National Chairman’s Speechto the PAT Annual Conference 2006, Oxford: Deborah LawsonIntegrate to Educate

Dear Colleagues, friends and guests. I speak to you today as the first National Chairman from PANN section of PAT – an honour for me personally and as a member of PANN section and I think an important indication of how this Association has vision and not only advocates, but also puts into practice, the whole team approach.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my friends, fellow officers and colleagues in PAT for the immediate and unstinting support I have received from them.I will start by stating clearly that I believe in the principles of integration. I think it is the way forward, a way that will be littered with challenges, some of which we will meet better than others.

I will start by stating clearly that I believe in the principles of integration. I think it is the way forward, a way that will be littered with challenges, some of which we will meet better than others.

Why do I believe in integration? Partly because of the comments from members and speakers at PAT conferences and seminars over the years who have, through conference motions and debate, given clear, valid and evidenced reasons about all of the issues and barriers which prevent some children from taking full advantage of the opportunities that education offers. Barriers which require you to think and act not just as a teacher or nursery nurse or classroom assistant, but also as a health care worker, social worker, counsellor, relationship advisor and co-ordinator or broker between different agencies involved with children. Barriers which can sidetrack you to other things, leaving less time for planning and delivery of the care and education we so want to deliver – so I think that many of you may agree with me.

Integration can be many things to many people, but for the purpose of today, I am looking specifically at the integration of care and education, especially for pre-school and primary aged children and how education, health and social care can be integrated to deliver services to children and families to support them and advert crisis.

In the early years field there has been much talk of the blurring of care and education to deliver the integrated care and education children need. In truth, you cannot care for a child without providing some level of learning experience and in the same way cannot educate children without caring about them. So I think that as professionals we have been delivering integration, albeit on a fairly basic level for some time. We now, of course, have the Early Years Foundation Stage – which brings together the current birth to three matters framework, the Foundation Stage and elements of the National Standards for Daycare – into a single framework with the aim of ensuring a consistent approach to care, learning and development from birth to the end of the foundation stage.

I have seen this described as a single 'coherent' framework – I do not think that we can describe it as that until the outcome of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is known and as the consultation only closed last week, we will no doubt have to wait a while yet and then maybe we will be a position to comment on whether there is any coherence. Until then perhaps the best way to describe is that it aims to be a single coherent framework.

As someone with a background in Early Years, I will, of course, be using examples from the sector, as it is my area of greatest knowledge and experience. I say this not as an apology, quite to opposite. In early years we realised a long time ago that education is not just sitting at a desk in a classroom – it is fun, exciting exploration of the world in which we live, the means through which we open young – and older – minds, unlock treasures, invite children into a world of exciting learning experiences, share our knowledge, encourage independent thought and help develop the skills and abilities to apply knowledge and learning that will help the shape lives and the communities of the future. I can hear your thoughts – this sounds a bit 'perfect world'. Well, yes it does, but just because we live in the real world it does not stop us having aspirations for something better.

Integration is part of the changing face of education system – an education system that must move forward positively and in partnership with other agencies if it is to be fit for purpose – 21st century. We cannot adopt or continue with the 'I've done it this way for 30 years and it's served me well' approach. Just because we have always done a particular thing in a particular way does not mean that it is right for now. If my comments do not sit comfortably with anyone, I am sorry, but perhaps if that is the case, perhaps you have to ask yourself ‘why’? Actually, I think that most of you will regularly ask yourselves such questions - how else can we challenge those we care for and educate to think, create and explore if we cannot challenge ourselves?

But what does that mean for us and really what is integration, how will it be delivered and what does it mean for our children, families and for us –
delivering to this agenda?

First of all, let us briefly look at why we need to operate in an integrated way. We need it to make sure that Victoria Climbié is the last of many children who have fallen through the net of several different agencies working in isolation which has ultimately resulted in the tragic death of young children who have led short, abuse-filled lives. We need it to protect all children from abuse, cruelty and neglect. We need it to make sure that children in need of support get that support without being subjected to a multitude of assessments from numerous different agencies, organisations and professionals, many of which are duplicated in some way. We need early interventions, and do not want to wait for a crisis to develop. We must move away from crisis management. We need accountability. We need to make sure that all children can reach their full potential and take full advantage of the opportunities presented to them at home, in the community, in education and training where necessary with the help and support of other agencies such as social care and health.

