Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
North Lanarkshire Council
20 April 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?
3
5.
How good is the service’s management?
4
6.
How good is leadership?
4
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.
The inspection of North Lanarkshire 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 North
Lanarkshire Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The North Lanarkshire EPS was based across three centres in Cumbernauld,
Motherwell and Monklands. At the time of the inspection, the complement of
educational psychologists (EPs) was 29.1 full-time equivalents (FTE). There was one
0.5 FT educational psychologist post unfilled at the time of inspection. There were two
research and development officers and one seconded teacher. Promoted staff
consisted of two depute principal educational psychologists (DPEP), who were jointly
acting as the interim PEP, eight senior educational psychologists (SEPs) and one acting
senior educational psychologist (SEP). There were 8.0 FTE administrative support
staff. Each office was supported by a senior administrative worker. A new PEP had
been appointed and was due to take up post in February 2010.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
Overall, the EPS had made a good contribution to improvements in performance.
A number of EPs had worked well in partnership with centrally deployed staff to develop
policy and practice across the authority. There was effective joint working at a range of
levels. This included strategic developments with a number of education support
services, for example, the North Lanarkshire’s Active Literacy Strategy and the
contribution of the service to the development of the Corporate Parenting Strategy. The
EPS had undertaken effective research to support developments in relation to loss and
trauma, self-harm protocols and the evaluation of the Campus Cops initiative. EPs
across the service contributed to a large number of working groups, steering groups and
advisory groups within the authority. For example, EPs had made effective
contributions to Curriculum for Excellence and the development of locality groups. The
service should now review the range and nature of its commitment to meetings and
working groups to ensure that there is an appropriate outcome focus in every case.
The EPS had made some very positive steps in collecting evidence from stakeholder
evaluations and focus groups to demonstrate improvements in service delivery including
their helpful customer care policy. The service had not yet made effective use of
1
performance measures to demonstrate trends over time. Performance measures were
not yet embedded in planning to allow evaluation of performance against national, local
and EPS aims and objectives.
EPs across the service demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of relevant
statutory requirements. The service systematically complied with appropriate guidance
and legislation. There was a well-developed understanding of child protection issues
across the service. The service was aware that further work was required regarding
their wider statutory duties in collaboration with the Children’s Reporter.
Features of good practice
The Gateway project is a partnership between the Home Office and the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees. Its aim is to resettle in the UK up to 500
refugees per year. It provides a safe route to the UK for survivors of severe trauma
from all parts of the world. The project is a very good example of partnership working
and the EPS have made significant and highly skilled contributions to improving the
lives chances of children and their families with refugee status.
The Active Literacy Strategy, is a longitudinal research programme, which focused
on improving the literacy skills of children and young people through extensive training
of staff, and the development of supportive teaching resources.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The service had developed very good working relationships with children, young people
and families across North Lanarkshire. Children and young people were very positive
about the service they received from the EPS. The EPS had been involved in a range
of initiatives to meet more effectively the needs of children and young people. For
example, the involvement of children and young people in the development of a
programme to provide support for family change, including divorce and separation. The
EPS had also been involved with a range of partners in the development of The
Gateway Project developed to provide support for vulnerable refugees. The service
was building on these positive initiatives by developing creative ways of involving and
consulting with the most vulnerable children and young people at an early stage of EPS
involvement.
Nearly all parents felt that EPs were supportive and responsive and took care to ensure
that they were involved in making decisions about plans to support their child. A few
parents stated that the interventions made by EPs had made a significant impact on
their ability to cope with difficult circumstances. Parents particularly valued the support
from the EPS at times of important educational transitions. Parents would welcome
more readily available information about the service. A number of families felt that the
quality of service across the authority was variable.
2
Schools were well supported by the EPS. There were a number of examples of the
EPS supporting schools, through a range of key developments, to achieve better
outcomes for children and young people. This included sensitive and effective
casework. For example, the service had made positive contributions to improving
outcomes for a range of children and young people including those in the early years,
those with dyslexic difficulties and those who were looked after and accommodated by
the authority 1 . Schools valued the support of their link EP at the joint assessment team
meetings. Most schools felt that the EPS respected the confidentiality of children and
young people, parents and staff. The service had much improved its communication
and joint working with centrally deployed staff. For example, the EPS had been
commissioned to explore parental experiences of transitions post school for young
people with severe and complex learning difficulties.
Greater clarity regarding the roles, remits and expectations of the EPS was required by
schools and centrally deployed staff to enable them to meet the needs of all children
and young people.
