Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
Glasgow City Council
18 January 2011
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?
4
5.
How good is the service’s management?
5
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. From June 2010, in line with recommendations
from the Crerar Review (2007) the volume of inspection activity was reduced with the
inspection providing evaluations on 14, rather than 19, quality indicators.
The inspection of Glasgow City Council educational psychology service (EPS) 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 three associate assessors who were principal
educational psychologists serving other Scottish local authorities.
This web-based report should be read alongside other strategic inspections of
Glasgow City Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Glasgow City EPS was based in four centres across the city, and made up of five
teams covering Glasgow North, East, West, South East and South West. At the time of
the inspection, the service consisted of five area principal educational psychologists
(APEPs) and twenty senior educational psychologists (SEPs). APEPs had
responsibility for the line management of the five area teams in addition to strategic and
service-wide remits. The service complement was 50 full-time equivalents (FTE). In
addition, there were four area-based administrative teams consisting of 8.6 FTE
administrative staff supporting the service. The service had established two research
assistant posts who supported research and development work in the EPS and in the
Professional Review and Development section of Education Services.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS had made good contributions to strategic developments across the authority,
which had improved outcomes for children and young people. The service had
effectively contributed to the implementation of The Education (Additional Support for
Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 through its work on the development of the authority’s
staged intervention model. It had made a strong contribution to supporting the Council
and school staff during critical incidents. EPS staff worked effectively in partnership
with schools and Area Education Managers (AEMs) to improve attainment and
achievement, and reduce exclusions. EPS staff were well represented on, and made
valuable contributions to, a range of strategic and operational working groups across
the Council including, early years, parenting, lifelong learning, child welfare and nurture
groups.
The EPS recognised the need to extend its involvement in improving outcomes for all
children and young people through developments relating to the implementation of
1
Curriculum for Excellence. It is planning to extend its effective work through a range of
interventions including The Motivated School and therapeutic interventions, to support
schools in better meeting the health and wellbeing needs of children across the city.
Educational psychologists (EPs) had also been successful in improving outcomes for
specific groups of children and young people. They had effectively developed a range
of initiatives to support children and young people with autism spectrum disorders
(ASD), trauma, those in transition More Choices, More Chances and looked after
children.
The EPS had made some very positive steps in collecting evidence from stakeholder
evaluations and focus groups to demonstrate improvements in service delivery through
their innovative Consulting Stakeholders-Performance Indicator Monitoring System
(CS-PIMS). The service had not yet made sufficient use of performance measures to
demonstrate trends over time. Performance measures were not yet fully embedded in
service wide planning to allow evaluation of performance against national, local and
EPS aims and objectives.
The EPS complied effectively with appropriate educational guidance and legislation.
Statutory requirements relating to the Education (Additional Support for Learning)
(Scotland) Act 2004 were well embedded in individual practice and service
documentation. The service demonstrated sound knowledge of child protection, and
equality legislation. The service was aware that further work was required regarding
their wider statutory duties in collaboration with the Children’s Reporter.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
Children and young people had very good access to a wide range of psychological
services. EPs were skilled and sensitive in communicating with children, young people
and families. Primary and secondary-aged children with additional support needs were
well supported by the EPS at times of transition. Most children and young people felt
included and involved in decision-making. Young people were able to speak positively
and knowledgably about interventions by EPs including the Seasons for Growth
programme, developed to support loss and bereavement. They could provide strong
evidence of the impact the programme had on their lives. Children and young people
reported that EPs involvement helped them to develop strategies to manage their own
feelings, behaviour and help them to progress in their learning. A few felt that they did
not have a sufficient say in planning interventions. The service had plans in place to
consider increased participation of children and young people in the development of the
service. Pupils’ booklets and website were well designed and easily understood.
However not all children and young people were aware of these resources.
Most parents felt well-supported by the EPS. They valued the good individual support
that was offered by the EPS. Parents felt that EPs listened well to their concerns and
had a good understanding of their children’s needs. In individual consultation sessions
with parents, EPs were skilled at collating information and assessing their children’s
needs. Parents felt that EPs were a key support in ensuring that their views were taken
into account at reviews and in placement decisions. A few parents and families felt that
the quality of service was variable, dependant on the particular EP assigned to the
2
school. The EPS had made a useful start in consulting with parents on service
developments, delivery issues, roles and remits. A more systematic approach now
requires to be taken to identifying impact on children, young people and families.
