‘Not For Wimps’: The Nature of Partnership

Enid Mordaunt

SYMPOSIUM ‘EDUCATION AND INTER-AGENCY WORKING’

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999

PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

The word ‘partnership’ … [is] almost always summed up by the image of two hands clasped in a handshake. My experience shows that … if you look carefully at the image you will see that one hand is gently squeezing the other.

[company managing director]

This paper examines how the term partnership is used in a rage of working relationships, in the field of SEN and beyond. A number of core characteristics emerge which, when examined, help to place SEN partnerships in a wider focus. Reassuringly, inequality within a partnership, far from necessarily being a bar to a fruitful alliance, is actually common to all partnerships. Parents are normally the weaker partners in SEN partnerships, but this does not prevent them from being effective. Of much greater significance is the recognition of the unique contribution each partner brings to the relationship.

Partnership has long been considered to be an important way of working within schools [Cave 1970; De’Ath & Pugh (eds) 1984a/b; Macbeth 1989; Wolfendale [ed] 1989; Jowett et al 1991; Munn [ed] 1993]. The extensive literature, which also encompasses Europe [SO 1998a], covers many aspects of school-life of which the following are a few examples:

With the development of Parent Partnership Schemes or Service [PPS] it has become an established way of working in the area of SEN [Blamires et al 1997; Wolfendale [ed] 1997; Wolfendale & Cook 1997]. The apparently small change of name has more recently emphasised, according to one civil servant, how such partnerships serve parents, reflecting what they can do for parents, rather than the notion of a ‘scheme’ which was thought to sound too much like a paper exercise. There have also been several practical guides to various aspects of partnership [Dewsbury 1997; Fox 1993; Kerr et al 1994; Savitzky 1999].

But the concept of partnership does not simply belong within the setting of the education service. More generally, public service partnerships exist between service providers and contractors as in, for example, the English probation service or in Scotland’s childcare partnership schemes [SOEID 1998]. The Private Finance Initiative, now called Public Private Partnership, has also led to the involvement of business in public service provision as in the rebuilding of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and six Sheffield schools. The recent launch of the NSPCC’s ‘Full Stop’ campaign, intended to harness the whole country to work to eliminate child abuse, demonstrates how the notion of partnership is in general currency. The presentation of their literature underlines the approach with headings of:-

[adapted from NSPCC 1999]

This paper will set out to explore some of these wider uses of the concept of partnership, beyond the field of special educational needs. From such an exploration will develop a set of characteristics, which will enable SEN partnerships to be examined in a wider context, leading to an extended understanding of the term. For the purposes of this paper SEN partnerships are taken to mean as existing between parents, on the one hand, and professionals and representatives of both local and central government, on the other. There is no consideration of the part played by children in such partnerships, not because they are considered to be unimportant but rather because the part played by children is worthy of a separate paper.

THE STUDY

This paper developed from the opening stage of a research project entitled Justice in SEN assessment procedures, funded by the ESRC [no. R000237768] and run jointly by the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. As aspects of procedural justice were under consideration the topic of justice achieved through SEN Parent Partnership schemes emerged as of importance. It was also clear that partnership as a concept is so very widely used outside of the field of education that is was worthy of consideration in its own right and could possibly offer illumination into the use of the concept within SEN. The SEN data contained in this paper was gathered during 18 interviews with a range of key informants in the opening phase of the project. An initial review of the policy and legal background [Mordaunt 1999] revealed the concept was used in a wide range of documentation.

TABLE KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWEES IN ENGLAND & SCOTLAND

If the concept of partnership is well developed in the field of education, the same is equally true in the wider world, for example in local government partnerships abound. The examples in Table 4 appeared in an authority newspaper [Derbyshire County Council June 1999]. The partnerships were wide ranging, showing how generously the term is interpreted, a point to which the paper will return. The schemes were:

NB: page references pertain to Derbyshire County Council June 1999

Beyond the sphere of local government there are a vast range of examples of partnerships, of which the following forms a selection:

DISCUSSION: KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIPS

There are two levers for moving men – interest and fear.

[Napoleon, in Benham 1948]

From the above examples the following characteristics of partnerships can be developed:

These characteristics will now be examined, using examples from Table 5.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE expressed by means of basic elements: The essential basic elements of a partnership set out those aspects that form its defining nature. On May 14^th 1999 Donald Dewar, on behalf of the Labour Party, and Jim Wallace, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, signed a partnership agreement [Scottish Labour & Lib Dems 1999], which offered this definition of the partnership:

The partners will need goodwill, mutual trust and agreed procedures which foster collective decision making and responsibility while respecting each party’s identity.

