Inspection of the education
functions of local authorities
Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
Aberdeenshire Council
11 March 2008
Definition of terms used in this report
HM Inspectors use published criteria when making evaluations. They are published as quality
indicators which relate evaluations to six levels. HMIE began using a six-point scale to make
evaluations in August 2005. The table below shows how the six-point scale relates to the
four-point scale that we used previously.
Old Level
Very good
Good
New Level
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Unsatisfactory
Adequate
Weak
Unsatisfactory
Description
Outstanding, sector leading
Major strengths
Important strengths with some areas for
improvement
Strengths just outweigh weaknesses
Important weaknesses
Major weaknesses
This report also uses the following words to describe numbers and proportions:
almost all
most
majority
less than half
few
over 90%
75-90%
50-74%
15-49%
up to 15%
Contents
Page
1.
The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
1
2.
What key outcomes has the service achieved?
1
3.
How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
2
4.
How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
2
5.
How good is the service’s management?
3
6.
How good is leadership?
4
Appendix 1 - Quality indicators
7
1. The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
The education functions of each local authority in Scotland were inspected between
2000 and 2005. A second cycle of inspections began in 2006 which incorporates an evaluation
of educational psychology services. Section 9 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act
2000 charges HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, to
provide an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the local authority in its quality assurance
of educational provision within the Council and of its support to schools in improving quality.
The inspection of Aberdeenshire Council included the evaluation of the quality of educational
psychology provision on behalf of stakeholders. The evaluation of educational psychology
services are conducted within a framework of quality indicators which embody the
Government’s policy on Best Value. The inspection team also included an Associate Assessor
who was a principal educational psychologist serving in another Scottish local authority.
This web-based report should be read alongside the report on the inspection of the education
functions of Aberdeenshire Council which sets out the wider context in which educational
psychology services are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Aberdeenshire Educational Psychology Service (EPS) comprised one team with three main
Area Offices in Kintore, Fraserburgh, and Stonehaven. The principal educational psychologist
(PEP) was based in the Education, Learning and Leisure Service’s office, Aberdeen. At the time
of the inspection, the complement of educational psychologists was 19.8 full-time equivalents
(FTE). Promoted staff consisted of a PEP, three depute principal educational psychologist
(DPEP) and three senior educational psychologist practitioners. In addition, there were two
assistant psychologists and six and a half FTE administrative support staff.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS was able to demonstrate good impact in relation to authority and service targets. It
had made effective contributions to the authority’s strategic plan which had impacted positively
on children and young people. For example, the EPS had played a significant role in the
implementation of The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL)
and in the writing of the authority’s strategic policy and guidelines: Supporting Learning in
Aberdeenshire: Pathways to Policy. It had also been key partners in the development of the
Council’s policies on Child Protection, the Integrated Assessment Framework and the Autism
Strategy. The service had contributed significantly to reducing exclusions within special schools
as a result of direct work within this sector. Almost all targets set within the EPS development
plan for 2003-2007 had been successfully completed or over taken.
The EPS had not yet made effective use of data to measure trends over time. They had made
some very positive steps in collecting evidence from stakeholder evaluations and focus groups to
demonstrate improvements in some areas of service delivery. For example, the new supporting
paper work for consultation with schools now allowed the service to evaluate the impact of
1
individual psychologist’s service to schools. The same information was not available for other
key areas of service delivery.
Educational psychologists across the service demonstrated very good knowledge and
understanding of relevant statutory requirements. The service systematically complied with
appropriate guidance and legislation. The EPS Service Handbook was a very good resource to
assist all staff in fulfilling their statutory duties.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The EPS was very good at meeting the needs of its key stakeholders. Children and young people
were consulted about the service they received and reported positively on their involvement. A
strategy, known as person centred planning was used effectively with individual pupils to
enhance learning and with groups of young people to inform future service delivery. The service
had not yet developed sufficient focus on the lowest attaining 20% of children and young people.
Most parents, carers and families were pleased with the service they received. However, a few
parents expressed concerns about how to contact the service, despite the availability of very good
service leaflets and web-based information for parents.
Services to schools and the authority were regarded by staff as very good. Most school staff felt
the range of services provided were very good and liked the consultation model. A quarter felt
that they would like more individual assessment to help inform their intervention strategies with
individual pupils. The service was aware of this need and had made very good progress in the
development of dynamic assessment methods to address this concern.
