Inspection of the education
functions of local authorities
Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
Shetland Islands Council
8 July 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?
3
5.
How good is the service’s management?
4
6.
How good is leadership?
4
Appendix 1 - Quality indicators
6
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 (EPS). 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 Shetland Islands Council included the evaluation of the quality of educational
psychology provision on behalf of stakeholders. The evaluation of EPS are 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 the report on the inspection of the education
functions of Shetland Islands Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are
delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
The Shetland Council EPS was based in Lerwick. At the time of the inspection, the complement
of educational psychologists (EP) was two full-time equivalents, one PEP and one main grade
EP. In addition, there was one full-time senior clerical assistant, a part-time clerical assistant,
and a part-time office support worker. Due to recruitment difficulties, the service had been
operating with one PEP from October 1999 until the appointment of a second EP in
August 2006.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS had successfully completed the majority of its improvement targets for the year
2005 to 2006. In relation to authority targets the service had made significant contributions to a
number of initiatives. For example, they had improved literacy resources available for looked
after children and had increased the literacy knowledge of foster carers. It was too early to
determine whether or not this had improved literacy outcomes for looked after children. The
service had also made effective contributions to the authority’s policies on the assessment of
dyslexic children, and the identification of autistic spectrum disorders. The work on dyslexia
had resulted in the authority implementing a training strategy to make every primary school
dyslexia friendly. The outcome for dyslexic pupils was still to be assessed. The service had also
been successful in supporting very challenging pupils with social, emotional and behavioural
needs (SEBN). For example, The New Bruce initiative had enabled a number of pupils to
successfully return from the mainland to Shetland. The service did not have sufficiently robust
data to demonstrate trends in performance over time. They had only recently begun to apply
more rigour to evaluating performance and documenting the impact and outcomes of the service.
All staff had a good knowledge of statutory requirements and had played an important part in the
implementation of the The Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland)Act 2004,
(ASL Act) ensuring that all pupils with Record of Needs were reviewed and their needs
1
evaluated under the terms of the new legislation. The service provided very helpful information
for a range of stakeholders about key areas of legislation related to additional support needs
(ASN), Child Protection, and pupils referred to the Reporter.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
The service had very good working relationships with children, young people, parents, families
and carers. Children and young people were well supported by the service and reported
positively about their engagement with the EP. Individual work with pupils was very effective.
For example, the service had been very successful in enabling pupils with very complex needs to
be educated in their local school. Parents were pleased with the service they received and in
particular with the professionalism of the advice and general interaction with the EP. A few
would have liked more timeous intervention, feeling that they had to wait a while for the service
to become involved. This had improved since the appointment of a second psychologist. The
EPS was highly valued by school and authority staff, and partner agencies. Multi-agency
planning was very good for individual pupils and at a strategic level. For example, the positive
contribution of the service to the development of the authority’s Integrated Assessment
Framework. The EPS had adapted a few innovative approaches from other authority services
such as nurture groups, restorative practices and a range of approaches to supporting dyslexic
children. They had also responded positively to changes in legislation, such as the ASL Act and
successfully assisted the authority in implementing new strategies to ensure pupils’ needs were
met.
EP and administrative staff worked well as a team and regularly attended meetings to discuss
service developments. All staff had regular reviews and were pleased with their access to
professional development to support their work. Administrative staff provided well-judged
support to the team and their active contribution to the work of the service was much valued.
Given the small number of EPs, the service had made very good arrangements to ensure that the
main grade psychologist was supported by psychologists in other authority services, and that the
PEP had contact with other managers. For example, the main grade psychologist was provided
with opportunities to network with other practitioners on the mainland, to attend meetings with
the probationer network, and to participate in the professional development initiative provided by
the Scottish Government, Association of Principle Educational Psychologists and the Scottish
Division of Educational Psychologists. Such contact had impacted positively on authority and
service developments, for example the introduction of nurture groups. The PEP also met with
the managers of the North East Educational Psychology Services (NEEPS), with colleagues in
Orkney and with Highland principals to ensure continued professional and service development.
2
Feature of good practice: The inclusion of pupils with complex learning
difficulties and social, emotional and behavioural needs
The psychological service in collaboration with wider council services had developed high
quality provision for individual pupils with complex needs and social, emotional, and
behavioural needs. The flexible use of existing island resources had enabled pupils to be
included in their own community, minimising the need for placement on the Scottish
mainland. Often these approaches had led to further developments in island services
improving provision for future children and young people with similar needs.