[p23]

In the same month, the Trades Union Congress [TUC] organised the conference Partners for Progress: New Unionism in the Workplace, at which the General Secretary, John Monks, also stressed the importance of ‘mutual trust’ [Monks p5]. He went on to outline the means by which partners could achieve their desired end, needing to invest both time and patience, since ‘partnership puts a premium on facilitation, brokering, listening and consulting’ [p5]. In similar terms, the Scottish Compact [SO 1998b], ‘an agreement between Government and the voluntary sector on the principles of working in partnership’, sets out its basics as ‘mutual understanding of the distinctive values and roles of Government and the voluntary sector’.

The most basic of the elements in any partnership is the link that binds the parties together, ‘a common bond’ because:

People are more likely to help and support, and less likely to cheat people they know.

[Credit Union Initiative 1997 p5]

While underlying these basic elements there must be:

… a clearly defined purpose to which all partners are contracted and the precise role of each partner must be clearly understood.

[company managing director]

This interviewee considered the dual strands of ‘defined purpose’ and ‘precise role’ were essential components, since their function was to counteract the unstable nature of partnership.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE driven by self-interest: The parties to a partnership could enter with different agendas, because:

Partnership … is not about pretending that everyone at work has the same interests.

[Monks p4]

Each party could well have different criteria for success:

The success of a partnership can only be measured by quantifying the benefits of membership versus the cost of membership together with the cost of not being a member. Is it better to be inside the tent looking out, or outside looking in?

[company managing director]

A bizarre example of such self-interest was offered by the Vichy Government as it presented collaborating with the occupation forces of Germany as a partnership between the French and the Germans [BBC TWO 1999]. For the Germans self-interest meant a quieter, easier life in France at all levels. The chance of civil disturbance was reduced while day to day living conditions were made more comfortable. On the French side self-interest was served by financial payment. The Germans had little to lose by such an arrangement and much to gain, while the French had to make the best of their lives at that time, not knowing that such an occupation would not become permanent.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE not between equal bodies: Successful partnerships need not be between parties of equal strength and power. Since partnerships are about control, it stands to reason that, at any one time, there will always be a dominant partner:

As Peter Mandelson said … the employment relationship is always unequal. The employer has the power to hire and fire.’

[Monks p5]

However, Monks went on to show that in the case studies of partnerships reviewed by the TUC, such inequality did not lead inexorably to a reduced union role:

… unions are now influencing management thinking and shaping strategic plans. This is not surrender by trade unions – it is a basis for mutual gains.

[p4]

In other words to be a partner does not imply that one side has to capitulate to the other, possibly stronger partner. The ‘mutual gains’ of co-operative working was an element recognised as a more fruitful way forward by a company managing director. Feeling that the term partnership had been so devalued he shifted the emphasis:

‘Alliance’ is the new word now. I actually think that ‘alliance’ is perhaps a better term since it does not imply equality but rather a ‘working together’.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE between bodies who retain their own identities: Jim Wallace, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, reminding the electorate that ‘We have no mandate to join a Labour government’ [Ceefax 1999a p117], indicated that each partner would retain their own identity:

The two parliamentary parties will operate in support of the Partnership Executive but each will make its own business management arrangements, including measures to ensure effective Party support for the Executive.

[Scottish Labour Party & Lib Dems 1999 p24]

PARTNERSHIPS ARE concerned with trade-offs and compromises: This does not mean that either side should give way to the other, completely, but rather that there must be an ability and a desire to meet each other half way. Such a desire was outlined by Donald Dewar as:

government partners … work[ing] together in a spirit of collective responsibility.

[Channel 4 1999]

In order to achieve this partnership in government, a number of compromises and trade-offs occurred. In order to gain a working overall majority in the Scottish parliament, New Labour had to make concessions by increasing the funding for teachers, nurses and doctors. In order to gain seats on the executive the Liberal Democrats compromised on the amount of money allocated to the public services and had to surrender on issues such as the abolition of the Skye bridge tolls. The purpose of these trade-offs was to deliver to each party something that each wanted, ie a working majority for one and executive power for the other.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE concerned to bring benefits to each member: One of the many partnerships operated by the Post Office is with the Co-operative Bank, whereby customers may carry out banking transactions in their local Post Office. Both companies benefit from this arrangement; the bank does not need to provide so many Handibanks as formerly, thus leaving it free to concentrate on telephone banking, while the Post Office protects its own survival by acquiring more customers.

Monks also highlighted the benefits to both sides of the ‘partnership agenda’ [op cit p3] between unions and employers, seeing it as the way forward for ‘improved … organisational performance and … quality of life for union members’ [p4]. It benefits employers because:

It’s about improving performance, enhancing competitiveness, enriching the quality of working life.