Parents had good suggestions for improving the service further including better use and
circulation of leaflets, a parents’ forum, drop-in, and inclusion in training as partners.
Schools and authority staff were very positive about the work of the EPS.
Headteachers welcomed the practice level agreements (PLAs), which clarified service
expectations from individual EPs. The EPS had established strong and effective
partnerships with specialist support staff. AEMs welcomed EPS contributions to
multidisciplinary meetings at school and learning community levels, which were
improving outcomes for children and young people. Nurturing approaches, The
Motivated School, and developments in literacy, were recognised by schools as key
initiatives that were making a difference to children and young people. EPS
involvement in developments to support the needs of children and young people with
social, emotional and behavioural needs was highly regarded. While informal
communication with schools and authority staff was helpful, headteachers, quality
improvement officers and AEMs should be given more formal opportunities to shape the
development of EPS. The EPS should consider ways to raise awareness in schools of
the full range of services on offer to improve the life chances of children and young
people, for example, research and the range of training that can be delivered by the
EPS.
Staff in the EPS were motivated and committed to improving outcomes for Glasgow’s
children and young people. They felt well-supported by APEPs and SPEPs, the AEM
with responsibility for EPS and their peers. Staff felt that issues regarding ongoing
service restructuring had been well handled within teams, and that they had been well
supported. A professional development and review cycle was in place to ensure that
the training and development needs of staff were identified and met. The service
provided strong support for EPs in their probationer year and was aware of the need to
extend and review its support and supervision system to increase challenge and ensure
consistency of practice for all EPs. The APEPs recognised that they needed to develop
a new service structure, which provided better professional, and leadership
opportunities for staff to ensure effective succession planning. Administrative staff
strongly supported the work of the service and played an active role in improving
administrative procedures. Procedures were in place to ensure that their views were
heard and that they contributed to service improvement.
The service was well represented on a number of professional and national groups. A
few EPs had contributed to a wide range of publications in peer-reviewed journals and a
number of service staff presented at national and international conferences. Some of
the work delivered by the EPS had influenced wider developments within the authority
and at national levels, such as the work on nurture, evidence based practice and The
Motivated School. Service promotion and influence could be increased across
Scotland.
3
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS delivered an effective range of services relating to the core functions of
consultation and advice, assessment, intervention, training, professional development,
research and strategic development. Overall, the core functions were effectively
negotiated and evaluated through the helpful PLA process. Consultation and advice
was particularly effective in supporting the needs of individual children, young people
and families. Across the service a broad range of assessment techniques were in
evidence. Expertise was observed amongst the majority of EPs in the appropriate use
of assessment instruments. APEPs and the AEM responsible for the EPS recognised
the need to extend the range of assessment approaches used in practice, and develop
a whole service strategy.
The EPS delivered a range of effective interventions at child, school and authority level.
These included work on attachment, the Triple P parents’ programme, focused
therapeutic interventions and an ICAN programme which supported the needs of
children with speech and language difficulties. EPs involved in delivering post school
psychological services had developed effective practice and structures to ensure that
vulnerable school leavers made successful transitions into further education. This
included making effective links with all colleges in Glasgow to build capacity in staff
through the Glasgow Guidance and Support Forum.
Training and professional development was a strength across the service. A very good
and relevant range of professional development and training had been delivered to a
wide range of stakeholders across the Council. For example, training on behavioural
management, restorative practices, dynamic assessment and child protection. The
evaluation feedback indicated a high level of satisfaction with the training provided.
Training was well planned and tailored to meet the needs of the audience and
demonstrated a high level of skill and knowledge within the EPS team.
A number of staff had high well developed skills in research and strategic development
to meet service and authority priorities in improving outcomes for children and young
people. For example, the work of the service on attainment and achievement, health
and wellbeing and inclusion. Research projects and findings from a number of
initiatives had been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national
conferences. Support and encouragement to undertake research was provided by the
service research consultation group and the team of research assistants.
4
Features of good practice:
The EPS has developed a broad range of innovative practice to promote the
achievements and emotional well-being of children and young people in Glasgow.
These approaches include:
•
Professional research and guidance to improve the learning outcomes of children
with speech, language and communication needs and increase their inclusion in
mainstream provision.