This can only be achieved through mechanisms that demand the sharing of information to enable early intervention and a single assessment framework that ensures that the needs of children, whether they are educational, health, social care, housing, safety, are viewed holistically and not in isolation. We need to eradicate the blame culture and replace it with shared objectives which clearly and firmly place the child in the centre, with their needs given priority. Only in this way can the five outcomes of the ECM framework be achieved for all children to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being

Of course we know this, don't we. The Every Child Matters framework is the government’s response to the Laming report on the short and tragic life and death of Victoria Climbié. An inquiry and report which identified a number of failures by a number of different agencies; all apparently working in an isolated and blinkered way, not dissimilar to other tragic cases over the years including Maria Coldwell and Jasmine Beckford – children lost in or to the system. Every Child Matters is a range of reforms and measures to improve children's care and integrated services is the way to achieve this.

So, integration, is it multi-agency, multi-disciplinary working; joined up services and agencies working in collaboration? Is it also the deliver of care and education as a single package for the benefit of children? Yes it is all of these things and more. Integration is a framework through which we can deliver services – providing both universal and targeted services. It requires vision, commitment and collaboration at the point of delivery right up to the strategic players at executive level in local authorities.

There is no doubt about it – this is a whole new way of working for some of us. Some of us may already be working in this way with some partner agencies –
may have done so for some time, may be frustrated by the lack of opportunity and resources to spread good practice – but for many of us this is new. What is also new is the duty placed on local authorities by the Childcare Act 2006, which received Royal Assent in July, to improve outcomes for all young children and reduce inequalities in addition to ensuring there is sufficient high quality early years provision and childcare for parents locally. So this is not just about teachers, nursery nurses, classroom assistants, HLTA, health visitors, GPs, local social workers, police, housing departments and others working together on the ground in an informal ad hoc way, this is about a strategic and co-ordinated approach, led by local authorities involving all appropriate agencies at all levels, for the benefit of children and young people.

But how is this new way of working going to be delivered – what vehicles are there for us to use? If you work in Early Years and work within or for a local Sure Start programme you may already be delivering 'joined up services' or have developed through the programme some specific integration policies and models. Since 1998 and the advent of the National Childcare Strategy, we have seen a number of different initiatives all aimed at reducing poverty, improving outcomes and aspirations for children and families and each one building on the successes or objectives of the previous initiative. Nursery Education Funding, Sure Start local programmes, The Children's Fund, Neighbourhood Nurseries and now Children's Centres and Extended Schools, not forgetting the common or single assessment framework.

We now have the Ten Year Strategy, the Childcare Act, the legal framework through which the strategy will be delivered, Every Child Matters and the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (NSF). All aimed at integrating services and improving outcomes for children and young people. We know about initiative overload and this is beginning to look a bit that way – I am also aware that we have a number of different frameworks – how do they all interact with one another – how do they apply to you in school, nursery, or college. Is it a bit like the children’s game of pass the parcel, when the music stops we take off a layer only to reveal –
another layer of something similar until we get to the prize at the end.

We have seen a number of different initiative and strategies over the years and sometimes we have hardly had time to plan, develop and implement one initiative when the next one comes along, always of course building on the foundation of the previous one. But we need time to not only implement new initiatives and strategies; they have to be evaluated, modified and embedded if they are to work.

Many of them will have long-term outcomes, such as the Sure Start programmes, and results may not be seen for a generation, but, for political purposes, short-term evaluations of long-term projects take place and the results are not good or at least not as good as expected. Why is this? Is it because the original targets set were unrealistic in the first place or is it because the true benefit of the work will not be realised for several years?

Longitudinal studies of the Head Start programme in the States has shown the benefits not only of the programme but of waiting to see the true outcome. We all by now know the phrase that came out of one such study several years ago about a £1 spent in early years saves £7 later on in life – well not if the financial benefit is being used to undertake short-term studies of programmes that have not had the chance to run the full course.

