Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
Angus Council
13 October 2009
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
satisfactory
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?
3
5.
How good is the service’s management?
4
6.
How good is leadership?
5
Appendix 1 - Quality indicators
7
1. The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
Recommendation 20 of the Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in
Scotland (2002) charged HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), on behalf of the
Scottish Ministers, to provide an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Educational Psychology Service (EPS) in improving the impact and outcomes for
children, young people and families.
The inspection of Angus Council educational psychology provision was undertaken on
behalf of stakeholders. The evaluation of EPS was conducted within a framework of
quality indicators which embody the Government’s policy on Best Value. The inspection
team also included two Associate Assessors who are depute principal educational
psychologists (DPEP) serving in other Scottish local authorities.
This web-based report should be read alongside other strategic inspections of
Angus Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Angus Council EPS comprised one team based in Montrose Road Centre, Forfar.
At the time of the inspection, the complement of educational psychologists was 5.2
full-time equivalents (FTE). There were three unfilled posts. Promoted staff consisted
of a principal educational psychologist (PEP) who had been in post for over ten years
and two senior educational psychologists. There was also an assistant psychologist.
The service received administrative support from a central team.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The service had shown strong performance set against national, local authority and
EPS aims, objectives and targets. Their involvement in Intensive Support for Reading
had helped improve children’s literacy skills at the early stages across the authority.
Solution focused training had been rolled out across Angus and had improved the skills
of staff within Education Services. Similarly, their involvement in the authority’s More
Choices More Chances (MCMC) strategy had improved transition arrangements for
young people and resulted in better outcomes. They had also provided very effective
advice to the authority in relation to the implementation of the The Education (Additional
Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL) which had resulted in a comprehensive
authority-wide support for learning policy. The service now needed to align its
performance targets more directly with those of the authority, to build on its successes
and to have greater impact. This should include, for example, a focus on improving
outcomes for the lowest 20% and for looked after and accommodated children (LAAC).
The service had met the majority of its improvement targets over the last three years. It
was difficult to assess improvements over time due to a lack of robust outcome data.
The service should consider how to measure itself against appropriate comparative data
so that it can better demonstrate continuous improvement.
1
The service complied very well with legislation and was responsive to guidance and
codes of practice. Robust financial procedures for monitoring and regulating their
budget were in place.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
Children and young people had appropriate access to a range of psychological
services. Service literature was easily accessible and had been produced in
consultation with young people. Particularly good work was being done with young
people at transition from school to post-school destinations. The young people involved
reported very positively about their engagement with the service and how it had helped
them in their future career. There had been insufficient focus on targeted work for the
lowest 20% and for vulnerable groups of children and young people. This group
includes LAAC, Gypsy/Traveller children, youth offenders, and children and young
people with English as an additional language. Parents and carers reported that they
were treated with respect and dignity and that educational psychologists (EPs) worked
well with them to help their children. Parents and carers consistently reported that they
felt supported and listened to by EPs. Schools were generally well supported by the
EPS, although this had been compromised in the last year because of shortages in
staffing. They were involved in supporting individual children, groups of young people
and their parents and carers, and in the training of teachers and support staff at school
and authority levels. This quality of service was more variable with support services
and community providers. Some of the work delivered by the service had impacted on
wider developments within the authority and Council such as the training of staff in
solution focused approaches and the development of transition passports for young
people leaving school. The service should disseminate more of this innovative practice
to impact beyond the service and authority.
All EPS staff felt that they were very well supported by service managers. They were
able to participate in a wide range of professional development opportunities which
allowed them to improve the quality of their service delivery. Support and supervision
was regular and systematic with an appropriate level of challenge. All staff felt that their
views were valued and that they were able to make positive contributions to service
development. All EPs were involved effectively in working groups and were actively
engaged in developing new working practices. Opportunities for chairing working
groups in the service and with other partners enabled all staff to develop leadership
roles and skills.
2
Features of Good Practice: Transition Passports for children and young
people leaving school:
The purpose of the Passport is to help prepare all school leavers for transition, to
help avoid duplication of form filling for school staff and to create consistency of
information to post-school providers. The main part of the Passport is completed
by the young person with guidance from school staff, a summary is added by the
guidance teacher and both parties then sign the document. Following a
successful pilot in two secondary schools the Passport has now been rolled out to
all secondary schools in Angus.
More detailed report is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS provided a broad and appropriate range of services to schools in the areas of
consultation and advice, assessment, intervention, training and research. Almost all
key stakeholders valued the service’s advice and consultation and felt that it enabled
them to improve their delivery of service to children and young people. For example,
the principal educational psychologist’s chairing of and advice to the Fostering and
Adoption Panel was highly valued. Assessment strategies were sound and resulted in
some effective intervention strategies. Clear advice about assessment was accessible
on the EPS website. The service had been involved in a few very effective training
initiatives which had been rolled out across the authority. For example, a Baby Signing
class had been developed for parents who had children with Downs Syndrome. This
had been very successful and resulted in two key members of staff being trained in
Makaton. Similarly, senior pupils in two secondary schools received high quality input
on buddy training which allowed them to successfully support younger pupils in S1. The
EPS should consider how it can empower others to continue to develop similar projects
to allow it to build capacity within the authority and add to its portfolio of training. Not all
service delivery had been systematically reviewed and there was not always sufficient
involvement with other partner providers to clearly define roles and responsibilities.
