Summary of evaluation of the
educational psychology service
A report by HM Inspectorate of Education
South Ayrshire 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?
3
6.
How good is leadership?
4
Appendix 1 - Quality indicators
6
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 South Ayrshire 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
South Ayrshire Council which sets out the wider context in which EPS are delivered.
The Educational Psychology Service
South Ayrshire psychological service was centrally located within Queen Margaret
Academy in Ayr. The PEP was based in the Council headquarters with other members
of the Children and Community Directorate. The staffing structure consisted of
6.5 full-time equivalents (FTE), one PEP, four senior educational psychologists (SEP)
and two and a half main grade educational psychologists (EP). At the time of the
inspection the service had 5.9 FTE psychologists and a full-time assistant psychologist.
The service has had four PEP over the last six years. The authority has also
experienced a number of reorganisations at senior levels over the last few years.
2. What key outcomes has the service achieved?
The EPS had begun to show improvements at a strategic level within the Children and
Community Directorate. They were able to show increased performance over the last
two years in relation to targets set within the EPS improvement plan. For example, at a
strategic level they had effectively supported the authority in the implementation of the
The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL) and in
developing a staged intervention model as outlined in the authority’s Inclusion Manual.
More recently they had been involved in strategic working groups to develop the
authority’s More Choices, More Chances (MCMC) Strategy and to improve outcomes
for looked after children through the use of more effective transition arrangements.
They had also assisted the authority in the production of updated guidance for dyslexia
and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The service had also made positive
contributions to the Council’s multi-agency strategy for crisis intervention resulting in the
publication of Should Crisis Call. The dissemination of training in Solution Oriented
Principles and Skills Training had begun to have an impact on how schools interacted
and engaged with children and young people. At a service level they had successfully
implemented the majority of the recommendations made in an external service review
held in 2007. For example, they had developed strategies for better stakeholder
engagement which had resulted in changes to service delivery. They had also
1
improved their delivery of service to stakeholders by increasing the range of services
which they offer, and they had produced a service improvement plan which was better
integrated with the authority plan. The EPS now needs to build on these outcomes to
show continued and sustainable improvements over time set against national, local and
service targets.
The service effectively complied with all appropriate guidance and legislation. Greater
consistency in the application of some guidance is required. Statutory requirements
were embedded in individual practice and service documentation.
3. How well does the service meet the needs of its stakeholders?
Most children and young people were happy with the service they received from the
EPS and felt that it had made a difference. They were not always clear about the role of
the EP, and the majority of schools did not feel that the involvement of the EP had
improved outcomes for children and young people. Almost all parents reported
positively about their involvement with the EPS. There were good examples of parents
being effectively involved in planning to meet their children’s needs. For example,
parents of pre-school and secondary-aged children with additional support needs (ASN)
were fully involved in planning for their children in the context of the Early Years Forum
and Joint Support Teams. Not all parents found it easy to access the EPS and a few
would have liked more involvement by the service in training and supporting inclusion.
The service was beginning to offer a more consistent service to schools which was
starting to impact positively on stakeholders. The range of services delivered had also
increased which was building capacity in a few schools. For example, there was an
increased amount of training offered through the authority continuing professional
development programme for teachers and a few other agencies. These courses had
been evaluated very positively and were reported as having impacted on practice.
Additionally, the research assistant under the supervision of the EP, had offered
individual schools specific whole school and small group interventions. These had also
been evaluated as high quality interventions by participants. The service now needs to
provide greater consistency of service delivery and a wider range of support for all
stakeholders. The service had begun to have a greater impact on the wider community.
They were developing more innovative practice which they had recently shared with the
profession nationally. For example, the PEP had presented at the national conference
for EPs in Scotland on South Ayrshire’s approach to cluster-group consultation. For
example, the PEP had presented at the national conference for EPs in Scotland on
South Ayrshire’s approach to cluster consultation.
The PEP and senior officers of the authority had worked hard to develop a more
positive ethos within the service where staff felt valued. Evaluations of staff ethos
demonstrated improvements in staff morale and confidence. All staff were now more
involved in service planning and most had specific roles and responsibilities to ensure
that targets were met. All staff were involved in regular annual performance reviews
linked directly to professional development outcomes. There is now a need to develop
increased opportunities for staff to work jointly at all levels of service delivery to increase
professional competence.
