Impact of Doctoral Research on Local
Authority Policy and Practice
Tracey Colville (CPsychol) and Heather Gorton (CPsychol)
City of Edinburgh Psychological Services
Annual Conference for Educational Psychologists, 2012
For more information, email:
tracey.colville@ea.edin.sch.uk
Heather.gorton@ea.edin.sch.uk
Aims of the Workshop
 To provide a brief overview of our research (20 mins)
 To discuss the EP as research-practitioner
 To evaluate the contribution of our research to changes
in authority policy and practice
 To invite you to consider possible avenues of research in
your own authority
 To share our own ‘highs and lows’ of doctoral study
Heather’s Doctoral Research
Overview
 High levels of delayed school entry
 Query re criteria to apply
 Assumptions seemed to be made about
‘benefits’
 No long term follow up of children/outcomes
 Voice of child not captured
 Literature review-a lot of international
research, very little Scottish research
Aims of study
 To explore decision making process from
a variety of perspectives
 To set these against theoretical models
of readiness
 To follow the ‘journey’ of retained
children from nursery through their first
year of school
 To focus particularly on transitions as
part of this
 To find a way to capture the views of
the children involved
Methodology
 ‘Case study’ qualitative approach adopted
 6 children and their families followed up over 2
years
 Documentary analysis
 Semi-structured interviews with key
participants
 Adapted mosaic methodology developed to
capture children’s views
Results








Participants held and applied different models of school
readiness
Tension in giving advice and making decision
Positives- ‘more time’ for assessment, development, parental
acceptance of needs
Negatives- loss/reduction of services, child’s size/age in
relation to peers, lowered teacher expectations of child’s
potential
Most parents still happy with decision at end of P1
Children joining P1 of NC school/more transition activities
Children moving to specialist provision less transition activities
Methodology to capture children’s views developed
Conclusion/Next Steps
 Need to develop a more ‘interactionist’
approach (Meisels, 1998) to this issue:
 Encourage parents and nursery staff to
discuss pros and cons
 Identify potential barriers
 Discuss with school how to
overcome/support these
 Plan more effective transitions for children
with complex needs
 Involve parents more fully in the process
 ‘Ready Schools’ rather than ‘Ready Children’
Tracey’s Doctoral Research
The mess of decision-making!
Context of the study:
Self-evaluation
identified the need for a
review of a local
authority decisionmaking process for
specialist educational
provision for children
with additional support
needs (ASN).
‘It is a highly elaborate
process for the allocation
of places that seems to
work most of the time.
The psychologist advises
on placement, the PAG
advises on placement, and
eventually we see the puff
of white smoke.’
‘I think the current system
is an incentive for schools
to give away their
children.’
PAG as an activity system
Tools: protocols, systems, models of practice,
assessment tools, reports, language
Subject: Children and
Families Services
Support professionals
Outcomes:
Appropriate
educational
placement
offered
Object: Assessing
children’s needs
Rules:
Legislation, time,
agreements
Community:
other professionals,
family, peers
Division of labour:
traditional working
practices
Key Tensions Within the Process
Partnership with parents
Multi-agency working
The role of the Educational Psychologist
Complex, non-transparent process
Lack of guidelines and criteria for process of admission to
special schools
 Inclusion vs Special Education - evidence base?
 Meeting learners’ needs





Compare with Lamb Inquiry Outcomes (2009 & 2010)
Aims of the study
 To evaluate the extent to which Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and
Developmental Work Research (DWR) are
useful analytical and intervention tools for local
authority organizational change processes
(Engestrom 2007b, 1987)
 To contribute to the change process of local
authority policy and practice for children with
ASN.
CHAT (Activity Theory) and DWR:
Shaping and being shaped by...
 Dialectical tradition –
culturally mediated
activity
 Collaboration between
researchers and
practitioners


to resolve
contradictions in
complex work/learning
contexts (schools,
local authorities)
Expansive learning as
cycles of change and
development
•Application of Vygotskian theory
•DWR workshops as mediational
mechanism to open up the ZPD
of PAG activity to consider future
practice
•use of conceptual tools
•Internalization and
externalisation
•Dual stimulation
•everyday understandings to
theoretical generalizations
Developmental Work Research
(Engestrom, 1987)
 Activity system as the unit of analysis
 Multi-perspectives of PAG activity ‘multi-voicedness’
 ‘Time travel’ (historicity) – past, present, future PAG
activity
 Focus on sources of contradictions in individual and
networks of (or collective) activity systems as force
for change
 By making contradictions explicit, new learning can
occur within activity systems.
 Reference to idea of ‘expansive learning’, achieved in
DWR workshops or ‘change labs’
Applications of DWR Methodology

Application of Activity Theory and DWR to consider interprofessional working within local authority systems to
support children and their families (Edwards et al, 2009).