[p4]

As a result of fewer strikes, there is a more stable output, improved efficiency, better company image, increased sales, greater profitability and more jobs:

… employers are working in partnership with unions, not because it is a nice thing to do, but because they can see that it adds value to their organisations.

[p4]

The benefits to the employee Monks outlined as decent pay and conditions, a greater level of job security and a reduction in conflict. The partnership has resulted in a ‘new unionism’ [p3] that goes beyond unions acting ‘as the emergency service at work for our members when things go wrong’. In turn, this offers to unions the benefit of ‘a commitment to joint problem solving across an agenda of training, skills and career development’, leading to ‘greater influence over business strategy’ [p4].

PARTNERSHIPS ARE dependent for their survival on the unique qualities each member brings: Each side in a partnership must bring with them something that is unique to them and that the other party needs. This unique offering must have within its nature an element of pro-activity. So, for example, in business it is insufficient for one party to offer finance alone because such a partnership will not survive beyond the initial stage, after the point when start-up costs are no longer of basic importance. When BhS partnered a Russian company to develop retail outlets in Russia, BhS went beyond basic finance by offering its brand and scale of operations, while the Russian company offered its knowledge of local markets. If finance alone had been offered by the western company, the partnership would have been unlikely to have succeeded because, once the money had been invested, one party would no longer be contributing in a pro-active sense to the development of the partnership.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE expressed in terms of a ‘greater good’: Beside the gains for each party to a partnership, there can also be a ‘greater good’. This is a more exalted notion of the good stemming from the Scottish political alliance:

stable and co-operative government – accountable, close and responsive to the people;

innovative government which is open, welcomes good ideas whatever their source, and encourages participation;

integrated government in which solutions are sought and found across departmental and interest-group boundaries

 

[SO 1999 p3]

The Scottish Compact’s [SO 1998b] ‘greater good’ list is presented as a set of shared values in:

PARTNERSHIPS ARE organic relationships rather than static end-results: Partnerships are organic relationships, constantly developing, that are probably best approached more as ‘a dynamic, evolving process’ than ‘an end-state’ [Wolfendale & Cook 1997 piv]. Their development is, in part, rooted in the history brought by the parties to the partnership. Such history could be positive and helpful to the formation of the partnership but could just as easily be mistrustful, antagonistic and fearful. Expressed negatively, the organic nature of partnerships is understood to be instability, because partnerships ‘are entered into out of self-interest [they] are consequently unstable’ [company managing director].

PARTNERSHIPS ARE ultimately tested: The test of any partnership comes when the parties cannot agree on an issue that is sufficient importance to each side that trade-offs are impossible. When this happens the unequal nature of the relationship will be highlighted as the mutual trust of the partners is put to the test. Thus, this list of partnership characteristics comes full circle because, when a partnership is tested, it will not survive unless the original basic building blocks are soundly in place. So, for example, the handling of such differences of opinion ‘on a basis of mutual trust’ [Monks p5] becomes very important:

There is a world of difference between conflict in a relationship of hostility and suspicion, and disagreement where the partners respect and understand each other.

[ibid]

SEN PARTNERSHIPS

So how does this affect SEN partnerships? The ‘common bond’ of the partners is the good of the child. As one interviewee indicated, it was particularly important for all parties to work together, because:

… you’re impacting on children and young people. And if you’re antagonistic toward one another, and one partner doesn’t understand what the other’s doing, and there isn’t a common goal, the kids get lost in the middle of it.

[elected member]

The basic elements of the SEN partnership, like those operating within the Scottish parliament, were identified by interviewees as ‘trust and understanding’ [officer], it being necessary to:

Work … together and respect … the differences, the different roles that people have got and different bits that you bring to the table, as it were.

[elected member]

To speak of self-interest is generally to speak pejoratively, but self-interest can be legitimate to the bodies concerned. When a local authority is driven by budget limitations or places the good of all children in their purview above the individual good of any child, or when parents place the needs of their child above all other concerns, each is driven by self-interest:

Partnership with parents means working closely with them, but remembering that we are here to meet the needs of the child, not the needs of the parents, and we have to provide an equitable system for all. This sometimes implies refusing parents’ requests for additional resources which would be incompatible with the principle of equity.

[officer]

Mutual recognition of what drives each side can lead to the positive outcome of an empathetic realisation of each other’s concerns and aspirations, so that when compromises are needed to break a stalemate they are more likely to occur since ‘give and take is at the heart of it’ [civil servant]. The path to such give and take was identified by civil servants as conciliation, which would be afforded a role of greater significance than at present. There must be a:

… pragmatic recognition on both sides that there was a need to give ground, to shift position.

