Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
The City of Edinburgh Council
15 December 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 on and outcomes for
children, young people and families.
The inspection of The City of Edinburgh 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 associate assessors who were principal educational
psychologists (PEPs) and depute PEPs serving in other Scottish local authorities.
This web-based report should be read alongside other strategic inspections of The City
of Edinburgh Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The City of Edinburgh EPS was based in the centre of Edinburgh with all educational
psychologists (EPs) located in McDonald Road, Edinburgh. At the time of the
inspection the service consisted of one PEP, four area PEPs and one senior EP. Area
PEPs had responsibility for the line management of four area teams in addition to
service-wide remits. The service complement was 36.3 full-time equivalent (FTE). In
addition, the EPS was supported by a central team of 5.2 FTE administrative staff.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
Overall, the EPS had made a positive contribution to improvements in performance.
Staff had worked in partnership with centrally deployed staff and partner agencies
through contributions to policy and practice within the authority. There was effective
joint working at a range of levels. This included casework and strategic developments
with a number of education support services, for example, the Additional Support for
Learning Team, the Hospital and Outreach Teaching Service (HOTS) and Visiting
Teaching and Support Service (VTSS). There were a number of examples of the EPS
supporting schools and partners, through a range of key developments, to achieve
better outcomes for children and young people. For example, EPs had contributed
directly to building capacity in school staff and targeting interventions for children and
young people to sustain effective mainstream placements and reduce exclusions. The
EPS had contributed to improved outcomes for looked after and accommodated
children1 (LAC) through approaches to their meaningful involvement in decision-making
and raising attainment.
EPs across the service contributed appropriately to working groups, steering groups
and advisory groups within the authority. For example, EPs had made effective and
1
The term ‘looked after’ in this report includes all children looked after or looked after
and accommodated by the Council.
1
positive contributions to dyslexia developments and had provided clear and helpful
advice to the additional support for learning monitoring and evaluation group. The
service should now increase the range and nature of its contributions to performance
through involvement of more EPs in authority developments. Performance measures
were not yet embedded in planning to demonstrate trends over time or to allow
evaluation of performance against national, local authority and EPS aims and
objectives.
Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of their statutory duties. In particular
the EPS had made a helpful contribution to upholding statutory procedures around
children and young people with additional support needs and to the authority-wide roll
out of Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) 2. The Education (Additional Support for
Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 was well understood and implemented by staff. The
service was aware that further work was required regarding wider statutory duties in
collaboration with the Children’s Reporter from The City of Edinburgh.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
Overall, children and young people had good access to a wide range of services. Direct
work with children and young people was generally of a high quality and was valued by
parents, schools and external partners. The EPS had a significant impact on children
and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) through the club that
supported social interaction and encouraged independence. Many EPs were core
members of a range of multiagency groups that both supported children and young
people strategically and on an individual case basis. Children and young people
reported positively about their links with the EPS. The EPS now needs to consider
whether services are appropriately targeted at all vulnerable groups of children and
young people. Parental questionnaires demonstrated a high level of satisfaction with
EP involvement. EPs provided valued support to parents through the Professional
Assessment Group (PAG) process around accessing specialist placements. The EP
role in the care coordination system at the preschool stage was very effective in
supporting parents to be involved meaningfully in assessment and planning processes.
In multi-agency meetings observed, EPs ensured that parents’ views were heard. The
service was involved in promoting and establishing effective parental training
programmes, including the Parents Early Education Partnership (PEEP). The EPS
requires to identify more rigorously and systematically the impact of EP involvement on
children, young people and families. Almost all relationships with school staff were
strong and productive. There were strong links with specific groups, for example
through post-school psychological service (PSPS) and the Circle Project on play and
language development with early years staff. The roles, remits and functions of the
EPS were not yet clear to all stakeholders. The EPS was at an early stage of
development in relation to the involvement of stakeholders in service evaluation. Links
with colleagues across the authority were too variable, for example, joint working with
quality improvement officers.
2
2
The GIRFEC approach aims to ensure that centres, schools and educational services
work more closely with partner agencies so that all children get the help that they
need when they need it.