2
4. How good is the service’s delivery of key processes?
Over the last two years the service had begun to extend and develop the range of
services delivered to schools and other stakeholders at individual, establishment and
authority levels. Consultation had been a key focus of work and the service had made
very good progress in piloting a consultation approach to working with schools and
individuals. This was supported by authority training to schools in solution oriented
approaches. Assessment was delivered well at an individual casework level and a full
range of assessment tools were used. The service had also provided assessment
advice for schools on dyslexia and followed national guidance on appropriate
assessment approaches. The EPS approach to assessment needs to be disseminated
more widely to stakeholders and EPs need to develop more consistent approaches to
the delivery of assessment services. Interventions at individual, family and school
levels were good with an appropriate range of psychological approaches used. For
example, integrated play was being developed to support ASD pupils, precision
teaching had been advised for individual children and as a cluster approach to teaching.
Professional development and training was a growing area of development within the
service and this had been recognised by schools. The PEP and a few EPs had
provided high quality training at an authority level through the authority’s continuous
professional development (CPD) calendar. For example, Solution Oriented Principles
and Skills Training, Cooperative Learning, Circle of Friends, and phonological
awareness training. Further training had also been provided by the link EP and
research assistant at school and cluster levels on topics such as, anger management
strategies, emotional literacy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
positive behaviour management. The service now needs to deliver training to impact
directly on school’s and other stakeholder’s improvement targets. Research and
development was still at the beginning stages of development with the focus on
evaluating service delivery to inform improvement planning and in evaluating
intervention strategies delivered to schools. For example, the evaluation of Circle of
Friends, anger management; emotional literacy; and Friends for Life. The EPS had also
evaluated the impact of authority interventions such as the Alpha Plus programme and
the Additional Teachers Project. Individual members of staff were also involved in
strategic development for the authority such as the ASN monitoring group, the Pupil
Support and Inclusion strategy group, the Alpha Plus and MCMC steering groups and
the Accessibility strategy group. Many of these groups were beginning to impact on
policy development. The service now needs to build on its strengths to develop a wider
portfolio of services in each of the five core areas of service delivery at each of the three
levels. This needs to be delivered by all EPs in a coordinated and planned way to
ensure consistent practice and equality of access.
5. How good is the service’s management?
The service had a comprehensive range of policies and practice guidance covering
most aspects of service operation. The inclusion of these in the service handbook
ensured that they were readily accessible to staff. However, psychologists indicated
that many of the policies were still to be fully embedded in service operation. The
service should now ensure engagement by relevant stakeholders in the process of
evaluating, reviewing and updating policies. This year’s service improvement plan
3
linked clearly with local and national priorities. The plan was informed by evidence from
stakeholder surveys and contained elements carried forward from previous plans.
There was now a clear planning cycle with a well-written Standards and Quality report
resulting from the review of the 2007-2008 improvement plan. Joint planning with
partner agencies was not yet in evidence and should be developed. Targets were
confused with actions. Fewer and more clearly focused targets will help to provide
greater clarity. A more systematic approach to involve stakeholders in service
development had been made in the past two years. A wide range of questionnaires and
some focus groups had been used to evaluate the service. These now need to become
embedded into routine service delivery and to involve a larger range of stakeholders,
such as health professionals, social workers and other agencies.
6. How good is leadership?
The PEP provided very strong leadership. Together with senior officers from the
authority, a clear vision and direction for the service had been established. Working
closely with senior officers she had successfully integrated the EPS into authority
planning and strategic development. She played significant strategic and operational
roles within the service and had been particularly successful in giving clear direction to
EPs about how EPS should be delivered within South Ayrshire. Most staff now felt that
they could share in the vision and that they had support from the authority in developing
a strong service. Creativity and innovation was encouraged and very well supported,
however it was not yet having a significant impact on service delivery. Sound
management systems and processes to ensure continuous improvement had been well
established and now needed to be consolidated. The service had a strong capacity for
improvement with the current leadership and staffing.
4
Key strengths
The service had:
•
demonstrated very effective leadership by the PEP supported by senior officers;
•
provided an effective service to individual families/carers of children and young
people with ASN which was highly valued; and
•
aligned their planning objectives to those of the Council resulting in a more
integrated approach to service planning and delivery.
Main points for action
The service should:
•
build on existing processes to engage more stakeholders and partners in the
development of policy and practice;
•
develop more effective ways of monitoring performance and outcomes to support
continuous improvement;
•
continue to develop partnership working at both strategic and operational levels;
•
improve the range and quality of psychological services to achieve greater impact
and outcomes for all stakeholders; and
•
continue to improve equality and access to services.
There are some important improvements needed, but because EPS have a good
understanding of their strengths and areas for improvement, and are performing well we
have ended the inspection process at this stage. We will monitor progress through our
regular contact with the education authority.
Dr Laura-Ann Currie
HM Inspector
Directorate 5
February 2010
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
Evaluation
satisfactory
good
satisfactory
good
satisfactory
satisfactory
good
satisfactory
satisfactory
good
good
satisfactory
good
good
satisfactory
good
satisfactory
very good
good
6
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