[ibid]

In terms of SEN this would translate into both sides trading-off their original preferred outcomes in order to achieve what is best for the child. This is a complex area that the research project will consider in more detail as it progresses. Suffice to say at this point, that parties in the SEN relationship bring with them preferred outcomes that may not necessarily be based on the single most important aim of what is best for the child. For the parent this may be a desire for private education at the education authority’s expense, while for an officer it may be a concern to place the budget before an open examination of all available options.

At face value the inequality of the parties to a partnership appears to be problematic, because without a sense of equality the partnership would founder as the strong prevailed. However, partnership is more complex and robust. In the SEN process parents are generally seen to be the weaker partners in comparison with professionals from education and health, and officers and elected members of local authorities. Indeed, some interviewees considered such a balance of power was as it should be:

If society believed that parents were the right people to educate children, society would not run schools. It’s as simple and as straightforward as that.

[elected member]

A partnership with workers in the SEN field could lead parents to a new, stronger voice, just as in the TUC example where the role of the unions had been enhanced. While it was recognised that:

Partnership … always implies a sense of equality between the participants. … Technically that isn’t necessary because you have senior partners and junior partners in business enterprises. … I would regard that as a difference in degree rather than of kind.

[voluntary organisation trustee]

Parents have traditionally played such a junior role; there was amongst interviewees a general recognition that parents have more power than formerly, being less likely to ‘play … the client role’ [Wolfendale 1983 p114]:

I suppose … [parents as partners] implies that we’ve moved radically away from the situation that used to exist twenty years ago … when … the attitude was one of paternalism by the professionals. And we knew best. We’re the experts and if you listen to us, then this is what we think should happen. And if the truth be told, sometimes parents were bullied into accepting things that may be they didn’t want to accept. I think that was wrong.

[civil servant]

While it was stressed that authorities ‘must listen very carefully to parents, take them along … and they must play a major role in the decision-making process’ [ibid], the interviewee felt that some professionals considered that things had now swung too far in the opposite direction. There must be a recognition that it is not always in the child’s best interests for the wishes of the parents to prevail. One interviewee speaking with a background in social work indicated that:

The problem with professionals is that we regard ourselves as the experts in our own procedures and expect other people to accept … our management and government of these.

[voluntary organisation trustee]

The interviewee considered there to be very few professionals used to operating in a ‘true partnership mode’, because it was difficult enough for professionals to work with each other, let alone with ‘the humble lay people whom they regard as their clients.’

Partnership was seen to be about moving away from either extreme because problems arise if the balance of power in the SEN partnership tips too far in either direction. Recognising this dilemma, one civil servant indicated that some professionals felt the balance had now tipped too far, so that the partnership had now ‘jumped to the opposite pole where parents always know best’ [civil servant]. This was considered to be equally unacceptable:

… because that’s not always in the best interests of the child. And it’s really the child who is at the centre.

[ibid]

Civil servants saw an important role for conciliation in maintaining such a balance, where the conciliator would try to bring the parents down to earth where their expectations were totally unrealistic. Equally the conciliator would attempt to lever up the LEA provision, where it was not meeting requirements.

It is important for each party in the SEN partnership to retain their identity, which means that parents are in a position to contribute to the assessment process and the decisions being made. They would neither be expected to play the role of a pseudo-professional, ‘second-guessing the outcome of psychological testing‘ [voluntary organisation trustee] nor the role of the client:

… ineffective in child management, and need[ing] the ‘topping up’ of professional expertise in order to function and do their parental duty.

[Wolfendale 1983 p146]

Instead, parents would be valued and, in turn, value themselves for what they can offer as parents. In this way, a recognition of each party’s identity enables each to make their unique contribution to the partnership, which as we have seen is essential if the partnership is to survive:

Each person needs to recognise the weight of the other person’s knowledge and experience and respect it. … The concept of partnership implies that … [reports on the child] would be weighted equally.’

[voluntary organisation trustee]

Interviewees generally considered that the unique contribution of parents was ‘advice about the child’s care and welfare’ [elected member] and the parental ‘experience of that child throughout life’ [voluntary organisation trustee]. The DfEE was presented by a civil servant as being very keen for parents to operate as partners in the assessment process:

… at the end of the day, the parent is the person who knows the child best, is closest to their needs.

[ibid]

This was considered to be particularly true of SEN children, where the particular needs may have developed over a period of time with the parent being aware of its various manifestations. Parents thus provide stability; while professionals may come and go, parents know the history and provide insight and continuity. However, several interviewees drew a distinction between the parents’ care and welfare input and the professionals’ educational decision. One interviewee considered that since taxpayers’ money is spent on training education professionals:

… only to say, "Well, actually, the parents know best." Well, why do we bother? It’s absurd.

