Summary of the follow-through
evaluation of the educational
psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
Aberdeen City Council
14 December 2010
Page
1.
The inspection
1
2.
Continuous improvement
1
3.
Progress towards meeting the main points for action
2
4.
Conclusion
3
How can you contact us?
4
1. The inspection
HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) published a report on the inspection of
Aberdeen City Council in May 2007 which included an evaluation of Aberdeen City
Council Educational Psychology Service (EPS). Following the inspection the service
prepared an action plan indicating how they would address the main points for action
identified in the original HMIE inspection.
HM Inspectors (HMI) revisited the service in September 2010 to assess the extent to
which the EPS was continuing to improve the quality of its work, and to evaluate
progress made in responding to the main points for action.
2. Continuous improvement
The service had continued to improve its practice in consultation and advice,
assessment, intervention, training, and research and strategic development. Staff
had placed an appropriate focus on the two main areas for improvement, training
and research. There were many positive examples of where the service had
continued to improve outcomes for children and young people at individual, school
and authority levels. For example, the training of teachers in Solution Oriented
Approaches (SOA), and Cognitive Behavioural Approaches, both designed to help
support vulnerable children and young people. Some of these initiatives had been
used creatively and were having a positive impact on children and young people.
The service continued to make positive contributions to the wider community by
contributing to national events. For example, successful presentations to the
National Conference for Educational Psychologists and to education service staff on
the use of SOA. Person Centred Planning (PCP) had also improved further and
some very good practice had been established in relation to reporting the outcomes
from PCP discussions. The service now had three Depute Principal Educational
Psychologists. The new posts had been well deployed to develop the management
areas of service improvement. Clear roles and responsibilities for all grades of staff
had been established which had resulted in better leadership across the service.
The service and Education Authority still needed to work together to embed the
service more effectively within the Education Authority to ensure that it added value
to the Council’s improvement agenda.
Features of good practice:
•
Reporting format for Person Centred Planning to help children and young
people engage more purposefully in their meetings.
1
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The original inspection noted that the service should improve its delivery of
professional development and training and research and strategic development
within the authority. They were also asked to further develop partnerships with
schools and with agencies which were external to the Council. In the area of
operational management it was noted that they needed to extend their procedures
for planning for improvement and to better monitor performance and outcomes. This
also involved consulting more widely with stakeholders.
Extend the role of the EPS in contributing to professional development and
training and to research and strategic development within the authority.
The service had made very good progress in these areas for improvement. A wide
range of training had been undertaken by the EPS since the last inspection. Much of
this had been delivered to schools and authority staff. The service was developing a
growing portfolio of training to other stakeholders such as the College Sector through
post school psychological service initiatives, with the health service in relation to
autistic spectrum disorders and other staff within the Council. Evaluations of the
quality of training were positive and a few had been shown to change practice and
improve outcomes for children and young people. Since the last inspection there
was now a clear plan for extending the role of the EPS in research and development.
The service had produced a clear strategy paper to guide the service in the delivery
of research, a research document for stakeholders and a planning sheet to ensure
that delivery of research to schools and other stakeholders was clearly focused on
impact and outcomes. High quality reports of research undertaken by the service
had also been produced. For example, Working on What Works with school staff to
improve classroom behaviour and relationships and Bright Start. This positive start
should now be developed more strategically to inform a wider audience.
Develop EPS partnerships with schools and with agencies which are external
to the Council.
The service had made good progress in improving partnerships with schools. The
service had successfully defined its role and responsibilities within schools and other
agencies which had resulted in improved service delivery. All schools now had a
Service Level Agreement and Review and Planning recording format which set out
more clearly the activity which the EP provided to the school over the year. A more
transparent time allocation to schools had also been developed. The service should
consider involving schools more in the development of any future time allocation
models. The EPS was now more involved in the Associated School Groups (ASGs)
and were beginning to think about how they could deliver a more strategic service to
these groups. They had also made a good start in improving partnerships with other
agencies. For example, staff were working with the speech and language therapy
(SALT) service to develop more appropriate assessment models for children and
young people with language and communication difficulties. The service had also
developed Service Level Agreements with SALT, Children’s Homes, schools and
other establishments. These positive partnerships should be further extended within
and outwith the local authority.
2
Extend the EPSs procedures for planning for improvement and monitoring
performance and outcomes.
The service had made a good start in improving its procedures for planning for
improvement and monitoring performance and outcomes. They had made progress
in setting up self-evaluation systems to help inform future service delivery, to identify
areas for improvement and to track and monitor patterns and trends in improvement.
These systems provided a good basis for future improvements. All staff were now
more involved in service planning and evaluation of service delivery. They were
clear about their role and responsibility in relation to continuous improvement.
Planning systems should continue to be improved in a more systematic way. The
service should use outcome data to measure trends over time.
Consult more widely with stakeholders as part of its quality assurance
arrangements including seeking their views on what works effectively and
what needs to be improved.
The service had begun to seek stakeholder views through the use of PCP with focus
groups of headteachers. This had provided useful information to improve service
delivery, for example, to the ASGs. They were now planning to seek young
people’s, parent’s/carer’s views and those of external stakeholders. They had also
developed consultation records and Review and Planning forms for schools which
allowed them to evaluate service delivery to schools at individual psychologist and
service levels. Evaluations of training and research also allowed the service to begin
to improve service delivery through better consultation with stakeholders.
4. Conclusion
Since the original inspection the EPS had made significant improvements in its
delivery of training and research. They had also significantly improved their service
delivery to schools and to other agencies. Whilst they had made important
improvements to planning and stakeholder engagement in continuous improvement,
there continued to be a need to develop these areas.
The EPS had made progress towards addressing the main points for action since the
original inspection. As a result, HMIE will make no further visits in connection with
the report of May 2007.
Dr Laura-Ann Currie
HM Inspector
14 December 2010
3
If you would like to find out more about our inspections or get an electronic copy of
this report, please go to www.hmie.gov.uk.
Please contact us if you want to know how to get the report in a different format, for
example, in a translation, or if you wish to comment about any aspect of our
inspections. You can contact us at HMIEenquiries@hmie.gsi.gov.uk or write to us at
BMCT, HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park,
Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Text phone users can contact us on 01506 600 236. This is a service for deaf users.
Please do not use this number for voice calls as the line will not connect you to a
member of staff.
You can find our complaints procedure on our website www.hmie.gov.uk or
alternatively you can contact our Complaints Manager, at the address above or by
telephoning 01506 600259.
Crown Copyright 2010
HM Inspectorate of Education
4