Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
Orkney Islands Council
2 February 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?
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.
The inspection of Orkney Islands 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.
This web-based report should be read alongside other strategic inspections of Orkney
Islands Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Orkney Island’s EPS was based in Kirkwall with other support services. At the time
of the inspection the service consisted of a principal educational psychologist (PEP),
one senior educational psychologist (SEP) and a temporary 0.5 educational
psychologist (EP) for Post School Psychological Service (PSPS) developments. The
service was supported by 0.8 full time equivalent administrative staff.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS was central to a range of authority wide developments that led to targets for
children and young people being met. There was a positive impact on achievement and
attainment and health and well-being. The EPS made a significant contribution to the
development of corporate parenting, which was central to the Integrated Children’s
Service Plan. The PEP was a key contributor to the Corporate Training Plan 2009-2010
around We Can and Must Do Better to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and
young people. The EPS had devised effective guidance for chairs for interdisciplinary
meetings based on Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC)1 principles and the My
World Triangle which had impacted positively on the quality of multiagency planning.
The EPS gave high priority to transitions, More Choices More Chances (MCMC) and
looked after children (LAC). The number of young people leaving school without
positive destinations was very small. Outcomes for LAC were very positive in relation to
their attainments and these were well-tracked. The EPS should ensure more
systematic collection and collation of quantitative as well as qualitative data to
demonstrate trends over time.
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
Educational psychologists (EPs) were compliant with British Psychological Service
guidance in relation to ethical codes of practice and polices. Statutory requirements
were well embedded in individual practice and service documentation. The EPS had
effectively contributed to the development of guidance and practice issues around the
Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The PEP was the
named person within the service for Child Protection (CP) and had a central role in
training and development on an authority wide basis. All staff were CP trained and
demonstrated very good awareness of safeguarding through files and observed
practice. Rights and needs of stakeholders were given high priority. Equalities issues
were evident in practice and through documentation. Links with the Scottish Children’s
Reporter Administration were effective.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The EPS had a significant positive impact on the well-being and life experiences of
Orkney’s children and young people. This included building capacity within Education
and Leisure Services to ensure children and young people’s life experiences were as
good as they could be through effective training with school and other staff. For
example, valued training was provided to local services that delivered alternative and
shared care. The EPS had carried out important work to enhance services for children
and young people with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). EPs had successfully trained
groups of children and young people in restorative practices to enhance approaches to
behaviour management. The EPS promoted and supported very effective strategies to
ensure that young people were able to participate fully in meetings about them. The
service should explore ways to build on these innovative approaches to support children
and young people to contribute to service developments. Parents and carers reported
that the EPs were highly skilled at providing them with valuable support and that they
were approachable and easily accessible. Parents and carers were very appreciative of
the positive impact EPS involvement had on their own and their children’s lives
including providing support to parents and staff to find practical ways forward. Parents
thought that they were treated fairly, equally and with high levels of respect. The EPS
and Education and Leisure Services should ensure that all schools promote
involvement of EPS intervention with parents at an appropriate stage.
The EPS was regarded as flexible and accessible by schools and centrally-deployed
staff who expressed very high levels of satisfaction with the quality and range of
services received. EPs made regular and highly valued contributions to the Orkney
Learning Festival. EPs had supported positive outcomes for children and young people
through effective joint working. This included close working with language unit staff in
relation to the needs of individual children and development of assessment protocols
and effective joint working with college staff. The EPS should consider how best to
communicate the range of services available to all staff within Education and Leisure
Services, including subject teachers in secondary schools. The EPS was appropriately
involved with professional networks outwith Orkney Islands Council area for example
through the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists (ASPEP), PSPS
networks and collaboration with other PEPs in the North East area of Scotland. The
PEP was centrally involved in a clinical practice network with hospitals across Scotland.
The EPS should disseminate its own good practice beyond Orkney.
2
All staff were very positive about working in the EPS and felt supported by managers in
the EPS and Education and Leisure Services. Staff were highly motivated to deliver the
highest quality of service to improve outcomes for children and young people. The
delivery of educational psychology services was enhanced by very effective support
from the administrative staff. There were clear accreditation arrangements for
probationer EPs and support for EPs new to the service. Annual professional review
and training opportunities were linked to improvement planning.
Features of good practice: Engagement of children and young people in
processes to support them
•
Orkney EPS had a strong commitment to ensuring that children and young people,
particularly the more vulnerable, were meaningfully engaged in processes to support
them. The service creatively built on methodologies from another EPS in Scotland
to help better prepare children and young people for meetings. Across a number of
schools the format of meetings was changed to enhance effective engagement.
Children and young people reported feeling listened to, with their ideas used as the
basis for planned intervention.
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
EPs skilfully brought together a broad and balanced range of services across
consultation, assessment, intervention, training and strategic development to very
effectively meet the needs of children and young people. The EPS had operational
protocols that were included and accessible on the Orkney Islands Council website.