Staff across the service were highly motivated. They were able to participate in a wide
range of professional development opportunities, which allowed them to improve the
quality of their service delivery. Support for EPs in their probationary year was highly
regarded. A number of staff would welcome a more formal support and supervision
structure developed to meet the needs of all staff. The DPEPS had worked hard, with
the support of the service, to develop one whole service team. Nearly all staff were
involved in regular annual performance reviews linked directly to professional
development outcomes.
The service was represented on a growing number of national groups and had
presented at national conferences. The EPS had been involved in an innovative
benchmarking group with a number of local EPS exploring service performance. Some
of the work delivered by the service had influenced wider developments within the
authority, such as the solution orientated schools initiative and their work to support the
needs of young people requiring more choices and more chances. The service should
disseminate more of this innovative practice beyond the authority.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
The EPS delivered a broad and balanced range of services across consultation and
advice, assessment, intervention, training and research. The service provided good
consultation and advice in relation to individual children and young people. The service
had in place a range of appropriate assessment tools and assessment was effectively
linked to authority staged intervention procedures. The EPS recognised the need to
further improve assessment and develop a whole service strategy. The service
supported and delivered a wide range of very good and carefully planned interventions
to address individual, school and family priorities. This included Seasons for Growth
and video interaction guidance to support positive communication with vulnerable
1
Looked after and accommodated children (LAAC)
3
children at the early years. EPs in nearly all cases ensured that interventions involved
parents, schools and others as appropriate.
The EPS had a helpful portfolio of training and development activities, including training
on active learning, resilience planning and the motivated school. Staff undertook good
research and strategic development activity to meet service and a number of authority
priorities in improving outcomes for children and young people. Research and strategic
development was well supported by the two research and development officers.
Research projects and findings had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Further
work is required to ensure that schools, centrally deployed staff and partner agencies
are aware of the wide range of services delivered by EPS, specifically their role in
training and research.
Feature of good practice: Interventions to support families through change
The service has researched and developed an innovative and sensitive programme to
support the needs of children and young people through times of family change.
5. How good is the service’s management?
The service recognised that further development was required to link its work more
effectively to the key priorities of the Learning and Leisure Services and the Council.
Efforts should be made for greater transparency in the planning process to demonstrate
how improvements in performance impact on local and national priorities. Clearer
targets in planning were required to evaluate service delivery against identified
objectives and support the measurement of trends over time. The policy framework
required to be reviewed to better reflect service priorities, and monitored in terms of
implementation and effectiveness. There were a number of good examples of the
service consulting with stakeholders including their work with young people and parents
in relation to dyslexia. There was not as yet, a well-planned and systematic programme
in place to enable active participation of stakeholders in the work of the service. The
EPS plans to consult more formally with stakeholder reference groups in the future
around service developments, policy issues and initiatives.
The service had developed some effective partnerships with a range of stakeholders
including their work supporting young offenders, and improved communication with the
Speech and Language Therapy Service. However, there was still a need to define
more clearly the roles and responsibilities of key partners with those of the EPs to
ensure best value.
6. How good is leadership?
Senior Service Managers know the EPS well and value the contribution of the service to
improving outcomes for children and families. Senior Service Managers, the DPEPs
and service staff showed a strong commitment to continuous improvement. They had
4
recognised the need for stronger shared direction, improved strategic communication
and more effective planning to ensure accountability and continuous improvement in the
work of the EPS. Senior managers at authority and service levels encouraged
innovation and creativity and provided a range of opportunities for distributive
leadership. Staff across the service demonstrated leadership in relation to their specific
remits including through their role in multi-agency groups and in aspects of research.
The two DPEPs had a strong impact on the service at operational levels. For example,
they had created a supportive service ethos and provided direction to team members.
They also worked well together to influence the future direction of the service. They had
ably supported the service in their role as interim PEP. SEPs provided effective
leadership in their areas of responsibility.
The service 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 used efficiently or effectively embedded
within normal service activity.
The EPS had shown that it had the capacity to continue to improve. The new
management team of a PEP and two DPEPs is well-placed to bring about positive
change. Senior education officers 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 making a positive difference to children,
young people and their families;
•
demonstrated a high commitment to improvement through its openness and
reflective practice;
•
with the support of the DPEPs, established a stronger staff team and created a more
positive staff ethos, and
•
promoted effective leadership at all levels.
5
Main points for action
The service, with the support of the authority should:
•
develop a more robust and systematic management information system to improve
planning and evaluate the impact of its services at all levels,
•
develop a more coherent policy framework to ensure consistency of practice , and
•
strengthen strategic links and improve working relationships with a range of
partners.
As a result of the EPS effective performance and good understanding of their strengths
and areas for improvement we have ended the inspection process at this stage.
Anna Boni
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
20 April 2010
6
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
7
good
good
very good
very good
good
good
good
good
good
very good
good
good
good
satisfactory
good
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