•
A self-evaluation tool How nurturing is our school, which encourages schools to
consider how nurturing they are as establishments. The framework is adapted from
the HMIE publication, How good is our school? and is specifically focused on
nurturing principles.
•
The Motivated School was created to provide a framework to help schools
understand and undertake to develop the four capacities defined by Curriculum for
Excellence. In so doing, it promotes wellbeing, personal development and
empowerment in pupils.
•
The work of the EPS in Post School Psychological Services is well embedded
across the service and operates effectively across local and strategic levels. It is
coordinated by the More Choices More Chances City Group and includes EPs from
all five area teams as well as local and national partners.
5. How good is the service’s management?
The work of the service was directed by a helpful policy framework covering the main
areas of service delivery and responsibility. While the service had developed this
framework to guide practice, it recognised the need to develop a more robust system to
monitor the implementation of policies.
The EPS was developing its planning to link more effectively with the key priorities of
Education Services and the Council. Greater transparency was required in the planning
process to demonstrate how improvements in performance impact on local and national
priorities. EPS planning needs to better reflect education authority and corporate plans
and timescales so that delivery of objectives and outcomes could be more easily
tracked. Targets identified in improvement plans require to be more impact focused and
should demonstrate the use of performance information to inform planning.
The EPS had a wide range of successful partnerships with key stakeholders. This
included links with the EPS training courses at Dundee and Strathclyde Universities. In
addition, the EPS had effective multi-disciplinary partnerships including the school Joint
Support Teams, Integrated Support Groups and the locality teams supporting the needs
of children with ASD. The EPS had in place helpful guidelines, which supported
consultation with stakeholders. The views of stakeholders were sought on a regular
5
basis through the CS-PIMS process. Information from the consultation process was
used to improve services including the development of transition guidelines for young
people who required more choices, more chances. Clear information about the service
was included on the EPS website which could be accessed by partners. In some
cases, stakeholder involvement required to take place at an earlier stage of
development.
6. How good is leadership?
The APEPs and the AEMs with responsibility for EPS showed a strong commitment to
continuous improvement. AEMs knew the EPS well and valued the contribution of the
service to improving outcomes for children and families. APEPs were committed to
their teams, and the work of the service. They had created a positive climate where
EPs skills were developed. Communication between the AEMs and the EPS was
effective. They had recognised the need for stronger shared direction, and more
effective planning to ensure continuous improvement in the work of the EPS. SEPs had
clear roles and responsibilities and provided professional leadership to support practice
development. EPS staff were reflective practitioners. APEPs encouraged creativity and
innovation in EPS practice. Approaches to support and challenge across the service
need to be improved further and become more formally embedded in daily practice.
The EPS had a history of self-evaluation and had involved the whole service in
developing an improvement agenda. However, management information to evaluate
service impact and outcomes over time was not effectively embedded within normal
service activity.
The EPS had shown that it had the capacity to continue to improve. The EPS
management team was well placed to bring about positive change. AEMs, in
partnership with the EPS, should ensure that the service continues to add value to the
priorities of the Council.
Key strengths
The service had:
•
•
•
•
established innovative practices which were improving outcomes for children and
young people;
supportive leaders and well-motivated highly committed staff who worked effectively
in teams;
improved the skills of key stakeholders through well-planned and targeted
professional development activities; and
effective multiagency working making a positive difference to the lives of children
and families across Glasgow.
6
Main points for action
The service should:
•
•
•
•
improve support and challenge at all levels across the service;
ensure consistency across EPs in the delivery of assessment services;
strengthen performance management focusing on the impact and outcomes for
children and young people; and
simplify and clarify operational planning to improve the strategic focus of the service
in order to make a stronger contribution to the key priorities of the Council.
There are some improvements needed, but because EPS have a good understanding
of their strengths and areas for improvement, and are performing, well we have ended
the inspection process at this stage. We will monitor progress through our regular
contact with the education authority.
Anna Boni
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
18 January 2011
7
Appendix 1
Quality Indicator
Evaluation
Improvements in performance
Impact on children and young people
Impact on parents, carers and families
Impact on the local 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
Policy development and review
Participation of stakeholders
Operational planning
Leadership and direction
Leadership of change and improvement
8
good
very good
good
very good
good
satisfactory
good
very good
good
good
good
satisfactory
satisfactory
good
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 2011
HM Inspectorate of Education