3
Features of good practice: Baby Signing:
To assist parents to communicate with their children who had Downs Syndrome.
The Baby Signing Group was put together to support and enhance the
communication between parents/carers and their infants by teaching key word
signs. Each session consisted of learning time for both adults and children,
entertainment for children and a talking time for adults. A typical session involved:
•
Greetings
•
Action songs accompanied by sign
•
Practice of previously taught signs and introduction of new signs
•
Snack
•
Free play (supervised) for children
•
Talk time for adults with professionals on hand to answer questions.
All of the parents participating reported positively about their improved
ability to communicate with their children.
Buddy Project:
A programme to teach senior pupils the skills involved in buddying S1 pupils to
help them be more included during their transition from primary to secondary
school.
Buddy Training had been undertaken with senior pupils in one Angus secondary
school for several years, and more recently in one other. The programme aimed
to develop the necessary skills to undertake the role of ‘buddy’ or peer supporter
to new first year pupils and in doing so, promote positive transitions, and aid
inclusion. For the senior pupils undertaking the training (around 80 each year), it
provided the opportunity for them to develop confidence, increase their social
skills and to be more effective citizens.
More detailed report is available at www.hmie.gov.uk
5. How good is the service’s management?
The EPS had an appropriate range of policies in place and good arrangements for
developing and updating them. There was a strong history of development planning
within the service with regular monitoring of objectives and triennial reviews resulting in
a standards and quality report. However, there is a need to have clearer and more
direct links between the targets set in the EPS plan with those of the Educational
4
Service’s Plan. The EPS was at the early stages of involving the full range of
stakeholders in the development of the service. Stakeholder participation and
communication now needs to be taken forward more systematically and the results of
consultation implemented more quickly. The service had developed some effective
partnerships with stakeholders. However, there was still a need to define more clearly
the roles and responsibilities of key partners with those of the educational psychologist
to ensure best value.
6. How good is leadership?
The PEP provided strong leadership and direction through, for example, the setting of
key priorities which matched the vision, values and aims of the service. The service
was beginning to be more involved in strategic development. This included involvement
in groups such as the Joint Action Group (JAGs) designed to take forward the
Integrated Children’s Service’s Plan. The majority of targets were achievable and
produced sustainable change and improvements. This should be built on to ensure a
clearer alignment with key authority objectives, particularly in relation to raising
attainment of vulnerable groups. Senior education officers should ensure that EPS
objectives add value to the wider support services offered within the authority. The PEP
and senior education officers had taken positive action to improve recruitment and
retention of educational psychologists. The PEP had been very successful in
encouraging staff to engage in innovative practice which had impacted on wider
authority developments. For example, the services offered by the post-school
psychological service had been integrated into the authority’s MCMC strategy. His
personal and professional skills were highly valued by staff in the service and within the
authority. The two senior psychologists ably assisted the PEP in ensuring that service
priorities were met and that the service continued to make improvements. All EPs
demonstrated strong leadership roles which had improved service delivery. For
example, they were involved in sector working groups which were successful in
developing new practice and improving current services.
The EPS has shown that it has the capacity to continue to improve. Changes in the
management of the EPS and the imminent retirement of other key post holders will
impact on the future direction of the service. Senior education officers in partnership
with the EPS should ensure that the service continues to add value to the priorities of
the Council.
5
Key strengths
•
The leadership of the PEP in supporting staff in developing innovative and
creative practice.
•
The involvement of staff in continuous improvement of their professional practice
and the service.
•
The commitment of staff to delivering high quality services to schools.
•
The high quality consultation and advice provided to schools and service
managers.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
Improve the involvement of stakeholders in service development and continue to
improve partnership working with a wider range of partners.
•
Improve partnership working with support services and the local community to
ensure best value.
•
Develop more effective ways of monitoring performance and outcomes to
support continuous improvement.
•
Disseminate good practice to have a greater impact on the wider community.
As a result of the good performance 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.
Dr Laura-Ann Currie
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
13 October 2009
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
good
good
very good
good
satisfactory
very good
good
good
good
good
good
good
weak
good
good
good
very good
7
How can you contact us?
HMIE has responsibilities to evaluate the quality of pre-school education, all schools,
teacher education, community learning and development, colleges and local authorities.
We also publish reports of interest to the public and professionals about services for
children and evaluate child protection services. From this extensive evidence we are
able to give the professional advice needed to support the development of educational
policy.
For more information about the work of HMIE, including examples of good practice and
links to Journey to Excellence, please visit our website at www.hmie.gov.uk.
To find out more about inspections go to www.hmie.gov.uk. Please contact the
Business Management and Communications Team if you require any of our information
available in translated or other appropriate versions.
If you wish to comment about any of our inspections, contact us
at HMIEenquiries@hmie.gsi.gov.uk or alternatively you should write in the first instance
to BMCT, HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park,
Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure is available from our website www.hmie.gov.uk or
alternatively you can write to our Complaints Manager, at the address above or by
telephoning 01506 600259.
If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken at the end of our complaints
procedure, you can raise a 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 email ask@spso.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can
be obtained from the website www.spso.org.uk.
Want to join us?
In addition to HMI, inspection teams often include people who are not HMI but are
involved directly in education. They are called Associate Assessors and most work in
community learning and development. Most inspection teams also include a member of
the public called a Lay Member. More information about how you can become an
Associate Assessor or Lay Member is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
Crown Copyright 2009
HM Inspectorate of Education
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 learners 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 departments 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