Co-design: Repositioning expertise in policy making. Jade Maloney & Amanda Reeves

Transcription

1 Co-design: Repositioning expertise in policy making Jade Maloney & Amanda Reeves MSoG Conference, 16 February 2018

2 Use of co-design is increasing In much the same way that companies like LEGO get consumers to help design their products, governments can enlist citizens to improve the design of their programs to achieve effective, sustainable and citizen-focused results. Chris Eccles, Secretary, Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet

3 What is co-design?

4 What makes real co-design Starts from the ground up with deep consideration of the problem Engages people with first-hand experience of the problem in designing solutions Works to creatively develop solutions that respond to users needs Is an iterative process of prototyping, testing and refining

5 Use a range of processes

6 Journey mapping Source:

7 Customer personas Source:

8 So where are the experts?

9 A different understanding Co-design does not represent the rejection of expertise but the reimaging repositioning, and redistribution of what constitutes expertise

10 What about professional expertise?

11 Expertise in the traditional sense can play a key role Professional knowledge and expertise is drawn on in the co-design process It is brought in to refine the model developed by users in line evidence and what will work practically. In some cases the they might be involved in the design iterations.

12 Putting it into practice: Developing a strategy for improving outcomes for autistic students

13 Strategy development We undertook a literature and policy scan then involved key stakeholders in an iterative process. Scoping interviews to identify root causes of negative education and wellbeing outcomes and priorities for intervention. Workshop 1: Refine the root cause analysis to ensure representative of all perspectives; agree on priorities for intervention; develop logic models for interventions Workshop 2: Agree on refined root cause analysis; refine the logic models and agree on overall model; develop outcomes framework Finalise outcomes framework; ensure alignment with Inquiry into services for people with Autism Spectrum Disorder

14 Mask difficulties & stress Targeted funding eligibility criteria not based on functional need Need not visible Autistic students with functional need may not receive funded support Autistic students with functional need ineligible for funding at transition Insufficient support, esp. with mental health issues Schools lack understanding of & resourcing for positive behaviour support Families lack understanding of appropriate strategies in school environment Sensory processing sensitivities Need environmental sameness Need set routine Difficulties communicating Restrictive interests Difficulties relating socially Autism diagnosis is changing Autistic people are unique; males & females may present differently Comorbid conditions Families choose more inclusive option System & built enviro Standardised performance measurement Leaders & teachers Social enviro Transitions are difficult Built environment too loud, light, overwhelming Contemporary education approaches (inquiry-based learning; group work) Difficulties intuitively relating to autistic student Lack of common language School staff lack understanding of autism & comorbidities Not all schools are inclusive Concentration of students with disability in certain schools Resource limitations: time, specialist support; competing priorities Parentschool relations Parents struggle to come to terms with child s diagnosis Communities lack understanding, have different cultural understandings or negative attitudes Autism traits Transitions not effectively managed Have difficulty following lesson Not confident asking for help Difference is not celebrated Autistic students &/or their parents not confident to disclose Lack of whole school approach Lack of access to lived experience Lack of access to ongoing support Lack of knowledge of what is available Competing priorities take precedence Limited accountability for outputs & outcomes Other students face issues at different developmental stages Expectation student will fit system Autistic people shaping new understanding & strategies Difficulty relating to parent Autistic parent Autistic students stressed & distressed Other students exclude or bully Lack of flexible options Low executive functioning; splinter skills Policy does not specify best practice Teachers lack strategies to meet needs of autistic students Limited or tense home school dialogue Family advocacy perceived as adversarial Parent used to having to fight Limited focus on measuring what works Autistic students lack opportunity to connect with their tribe Challenging behaviours Increased repetitive behaviours Difficulty with conventional assessments Student misunderstood as lazy/ not trying PLP goals not targeted at underlying need Families do not know their rights Mask difficulties & stress Don t feel a sense of belonging Low expectations Lack evidence about how best to use ESs; lack of training ESs Families value oneto-one models Tension between families and school Punitive response Appropriate adjustments not made Increased segregation or lost learning opportunities High use of ESs as support strategy Limited ability to build best practice Autistic students experience poorer education and wellbeing outcomes Limited capacity for learning; Anxiety, depression; Disengagem ent, school refusal; suspension, expulsion, home schooling Poor postschool transitions to further education and employment

15 From problem to solution Add new model

16 Evaluation framework Outcome Attribute of success Indicators Method/ data source

17 Contact Jade Maloney Partner