All staff within the service felt valued and supported. EPS staff worked well in service
development teams taking on responsibilities to ensure service priorities were met. All
psychologists were highly motivated and participated in a wide range of personal development
opportunities which improved their skills and knowledge. The roll out of training in dynamic
assessment was a particularly good example of staff working together to improve their
professional skills in order to provide a better service for their stakeholders. Administrative staff
were integrated fully into service planning and developments and were equally motivated to
develop their skills. For example, they produced a very good Administration Handbook which
ensured consistency in the application of administrative procedures across area teams.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS had developed a very good consultation model to deliver the key services of
assessment, intervention, staff development and research. The model was beginning to impact
positively on outcomes for children and young people. For example, teachers for additional
support needs reported that the advice they received from consultation with their psychologist in
school had improved outcomes for pupils with literacy difficulties. The relationship between
consultation, assessment and intervention was not fully understood by all stakeholders.
To enhance the delivery of assessment and intervention, the EPS had begun to develop skills in
dynamic assessment and instrumental enrichment. One main grade psychologist had been
2
trained to an advanced level in instrumental enrichment and was beginning to train a larger
number of educational psychology staff. The few schools that had experienced the use of these
specialist approaches reported a greater understanding of pupils’ difficulties, leading to the use of
more appropriate learning and teaching strategies.
Training and research were good. For example, the principles of person centred planning were
used to help the authority Inclusion Group arrive at a common vision and plan for future
multi-agency developments. The service had also used its research skills to provide schools with
information on its website about thinking skills and how children learn. A few schools indicated
that they would have liked more training and research and some schools said they were unaware
that these services were available. The EPS had begun to discuss with schools how training and
research could be more effectively delivered. There was insufficient training provided by the
service for parents, carers and families, particularly at the early years stages. At a wider
community level the service was beginning to share good practice. For example, the service had
made a number of interesting presentations at the national conference for Scottish educational
psychologists.
The service had developed very good systems and procedures to ensure equality and fairness and
these were well embedded within the service’s ethos and culture.
Features of Good Practice: Consultation
The Consultation approach is based on the principle that those who are best placed to
implement an intervention are involved in its development. The approach draws on
solution focused, person centred planning, appreciative enquiry and cognitive behavioural
principles. Although the approach is most often used to support learning and teaching, it
can also be used in other contexts such as strategic planning at an authority level.
More detailed report is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
5. How good is the service’s management?
Service policies linked well with the vision, values and aims of the service and were coherent
with council wide policy. They were well managed, evaluated and updated. The range and
appropriateness of policies were very good.
Stakeholders were widely consulted using a range of approaches. For example, focus groups
were used to obtain partner agency views about specific aspects of service delivery. A
successful stakeholder event was held to share the service’s vision and to seek views about the
service development plan. Questionnaires had recently been sent out to all key stakeholders to
provide a benchmark for the service to establish improvements in service delivery. Children and
young people were routinely consulted about the services they received from their educational
psychologist. The new paper work for recording work with schools now allowed the service to
seek stakeholder views about the impact of individual services provided by educational
psychologists. A few partner agencies were unclear about the role of the EPS leading to
unrealistic expectations of the service.
3
Feedback from stakeholders had positively impacted on service developments. For example, in
the service’s development plan for 2007-2010 there was an increased focus on research and staff
development in response to stakeholder evaluations. The service had also established a cross
service working group to develop and enhance their assessment role. The service’s standards
and quality report was clear and evaluative. It needed to be more widely distributed. The senior
management had prepared good operational plans to shape the future direction of the service.
They had also formed working groups within the service to ensure that action plans were taken
forward timeously. The PEP and DPEP monitored progress of development objectives and kept
staff informed at full staff meetings. Criteria for success were not sufficiently focused on
outcomes and impact impairing the ability of the service to effectively measure improvements in
performance.
6. How good is leadership?
The leadership of the service was very good. The PEP set a clear agenda for change and linked
very effectively with the authority to increase the impact of the service. For example, the PEP
had ensured that the service was well represented on appropriate authority and council working
groups such as, the Integrated Assessment Framework and the Pathways to Autism groups. The
PEP’s personal and professional contribution to authority strategy was regarded highly by
educational management.
