Inspection of the education
functions of local authorities
Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
The Moray Council
28 January 2008
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
Adequate
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
5
1. The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
The education functions of each local authority in Scotland were inspected between
2000 and 2005. A second cycle of inspections began in 2006 which incorporates an evaluation
of educational psychology services. Section 9 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act
2000 charges HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, to
provide an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the local authority in its quality assurance
of educational provision within the Council and of its support to schools in improving quality.
The inspection of The Moray Council included the evaluation of the quality of educational
psychology provision on behalf of stakeholders. The evaluation of educational psychology
services is conducted within a framework of quality indicators, which embody the Government’s
policy on Best Value.
This web-based report should be read alongside the report on the inspection of the education
functions of The Moray Council, which sets out the wider context in which educational
psychology services are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Moray Council Educational Psychology Service was based in Elgin. At the time of the
inspection, the complement of educational psychologists was 7.6 full-time equivalents.
Promoted staff consisted of a principal educational psychologist, a depute principal educational
psychologist and three senior practioners. At the time of inspection there were three
administrative support staff.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS had made good contributions to a number of wider developments within the authority.
For example, the service had taken a lead role in the development of the Additional Support
Needs File, a resource developed to support planning for children and young people across the
authority. The service had also made a significant contribution to the implementation of The
Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL). EPS staff at all levels
were well represented on and made valuable contributions to a range of strategic and operational
working groups across educational services including a well-established health liaison and a
nurture group. Educational psychologists had also improved outcomes for children and young
people in the early years, those with social, emotional and behavioural needs, and those with
autism spectrum disorders.
The EPS was involved in a number of targeted initiatives to improve outcomes for children and
young people. These included a range of projects and development activities such as Solution
Oriented Schools (SOS) a whole school improvement programme, which improved behaviour in
participating primary and secondary schools, and the Moray Inter-agency Development
Assessment and Support (MIDAS) service, which successfully coordinated services for
pre-school children with significant additional support needs and their families. The service was
now taking further steps to improve its performance in addressing the key priorities of the
authority.
1
Educational psychologists demonstrated very good knowledge and understanding of their
statutory requirements. The service systematically complied with appropriate guidance and
legislation, which was effectively embedded in individual practice and service documentation.
The service had sound knowledge of The Education (Additional Support for Learning)
(Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL).
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The service had developed effective working relationships with children, young people and very
good working partnerships with families. Nearly all schools felt that the EPS respects the
confidentiality of pupils, parents and staff. Parents felt that they were well supported by the EPS
and that educational psychologists provided a valuable link between themselves and their child’s
school. However, a few parents and families felt that the quality of service was variable across
the authority. The roles, remits and functions of the EPS were not yet clear to all stakeholders.
In particular, less than half of schools across the authority felt that they had clear guidance on the
contribution the service could make to improving outcomes for children and young people.
Partnerships with staff from external agencies including social work and the Reporter to the
Children’s Hearings were good.
Staff in the EPS were highly motivated, and felt well supported by the principal and depute
principal educational psychologist and their peers. Educational psychologists felt that teamwork
within the service was a strength and that administrative staff made a strong contribution to
improving service effectiveness. Staff across the service made very good use of training and
development activities to improve their practices. Educational psychologists collaborated on a
number of very effective projects and training programmes, in relation to, SOS and autism
spectrum disorders. They also made significant contributions to the ongoing training of
educational staff across the authority and to the strategic development of provision from
additional support needs.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS was delivering a broad and balanced range of services with regard to consultation and
advice, assessment, intervention and training and professional development. Service
interventions were making a positive difference to schools, families and children. The EPS had
not yet established itself sufficiently well as a contributor to research across the authority. The
service had not built sufficiently on effective examples of research, for example, work
undertaken in relation to autism and with regard to SOS. The service recognised the need to
develop a more central role in contributing to the research programme across the authority.
While the service was actively engaged in reviewing its approaches to consultation, it had not yet
established robust mechanisms for monitoring quality across its provision.