Effective consultation and advice was available to a wide range of stakeholders to
support them to meet the needs of children and young people. EPs showed significant
skill, knowledge and expertise in relation to consultation. Solution oriented approaches
were used consistently and effectively in practice. The service should more
systematically collate evidence on the impact of consultation processes across the
range of stakeholders to inform service planning. EPS assessment processes were
clearly embedded in the wider Education and Leisure and council practices. The
service made a central contribution to authority integrated assessment through
supporting agencies to have a shared understanding of assessment. EPs collaborated
with staff from the Social Work Department to assess levels of risk and areas of
resilience when supporting vulnerable families. Interventions were carefully planned
and generally arose from needs identified through effective consultation processes with
a range of stakeholders. Interventions were often carried out in conjunction with other
staff to build capacity and reduce dependence on EP direct involvement. For example,
jointly delivered developmental group work in a secondary school had increased staff
understanding of behaviour management strategies. More systematic evaluation of
interventions should be built in at as early a stage as possible. The service offered a
very wide range of well targeted and highly valued training opportunities to schools, post
school providers and partner agencies to improve outcomes for children. For example,
training had been devised by the EPS and delivered to staff from partner agencies to
provide a support programme for parents whose children have ASD. Training
3
evaluations should be collated to inform practice and methods of measuring longer term
impact should be considered. The EPS had identified research as an area for
development. There were some good examples of research which had been
undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and approaches, for example,
paired reading, solution oriented approaches with challenging behaviour and
approaches to conflict resolution. There were some positive examples of authority wide
research including an analysis of child protection referrals and outcomes. The service
needs to develop a clear strategy to support research and development based on EPS
and Education and Leisure Services priorities. Research should be disseminated within
Orkney and beyond.
5. How good is the service’s management?
There was a good range of appropriate policies and procedures in place that were
coherent with council-wide policy and linked to vision, value and aims. Policy and
practice issues were regularly reviewed through supervision sessions and team
meetings to ensure compliance with, and appropriateness of policies. The service
contributed to a range of key Education and Leisure Services policies including child
protection, placement of children and young people in schools outwith Orkney,
exclusions and pre-exclusion and Education is for All. Policies should be reviewed on a
regular basis. The EPS would benefit from a policy to support self-evaluation and
provide a systematic framework for informing the cycle of self-evaluation, reporting and
improvement planning.
An EPS evaluation exercise was completed in March 2008. Questionnaires and focus
groups were used to help identify practice priorities. Stakeholder groups included
schools, parents, children and young people, partner agencies and centrally-deployed
staff. Recommendations impacted on planning and service delivery, for example
allocation of EP time to schools. Impact questions had recently been built in to the
consultation review system. There was a helpful end of year review with schools to
support joint planning for the coming session. Planning meetings and practice level
agreements were now being put in place with partner agencies. Although at an early
stage of development this had resulted in EPs being invited to social work team
meetings to facilitate problem solving around individual young people. Methods for
systematically involving stakeholders in service developments should be developed.
The Service plan 2008–2011 was in line with the authority planning cycle. The plan
made reference to continuing themes from previous plans as well as being linked to
Education and Leisure Services and Integrated Children’s Services Plan and current
government influences. PSPS was embedded in wider planning and linked to national
initiatives for example MCMC, 16+ learning choices and Skills Strategy in Scotland.
The plan was monitored by the PEP, authority managers and by the full EP team. The
service had clear joint planning with partner organisations and services through close
partnership working and central involvement in strategic groups within the authority.
Planning should identify lead responsibility for delivering on priorities. Progress against
planning should be more formally reported for example through Standards and Quality
reporting.
4
The EPS had established strong and effective links with the authority and with partner
agencies. The service worked well to improve multiagency decision making process for
example through the use of effective solution oriented meetings. The EPS was a core
member of the Orkney pre-school child development team with its role complimenting
that of other partners.
Features of good practice: Developing and implementing Getting it right for every
child (GIRFEC)
•
Orkney EPS had been central to the development and implementation of GIRFEC
guidance across a range of partner agencies. This included the EPS generating a
written description of integrated assessment for all relevant agencies to highlight the
ongoing nature of assessment and its relationship to planning and intervention. The
EPS had carried out initial evaluation of the ways in which practitioners from a range
of agencies were making use of the guidance and processes. This information was
used to help further evolve guidance material and training.
6. How good is leadership?
The PEP provided strong direction for the service and demonstrated a clear
commitment to continuous improvement. There had been creative use of appreciative
enquiry for strategic planning that had supported the EPS to move forward effectively as
a team with ownership and a shared philosophy. Strong leadership ensured that
resources were targeted at key service and local authority objectives to deliver
effectively for Orkney’s children and young people. The service was effective in
communicating its vision to a wide range of stakeholders. The service was risk aware,
showing careful consideration of staff deployment to enhance service delivery while
considering sustainability given staffing uncertainties. Increased use should be made of
available management information to inform decision making and support the evaluation
of impact and outcomes.
There was a strong culture of support and challenge both within the EPS and through
Education and Leisure Services. Demanding performance targets were delivered
through an ongoing focus on monitoring service performance to support continuous
improvement. Creativity and innovation were supported and encouraged within the
EPS. Distributed leadership was being established to support the further development
of strategic responsibilities across the team. Self-evaluation was increasingly evident in
day to day practice. The service should now consider a more systematic approach to
gathering information on impact and outcomes to support continuous improvement.
5
Key strengths
The service had:
•
Provided strong leadership to ensure the successful delivery of GIRFEC and the
integrated assessment framework in Orkney Islands Council.
•
Developed a wide range of very effective interventions to address the needs of the
most vulnerable children and young people.
•
Built capacity in others through strong partnership working.
•
Developed a clear philosophy underpinning all aspects of service delivery that was
evident in practice.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
Develop a research strategy that will support the delivery of service and authority
objectives.
•
Collect and collate management information to further demonstrate improvements in
performance and trends over time.
As a result of the EPS high performance and very good understanding of their strengths
and areas for improvement we have ended the inspection process at this stage.
Roslyn Redpath
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
2 February 2010
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
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Satisfactory
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
7
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