality-based model denoting constraints upon ‘equality’, offers options for partnership involving a wide range of education and non-education based professionals. Hornby (1994) conceives of partnership as being a worthy aspiration and cautions ‘in order for such partnerships to become more than just lofty ideals, the concept needs to be developed into a formal model for parental involvement designed to guide practice’ (p.22); Dale (1996) not only proceeds to analyse and dissect reflectively the concept itself, but also provides a number of highly practice-focused, challenging exercises for professionals to scrutinise honestly the present basis of their work with parents. Not one author, writing on SEN and parents in the last few years, would aver that partnership, as defined, is easy to bring about and, as stated earlier, the chapter authors of this book present the various facets of the relationship.

Would even those academics and practitioners who present a sceptical view of the parent-professional relationship (see below) deny that it is progress indeed when a government publication – the Code of Practice – commits itself to partnership principles? Also, the largest national special educational needs organisation, NASEN (National Association for Special Educational Needs), adopted, during 1995, a policy on partnership with parents and has created a Parents in Partnership Interest Group designed to support the organisation to realise this policy in practice (contact address in references).

Empowerment – equivocal views

There are those advocates of partnership, of whom this author is one, who maintain that a partnership relationship is static and unproductive (particularly for parents) if it does not lead to empowerment on the part of parents. That is, unless parents have in reality full and equal rights and opportunities to participation and power-sharing in special needs processes and decision-making, then partnership is not so, and it certainly is not empowerment. An interesting manifestation of empowerment is described by Jordan and Goodey (1996) – they describe the effects of parental pressure upon moves to end segregation of children with special needs/disabilities by making all schools fully inclusive. In describing the evolution, within the London Borough of Newham towards inclusive education over the last decade, they highlight the impact and power of the parental lobby in bringing about such changes.

A number of studies have sought to demonstrate that the powers are stacked on the side of the professionals, that even the dialogue is not open and honest, that the extent to which parents are ‘allowed in’ is decided by professionals, that arcane bureaucratic procedures persist to the detriment of parents and families at times of stress for them (Galloway et al. 1994, Sandow 1994, Armstrong 1995). Sandow, writing later (1995), presages the possible impact of the Code of Practice and hopes that that section which deals with parental involvement gives a positive framework within which relations between home and school can develop’ (p. 125).

Indeed, as Philippa Russell in her chapter explains, the Department for Education (as it was then), via the GEST scheme (Grants for Education, Support and Training), sought to buttress the Code of Practice rhetoric with the means to foster partnership with parents as a bedrock part of the implementation of the 1993 Education Act, Part Three. Sheila Trier, Teresa Furze and Anna Conrad describe implementation of the parent partnership schemes on the ground.

Objectives for the second year and third (final) year of the scheme (that is, 1995-96 and 1996-97) were couched thus in the relevant GEST circular:

to encourage partnership between parents, LEAs, schools and voluntary bodies in the work of identifying, assessing and arranging provision for pupils with SEN, particularly but not necessarily all those who are statutorily assessed and have statements of SEN. The development of active partnerhip schemes, including the provision of information and advisory services for parents of SEN children and the identification of ‘named persons’ is intended to reduce conflict and minimise the number of statutory SEN appeals.

There is no doubt that, at the time of writing (late summer 1996) this scheme which is operating in most LEAs has had significant impact – evidence of this comes informally, even anecdotally at times and from local evaluations of schemes. The key question is whether or not in the longer term, the scheme will have made a difference. That is, will it have brought parents firmly into SEN procedures and decision-making, as equal players; will it lead to empowerment on the part of parents; will it be a catalyst towards the embedding of effective partnership practice on the part of schools? Or will distribution and allocation of finite resources always be a potentially divisive factor, beyond the best intentions of well-meaning administrators and publicly salaried professionals?

A one-year research study (from May 1996 to May 1997) commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment, and under the direction of this author is designed to explore the impact and effectiveness of the parent partnership scheme. The research aims are to:

• identify outcomes and provisions of parent partnership schemes in a range of different circumstances (different LEAs, different types of schemes);
• identify the effects of the schemes upon parents of children with special educational needs as well as upon the LEA, school and other involved personnel;
• identify factors that promote effectiv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on the contributors
• Note to readers
• 1 Delivering services for children with special needs: the place of parents
• 2 A review of the influence and effects of Portage
• 3 A parental perspective on partnership
• 4 The rise and impact of the parental lobby: including voluntary groups and the education of children with learning difficulties or disabilities
• 5 Implementing partnership with parents in schools
• 6 Parents as partners: some early impressions of the impact of the Code of Practice
• 7 A review of Parent Partnership Schemes
• 8 Promoting the effective practice of partnership
• 9 Supporting parents at the Special Educational Needs Tribunal
• 10 The needs of children and families: integrating services
• Index