‘Making Children Count’: issues and challenges facing schools in implementing the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda

Authors: Sue Ainslie, Rob Foster, Jean Groves, Kate Grime,

and Clare Woolhouse

EdgeHillUniversity, Lancashire, UK

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

Draft paper for BERA 2007 conference only

1.Introduction

Aims and Objectives of the Research

This project aims to develop an effective response to the challenges currently faced by schools and other agencies in meeting the requirements of the principles underpinning the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda. It is intended that the research findings will contribute to the development of a framework or toolkit designed to support schools in their delivery of the ECM agenda. The research project also intends to explore how schools and external agencies are currently working together to deliver this agenda and to highlight areas of good practice as well as potential areas of conflict.

These above aims raise the following core project objectives:

  • To identify aspects of ECM agenda that schools are currently finding challenging via an audit process (questionnaire).
  • To evaluate current practice within schools and other agencies
  • To propose ways in which these specific aspects may be addressed.
  • To support schools in piloting approaches to meeting these aspects.

After the initial audit process has been completed and specific areas in need of review and/or development have been identified, the project steering group will work to develop a set of best practice standards/exemplar materials/links to the National Curriculum framework with a view to ensuring all schools can benefit from the findings. The long-term goal of the project is to increase the number of schools involved with a view to contributing to the LPPG conference.

2.Background to the Research

Every Child Matters

Underpinning the framework outlined for consultation in the green paper, Every Child Matters (ECM) (2003), are the findings from The Victoria Climbié Report by Lord Laming (2003) and the Government’s response to the report: Keeping Children Safe, which highlighted the consistent failure of various agencies to protect children and young people whose welfare they were responsible for. In particular, the Victoria Climbié investigation, as well as past inquiries into the deaths of other children, revealed how a succession of events ranging from procedural lapses, poor communication and a lack of accountability had such devastating consequences.

Following this initial report, the Government published Every Child Matters: the Next Steps, and passed the Children Act (2004), which provided a legislative foundation for the recommendations outlined in ECM. The Act also appointed a Children’s Commissioner for England with ‘the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in England’[1] as well as ensuring children and young people, as well as their families, were fully involved in developing services. Every Child Matters: Change for Children was published in November 2004 and outlines a national programme designed to ‘maximise opportunity and minimise risk’ (DfES, 2004: 2) for all children from birth to 19. It proposes a number of strategies (e.g the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services; The Children’s Workforce Strategy; Framework for Inspection of Children’s Services, children’s trusts) intended to improve ‘the level of professional support for children perceived to be vulnerable and in need’ (Reid, 2005) as well as ensuring services improve for all children whatever their circumstances. What clearly emerges from the ECM initiative is a commitment to integrate and consolidate, wherever possible, multi-agency practice and policy in order to improve communication and sharing of effective practice. Consultations with practitioners raised concerns about how these goals would be achieved without sufficient funding and resources. They also felt that ‘there was a need for common standards to be introduced across all parts of the sector. This included a generic language, a defined career framework and parity regarding pay and conditions’.[2] Some practitioner networks have already attempted to address the issue of developing a generic language:

A primary aim of Words Matter! is to promote a shared language of practice based upon the principles and philosophy of youth work…it has been recognised by the Network that we need to share a common understanding and language in order to make policy intentions a reality in our localities. (Words Matter! 2006:4)

Accordingly, one of the aims of this research project will be to examine to what extent a lack of shared terminology with their partner agencies may have contributed to any difficulties schools are currently experiencing in implementing Every Child Matters.

Implications for Schools

Although the Every Child Matters agenda will impact on a variety of child-care agencies e.g health, police, social services this research project will focus on schools and their experiences. Although schools have always been responsible for raising educational standards and supporting the well-being of pupils, now they will be obliged to do so within a legislative framework. Some critics have argued that this level of enforcement will only result in further bureaucracy which may hinder rather than help schools whilst some educationalists believe such a move can only ‘strengthen partnerships between schools and other services supporting children’ (Hawker, quoted in Sale, 2006: 1). Under the ECM remit every school will now be inspected against the five Every Child Matters outcomes [3] and one of the main aims of this project will be to evaluate their strength of provision relating to those key components and sub-themes.

