Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
Midlothian Council
29 June 2010
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
8
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 Midlothian 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
Midlothian Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
Midlothian Council EPS was organised across four integrated teams, with educational
psychologists (EPs) physically based within these localities. The PEP was based within
the Council headquarters in Dalkeith, retaining management responsibility for
professional issues. On a day to day basis, EPs were managed by integration team
managers. At the time of the inspection the complement of EPs was 7.8 full-time
equivalent (FTE). The senior educational psychologist (SEP) was a new position within
the team, appointed immediately prior to the inspection. EPs shared support from
administrative staff within headquarters and within the locality teams.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
Overall, the EPS had made a positive contribution to improvement in performance in
relation to authority priorities. There had been a high quality contribution to the children
and young people multiagency assessment and planning staged system (CYP MAPSS)
to deliver effectively on the Getting it right for every child 1 (GIRFEC) agenda. This
ensured that the needs of vulnerable children and young people were met in a
coordinated way. The EPS had a significant influence on the development, evaluation
and support of Programme for Alternative Vocational Education (PAVE) that improved
the outcomes for young people at risk of missing out in terms of educational attainment
and positive destinations post school. The EPS evaluation of a pilot project to address
low attendance and poorer achievement of looked after and accommodated children
(LAC) informed interventions and contributed to improved educational outcomes and
opportunities for this vulnerable group. The EPS had provided significant support to the
authority in the development of the locality model to deliver effective MAPSS
approaches for children and young people. EPs contributed well to a number of
1
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.
1
working groups, steering groups and advisory groups within localities and across the
authority. For example, EPs had made effective contributions to the Education for All
steering group and impacted positively on planning around equality and inclusion. The
service should increase the range and nature of its contributions to performance
through increased involvement of a range of EPs in authority developments.
Contributions to authority level developments should be better planned and evaluated.
Performance measures were not yet embedded in planning and self-evaluation to
demonstrate trends over time or to measure performance against national, local
authority and EPS aims and objectives. Effective transition arrangements were well
supported by EPs across the authority.
The EPS had made a significant contribution to upholding statutory procedures,
particularly those around children and young people with additional support needs. The
Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL) was well
understood and implemented by all staff. Child Protection (CP) updates and
appropriate training were a regular feature of team discussions. There had been recent
engagement with the Reporter along with social work colleagues. This should be
progressed to ensure better joint understanding of roles and expectations around
practice within the locality structures.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
Overall, children and young people had very good access to a wide range of services.
Direct work with children and young people was generally of a high quality. There was
evidence of innovative ways of communicating with young people for example, the use
of postcards with those attending residential schools. Through multi-disciplinary forums
there was clear evidence that the EPS ensured the voice of the young person was
heard and included in decision making. Children and young people were very positive
about the service they received. They reported that they felt listened to and respected
and that the EP often ensured that agreed recommendations for support were
implemented. The PEP had a key authority role in responding to parental concerns
over the additional support provided to their child. Through this role, skilful negotiation
and effective solution focused approaches helped resolve issues at an early stage. EPs
worked with key professionals in the integration team to build capacity in parents to
better support their child’s learning for example through Books are Brilliant and Games
are Great. Clear steps were taken to ensure informed parental consent was sought for
EPS involvement and that of other locality partners. The EPS should further explore
ways of evidencing the impact of the service on children, young people and families. It
should also consider ways in which to consult with young people and parents on service
developments.
Integration managers and staff within integration teams recognised and valued the
support provided by EPs. This included providing specialist knowledge of child
development to inform assessment and bringing current research findings to the
planning of interventions. EPs also provided valuable consultation and training to other
integration team members to allow them to deliver effective interventions with children
and families. School staff valued EP support for the most vulnerable children and
young people that included effective collaborative working and providing specialist
2
interventions around trauma. Some individual schools reported positive impact of a few
examples of intervention, training and research. For example, the evaluation of
outreach services to parents to inform future practice. Some school and centrally
deployed staff lacked clarity around roles and expectations of service delivery from EPs
within the locality model. Written information on the service should be reviewed and
made more widely available. School staff should be engaged in service developments
at an earlier stage both in relation to planning and evaluation.