Most EPs felt valued and supported by PEPs and colleagues. EPs reported that the
service fostered and supported creativity to meet the needs of children and young
people. They reported that a range of approaches was taken to provide support and
improve practice including training, discussion at team and business meetings, peer
support and annual professional review. Administrative staff felt valued, appreciated by
EPs, and part of the team.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS delivered good services relating to consultation and advice, assessment,
intervention, training, research and strategic development. EPs demonstrated a strong
commitment to developing child-centred consultative approaches within the service, in
educational establishments and across the authority. EPs often sought opportunities to
develop staff skills in consulting with young people to promote more meaningful pupil
involvement. The service had a clear policy on assessment in line with British
Psychological Society and Association of Scottish PEP guidance. Almost all
pre-schools and most primary and secondary schools reported that EPs provided an
effective assessment service. The service offered a wide range of creative and
evidence-based interventions. These had been developed through skilled consultation
with stakeholders and careful assessment of need. Overall, interventions were planned
appropriately with the principles of being child-centred, effective and minimally intrusive.
Some interventions had been evaluated and disseminated locally and nationally, for
example ASD developments, the Growing Confidence Project, aimed at increasing
awareness, confidence and understanding around positive mental health and emotional
well-being, and the transition toolkit. A wide range of training topics was offered by the
service, both centrally, through the authority directory and through bespoke courses in
schools. Training was planned to meet the needs of stakeholders and often delivered
jointly with other EP colleagues and partner agencies. This was valued and considered
to be effective by service users. Many EPs demonstrated very good skills in training.
The service carried out end of course evaluations of the training it delivered and was
beginning to consider how to identify the longer term impact. The EPS was involved in
a good range of research initiatives including literacy skills for looked after young
people, parental consultation around tribunals and improving literacy outcomes in
secondary schools. Research in relation to solution-focused pupil support groups
(PSGs) had impacted positively on the lives of children and families through improved
practice in setting goals and planning for positive change. The service is currently
developing a research strategy to ensure improved strategic linkage with wider authority
developments and to increase the profile of research as a core function. Across the
range of stakeholder groups there was reported variability in practice in relation to EP
delivery of key processes.
Individual psychologists were instrumental in the development of innovative practice to
address the needs of particular groups of vulnerable young people. For example, they
had worked in partnership with others to support those with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and children whose parents were in the Services. The PSPS team had
developed effective practice and structures to ensure that vulnerable school leavers
made successful transitions into further education.
3
The service should review training, policies and procedures to ensure that equal
opportunities are actively recognised and permeate practice. Equality of access
requires to be reviewed and matched to indicators of vulnerability based on agreed
authority and service priorities.
Features of good practice
•
Early years developments: The EPS ensured that parents and carers of preschool
children had access to up to date, accurate and relevant information to help them to
meet the needs of their children. Supporting effective transitions was a central
feature of this intervention. A set of helpful and accessible booklets had been
produced for parents and staff in the early years setting.
•
Participation of children and young people: Creative approaches to participation
had been promoted by EPs to ensure that the views of children and young people
were at the heart of planning, delivery and evaluation of services to support them.
The EPS has worked in partnership with young people and staff across agencies to
consider meaningful evaluation of the effectiveness of EPS interventions, a club for
young people with ASD and review meetings for looked after children.
More detailed report is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.
5. How good is the service’s management?
The EPS had a number of appropriate policy documents which were developed with
staff. These effectively set out parameters for service delivery around some core
activities, for example, consultation, assessment and research. There was no coherent
policy framework to guide service direction, monitor implementation of policies and
promote consistency of practice. There were examples of the service consulting with a
few stakeholder groups on the delivery of services, through school service level
agreements, focus groups and questionnaires. The service was beginning to act on the
feedback received to improve the service in the light of stakeholder views. There were
encouraging signs of engagement with partner agencies around sharing of information
on EPS activities for example with child and adolescent mental health. Arrangements
for managing change and taking forward service developments were not sufficiently well
established. This had resulted in inconsistency of practice across the service. The EPS
service plan had not been developed with stakeholders, and external scrutiny, support
and challenge by managers in Children and Families services was not yet evident.