The three depute educational psychologists had a significant impact on service delivery at
strategic and operational levels. For example, they managed the area teams and provided vision
and direction to team members. They also worked well together with the PEP to influence the
future direction of the service. All members of the service demonstrated a strong commitment to
continuous improvement. Recent changes to service review and function had led to
improvements in strategy planning and communication. Data to evaluate service impact and
outcomes over time were not used efficiently and were not sufficiently embedded within normal
service activity. The PEP had made good progress in securing future staff members through the
appointment of assistant psychologist’s posts, and providing placements for educational
psychologists in training. All staff demonstrated leadership in relation to their specific remits
within the service. For example, main grade educational psychology practitioners chaired cross
service working groups on a rotational basis. Senior practitioners represented the EPS at
multi-agency working groups and authority strategy groups. Senior managers encouraged staff
creativity and innovation through effective support and challenge. For example, through staff
review and development interviews and in area team meetings, educational psychology
practitioners were encouraged to develop new skills such as narrative therapy, dynamic
assessment and person centred planning. Senior managers encouraged the sharing of good
practice within and across area teams. This increased the capacity of the service to deliver a
wider and higher quality of services across Aberdeenshire. The service was now at the stage of
sharing their practice more widely.
4
Features of Good Practice: Distributive leadership to support change and
improvement
The Educational Psychology Service has placed considerable emphasis on developing
distributive leadership. All grades of psychologists are involved in authority and service
developments. Administrative staff also make significant contributions to the
improvement of documentation and procedures. The overall result is an ethos in which all
staff take responsibility for the continuous improvement of the service.
More detailed information is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
5
Key strengths
The service had:
•
Developed a strong culture of continuous improvement across all team members.
•
Developed very effective leadership across all grades of educational psychology and
administrative posts.
•
Demonstrated successfully their ability to effect transformational change in challenging
situations.
•
Provided the educational authority with high quality advice, intervention, training and
research.
•
Developed innovative approaches to service delivery through its consultation model.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
Develop a more robust and systematic way of collecting data so that it can measure the
impact of its services over time.
•
Develop more formal relationships with partners and engage them more in service planning.
•
Develop a greater range of services to parents, families and children particularly at the early
year’s stages.
As a result of the very high performance, and the very effective leadership of this service, HM
Inspectors will make no further reports in connection with this inspection. The service and the
education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address
the main findings of the report.
Annette Bruton
HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
March 2008
6
Appendix 1
Quality Indicator
Improvements in performance
Fulfilment of statutory duties
Impact on children and young people
Impact on parents, carers and families
Impact on staff
Impact on the local community
Impact on the wider community
Consultation and advice
Assessment
Intervention
Provision of professional development and training for
other groups including parents, teachers and health
professionals
Research and strategic development
Inclusion, equality and fairness
Policy development and review
Participation of stakeholders
Operational planning
Partnership working
Leadership and direction
Leadership of change and improvement
Evaluation
Good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Good
Very good
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Good
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
7
How can you contact us?
HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of education authority inspections you should
write in the first instance to Annette Bruton, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education,
Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to our
Complaints Manager, HMIE Business Management and Communications Team, Second
Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston,
EH54 6GA. You can also e-mail HMIEComplaints@hmie.gsi.gov.uk. A copy of our
complaints procedure is available from this office, by telephoning 01506 600 200 or from
our website at www.hmie.gov.uk.
If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken at the end of our complaints procedure,
you can raise your complaint with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). The
SPSO is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government
departments and agencies. You should write to the SPSO, Freepost EH641, Edinburgh
EH3 0BR. You can also telephone 0800 377 7330 (fax 0800 377 7331) or e-mail:
ask@spso.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from
the website: www.spso.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2008
HM Inspectorate of Education
This report may be reproduced in whole or in part, except for commercial purposes or in
connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and date thereof are
stated.
The work of HM Inspectorate of Education
HM Inspectors undertake first-hand, independent evaluations of the quality of education. We
publish our evaluation in clear and concise reports. Our inspections and reviews report on the
establishment’s pursuit of continuous improvement through the process of self-evaluation.
We ensure that inspection and review activities include the full range of pupils, students and
participants in an educational establishment, giving due regard, without unfair discrimination,
to disability awareness, equality and inclusion, child protection and racial equality.
Each year we also investigate and publish reports on key aspects of education. Our collation,
analysis and publication of the evidence and conclusions from all evaluations identify and
promote best practice in continuous improvement. We draw on the results of our evaluations,
and our overall knowledge of the system, to provide independent professional advice to the
Scottish Ministers, relevant directorates of the Scottish Government and others.
Further information on the work of HM Inspectorate of Education and its role in Scottish
education is available on our website. You will also find easy access to our inspection and
review reports and wide range of other publications.
http://www.hmie.gov.uk