More detailed information is available at www.hmie.gov.uk
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, and intervention and professional development and training. They were at
the early stages of impacting significantly in the area of research and strategic development. The
service provided high quality consultation and advice. School staff and partners valued the EPs
for their advice in relation to individual children, their knowledge of support needs and
understanding and knowledge of appropriate resources and services. Authority staff frequently
sought advice and consultation from the service about policy decisions and strategy. Assessment
of individual children was very good. The service provided a range of assessment which was
responsive to individual pupil needs. They made very good contributions to multi-agency
assessments and advised schools and the authority on appropriate assessment strategies. For
example, in relation to autism spectrum disorders and dyslexia. Individual assessments reflected
the island context and the services’ commitment to inclusion. Intervention strategies were good
with evidence of clear planning to meet individual needs. Creative interventions were used to
support pupils with complex needs and many were supported by school staff and partner
agencies. The service did not systematically evaluate its interventions. Professional
development and training was good. The service offered an extensive menu of in-service
training which was delivered to groups of associated schools, to whole authority staff and other
partners. The training menu was facilitated by other EPs working along side or in consultation
with Shetland EPS staff. Given the size of the service this had proved to be a very effective way
of delivering the range of training which larger EPS offer. There was clear planning in relation
to training needs and targeting of development initiatives to meet authority priorities. Evaluation
of training was not sufficiently outcome driven and it was not reviewed or revised using a
systematic analysis of stakeholder views. The research and development programme was
constrained by the limited number of professional staff within the service. EPS staff attended
conferences but were not at the stage of delivering their own work at professional conferences.
There was some evidence where research had impacted on the delivery of authority services. For
example, the approach to supporting foster carers to develop literacy skills in looked after
children. However, the role of the service in research had not been fully utilised and there was
no strategy for its delivery at school or authority levels. Equality and fairness was very well
embedded in individual practice and within the culture of the service.
3
5. How good is the service’s management?
The service worked very effectively in a range of multi-agency partnerships. They actively
sought opportunities to improve services to children and families through working with and
developing new partnerships with other agencies and departments within the Council. The
service did not have formal service level agreements with partners. Stakeholder participation
and evaluation of service plans was at an early stage of development and there was further scope
to increase the level of stakeholder involvement in the work of the service. The service
development plan did not clearly articulate with other plans. Targets were over-ambitious and
needed to be more outcome focused. A good standards and quality report had been produced.
The service did not have a robust or systematic process for involving stakeholders in their
planning, or for monitoring and tracking their performance. Policies were clearly articulated in
the service handbook and in the authority’s Managing Inclusion Guidance to schools. The
service did not have a mechanism in place for reviewing polices or a longer-term strategy for the
development of new policies.
6. How good is leadership?
The PEP was highly valued by the authority and partner agencies. She had effectively operated
as both a practitioner and manager of a single psychologist service for a number of years. The
service was firmly committed to inclusion and this impacted positively on service planning and
practice. The PEP had been successful in recruiting an additional member of staff and had taken
effective action to maintain and sustain this level of service. The PEP had shown good
leadership in relation to the authority’s vision, values and aims and had been proactive in
identifying gaps in authority provision and areas for development. Her involvement with the
School’s and Children’s Services departments had resulted in positive change and improvements
for children. The service was committed to improvement and this had been facilitated by the
appointment of an additional EP. The PEP had begun to take positive action to maximise the
impact of the service by realigning structures and systems.
4
Key strengths
The service had:
•
Established very good partnership working with a wide range of partners and contributed
very effectively to multi-agency teams.
•
Provided high level consultation and advice to a wide range of stakeholders which was
highly valued and had impacted positively on children and young people.
•
Made significant contributions to the implementation of statutory duties and national
developments.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
Develop a systematic process for involving stakeholders in service planning and
improvement.
•
Develop a more succinct set of improvement targets which clearly articulate with authority
plans.
•
Develop more effective ways of monitoring performance and outcomes to support
continuous improvement.
•
Continue the process of reconfiguring systems and structures within the service to ensure
maximum impact from the range of services provided.
The authority has been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how it will address the main
findings of the report. HMIE will continue to monitor progress on action.
Annette Bruton
HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
8 July 2008
5
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
6
Evaluation
Good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Good
Very good
Very good
Good
Good
Adequate
Very good
Good
Weak
Adequate
Good
Good
Good
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.
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 departments 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