While the service demonstrated a commitment to joint planning with the authority, it did
not effectively use plans to evaluate service delivery against identified objectives. The
service was aware of the need to strengthen this area and had engaged in discussion
on possible ways forward. The involvement of key stakeholders in EPS development
was not a regular feature of service practice.
The EPS had a range of successful partnerships with key stakeholders. This included
links with Queen Margaret University and allied health professionals on the CIRCLE
4
Collaboration and involvement with Moray House teachers education courses to deliver
solution-focused approaches. In addition, the EPS had led on multi-disciplinary Video
Interaction Guidance training with health and social work colleagues, aimed at
enhancing positive interactions through the use of video feedback. EPs now need to
engage further with partner agencies to support understanding of roles, remits and
functions of the EPS.
6. How good is leadership?
Service managers had created a positive climate where individuals’ skills and talents
were fostered and developed. The PEP and area PEPs were highly committed to the
service, their teams and delivering effectively on service-wide responsibilities. The care
and welfare agenda was strong. Area principals were effectively progressing city and
service-wide remits including continuing professional development, social, emotional
and behavioural needs, early years, evaluation and research.
EPs, along with managers, worked effectively and enthusiastically within and across
teams. There was ongoing discussion in the service around service delivery to ensure
best practice. Issues around PAG for example had been discussed within the EPS
team and with authority managers to review the EP role and enhance the effectiveness
of their contributions for children, young people and families. Challenge within the EPS
and beyond required to be further developed to support continuous improvement. A
policy for management review was being developed within the service. The service had
worked to increase the range of opportunities for working with wider authority teams to
deliver effective services for children and young people. The EPS had looked to other
services for effective practice, for example in relation to casework evaluation. EPs
regularly contributed to the professional development programme for EPs in Scotland to
share and enhance practice. Planning for improvement within the service was linked in
a limited way to wider authority planning cycles. Targets were too broad, with no
identifiable work streams, timescales or performance measures. Steps were being
taken to improve the strategic planning for EPS to enhance the contribution to Children
and Families Services’ priorities. Structured self-evaluation was at the very early stages
of development at a management level and was not embedded in the work of the full
EPS team. The service had conducted a number of self-evaluation exercises but these
led to improvement in only a few instances. Systems for ongoing performance
management and reporting required to be put in place.
5
Key strengths
The service had:
•
delivered innovative practice through a number of individual EPs and services
across a range of areas, for example PEEP and the Growing Confidence Project;
•
influenced practice and policy at an authority level, for example, in relation to early
years education, transitions and solution focused PSGs;
•
shown a commitment to making a difference to children, young people and families
through partnership working and effective delivery of services; and
•
developed a caring and supportive environment that resulted in EPs reporting
positively about working in the service.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
through leadership at all levels and in partnership with key stakeholders, develop a
clear direction for the service;
•
plan for continuous improvement to allow the measurement of performance over
time;
•
develop challenge within the service to improve consistency of practice; and
•
develop processes of self-evaluation with all staff to monitor performance and
improve outcomes for children and young people.
There are significant improvements needed. We will carry out a follow-through
inspection visit within one year of publication of this report on the extent to which the
service has improved. Following that visit, we may continue to check the improvements
the service has made. We may also carry out a second follow-through inspection within
two years of the original inspection report. If a second follow-through inspection visit is
necessary then it will result in another report on the extent of improvement that the
service has made.
Roslyn Redpath
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
15 December 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
Satisfactory
Good
Good
Good
Good
Satisfactory
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Satisfactory
Weak
Weak
Weak
Good
Satisfactory
Weak
7
This report uses the following word scale to make clear judgements made by
inspectors.
excellent
very good
good
satisfactory
weak
unsatisfactory
outstanding, sector leading
major strengths
important strengths with some areas for improvement
strengths just outweigh weaknesses
important weaknesses
major weaknesses
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 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