Inspection of the education
functions of local authorities
Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
East Lothian Council
06 July 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?
2
5.
How good is the service’s management?
3
6.
How good is leadership?
3
Appendix 1 - Quality indicators
6
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 East Lothian 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 an Associate Assessor who was a principal
educational psychologist (PEP) serving in another Scottish local authority.
This web-based report should be read alongside other strategic inspections of
East Lothian Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The East Lothian Council EPS was based in John Muir House, Haddington. At the time
of the inspection, the complement of educational psychologists was 6.45 full-time
equivalents (FTE). There were 1.55 FTE unfilled vacancies. Promoted staff consisted
of a principal educational psychologist (PEP) and one senior educational psychologist
(EP). There was also an assistant psychologist. The service received administrative
support from a central team.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS had some involvement in wider developments within the authority. However,
a combination of staffing shortages and changes in the line management of the PEP
had limited the range of services it provided and reduced their impact. The Department
of Education and Children’s Services was addressing these issues by recruiting staff
and strengthening arrangements to support the development of the service. Staff in the
EPS demonstrated appropriate knowledge and understanding of relevant statutory
requirements. The EPS complied with appropriate guidance and legislation.
The EPS had made limited impact on improving outcomes to support the wider needs of
children and young people across the authority. However, it had made some valuable
contributions, particularly to young people with significant additional support needs,
through targetted projects and initiatives. These included its work on staged
assessment and intervention and its involvement in developing the authority’s Learning
and Teaching policy. It had developed helpful ‘transition passports’ to support young
people with additional support needs. The EPS was engaged in a number of strategic
initiatives as a result of its membership of working groups within the authority. The EPS
sought feedback from service users, including end of session evaluations from schools.
However, it did not use these to systematically evaluate its impact or inform service
improvement planning. The service made limited use of data to measure trends over
time.
1
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The EPS made a positive impact on young people with significant additional support
needs identified through the council’s assessment and planning framework and on their
parents. This was particularly true for those who attended special classes and units.
The service now needed to extend its impact to a wider range of pupils, for example,
those in the lowest achieving 20%. Young people moving between sectors, including
those moving from school to further education, were helped by EPS involvement in
planning. Not all parents who were users of the EPS were aware of literature explaining
its work and a significant number of them were unclear about the role of the educational
psychologist.
The EPS had developed effective partnership working with external agencies including
health and careers. This was having a positive impact on children and their families, for
example, through the work of the service on joint training initiatives, person-centred
planning and the Early Years Community Assessment Team (EYCAT). However, there
was a need to develop more effective partnerships with schools and centrally-deployed
staff. In particular there was a need to make clear the allocation of EPS time to schools
and clusters and clarify the service’s roles and remits. The service encouraged and
supported innovation and could demonstrate a range of professional initiatives that had
impacted positively beyond the service.
Staff in the EPS reported positively on their engagement in service developments and
felt well-supported by promoted staff and peers. All staff felt that they had very good
access to continuous professional development (CPD). However, almost all staff felt
that the impact of their work on meeting the authority’s identified priorities was too
narrow.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS was delivering a variety of services in relation to consultation and advice,
assessment, intervention and professional development and training. Educational
psychologists had a central role in assessment through EYCAT. This made a positive
contribution to multi-agency planning for vulnerable pre-school aged children. The
effective consultation practices which the service had in place required to be extended
to have greater impact on service delivery beyond individual casework. Research and
strategic development had resulted in the production of helpful documentation, for
example, on setting and streaming within secondary schools. The service contributed
annually to the national professional development programme for educational
psychologists. Its research and strategic development initiatives now needed to be
extended and further integrated into school and authority planning and priorities.
The EPS had played a significant role in re-launching the authority staged intervention
and assessment framework within schools. Its use of video interaction guidance across
specialist provision had helped establishments extend their skills and become more
effective in supporting children and young people.
2
The EPS provided training for a range of stakeholders. School staff and others who had
received it usually found that it helped them to make improvements in schools and for
children and families. There was a need for schools to be given greater opportunities to
make specific requests for training to support their improvement plans.
Features of good practice: Transition passports
The educational psychology service (EPS) led on the development of highly
effective transition passports to support vulnerable young people moving on to
post school provision. The passports focused on the rights of the young people to
be fully involved in their transition from school, to decide what information should
be passed on and how it should be presented. As a result, they promoted very
high quality planning to prepare young people for adulthood.
More detailed report is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
5. How good is the service’s management?
There was a range of helpful policies and procedures to guide staff in their work. Some
of these linked to authority-wide policy and plans. Arrangements to evaluate their
effectiveness and to update them were not yet fully embedded. The EPS did not
routinely involve stakeholders in the review, development and improvement of its work.
Some tasks, projects and initiatives listed in the EPS development plan supported the
priorities identified in the Department of Education and Children’s Services Plan.
However, the process for connecting the work of the EPS to departmental plans and
targets was at a very early stage.
Arrangements for managing change and taking forward the work of the EPS were not
well established. The service had yet to build a strong culture of effective
self-evaluation, planning and reporting on continuous improvement.
6. How good is leadership?
The PEP had been in post for seven years. She had developed a clear vision for the
service and had communicated this to stakeholders including psychologists and senior
managers in the Department of Education and Children’s Services. She valued her
staff team and encouraged them to work creatively.
The PEP and senior education managers had recognised the need for stronger shared
direction, improved communication and greater support and challenge to ensure
accountability and continuous improvement in the work of the EPS. They had started to
develop an evidence base for performance management and reporting on standards
and quality. As a result, the PEP and her line manager had a clearer understanding of
their respective roles and responsibilities for improving the service’s performance.
3
Senior education managers were now working with the PEP to determine how best the
EPS could build capacity and participate fully in delivering better outcomes in line with
the authority’s identified priorities.
4
Key strengths
The service had:
•
ensured that its staff had access to a wide range of CPD opportunities;
•
made a number of valuable contributions to the work of the authority through
targetted projects and initiatives;
•
made a positive impact on young people at stage three of the staged assessment
and intervention process; and
•
started to engage with wider authority initiatives.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
establish an improvement planning and reporting process based on robust
self-evaluation which allows it to demonstrate the value it adds to national and local
priorities;
•
strengthen its relationships and communication with partners inside and outwith the
authority and involve appropriate stakeholders in service improvement processes;
•
work closely with the authority to use impact and outcome information to improve its
impact on under-represented and under-performing groups; and
•
ensure that staff deployment reflects stakeholders’ needs.
The authority has been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how it will address
the main findings of the report. HMIE will maintain contact with the authority and will
make a return visit within two years to evaluate progress.
Annette Bruton
HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
July 2009
5
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
6
Evaluation
Satisfactory
Good
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Satisfactory
Good
Satisfactory
Weak
Weak
Good
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
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 to Business
Management and Communications Team, HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm
House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure is available from Rona Littleproud, HM Inspectorate of
Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston
EH54 6GA or phone 01506 600258 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 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