Equality and fairness was well embedded in individual practice and within the culture of the
service.
2
5. How good is the service’s management?
The EPS had established some very effective links within the authority and taken steps to
develop partnership working with external agencies. For example, the Service Managers Group
which had a strategic overview of the provision and resources for children and young people
with complex social, emotional and behavioural needs. The principal and depute principal
educational psychologists sought to promote the work of the service across the authority, with
partner agencies and the voluntary sector. They had established productive partnerships with
senior education officers to improve service recruitment and retention levels in order to extend
the range and quality of provision being delivered across the authority. However, the EPS did
not monitor the levels of stakeholders’ satisfaction with service delivery closely enough. The
service needed to systematically involve stakeholders in the development of the service and to
seek their views on what worked effectively and what needed to be improved.
Although service improvement planning was well established, the EPS did not yet have an
effective policy framework to guide educational psychology practice. The senior management
team should continue to develop its approach to planning for improvement through the
development of comprehensive policy framework and appropriate practice guidelines.
6. How good is leadership?
The authority and staff within the EPS valued the knowledge and skills of the principal
educational psychologist. He provided good leadership across the service. He was highly
committed to the service and to further improving the range of provision offered by educational
psychologists. He had successfully led the service through a period of transition and had
contributed effectively to developing a very positive ethos and very good links with parents. At
authority level he had made valuable contributions to improving educational provision and
integrated working. The depute principal educational psychologist provided good support to the
principal and had provided a strong leadership role in relation to the development of SOS across
the authority. Senior practioners undertook appropriate professional development activities to
maintain their areas of expertise. They provided strong support across the authority, to schools
and individual families. The ongoing review of senior roles and responsibilities will allow a
clearer leadership function to be established for these posts. Service managers encouraged
creativity and innovation across the service.
The service showed a very strong capacity for continuous improvement. The senior managers at
authority and service levels had not yet developed a sufficiently robust evidence base for
performance management. However, new developments were underway in seeking feedback
from parents and schools, and in consulting with children. The service had conducted a number
of useful self-evaluation exercises in the past. These had resulted in improvements in
performance in a number of areas, for example, in relation to staff deployment and continuous
professional development. The service was committed to developing a more systematic
approach to self-evaluation in line with guidance from the authority.
3
Key strengths
The service had:
•
established good links within the authority and had taken steps to develop partnership
working with external agencies and the voluntary sector;
•
developed strong partnerships with parents and families to better support children and young
people;
•
a well motivated staff group who were innovative and worked very effectively in teams to
deliver high quality initiatives such as Solution Oriented Schools (SOS) and the Moray
Inter-agency Development Assessment and Support service (MIDAS);
•
developed a broad portfolio of services which had improved outcomes for specific groups of
children; and
•
made a significant contribution to the implementation of The Education (Additional Support
for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL) across the authority.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
ensure that targets for improvement show clearly the intended impact and outcomes for
stakeholders, particularly children and young people;
•
systematically involve all stakeholders in service development and improvement activities,
particularly with regard to the development of a research programme; and
•
review policy and planning arrangements to improve the quality and consistency of services
delivered across the authority.
What happens next?
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
January 2008
4
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
Good
Very good
Good
Very good
Very good
Adequate
Very good
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Adequate
Very good
Adequate
Weak
Good
Good
Good
Good
5
How can you contact us?
HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of education authority inspections you should
write in the first instance to Annette Bruton, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education,
Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to our
Complaints Manager, HMIE Business Management and Communications Team,
Second Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston,
EH54 6GA. You can also e-mail HMIEComplaints@hmie.gsi.gov.uk. A copy of our
complaints procedure is available from this office, by telephoning 01506 600 200 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 your 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 e-mail:
ask@spso.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from
the website: www.spso.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2008
HM Inspectorate of Education
This report may be reproduced in whole or in part, except for commercial purposes or in
connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and date thereof are
stated.
6
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 pupils, students and
participants 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 directorates 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