Long-term projections – now that is something else, and Price Waterhouse Cooper has made projections that the result of the investment into early years and childcare, including the likes of Sure Start programmes and the tax credit system, will pay dividends in the future – and they mean far into the future not the next ten years – they are predicting that the adults of the future – the children of today – will be more economically active thanks to investment in early years and education which will give them the foundations of the skills and learning that will enable them to succeed – and improve the economy of the country. We will have to a very long time to find out if these projections are correct.

Let’s us now look at the picture of integration from the perspective of children and their families. As a parent returning to work or learning either after having a baby or because my children are a little bit older, is there really a choice – can we truly choose whether to return to work or not or does the financial situation and or reliance on state benefit for the family dictate that? And when I return to work, how can I integrate work and family life? How can I access the information and services I need, how can I be assured that my child will benefit from a fully integrated day?

Also I am a confused parent – there are a number of studies which appear to equally tell me that putting my child into childcare so that I can return to employment, training or to further my education is good and bad for my children/me/the family.

Let us flag up the quality issue here and now. Research in recent years, including EPPE and an American study by Jane Waldfogel which made some comparisons between America and Britain, clearly state that the quality of care provided is the key, but finding it is not always as easy as we would like it to be.

Quality is reliant on a number of factors, not least the level of qualification, skills and experience of the people delivering it. Quality is not cheap, as you will know if you work in the early years sector, where the committment as well as the qualifications, skills and experience are often achieved through hard work, on little pay with poor prospects. The problem with this scenario is that the quality is delivered at the expense of people delivering it. Dedication and job satisfaction are hard to quantify and attach a cost to, until it is not there – so how can we expect to expand a sector without the people to do the job of caring and educating our children? How can we expect people to get excited by and respond to national government recruitment campaigns which appeal to our ability to help and desire the support and shape the next generation, if, when we get there, our jobs are devalued through single status or we find there is a multi-tiered career and salary structure that depends on where and who I work for and that workforce remodelling means that I am now working more hours or taking on more responsibilities for the same salary, or there is not a single national career or salary structure that will enable me to progress if I want to and at the end of the day?

We all have mortgages or rent to pay and families to support. I have known early years workers over the years who have had to take on second jobs just to help make ends meet – this does not help them to achieve a work-life balance, which we must remember is one of the aims of the ten year strategy, so why should they and their families suffer to deliver a government objective, regardless of how they agree with it, if they cannot benefit from it themselves?

Without further investment in the sector and a clear and accountable career and pay structure, we run the risk of childcare being a sector where only those who can afford to work in the sector do – those where a second income is welcomed but not needed – and this will not enable the sector to grow and will exclude a huge army of people with ability and potential and banish them to a world of work that may not present the same level of job satisfaction but will enable them to live a more comfortable life with their families.

So – if I am a parent, who strongly believes that the best start for my child/children is to stay at home and this is the only way I can ensure a strong and stable family unit, be involved with my children's education, volunteer in my local playgroup, nursery class and school, will I be able to or will I be chased back to work by a government eager to ensure that I do not become a burden on the taxpayer, even though it could be said that my course of action will reduce the need for expensive intervention services for my children and family? I will not go into this is great depth here, but would urge you to attend the first conference session when motions about choice, including choice for parents and children, will be debated in relation to the care and education of children and young people.

Now let us look at what this means for children and young people. Both mum and dad are working so childcare is needed – that’s ok, by 2010 there will be 3,500 children's centres across England, providing access, including day care for all families. Surely this is the best way to get quality integrated care and education, after all local authorities through the Childcare Act must have robust partnership arrangements to ensure public, private, voluntary and community sector organisations work together to improve outcomes for children and young people.

So this is good; as a child, through a children's centre, I can get the care and education I need and be able to access health advice and care and my parents can access a range of parenting and other support services. This seems too good to be true, can it work, is it sustainable, will all of these partnerships be established by the time I need to use these services?