[elected member]

This interviewee considered that parents had a limited role in the partnership relationship, when educational decisions were being made:

I think that’s wrong, to be honest. I think that parents are the worst people to make decisions about their children on an educational basis. Most parents have a totally wrong view of their children’s abilities, strengths and weaknesses, even if your child doesn’t have special needs. Most of us would like to think that we had offered to this world a genius or a child of such special character that was going to create huge changes in the world. But, of course, that doesn’t happen.’

Parents of SEN children were considered to be even less able to reason on their child’s behalf than other parents, since wanting the best for their child can cloud the judgement of parents:

Sometimes parents have the potential to make things more difficult for their kids.

[elected member]

While it was generally accepted that parents had a right to have a voice in the SEN procedures, more than one interviewee emphasised that such a stance:

leaves unresolved those situations where the parents are a pernicious influence in the child’s life. And where an insistence on working in partnership actually delays a decision about separating a child that would be in the child’s interests if it were taken much earlier.

[voluntary organisation trustee]

The benefits from SEN partnerships can be a reduction in levels of anxiety as parents are informed and, therefore, empowered to develop a voice within the procedures. While the provision of written information for parents may initially cause more work, it can be a time-saving device in the longer term. The opportunity for mediation at critical points in the assessment process may avert appeals and litigation. There may be a greater confidence in the assessment process. While the use of volunteers within the system ensures that it is a low cost operation [Wolfendale & Cook 1997 p176].

When expressing SEN partnerships in terms of the greater good, the first would be that such partnerships reinforce human rights. Furthermore, they could well lead to improved and better targeted provision, which in turn could result in greater educational achievement and fulfilment of the child. Once, SEN partnerships reach a critical level, they can positively affect the reputation of the education authority, with the result that parents approach assessment and provision expecting a supportive system, geared to their needs. This will result in fewer appeals and more general benefits for all parties to the partnership.

SEN partnerships are not ends in themselves, but rather a means to the end of best provision. Like other partnerships, they should be considered as organic, constantly developing and therefore needing constant nurturing, they are:

… extremely fragile. Months and even years of trust and mutual respect can be destroyed overnight if a lack of respect and inequalities are perceived. You have to ‘walk the talk’.

[Crouch 1998 p9]

Partnerships may be unwittingly fractured by the wider education authority, not simply by those in close contact with parents. SEN partnerships, like commercial organisations, depend on ‘having people "on song" with the brand … at all times’ [Stevens 1998 p14]:

… the brand does not depend solely on those employees who have obvious links with customers. The security man answering out-of-hours calls may have a more direct influence over customer relations than the managing director. … A sale or a reputation … may be … lost in a moment of employee exasperation or inattention.

[ibid]

SEN partnerships, like all partnerships, will in the end be put to the test. It is at such a point that the basic foundations of the partnership need to be strong:

If you’re working as partners you’re less likely to be in a situation where there’s misunderstanding and friction and accusations. … You might disagree but at least you understand why you disagree.

[elected member]

Partnerships are also put to the test with changes in personnel. It is a challenge for education authorities to transform what has been called the ‘human capital’ [Golzen 1998 p20] into ‘structural capital’. In other words, authorities must protect the knowledge and commitment to partnerships of individual officers and others so that such working becomes part of the cultural fabric of the authority. In that way partnerships will not evaporate when key figures leave.

But equally important is ensuring that parents are armed with the right sort of information, so they can have an informed input into the debate without feeling they’re an outsider looking in.

[civil servant]

Having explored the nature of SEN partnerships, brief consideration is now given to partnership in practice. The Parent Partnership Service has developed across LEAs in England, though not in Scotland. The service sets out to make partnership operationally feasible by ensuring that parents have the necessary information on the process and procedures, being often ‘quite a mystery and quite a jungle to get through’ [civil servant]. The Service has also set ‘to empower … [parents] to play the sort of role they’d probably want to play’ [civil servant], which can only be achieved by having the correct information, knowing the right person to talk to and the range of organisations available. While it remains true that operational partnership depends on the individual parent and on the willingness of the particular LEA and officers to engage with parents in a constructive manner [Franks 1998 p47], it essential that enabling procedures exist. The PPS is considered by the DfEE as such an element of good practice, the purpose of which is to ensure that children’s needs are taken into account and that parents’ wishes are known to and are duly regarded by LEAs and schools.

Examples of the PPS in action were offered by officers in different authorities. One service was described as beginning immediately a child was referred to the LEA’s Assessment and Statementing Service, when the Parent Partnership Group would automatically be informed. The parent would be contacted by the leader of the PPS, offering help and support. Another example showed an education authority operating a parents' forum each term, organised by the PPO, to which parents of children under assessment are invited. This was an opportunity for the LEA to explain their SEN policy and for parents to ask questions.