Since the 2004 Children Act, schools are now responsible for focusing ‘positive action on four key areas. These are: supporting parents and carers; early intervention and effective protection; accountability and integration at local, regional and national levels; and finally, workforce reform’ (Reid, 2005: 13). In 2005 the Extended Schools Prospectus outlined ways in which schools can provide key services to support children as well as their families and the wider community. Many schools already provide extended services but inadequate funding and resources limit their capacity. Prior to the implementation of ECM, little UK research had been undertaken in the area of extended schools compared to Australia or USA where full-service schools have developed significantly over the last twenty years. American writers argue that in order to meet the complex needs of their students, schools have realised they must adopt a more holistic approach:

A key theme permeating the literature is that needs should not be met in isolation, or by particular institutions, or agencies acting alone.

(Wilkin et al, 2003:i)

Several evaluations have already been undertaken investigating the extent and characteristics of extended services being provided by maintained primary schools throughout England (Gilby et al, 2006; Cummings et al, 2006; Ofsted, 2006). Research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills found that there has been a 13% increase inthe number of primary schools offering regular activities and childcare for pupils before school, from 40% in 2005 to 53% in 2006.
Since 2005 after school provision has increased from 87% to 91% and holiday care provision has increased from 26% to 43% since 2005. The survey also revealed that the number of primary schools working with non-teaching professionals has also risen. 96% of primary schools now work with nurses compared to 88% in 2005 whilst the percentage of schools working with youth workers has risen from 21% in 2005 to 35% in 2006. Two in three (66%) work with a parenting or family support practitioner and 84% with a social care practitioner although there is also evidence of schools experiencing problems in engaging their key partners (Cummings et al, 2006). Cummings et al also conclude that:

There is good evidence that FSESs [4] can have significant positive effects on children, adults and families. They can also be associated with benefits for schools in terms of improvements on performance measures (such as student attainment and exclusion rates) and increased intake numbers. (Cummings et al, 2006:ii).

On a more cautionary note, however, there was evidence to suggest that not all schools had experienced such benefits and that some were struggling to implement long-term reforms in conjunction with addressing immediate attainment issues. Teachers also expressed concerns related to funding, resources and workload, as well as concerns about long schooldays and management responsibilities (Gilby et al, 2006).

Clearly at the heart of ECM lies the Government’s commitment to ensuring such events like the Victoria Climbié tragedy are never repeated. However, as Parker points out, whilst few can resist a rallying call to protect children and young people (2003:104), some agencies will undoubtedly struggle to implement key policy changes without the appropriate resources. In the case of schools, in particular, levels of funding will determine the extent to which they can effectively engage with and fulfil the precepts of the agenda. Schools argue that it is impossible to embed such massive reforms within a culture constantly battling against poor funding and a lack of practical support:

Then there is the issue of time and resources. Talk is cheap. Those who work in the area of special educational needs have more reasons than most to harbour doubts as to whether the vision will ever be adequately funded. If every child really does matter why do so many of those with statements have to battle daily for the provision they need?

(Archer, 2007:i)

Every Child Matters covers a range of complex issues and one of the main challenges will be to try and develop a framework and agenda which is acceptable to all stakeholders. Policy and practice will clearly remain divergent across agencies but greater inter-professional awareness and empathy could encourage more effective integration and sharing of good practice. This project will examine the impact of ECM on schools and the ways in which schools can be further supported in its successful implementation.

3.Rationale for Project

Discussion with local head teachers and local learning networks indicate that a considerable amount of work is still needed in ensuring Every Child Matters is encompassed within every school agenda and used to develop and contribute to whole school improvement. All education partners need the skills, attributes and knowledge to enable their work to be both effective and sustainable. Therefore, this project will explore the current implementation of this within schools, identify exemplar practice, and formulate key skills required to develop relationships between all aspects of relevant personnel (school, health, social services etc) By sharing exemplar practice and by producing resources will allow schools to be at the cornerstone of this work.

The geographical area chosen is one in which EdgeHillUniversity has already established strong partnership arrangements, and where its reputation for excellence in the fields of Initial Teacher Training and Continuing Professional Development are well known and respected. Strong working arrangements already exist with the named partner schools. While the schools in this partnership have many strengths and areas of expertise, they also recognise the particular challenges facing all schools in encompassing the Every Child Matters agenda. These two schools, and the networks they belong to, are continually seeking to identify ways to address their concerns, and are driven by a desire to improve practice. Of particular concern to these schools and their associated networks are issues of: curriculum leadership, behaviour management,teaching and learning and how these will impact upon their delivery of the ECM agenda.

