The lab would report to a multi-agency meeting two
months after their first meeting.
Setting up the learning lab
The learning lab was located in a geographical area
where there was a history of professionals working together, a school
pyramid in Ipswich. A pyramid is an upper school and a number of feeder
primary schools in a discrete geographical patch. This had the advantage
of an obvious constituency for a lab; for example the health visitor,
social worker, educational welfare officer etc. A children’s manager in
Social Services made the initial contacts. It was decided that members
should be frontline staff. People were approached directly enabling the
lab to be set up quickly. However it did mean that occasionally managers
had not been consulted in the process. This led to irritation in one case.
"My manager did not like the fact that somebody had come to me as a
floor level worker. They did not know what this learning lab was all
about. There may have been a way of doing it that was better, involving
her first".
Some people got time off to participate in the lab,
but a large minority did not and fitted it into other work commitments.
"I fitted it in on top of my workload. I felt it was important in my
wider role and an important piece of work". ‘Time off for the lab’
is an important concept underpinning learning labs but in inter-agency
work it is difficult to impose the same rules and commitments on every
agency.
Absence of managers in this lab was seen by all
participants as a good thing allowing people to speak freely and
highlighted to participants that it was their opinion, which counted.
How the learning lab worked
The lab met in the upper school as five, two hour
sessions over a period of seven weeks. It was a tight time frame but this
had advantages. The finite nature of the task focused minds. "It was
a short time focus so we knew it would not drift on and on". At the
first meeting participants suggested that probation and drugs workers
should be invited which subsequently happened. The first session included
the development of ground rules. These dealt with issues of equality,
sharing the air time, etc.. To encourage a wide debate about the issues,
the facilitator did not work directly with the framework document. Instead
he asked the questions "What helps assessment of children? What does
not help?" That gave the raw data and work started from there.
The participants found the facilitation essential.
"The facilitator is independent yet knows Social Services well and we
felt reassured that what we were doing was not a waste of time". The
facilitator kept participants informed. "He made notes and they came
back to us before the next session". The facilitator himself
emphasised the importance of supervision for himself. "Working with a
large disparate group of people is stressful and debriefing is essential
to keep the momentum".
As part of the work of the lab, members hit on the
idea of working in pairs and spending half a day in the other person’s
workplace. Without exception members found this experience valuable and
revealing. "We had a day in the life of. That was a powerful thing to
do". Some participants organised this time without managerial consent
working into their own time. "I took that day out without consulting
my manager. Yes. It felt very empowering. I did my paperwork in the
evening".
The lab agreed a report and participants were
concerned that the ideas in the report should not be swept aside with the
implementation of the guidelines and the training. The manager who had set
up the lab was asked to attend a final session, held three months later to
discuss what was being done as a result of the report.
Barriers and problems
The speed of setting up meant that some group
members did not arrive until session two or three. There were other issues
about attendance. Some people were more committed than others. One member
suggested a radical solution. "If you can only attend three times out
of six, don’t come".
Some lab members had to listen to criticism of their
agency. Despite feelings of anger and disillusionment this was overcome.
"You have to see it is the system and not you personally".
A serious problem was lack of interest and support
from some managers. The membership included a wide range of organisations
and understanding and commitment to the concept differed widely. Some
members found it best to keep a low profile on the issue. It was
disappointing for some participants not to be able to share their work
with colleagues. "I think what we did was really important and
valuable but in my agency they are not really interested".
The impact on staff
Participants were generally full of praise for the
experience of working in this learning lab. "Brilliant",
"enabling", "a powerful experience", "It was a
learning process for us". One of the major benefits of this learning
lab was inter-agency networking. "It is easier to work in a
multi-disciplinary way if you know people face to face". Participants
also appreciated the space for thinking through issues central to their
work.
Achievements of the Learning
Lab
The report suggested that the future of the
assessment framework should be based on school pyramids and professionals
within the school pyramids should be encouraged to work together even more
closely than at present. Phase three of the training for the new
assessment framework, is going to take place in the context of school
pyramids as a result of this report. There were also a number of practical
recommendations for training, especially the point that it should be
available to a range of agencies. A disappointment was the process of
reporting back to the original multi-agency commissioning group, which
included a wide range of senior managers from all the agencies.
Participants suggested that some managers in the multi-agency group did
not understand their work or value the report.
Contacts for further information
Debra Lawrence
County Hall
Emergency Plans Department
St Helens Street
IPSWICH
Suffolk
IP4 QJS
01473 584141
Debra.Lawrence@secsolr.suffolkcc.gov.uk
Last Updated: 05/2002