In Scotland, where the parent partnership does not exist as an explicit service, good practice is set out in the key document A Manual of Good Practice [SO 1998c p27], the features of such practice being identified as:

TABLE PARENTS AS PARTNERS: FEATURES OF SCOTTISH GOOD PRACTICE

It would be a mistake for English readers to draw the conclusion that because Scotland has neither a Code nor a PPS that it necessarily lags behind England, since the Manual is a detailed document with practical guidance directed at all parties in the field of SEN.

In considering feasible partnership, the levels of parent participation can be examined by developing Arnstein’s [1969] ‘Ladder of Participation’. The ladder, which was created to represent the spectrum of citizens’ participation in American public planning schemes, is presented in eight rungs. This model has been further adapted to illuminate young people’s participation [Hart 1992], specifically in residential care [Willow 1996] and SEN assessments [Griffiths et al 1998]. The ladder has been adapted here to show the varying levels of parental participation in the SEN assessment process.

Using a ladder as a model carries with it various implications. Firstly, it implies progression, which may be possible for parents involved in the SEN assessment procedures as they become more familiar and therefore more confident in meetings with professionals whose role it is to make decisions about their child. This is a complex area because parents vary in the extent they each wish to participate at a specific time. It is difficult for parents to participate in a progressive fashion because such meetings may take place infrequently, giving parents little practical opportunity to develop a voice in assessment meetings. Secondly, the implication of a ladder is that to climb up is a necessary good; whereas that is not the way in which to read what is meant to be a value-free description. Some parents may operate at the level of the higher rungs, others may not wish to do so. It is open to question whether or not it would be a good idea for parents to operate at either extreme of the ladder.

PREDATORY PARTNERSHIP

It is easy from my perspective to have a cynical view of partnerships. The major UK retailers and others have unashamedly abused them for so long that one gets rather immune to both the rhetoric and the implementation. Consequently, the word ‘partnership’ has been seriously devalued now to the point where it is often used only in a pejorative sense. It is perhaps no coincidence that the word translates into German as Partnerschaft!

[company managing director]

At this point it is worth pausing to recognise that not all examples of partnerships demonstrate good practice. Earlier it was noted how widely the term partnership is used; it being generously extended to encompass alliances with few of the characteristics here defined. Indeed, in some cases the concept is stretched beyond any acceptable terms. Such types of relationships, called partnerships by the more powerful body, but not based on mutual trust, are more accurately described as predatory partnerships. At their core is domination, because the exercise of power leads to the achievement of the goal of the controlling body.

An example of such a partnership is that currently being introduced by an international company between itself and its suppliers at the heart of which is an electronic bidding system [EBS]. The company presents this as a partnership to specific suppliers. In the past the sales forces of a range of suppliers and the buyers of the company would negotiate a major contract with face to face presentations, backed up with costings and an examination of the level and quality of service to be provided. In EBS the partners, ie the suppliers, on a specific day, simultaneously across the world are presented with items within the contract for which they are competing. Parcels of items from the contract appear every 15 minutes on the computer screens of the suppliers. The partners must enter their prices, ie their bid, as each parcel appears. Like a Dutch auction, the lowest bidder overall wins the contract with no regard for quality or service quality extras. The relationship developed over years between the two sides, built on trust and mutual respect, is irrelevant. The focus of this partnership is cost alone. It has build-in impermanence because there is nothing to prevent the company repeating the exercise every few months if they become dissatisfied with their suppliers, rather than spending time trying to work with the suppliers to solve problems.

Such an auction is not in itself bad practice; it is a legitimate trading system in commodities, the stock exchange, or the trading of finance instruments, or of gold, metal or oil. Those are legitimate because the trading is for the lowest price for a single item, where the market determines the price. EBS is a predatory partnership because, although simple commodities are not being traded, it attempts to reduce complex parcels of business to the level of such a simple commodity. Whereas, it is actually trading parcels of complex business where each item contained within the parcel has its own characteristics.

Such a single item agenda, that is cost, flags up a warning for public services. SEN assessment and provision is neither a commodity nor is it simple. The assessment of special educational needs and the ultimate provision to meet those needs forms an equally complex parcel, each item contained within the parcel having its own characteristics. When translated into SEN terms this predatory partnership would mean that only the cost of provision and placement were considered. Clearly, this would call into question whether the child’s best interests were being served.

CONCLUSION

… you can achieve more together than you can do separately

[elected member]

It is reassuring to find that inequality within a partnership, far from being a bar to a fruitful alliance, is actually common to most partnerships. Parents are normally the weaker partners in SEN partnerships, but this does not prevent them from being effective. Of much greater significance than inequality is the recognition of the unique contribution each partner brings to the relationship:

A partnership does not have to be an equal one if you have something essential to the success of the partnership that the others need but do not have.