4.Methodology

(Initial Phase: October 2006-January 2007)

This initial phase was concerned with developing the design of the pilot project and collecting data from one pilot school. After modification, the finalised questionnaire was delivered to staff in the two sample schools. In order to generate a rich source of data regarding school personnel and parents’ perceptions and experiences of implementing the ECM agenda within school, an evaluative case study approach was employed with data collected from a wide range of sources (e.g. questionnaires, interviews, school policy documentation) to ensure triangulation.

Data Collection

Questionnaires (see Appendix 1) were designed with specific reference to the five key themes (and their related components) outlined within the ECM agenda. School staff and parents were asked to rate the strength of provision within the school with an opportunity to add further comments as well. Data was collated from completed questionnaires and interview schedules produced for teachers and parents in order to elicit some more in-depth qualitative material. In the interests of anonymity and confidentiality, the majority of responses have been differentiated according to either School A or B. Each school also provided the research team with a list of contacts from their partner agencies.

(Second Phase: February 2007-June 2007)

This stage of the research focused on collecting data from other agencies associated with the schools via individual semi-structured interview. In this case interviews were conducted with colleagues from the police, education welfare, health and social services to gauge their perceptions of how well they felt each school was responding to the challenges of implementing ECM. They were also asked to identify ways in which they felt the schools could be supported more and these responses contributed to the development of the toolkit.

Sample

Two primary schools were chosen due to their partnership links with EdgeHillUniversity.

School A is a bigger than average primary school for girls and boys aged 4-11. Attainment on entry to school is slightly below average. The number of pupils eligible for free school meals is below the national average, as are the number of pupils on the special educational needs register. Standards are well above average.

School B is a larger than average mixed primary school for children aged 3-11, situated in a socially and economically disadvantaged area. 35% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. The number of pupils on the special needs register which is above average but the number of pupils with statements is below average. Attainment levels of pupils on entry are well below average and whilst overall pupils are making satisfactory progress standards are currently well below average. Another primary school was also involved in the pilot stage of the project.

5. Findings

The first phase of analysis sought to identify which areas were identified as having ‘strong’ or ‘good provision’ and which areas were identified as a ‘developmental priority’ to inform the design of the second phase interview schedules and the development of the ‘Toolkit’. For example: for Q13 on bullying all the responses fell within ‘strong’ or ‘good’ provision. In contrast, Q8 asks if the children are educated about how to manage personal stress, and responses were disparate ranging from ‘good provision’ to ‘unsure’ with many identifying this area as a developmental priority (see Figure 1). This suggested that this issue needed further investigation and should be specifically addressed in the toolkit.

Figure 1 – Responses to Question 8

Particular issues identified were:

  • School staff had not necessarily dealt with specific issues (such as looked after children), but it was felt to be important for individuals to know the relevant internal and external contacts if issues arose.
  • School staff repeatedly noted a lack of training regarding counselling to help children deal with stress or traumatic events.
  • Both school staff and parents felt there was a need for more 1:1 support for children who had specific learning needs or were under performing.
  • Implementation of ECM agenda was sometimes felt to be problematic because of the language used. For example, three school staff had difficulty in defining ‘challenging’ recreational opportunities.
  • The difficulties of integrating the ECM agenda into the school curriculum were noted.
  • The questions on ‘economic well being’ elicited the most disparate responses with some school staff feeling that primary school children were ‘too young’ to think about this.

Agency staff had a range of different issues that concerned them about the implementation of the ECM agenda. In general staff felt they worked well in their liaisons with schools, as one participant noted when asked how effective their agency was in implementing the ECM agenda: ‘Very effective – we are one of only 7 agencies in the whole country who has been awarded Beacon Status’.

The key areas of concern raised by the agency staff interviews were:

  • Problems with effectively communicating expectations and needs between schools and agencies.
  • Lack of a coherent and rigorous approach to training agency staff on how to address the requirements of the ECM agenda.
  1. Discussion

The findings of this research were broadly in line with most other recent studies. The ECM agenda is impacting on thinking, planning and policy across the range of children’s services and these in turn are impacting on practice. There was solid evidence of effective inter-agency working, particularly in relation to children who were ‘at risk’ or had special educational needs and in terms of contributions to the curriculum and life of the school for all pupils.

There were also clearly identified areas for further development, for example, on shared professional language and operational frameworks. There were also concerns that poor resourcing and a lack of practical support could hamper the embedding of reforms. A further significant concern was that inspection and audit frameworks were perceived as largely hostile, designed to expose weakness and under-performance. This tended to make some staff defensive and inclined to protect the ‘status quo’.