EPs were enthusiastic, confident and motivated to maximise the contribution of
psychology to the work of coordinated services for children and young people (CSCYP)
within Midlothian. The PEP had a significant influence on maintaining the high morale
of staff. EPs were able to participate in a wide range of professional development
opportunities which enabled them to improve the quality of service delivery to better
meet service and authority objectives. EPs demonstrated a commitment to developing
educational psychology as a service while delivering effectively within the four localities.
There were encouraging signs of EPs sharing skills and approaches across localities.
The EPS should now explore ways in which to maximise the skills within the team on an
authority wide basis.
EPs participated on a number of national groups and committees including the
Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists (ASPEP) and Scottish
Division of Educational Psychologists (SDEP). They had also contributed to
developments at Strathclyde and Dundee Universities through supporting the
placements of trainee EPs. The PEP was part of the Principal EP Network with
neighbouring services. EPs had made national and international conference
presentations and published articles in peer review journals.
Features of good practice: Delivering services within integrated teams
Midlothian EPS operated within a locality model that provided parents and young people
with well coordinated support from a solution oriented service. This approach facilitated
effective team working with strong communication enhanced by clear understanding of
roles and responsibilities across professional groups. Careful joint planning resulted in
thoughtfully delivered interventions to meet the needs of children, young people and
families.
Contributions to GIRFEC
The EPS had supported the development of robust processes and multiagency training
to successfully deliver the vision and aims of GIRFEC within Midlothian Council. There
were meaningful links to the authority staged intervention model that was strongly
embedded in school practice to address the needs of children and young people from
birth to post sixteen. The EPS had carefully considered how its core functions could be
delivered within these structures to best meet the needs of stakeholders.
3
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS delivered a broad range of services across consultation and advice,
assessment and intervention. CSCYP staff valued the consultations offered by EPs and
reported these enhanced outcomes for children and families. Consultation offered
through strategic groups and to partners should be more formally evaluated to ensure
that this service is being directed to maximise effectiveness. There was an effective
range of assessment approaches in place. EPs made skilled contributions to individual
planning meetings for children and young people based on well considered assessment
practices. The EPS had made a very good contribution to the development of the
authority policy and practice on integrated assessment. Schools, parents and partner
agencies should receive clear guidance on the EPS contribution to assessment within
the integrated teams. There was a good range of evidence based interventions offered
to meet the needs of stakeholders across Midlothian. For example, the use of video
interactive guidance (VIG) was valued by the integrated teams to build capacity in staff
to enhance support for young people at both an individual and class level. Joint delivery
of interventions to enhance behaviour strategies and policy development in primary
schools impacted positively on the approaches used by staff and the experiences of
children and young people. As identified in the CSCYP senior team evaluation, along
with partners the EPS should explore ways of identifying needs and delivering
interventions to extend early intervention beyond an individual case level. The EPS had
delivered effective training in relation to important areas of development within
Midlothian Council including the ASL, GIRFEC assessment processes and the
implementation of the locality model. This training had a significant impact on services
to children and families by enhancing consistency of practice and shared understanding
of approaches across professionals. Well planned and relevant training had been
delivered on Solution Oriented Schools. A few schools had requested individual pieces
of training to support their development planning, for example, left handed learners and
training in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The EPS research strategy was at an
early stage of development with the newly appointed senior EP being allocated lead
responsibility in this area. There were a few examples of effective research being
delivered. For example, senior pupils had been assisted to be peer researchers to seek
the views of young people within specialist provision. A significant number of schools
staff and partner agencies were unaware of the EPS role in relation to training and
research. Clear information on these functions requires to be circulated to a wide range
of stakeholders. The EPS should monitor and evaluate the nature of service delivery
across schools, within localities and across the authority as a whole to inform service
planning and evaluation.
EPs were core members of a range of local authority groups both tracking individual
vulnerable children and planning with partner agencies to identify and effectively
support vulnerable groups. Service managers reported the valuable role EPs played in
supporting inclusion and reducing out of authority placements through working with
others to build capacity within Midlothian.
4
5. How good is the service’s management?
The EPS had a number of appropriate policy documents that were developed with staff.