[company managing director]

The unique contribution of parents in the SEN assessment procedure is normally their commitment to and long-term knowledge and understanding of their child:

Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

[UN 1989, Article 18.1]

However, partnerships do not exist in isolation; the climate within which partnership with parents is set is currently one of human rights. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which led to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [Council of Europe 1950], the rights of parents and children have now become binding in UK law with the passing of the Human Rights Act [HMSO 1998A]. It is too early to say yet what practical impact this will have in how parents and children participate in SEN assessments.

In England, it remains the case that parents and children are viewed as synonymous, so forming a partnership with parents in England would be considered to include children. Recognising that the traditional stance of education legislation means that the two are not separate entities, one English civil servant considered that the legislative setting for the role and rights of children to be: ‘a bit of a moving picture’. Although this interviewee considered that a will existed for children’s voices to be heard:

the trick will be ensuring that the rights and balances are there to try and ensure that reasonable provision is made for the views to be heard; but not to the extent of turning everything on its head and making the system totally unworkable.

[civil servant]

Future developments of SEN partnerships will be set within the Human Rights Act [op cit] and will, more than likely, be much more clearly focused on children and parents as separate parties within the partnership, subscribing to the maxim:

The child is a person and not an object of concern.

[Butler-Sloss 1988 p245]

The legal framework within which SEN partnerships operate was considered by several interviews to be:

… contributing to a change in culture which is gradually moving away from a perception of children as being the possessions of their parents towards a perception of them as individual human beings with the same sorts of rights … [as] adults.

[voluntary organisation trustee]

As a concept ‘partnership’ is of the warm and cuddly school; it is used, often loosely, to describe a wide range of alliances, not because they all display the characteristics of a partnership but more because the term is generally perceived to be a universal good. In order to examine the nature of SEN partnership, this paper has set out to establish a number of core characteristics [Table 6], taken from a range of operational fields. The title of the paper ‘Not for Wimps’ [Monks 1999 p4] underlines the fact that ‘Partnership is no easy option’ [ibid], it demands courage and determination from all parties. Partnership can undoubtedly result in positive outcomes but:

… the concept of having shared goals, shared responsibility and shared rewards will only work by recognising that that of itself is not a panacea … The concept has severe limitations and that by taking a simple, pragmatic approach you may at least come one step closer to success.

[company managing director]

ARNSTEIN, S R 1969 A Ladder of Citizen Participation in the USA, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4, 216-24

ARTS COUNCIL OF ENGLAND 1996 Creative Partnership: working together in the Arts, London: Arts Council of England

BENHAM, Sir Gurney 1948 Benham’s Book of Quotations, Proverbs and Household Words, London: Harrap

BLAMIRES, M; ROBERTSON, C and BLAMIRES, J 1997 Parent-Teacher Partnership: Practical Approaches to Meet Special Educational Needs, London: David Fulton

BBC TWO 1999 Sleeping With The Enemy: Timewatch, May 22

BUTLER-SLOSS, E 1988 Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987, Cm 412, London: HMSO

CAVE, R 1970 Partnership for Change: parents and schools, London: Ward Lock Educational

CEEFAX 1999a May 8

CEEFAX 1999b May 8 p167

CHANNEL 4 News 1999 May 14

COUNCIL OF EUROPE 1950 The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing Service

CREDIT UNION INITIATIVE 1997 A Credit Union Handbook, Sheffield: Sheffield Credit Union Development Agency

CROUCH, N 1998 Partnerships with people in T Nash [ed] Partnerships with People: improving business performance through your people, London: Director Publications Ltd

De’ATH, E and PUGH, G [eds] 1984a Working Together: Parents and Professionals as Partners, Partnership Paper 1, London: National Children’s Bureau

De’ATH, E and PUGH, G [eds] 1984b Parental Involvement: what does it mean?, Partnership Paper 2, London: National Children’s Bureau

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1997 Making partnerships work in community care, Bristol: Policy Press/ DoH

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE 1997 Success through partnership, DoNH

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL June 1999 Insight, Derbyshire County Council’s Newspaper, Matlock: County Office

DEWSBURY, A 1997 Parents as Partners: Helping Your Child’s Literacy and Language Development, Port Melbourne, Victoria: Rigby Heinemann

FOX, G 1993 A Handbook for Special Educational Needs Assistants: Working in Partnership with Parents, London: David Fulton

FRANKS, M 1998 The quality factor in T Nash [ed] Partnerships with People: improving business performance through your people, London: Director Publications Ltd