Partnerships take time to develop and maintain; there needs to be a framework and governance that works for all of the parties involved. How time-consuming will this be for schools, who will take it on? Partnerships should not be reliant on the relationships of a few people, but shared objectives. Is there time and resources to built this into a programme for the maintained and non-maintained sectors to agree the shared objectives at the grass root level and how they will be achieved? If not, we should asking why not and demanding the resources to achieve it, otherwise the potential for integrated service delivery will not be achieved.

As an older child, I will be able to access a number of different out-of-hours services through my school – these will include learning and care activities. Again, these services or activities will be at my school delivered in either through my school or in partnership with other groups or organisations. As a child – or a parent – I really don't mind who delivers these services – I just need to know that they are there. I want to be happy, safe and secure in an environment which promotes my education, health and wellbeing. Can this be done if a clear, robust and accountable framework has not been established and the partnership upon which my future achievement rests is not healthy –
will the time that should be dedicated to me be spent on this relationship?

As a child whose family or world is falling apart, who will help me? I would like to attend an after-school club to get away from an abusive parent of sibling for a bit longer – to do my homework, to provide some respite for me as I care for my parent or sibling, so that I can do my homework in peace because I live in a noisy overcrowded house, because I can't get home or into my home until my parent returns from work/caring for a sick relative. I want to ride my bike, go fishing, play netball or just chill out and have some space. Will integration help me to achieve some of this?

The aim of integrated services is to help such children – if we as teachers, nursery nurses, classroom assistants or any other member of a team caring for children begin to notice a difference, we should be able to work with colleagues in the other relevant agencies to support such children. Have you had information about this in your school or nursery? Do you know children this applies to? Do you want to help these children? If your answer to the first question is no and the answer to the following questions yes, it is now your responsibility to find out how this will be achieved in your local authorities, how your school or nursery will work with health and social services or children's services. Without our knowledge and observations, we will not be able to identify needs or address them and integration will not work.

What does integration mean for us – more or less work? Well, perhaps I can't answer that, perhaps it is different more appropriate work – work we are charged with delivering and not the additional work we have been doing for so long. But with so many changes to our working lives can integration be achieved. At a time when nursery nurses are calling for national pay and career structure and council such as the GTC, what is happening to the model on which we are aiming to achieve – it is being slowly and systematically dismantled. How? Through the introduction of a new breed of school which allows the governing body to ignore national pay and condition agreements and pay higher salaries. What is the benefit of this, and how will Trust Schools be sustainable, who will bail them out when the dirt hits the fan and will our LA maintained schools be disadvantaged because of it?

In PAT we advocate and operate a whole team approach, therefore I strongly question any action that introduces or exaggerates a harmful, tiered and hierarchical system that interferes with recognition of individual and collective qualifications, skills and abilities. We do not want teachers, childcare workers and the multitude of valuable support staff to be set against each other, but to work with one another. I am not a teacher, but have worked with many teachers, nursery nurses and social workers. I stopped saying 'I am JUST a Nursery Nurse' a very long time ago – when I realised –very quickly – that the skills and knowledge that I have are different to those I worked with, but just as valid and, through bringing our collective expertise together, we were better able to care/educate/support the children in our care.

I want this to continue – but I do not want to see anything that will cause harmful division within our professions, therefore how can we allow the introduction of non-standardised terms and conditions of employment for teachers – with potential for division within schools and between schools? We have seen articles in the press very recently about the status of primary teachers and how they feel they do not always believe they are compared favorably with colleagues in secondary schools. We do not want the sort of John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett looking up to trust schools and down to primary or nursery. We want level playing field, a clear and robust mechanism that will ensure our career path and salary – that will ensure our employment rights and the right and ability to join a union and be represented by them if the need should arise – we do not want to have to negotiate on a school by school or employer-by-employer basis.

I will end in a similar way to the beginning – I still believe in integration – for the future of our children, families and society – but this cannot be achieved at the expense of the people delivering it. We want to work together – we know the benefits it will produce and the satisfaction it will give us. We in PAT strive to deliver the best for the children that we care for and educate – we do not crave high acclaim or unrealistic reward; we want fair and just reward for the valuable and important roles we play which contribute to the future of our children and, in doing this, the future of us all.

Thank you

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.