Roger Kline
In last week's special report for Guardian Public, Peter Gilroy, Kent's chief executive, sets out the "challenge to create inspiration". Staff in some parts of Kent's children's services might be forgiven for thinking they live in a parallel universe.
Peter challenges councils to introduce change that "is not about top-slicing but about re-thinking the way in which we can transform key public services with a clear vision."
In his own authority in the garden of England, local headteachers and education improvement staff are in uproar at plans Peter has approved, whose development, rationale and implementation appear diametrically opposed to the vision he claims to espouse.
The cuts to Kent's schools education improvement service are precisely the sort of top slicing his article rightly denounces. They are widely regarded as being retrograde with damaging consequences for children in a county whose education system (dominated by the 11+) is under more scrutiny than most.
Peter further claims that "morale will stay reasonably stable, if senior management and politicians are clear about their vision and what they are trying to achieve against reduced expenditure. The bywords here are innovation and inspiration."
Minimum statutory responsibilities
Kent's "rationale" for slashing its schools education improvement service, decimating its subject specialists and other functions appears to many to be a wish list, providing no explanation as to why, or how, what remains of the service can possibly deliver the revised goals, or even arguably meet its minimum statutory responsibilities to promote the highest possible standards in education.
Staff feel they are between a rock and a hard place - redundancy or a job starved of resources and focus. There is no clarity of vision, only despair; no inspiration, only demoralisation.
When staff sought to influence the proposals before they were announced, they were ignored. Now they are told that neither the budget cut, nor the structure, is open to discussion, only asked "how to make it work".
Moreover, the statutory obligation to equality impact assess the proposals to slash the education improvement service, change the services for disabled children and "mainstream" the service for unaccompanied asylum seeking children, may well have been breached, which is why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to ask the council for information about its plans.
As a social worker, Peter may himself query the absence of an impact assessment on the latter proposals.
Some of Peter's principles are welcome, but his own council appears unaware of them. Even at this late stage, I would like to invite him or his successor to meet myself and some of those who provide and use these services, so he can understand the strength of feeling which the breach of those principles has caused, and perhaps start to reconsider them in the best interests of local children.
Roger Kline works for Aspect, the children's service trade union
From Flip Chart Fairy Tales
From Bubb's Blog
Comments
There are no comments yet for this article.