Listen to thisI would like to address a highly sensitive and broad issue — that of professional integrity or the extent to which professional workers can freely say what they really believe. Or — put another way — do professional workers simply say what they think or know their managers want and expect to hear. This matter acquired high national prominence recently in Scotland. In this instance a parent’s request for her child to attend a residential special school was refused by the local authority on the grounds that the needs of the child were being satisfactorily met in a local day special school. The residential special school in question was located at some distance from the child’s home. Unsatisfied with the local authority’s decision, the parent took the matter to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal, which is a body in Scotland that considers appeals made by parents and young people against decisions taken by education authorities regarding the provision of educational support. The parent’s appeal was successfully upheld. Notwithstanding the fact it had been defeated, the local authority decided to refer the matter to the Court of Session in Edinburgh — Scotland’s supreme civil court.
In the course of its deliberations the Court of Session took note of the Tribunal’s expressed concern as to the quality of the evidence submitted to it by the local authority and the manner in which it had been presented by the professional staff. The Court of Session also took note of the Tribunal’s suspicion that the witnesses who were representing the authority had been inhibited to some extent in presenting their true views on certain matters. The clear implication here was that if the witnesses had not been expressing their true views, they were advancing views which one might reasonably conclude were either untrue or bordering on being untrue. Both the Tribunal and Court of Session were questioning the credibility of the evidence and of the witnesses. It is important to note that witnesses at a Tribunal are not required to take an oath — it being argued that this is at odds with the less formal nature of such proceedings.
An indication that increasing pressure had been applied to the professional workers giving evidence in this case is shown by the fact that initially in their reports they had been generally supportive of what the parents were seeking for their child but that by the time they came to submitting evidence to the Tribunal their views had altered even though the family’s circumstances had not significantly changed. Having reviewed all the evidence before it, the Court of Session upheld the Tribunal’s decision and, by so doing, the parent’s appeal. What is significant here about the judgement of the Court of Session is not just the fact it upheld the parent’s case but the fact that the Court made explicit criticism of the unconvincing evidence offered by the professional witnesses. In the light of this and other cases there would appear to be a strong argument for introducing a requirement that witnesses at Tribunals testify under oath given the fact that local authorities have been shown to act in ways that run counter to the essential spirit of the Tribunal.
I would like now to turn to a situation where programs offered by schools come into direct conflict with agendas held by local authorities. The policy of mainstreaming when combined with the impact of the worst economic recession in 80 years have forced residential and day special schools for children and young people with special needs in the UK to review their role. The rapidly declining school roll coupled with the threat of possible closure prompted one school to look for new ways in which to respond constructively and imaginatively not only to its own changing circumstances but also to the reality of the declining budgets of cash strapped local authorities. The principal target of one of the innovative programs introduced by this school was those children and young people who exist on the outer margins of the educational and care systems. These may be children who are the victims of family breakdown, family alcohol or drug addiction, physical or sexual abuse or who have a disabling condition or behavioural disorder for which there is no obvious educational or care provision available. Although relatively small in number, this group of children can lead to the local authority in spending a disproportionate amount of its time and financial resources in finding an appropriate program.
A key feature of the program offered by this school is that it was tailored around the particular and expressed needs of the child. No prior assumptions were made as to the program’s content. What is significant about this approach is that it is wholly consistent with the personalisation agenda. As the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) has indicated personalisation means thinking about care and support services in an entirely new way. It means starting with the person as an individual with strengths, preferences and aspirations and putting them at the centre of the process of identifying their needs and making choices about what they need to live their lives. It requires a significant transformation in professional attitudes, policy, practice and provision. In the past the service-led approach often meant that people did not receive the right help at the right time and were unable to shape the kind of support they needed. As the SCIE has recognised personalisation is about giving people much more choice and control over their lives and goes well beyond simply giving personal budgets to people eligible for funding.
The school team running this program were faced with a situation where a young person clearly and explicitly stated that after having spent some time on the program he felt he belonged in this new setting and wished to remain there. Notwithstanding this young person’s clearly stated preference, the funding authority continued to emphasise the point that a mainstream setting should remain the long-term goal. The fact that the young person in question was autistic meant that any chance of a successful placement in a mainstream school was unlikely given the fact that few mainstream schools possessed staff who had been appropriately trained to meet the particular and individual needs of children and young people falling within the autistic spectrum. Thus we have a situation where a young person who was looking for some measure of future certainty was repeatedly reminded at every case review of the possibly transient nature of the existing arrangement. For a young autistic person, there is nothing more unsettling than continuing uncertainty. In this instance the personalisation and mainstreaming agendas were in conflict with one another. The question therefore arises as to whether the constant repetition of the mainstreaming mantra was simply to satisfy internal organisational edicts regardless of the expressed and evident needs of the young person?
The long-term effect on officials of having to take professional positions that lack credibility is likely to be morally and ethically corrosive. At the same time it is likely to induce public cynicism as to the meaning of professional integrity. Of course, few professional workers will openly acknowledge the existence of this problem when still in the employment of a local authority; however once retired the pernicious effects of having had to toe a party line are often privately conceded. It could be argued that where any organisation – not just a local authority – fails to respect the right of employees to express their considered views on professional matters then the integrity of that organisation has to be called into question.
Given the difficult times in which we now find ourselves it is important that those providing and those purchasing services for children and young people work together in an atmosphere of mutual trust. That trust will not be forthcoming if ideological imperatives and considerations of an expedient nature take precedence over honesty, truthfulness and straight-dealing.
