HM Inspectorate of Education
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
t 0131 244 0748
f 0131 244 0653
e hmi.qsa@hmie.gov.uk
w www.hmie.gov.uk
Mr A Blackie
Director of Education and
Community Services
East Lothian Council
Council Buildings
HADDINGTON
EH41 3HA
30 September 2003
Dear Mr Blackie
FOLLOW-UP TO THE INSPECTION OF EAST LOTHIAN INCLUSION SERVICE (FORMERLY
THE EAST LOTHIAN LEAVERS’ UNIT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE EAST LOTHIAN PUPIL
SUPPORT UNIT)
The report on East Lothian Leavers’ Unit was published in June 2000. HM Inspectors visited the Leavers’
Unit in May 2001 to evaluate progress and published a report on their findings in October 2001.
HM Inspectors conducted further visits to the Pupil Support Unit in December 2001 and in June 2002 to
review the progress made in meeting the needs of pupils. A report was published in November 2002 which
highlighted that more still needed to be done. In order to satisfy themselves about the further work required,
HM Inspectors carried out visits to the East Lothian Inclusion Service (ELIS) in March and May 2003.
Overall, the education authority and staff from ELIS had made significant progress in addressing the main
points for action in the report. The new structure put in place by the Council to meet the needs of disaffected
and vulnerable young people was operating effectively in most cases. In almost all of the secondary schools
promising steps were being taken to enable pupils to access a more meaningful curriculum. In the light of
these findings, HM Inspectors will make no further visits to ELIS in connection with the report of June 2000.
I attach an evaluation and brief account of the response made by the education authority to the main points for
action in the report.
I am sending a copy of this letter to parents of children currently supported by ELIS and the other recipients of
the inspection report.
Yours sincerely
Ian K Gamble
HM Chief Inspector
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education
HM Inspectorate of Education
Follow-up to the Inspection of Standards and Quality in
East Lothian Inclusion Service (formerly the East Lothian
Leavers’ Unit and subsequently the East Lothian Pupil
Support Unit)
East Lothian Council
Background comments
The Department of Education and Community Services had used the findings of the
previous follow-up inspections to review and further develop provision for pupils with
social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. The East Lothian Leavers’ Unit had been
disbanded and additional support had been provided to schools to help them retain pupils on
their school roll. The East Lothian Pupil Support Unit had then been formed. This unit was
responsible for developing some good initiatives to support pupils, including taking steps to
provide a more appropriate curriculum for young people with challenging behaviour.
However, although good practice was developed, the quality of provision had not been
consistent across all secondary schools. The Council recognised the need to develop a more
coherent service to support schools and pupils. Accordingly, in February 2003, a new East
Lothian Inclusion Service (ELIS) was created, combining the functions previously
undertaken by the East Lothian Pupil Support Unit, the East Lothian Outreach Service and
the East Lothian Inclusion Service. The formation of ELIS was enabling the Council to
respond more flexibly and effectively to meeting the needs of the authority’s most
vulnerable young people.
Overall evaluation
The education authority had made good use of the findings of previous HMIE follow-up
reports to engage each of its secondary schools in discussions about how best to meet the
needs of vulnerable young people and those with challenging behaviour. A multi-agency
Discipline Task Group, chaired by the Director, had reviewed best practice in schools in
dealing effectively with pupils exhibiting challenging behaviour. The Head of Education
had continued to give a strong lead in developing provision for disaffected young people.
The Manager of Pupil Support had established a short-life working group to review how
best to allocate resources for pupils with additional needs. ELIS had produced clear
information for schools and support agencies on how it would seek to work with them and
others to address pupils’ needs. Plans were in hand to produce a leaflet describing the
service to young people. An action plan had been produced to take forward the work of
ELIS over 2003-04. Staffing appointments had been made to the revised structure for ELIS
and a fully integrated Behaviour Support Service was now in place. The roles and remits of
key staff were clearly set out. A good start had been made in delivering training
programmes to meet the needs of staff operating in the new teams.
Good steps had been taken to ensure that each secondary school understood its
responsibility for the continuing education of pupils with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties. Arrangements for monitoring the attendance and location of pupils had been
improved and as a result, in almost all cases, the whereabouts of individual pupils was
known. Continuing vigilance required to be exercised to ensure that all pupils, regardless of
location, were not put at risk during the school day due to a lack of immediate adult
supervision. The range of options available to schools to make more effective provision for
2
vulnerable pupils had improved. Most schools were making more use of flexible
approaches to curriculum design to meet better the needs of individuals. The authority’s
system of staged intervention was targeting resources more effectively to address identified
needs. Pupils excluded from school were much less likely to be out of school for lengthy
periods. Better arrangements were in place to ensure that their education was not disrupted
unnecessarily. The expertise and skills of the authority’s psychological services staff were
now playing a much more significant role in supporting schools and young people with
difficulties. Education welfare officers met regularly with key staff in schools to discuss the
needs of individual young people. However, because the Council’s Social Work Services
were not operating at their full staff complement, social workers sometimes had difficulty in
attending meetings concerning young people. As a result, their important contributions to
individual cases were not always possible within appropriate timescales. Further
consideration should be given to how information and communications technology can be
used more effectively to share information about young people amongst relevant
professionals.
There was now a clear expectation that ELIS would work with individual pupils over a
clearly defined period of time in order to achieve agreed improvements. Where pupils were
unable or unwilling to respond to the support on offer there was now an identified procedure
for reconsideration of individual needs and the level of support required. All pupils
involved with ELIS were allocated a key worker who had responsibility for co-ordinating
individual support and progress. Support was now better matched to the needs of the pupils
and their families/carers. An Individual Action Plan (IAP) was devised for each pupil,
including direct work with families by the multi-disciplinary team within ELIS. The targets
set within IAPs were kept under regular review by key workers and were reviewed formally
after three and six months. Several innovative pathways had been developed for young
people experiencing behavioural difficulties at school. For example, external support
agencies provided some pupils with opportunities to work in a motorcycle project. This had
encouraged pupils to engage more meaningfully in other aspects of their schoolwork. For
some, there were opportunities to participate in work placements or take courses at a college
of further education. Further consideration should be given to how pupils might be better
prepared to engage in college life and to benefit more fully from this experience.
Staff in schools were now more positive about the support available to them in maintaining
young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in an educational setting.
Pupils involved with ELIS staff spoke positively of their experiences and of the benefits
from the support on offer. They felt more involved in decision-making, but were sometimes
overwhelmed by too many documents relating to themselves, including IAPs, Individualised
Educational Programmes and Care Plans. Further consideration should be given to
developing one plan to meet identified needs.
Overall, the education authority and staff from ELIS had made significant progress in
addressing the main points for action in the report. The new structure put in place by
the Council to meet the needs of disaffected and vulnerable young people was
operating effectively in most cases. In almost all of the secondary schools promising
steps were being taken to enable pupils to access a more meaningful curriculum. In
the light of these findings, HM Inspectors will make no further visits to ELIS in
connection with the report of June 2000.