These set out parameters for service delivery around some core activities, for example,
consultation and assessment. The EPS had supported the development of policies and
guidance through the CSCYP, for example, in relation to the ASL Act and CP. The
service requires a clear policy framework to guide practice and support stakeholder
understanding of EP roles and responsibilities within and across localities. There are a
number of examples of the service consulting effectively with a few stakeholder groups
on the delivery of services such as through questionnaires with parents, partners and
schools and discussions with integration managers and teams. In a few cases,
feedback from staff had resulted in changes to service delivery, for example, the
introduction of the consultation pilot in schools. There were encouraging signs of
engagement with other service managers around sharing of information on service
activities, for example, re-establishing more formal links with social work services and
the Reporter. Stakeholders are not yet engaged at a sufficiently early stage of service
developments. A more rigorous and systematic approach to stakeholder engagement is
required to identify impact and outcome and ensure continuous improvement. The EPS
plan had a manageable number of targets clearly linked to local authority priorities. The
PEP reported on relevant targets from the EPS plan on a quarterly basis to contribute to
divisional and corporate outcome measures. The integration of self-evaluation into
service planning was at an early stage. Planning should be linked to robust
self-evaluation and reporting on performance to ensure continuous improvement.
Planning should guide service developments and be used to identify improvements in
performance over time.
There was strong and effective partnership working within integrated teams to ensure
services were delivered coherently to meet the needs of vulnerable children, young
people and families. Partners commented on the well-considered and high quality
contribution of EPs to groups, for example, the adoption panel, the literacy group,
discussions around ASD and the multiagency resource group (MARG). More work
needs to be done to support partners to understand the breadth of roles and
responsibilities of the EPS within the locality model. Partner agencies should be
routinely involved in the development and evaluation of services to meet the needs of
children and young people.
6. How good is leadership?
Service managers and EPS staff had a clear view of what the service was aiming to
achieve within the integrated teams and for children and young people across
Midlothian. There was effective strategic deployment of resources to best meet the
needs of localities and families, for example, moving staff during times of shortage and
considering service delivery to specialist provision. Communication with CSCYP
managers and school services was strong. The service took part in the authority
planning cycle to deliver on key objectives. While there is a commitment to evidence
based practice and service improvement, effective self-evaluation was not yet
systematically embedded across the service as a whole. EPS managers in partnership
with the authority require to develop clearer mechanisms for self-evaluation linking to
5
service and authority planning and measuring trends over time. The PEP was centrally
involved in the CSCYP senior team which had a quality assurance remit for continuous
improvement in relation to delivering better outcomes for children and young people.
The CSCYP audit of successes and developments included work led and delivered by
the EPS team within and across localities. This included the use of cognitive
behavioural approaches to build capacity in secondary staff to support young people
with emotional needs. The PEP had worked hard to ensure a sense of team even
though EPs were based across four localities. Regular team business meetings
allowed joint working opportunities to be discussed and progressed based on clear
identification of need. There was meaningful support and challenge through team
meetings and regular discussions between the PEP and individual EPs as well as
through particular developments, for example, buddying for training and involvement in
the research group. Innovation was supported and encouraged. Systems for
continuous improvement within the EPS need to be clearer, identifying the unique role
that EPs play at all levels. This should include meaningful engagement with the full
range of stakeholders.
The EPS had shown it had the capacity to continue to improve, with ongoing support
and challenge through strong working relationships with authority managers. The
skilled and motivated EPS team under the leadership of the PEP is well placed to bring
about positive change.
Key strengths
The service had:
•
demonstrated a significant influence on multiagency working both at a strategic and
operational level to deliver improved outcomes for children and young people;
•
shown a commitment to making a difference to children, young people and families
through listening to their views; and maintaining a clear focus on individual need;
•
developed a supportive ethos that had ensured continued joint working and effective
delivery of services over a time of significant change within the authority, and
•
established innovative practices that were making a difference to children, young
people and their families.
6
Main points for action
The service should:
•
link self-evaluation to planning for improvement through leadership at all levels and
partnership working with key stakeholders;
•
develop the EPS policy framework to guide practice within and across locality teams
and ensure understanding of roles and responsibilities across stakeholders; and
•
systematically collect and analyse service and authority data to measure trends over
time to demonstrate improvements in performance for children and young people.
There are improvements needed. We will therefore revisit the service to check on
progress within one year of publication of this report.
Roslyn Redpath
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
June 2010
7
Appendix 1
Quality Indicator
Evaluation
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
8
Satisfactory
Very good
Very good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Very good
Weak
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
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 2010
HM Inspectorate of Education