Premium
Research Section: Does size matter? Is small really beautiful?
Author(s) -
Walters Brian
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
british journal of special education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.349
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1467-8578
pISSN - 0952-3383
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8527.00202
Subject(s) - officer , enthusiasm , quality (philosophy) , service (business) , psychology , special needs , public relations , medical education , medicine , social psychology , political science , psychiatry , business , law , marketing , philosophy , epistemology
The creation of smaller unitary authorities must have an impact on the way services are provided for children with special needs. This study looks at what has happened so far, focusing on the quality of provision and the ways in which available resources are being used within these reorganised contexts. Brian Walters circulated all unitary authorities in England and Wales formed by January 1998 ( n = 47) with a questionnaire concerning the preparation and provision for special needs in their new Authority. The questionnaire was sent to the senior officer responsible for Special Needs. Some 28 replies were received and follow‐up visits for interview were made with 12 senior officers. The findings from both the questionnaires received and interviews conducted indicate both positive and negative outcomes in terms of provision and preparation for change. Service provision was clearly reduced in a significant number of new authorities ( n = 17 (66%)) particularly for children with sensory impairment and those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Some special schools were seen to be non‐viable in terms of pupil numbers needing a much more regional organisational support, especially for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and low incidence conditions. On the positive side a realignment of professional boundaries had taken place with management roles being combined and management structures compressed ( n = 17 (66%)). There was certainly considerable enthusiasm for managing change by both officers and elected members to adopt more efficient streamlined practices in assessment and consultation ( n = 23 (85%)). However, assessment times had not speeded up ( n = 14 (50%)). Contacts with parents and other agencies had improved at the local level ( n = 24 (86%)) and in particular consultation with schools on policy and procedures was much quicker and more effective ( n = 23 (85%)). Nevertheless there were differences between urban ( n = 14) and semi‐rural ( n = 14) authorities on local contacts and efficiency at the local level. Opportunities had been created for more strategic planning with inclusion policies to the fore ( n = 24 (88%)). Inclusion was seen by smaller authorities as a part solution to the shortfall in services and school provision. The viability for very small unitary authorities (under 25,000 school population) working alone to provide a full range of services and provision was clearly an issue. There is a need for more regional collaboration, or a radical rethink on the form of provision in terms of more inclusive policies. Certainly there was a positive climate with regard to Green Paper issues. The greater autonomy of schools with increased funding for special needs being delegated poses problems for the effectiveness of such small authorities. Size does appear to matter. The smaller the size the more economy of scale issues appear. With Local Education Authorities including unitary authorities now subject to Ofsted inspection, Brian Walters’ study is timely.