Activity Theory framework provides a means of
conceptualising the systems that exist when people work
together on specific activities.

It is increasingly used to understand, investigate and make
sense of social and professional practice and organizational
change.
The Empirical Investigation


Three workshops based on a
CHAT/ DWR interventionist
methodology with ten
participants: senior
education professionals,
strategic managers and the
research-practitioner (EP)
The aim was to consider the
PAG process in terms of
systemic contradictions and
to discuss the change
potential of the authority to
transform the process.
•Information from two internal
authority studies of the PAG
process was used as ‘mirror’ data
in the empirical investigation as
catalysts for critical discussion.
•Workshop activity led to a table
of recommendations. Functioned
as catalyst for an expansive cycle
of change in authority processes
•‘centripetal potential’ –
making inroads into central
structures and processes
Hypothesising contradictions in PAG activity:
The Perceptions of DWR Participants
• Assessment tools and criteria may
make decision-making more difficult.:
• Criteria vs unclear evidence on
which decisions are based
• Use of IQ vs contextual
assessment methodology
•Written communication with parents
•Limited authority resources vs
meeting children’s needs
•Education professionals
•Authority officers
•Head teachers
•Researcher-practitioner
Rules
The equity of the PAG
process may be
compromised because of
national placing request
and ASL legislation
•Recommendations/ decisions may lead to
inappropriate placement in which aspects of a
child’s needs are not met
•Placement decisions may be challenged
Tools
Outcomes of
PAG activity
•Outcomes of appeals/tribunals may lead to
placement of child in a provision that may or may
not meet needs
Object of PAG may be influenced by several factors and
PAG activity constraints:
•Meeting individual needs vs needs of other
children vs prioritisation criteria
•Parental vs professional opinion
•Need for the ‘mess of good decision-making vs
transparency and clarity of decision-making
criteria
Subjects
Community
Assumption by some that special
school meets needs better
vs
lack of evidence base to support
some of these assumptions
Division of Labour
There may be gaps, overlaps and discoordination within and between services
that affect how needs are met:
There may be problematic partnerships
with stakeholders
Key Turning Points in Expansion of
Object of PAG Activity
Review
of PAG
T
1
O
Broaden
scope of
PAG
review
T
DOL
2
O
DOL
T
3
Develop inclusive
capacity of
mainstream
schools
O
DOL
T
•Mo
4
O
Re-configure
services for
children and
families
DOL
6. Spreading and consolidating the new model
Update on PAG change process (2011)
PAG review group established ; EP role
New SEBN model; new language class model
New EP roles in case mgt group
Profiling of need/specialist provisions
Linking PAG to GIRFEC/ASL pathways
Quality assurance of PAG applications
Research on children’s trajectories (P7-S1) EP role
5. Implementing the new model
Evaluation (2010-2011)
Presentation to senior LA officers –EP
Various work-streams established
New tools developed ; new models systems planned
Literature for parents; Links with parent group
In ASL self-evaluation plan
On-going tool (eg new Form 1 & 3. guidance)
1. Charting the situation
DWR 1 (2009)
Questioning the PAG process
Need for review
2. Analysing the needs and
possibilities of development
DWR 1
Analysis of ethnographic (mirror/case
study) data
Consider past and present PAG activity
What are the central contradictions in
PAG activity?
3. Creating a new model for the activity
4. Concretising and testing the new model
DWR 3 (2010)
Developing a work plan /model
New tools, DOL, expanded object of activity
Table of recommendations produced
DWR 2 (2009)
Consider new ways of working in PAG activity
based on analysis of contradictions
DWR workshop recommendations





Promote inclusive learning
Match needs to provision
Develop single planning
process - new allocation
model in alignment with
GIRFEC service delivery model
More robust evidence of need
Develop & publish



Criteria for allocation of
provision
Profiles of special schools and
provisions
Guidelines for parents and
professionals of the decisionmaking process