GEDDES, M 1998 Local Partnership: a successful story for social cohesion,

GOLZEN, G 1998 All in the mind in T Nash [ed] Partnerships with People: improving business performance through your people, London: Director Publications Ltd

GRIFFITHS, J; CUNNINGHAM, G; DICK, S 1998 Onwards & Upwards: Involving disabled children and young people in decision making, a training manual for professionals, Edinburgh: Children in Scotland

HART, R 1992 Children’s Participation, from Tokenism to Citizenship, UNICEF

HMSO 1992 Town Centre Partnership: a survey of good practice, London: HMSO

HMSO 1996 Partnership in the regeneration of urban Scotland, Edinburgh: HMSO

HMSO 1998a Human Rights Act 1998, London: The Stationery Office

HMSO 1998b Better Quality Services: a handbook on creating public/ private partnerships, London: The Stationery Office

HOME OFFICE 1998 Guidance on statutory crime and disorder partnerships, London: Home Office Communications Directorate

INGRAM, J and WORRALL, N 1993 Teacher –Child Partnership: the negotiating classroom, London: David Fulton

JONES, G; BASTIANI, J; BELL, G; CHAPMAN, C 1992 A Willing Partnership: Project Study of the Home-School Contract, London: RSA

JOWETT, S; BAGINSKY, M; MacNEIL, M M 1991 Building Bridges: parental involvement in schools, Windsor, Berks: NFER-NELSON

KERR, L; SUTHERLAND, L; WILSON, J 1994 A Special Partnership: A practical guide for Named Persons and parents of children with special educational needs, Edinburgh: HMSO

LONG, R 1986 Developing Parental Involvement in Primary Schools, Basingstoke: Macmillan Educational

MACBETH, A 1989 Involving Parents: Effective Parent-Teacher Relations, Oxford: Heinemann Educational

MACBETH, A; McCREATH, D; AITCHISON, J [eds] 1995 Collaborate or Compete? Educational Partnerships in a Market Economy, London: The Falmer Press

MERTTENS, R and VASS, J [eds] 1993 Partnerships in Maths: Parents and Schools The IMPACT Project, London: The Falmer Press

MILLS, J [ed] 1996 Partnership in the Primary School: working in collaboration, London: Routledge

MONKS, J 1999 Partnership can beat militancy and macho-management, speech delivered by the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress at the Partners for Progress: New Unionism in the Workplace conference 24.5.99, faxed copy

MORDAUNT, E March 1999 Review of the Legal and Policy Background, review presented to the project advisory committee, ESRC research project no. R000237768, University of Edinburgh

MORRIS, J 1997 Community Care: working in partnership with service users, Birmingham: Venture Press

MUNN, P [ed] 1993 Parents and Schools: Customers, Managers or Partners? London: Routledge

NSPCC 1999 You and the NSPCC: Together we can stop cruelty to children once and for all, London: NSPCC

SAVITZKY, F 1999 Involving parents, carers and the community in schools, London: Southwark College

SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY & SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 1999 Partnership for Scotland: An Agreement for the First Scottish Parliament, Glasgow: New Labour

SCOTTISH OFFICE 1998a Parents as Partners, EPA/UK Presidency Conference, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office

SCOTTISH OFFICE 1998b The Scottish Compact: the principles underpinning the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector in Scotland, Cm 4083, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office

SCOTTISH OFFICE 1998c A Manual of Good Practice in Special Educational Needs, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office

SCOTTISH OFFICE 1999 A Partnership for Scotland, Edinburgh: SO

SCOTTISH OFFICE EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT 1998 Guidance on the Planning of Pre-School Education and Childcare and the Establishment of Childcare Partnerships, Edinburgh: SOEID

STEVENS, J 1998 Is you brand image people-based? in T Nash [ed] Partnerships with People: improving business performance through your people, London: Director Publications Ltd

UNITED NATIONS 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Brussels: United Nations

WILLOW, C 1996 Children’s Rights in Residential Care, London: National Children’s Bureau

WOLFENDALE, S 1983 Parental Participation in Children’s Development and Education, London: Gordon and Breach

WOLFENDALE, S [ed] 1989 Parental Involvement: Developing Networks Between School, Home and Community, London: Cassell

WOLFENDALE, S [ed] 1997 Partnership with Parents in Action, Tamworth: NASEN

WOLFENDALE, S & COOK, G 1997 Evaluation of Special Educational Needs Parent Partnership Schemes, DfEE Research Report No 34, Sudbury: DfEE

WOLFENDALE, S and TOPPING, K [eds] 1996 Family Involvement in Literacy: Effective Partnerships in Education, London: Cassell

This document was added to the Education-line database on 27 March 2000