Consider professional
roles in the process;
emphasise the multidisciplinary nature of the
process
Develop a support and
challenge role within new
allocation model
Develop training for
professionals
Create a more evidencebased process;
commission on-going
research to establish this
Developing a Shared Vision at the
Organisational and Leadership Levels
 Re-examine provision and targeting of
services
 Promote transformational change of services
 Develop an organizational culture of cocreation, learning and knowledge-sharing
 Involve families in the co-design of services
with professionals
 Create resourceful and inclusive schools to
meet learners’ needs
 Create an evidence-base for local authority
decision-making and resource allocation
Evidence of impact of the DWR
intervention
New tools

PAG reconfigured within GIRFEC
service delivery model

Child planning process and Case
management

CMRGs developed – support and
challenge function

Solution focused child planning
meetings

Resilience matrix; well-being
indicators

Child’s plan

Progressive intervention -ASL
pathways and GIRFEC now
aligned
Professional roles

Named person (not EP) gathers
assessment information for CMRGS

Partnership working with children
and families to find solutions

Tiered progressive intervention
and evidence of reasonable
adjustment
Object of activity

Meeting the development, learning
and care needs of children and
young people

Progressive and proportionate
response to meeting needs locally

Commitment to inclusion
Children’s Service Delivery Model: Supporting Children’s and Families’ Needs
•Revised ASL pathways
•Universal services /Early intervention
•Shared assessment
•SEEMIS IT information sharing
•Team around the school/cluster
•Children’s plans and SF CPMs
•Progressive Case Management for
resource allocation (CMRGs)
•CSDM information web-site
•WLD
Outcomes of activity
Tools
•Children’s and families needs met
effectively and efficiently at the local
level
•Mainstream schools meet learners’
needs
•Effective partnership working
Object of activity
Progressive and
proportionate response
to meeting needs
Subjects
All
stakeholders
Rules
•ASL Act, 2010
•Presumption to Mainstream
•Placing Request Legislation
•Pupil participation agenda
•GIRFEC national policy
•Curriculum for Excellence
Community
Local community
and wider
societal context
Division of Labour
•Partnership working with families and young people
•Children’s participation in planning meetings
•Children’s contributions to plans
•Clearly defined professional roles and remits
•Sharing of knowledge and expertise between
authority, professionals, carers and young people
Figure 26: Children’s Service Delivery Model as Activity System.
‘Centripetal potential’ – making inroads
into central structures and processes
On-going EP involvement at strategic level:
 PAG review group
 GIRFEC
 Language class provision development group
 Secondary resources development group
 Leading development day for CMRGs
 To co-chair CMRG – P7-S1 transitions
 Case management development group
 Case management modelling group - poster
Research in your own authority
 In pairs, discuss your authority’s
priorities
 What opportunities are there for EP
research?
 What would some of the challenges
be doing this?
10mins + 5 min feedback
Impact of Research on Local
Authority Policy and Practice
Impacting on policy and practice
 Continuous process of change
 Work embedded in authority plans,
policy, practice
 Application for deferrals (by 57%)
 PAG allocation model replaced by case
management process (GIRFEC)
 Four groups called case management
review groups. Aligned with pathway 3
(EY, primary, transition & secondary
The change process: Impact of
inspection and research
Before....




Lack of coherent
pathways or processes
for EPS to link at
authority/ strategic level
Limited influence on
policy and practice
Unclear role of EP at
operational and strategic
level
Therefore limited
research involvement
After....







EPS continuous improvement
planning directly linked to
authority priorities
Research group
Strategic involv’t:New
developments, policy, training
More influence on policy
Requests for consultation and
advice from authority managers
Recognising the need for
evidence-based practice and
research in authority practice
EPS offers vehicle for research
The EP as research-practitioner
 Aligning work with authority priorities
 Applying theoretical models and
evidence-based approaches
 Action research as cyclical and on-going
 ‘problem analyser, solution implementer and
change evaluator’ Blacker (2009:34). On
the role of the researcher in DWR
interventions
Challenges of research in
authority settings
Keeping to timescales
Juggling work as EP and research
Power imbalance
Resistance to change
Managing expectations
Challenging established views and assumptions
Risky activity (maingrade EP questioning
authority processes)
 Growing arms and legs.....







Doctoral survival kit







Very patient husband /partner
Time turner
Sympathetic boss
Perseverance
Determination
Putting life on hold and life happens
Saying goodbye to worry- free
holidays
The last stand:
Defending our theses!
So why do it?
 Doing the research is absorbing
/exciting /interesting....
 Enables you to have a different
perspective
 Raised the research profile of the service
 Supports career progression
 Promoting the profession
 Leads to better outcomes for children
and families