A Summary of the Evaluation of Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators’ Views of Person Centred Annual Reviews Main Findings Person Centred Annual Reviews (PCARs) are a way to run an Annual Review (AR) meeting so that children or young people are placed at the heart of the process. Through Person Centred Approaches, successes are celebrated and areas of difficulty are addressed with honesty and care. This project is run by the Educational Psychology Service (EPS) and Special Educational Needs (SEN) Section with partner schools in the borough. Two questionnaires were sent to twenty-two Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCos) or relevant professionals participating in the pilot project. Person Centred Approaches are an integral part of the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. There is an assumption that all planning for children and young people with SEN and Disabilities will be person centred. The outcomes of this evaluation will be used to support schools and professionals contributing to statutory processes to adopt person centred planning. The aims of the project were: a. To collate SENCo or relevant professional views on the advantages and disadvantages of the PCAR process compared to previous AR processes. b. To identify some of the advantages and disadvantages of the PCAR process. c. To use information collated from the research project to inform how EPs can continue to support schools to use PCARs or Person Centred Approaches (PCAs). Project Questionnaires: Twenty two initial questionnaires (see Appendix 1) were sent out of which seven were returned. The advantages and disadvantages that were highlighted by respondents were then grouped together. The most pertinent advantages and disadvantages to this evaluation were collated and then reviewed by the project EPs. An agreed number of advantages and disadvantages were then put in the follow-up questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rank from biggest to smallest the advantages or disadvantages of PCARs, when compared to previous AR processes (see Appendix 2 to see follow-up questionnaire). Of the twenty two follow-up questionnaires sent to SENCos and relevant professionals eight were returned. See the Venn diagram in Appendix 3 to see the number of respondents who contributed to one or both questionnaires. The project highlighted some overall advantages and disadvantages. It has informed how the EPS will continue to support schools to use PCARs in their practice. 1 Main findings What are the advantages of PCARs compared to previous school AR processes? When comparing PCARs to previous AR processes a number of advantages were highlighted for key stakeholders in the meeting such as children and young people (CYP), teachers, parents, other professionals, peers and wider school staff. Most importantly a number of the advantages highlighted the CYP being placed at the heart of the process. SENCos and other professionals have noted the impact of PCARS on CYP with statements including being able to ‘celebrate their successes’ and observations of CYP growing in ‘confidence’ following participation in PCARs’. CYP are also reported to be very interested in the views of their peers and have the opportunity to hear ‘These are all the things we like about….’. Whereas sharing views from class mates had not typically been done in AR meetings. PCARs facilitate opportunities for parents to see their child as a whole person and not just as someone with additional needs. Professionals noted that the paperwork from PCARs was quicker to write up and PCAR minutes reflected the meeting content more closely. What are the disadvantages of PCARs compared to previous school AR processes? Reported disadvantages were linked to some of the practical issues such as more time to set up and prepare for PCARs. Other disadvantages were related to confidentiality when involving friends of CYP in the meeting. Two out of seven respondents raised difficulty in appropriately including students with severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties, while this is a concern for many stakeholders, the PCAR guidance sees child participation in PCARs on a continuum. The aim is that participation should be tailored to individual needs and that increasing participation in a meaningful way should be a continual progression from year to year. Three out of seven respondents said they could not think of disadvantages to the process. It is interesting to note that PCARs are viewed by some as completely positive. An alternative explanation is that the advantages of PCARs outweigh the disadvantages. 2 How can advantages and disadvantages of PCARs be used by EPs to further support partner schools and new schools who want to join the PCAR pilot project? The results from the follow-up questionnaire showed that the biggest ranked disadvantage included in the follow-up questionnaire was ‘Difficulties in fully including pupils who are non-verbal or have significant difficulties’. While the advantage ranked lowest was ‘The paperwork reflects the PCAR meeting’. Overall the rankings varied more for the advantages than disadvantages where there was more overall agreement on some disadvantages. For respondents who had not experienced some of the disadvantages, ranking them appeared arbitrary. This evaluation has highlighted the importance of EPs working collaboratively with schools to ensure that PCARs are appropriately supported to start in each individual school setting. From reviewing the findings of follow-up questionnaire this evaluation will be used to support training. It will also contribute to materials developed for participating project schools and new schools to the project. Also as a result of this evaluation’s findings Andrew Sutcliffe and Barley Birney will be delivering a session at the SENCo conference on communicating with children at the lowest levels of participation. The conference will be on 22nd November 2013 and this will be open to all SENCos attending. Guidance for PCARs will also be amended to include the information about working with these students. Leanna Lopez Educational Psychologist in Training November 2013 3 Recommendations for EPS following review of evaluation findings Advantages of PCARs Advantage Recommendation Rationale Children and young people being placed at the heart of the process. Continuing use of PCARs and PCAs. Use of this evaluation’s findings to support schools currently not using PCARs. . This evaluation can be used to give an overview of some of the advantages and disadvantages of PCARs. This could be used to work in partnership with new schools to adopt more PCAs. Positive impact of PCARs on children and young people. Continuing to support children and young people to participate in PCARs. In light of the draft Code of Practice developing more PCAs will be paramount for all schools and professionals contributing to statutory processes. Suggested Action Use of main findings at the SENCo conference and future PCAR training. EPs can jointly problem solve with schools to minimise potential disadvantages. Extend buddy system to new schools. Embedding PCAs from the early years will mean that schools and young people can really benefit from the approach. Continuing to maximise on PCAR outcomes to contribute Individual Education Plans or other processes. 4 Children and young pupil valuing peer contribution to PCARs. Continuing to include views of peers and relevant adults. This is extremely meaningful to CYP and was not always possible with previous AR processes. Sharing good practice or varying approaches to including views of others. Parents having the opportunity to see their child holistically. Continuing to work with parents to maximise their participation in PCARs. Parents value the opportunity to see their child as a whole person and not just as someone with additional needs. Continuing to include parents and get feedback on how to further facilitate PCAR meetings. PCAR paperwork advantages. Continuing to use PCAR format. Extend training or support to schools implementing PCARs. Paperwork was reported to be quicker to write up and reflected the meeting more closely. With forthcoming changes to move to Education Health and Care Plans, the PCAR paperwork will be a valuable framework to use. Reviewing paperwork where appropriate at termly PCAR meetings. Support and training for new schools and professionals to complete PCAR paperwork. Continuing use of buddy or partner schools. 5 Disadvantages of PCARs Disadvantage Recommendation Rationale Practical issues related to setting up PCARs. Support schools to overcome potential PCAR barriers. Seeking advice or guidance from schools who are already successfully running PCARs can support schools in overcoming practical issues. Positive problem solving will be helpful to ensure that CYP and friends can contribute to the PCARs without raising issues of confidentiality. Confidentiality when involving friends of children and young people in the meeting. Ensuring confidentiality is not impacted through peer and CYP attendance. Suggested action Difficulty in appropriately including students with severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties. Adapting participation to individual needs and progression. As this was the biggest ranked disadvantage PCAR project and school link EPs can support schools to encourage appropriate CYP involvement. Meaningful involvement should be seen as a progression as CYP go through school and other processes. Sharing good practice on how barriers are overcome by some schools. Continuing use of buddy or partner schools. Sharing good practice on how barriers are overcome by some schools. Revisiting barriers at termly PCAR meetings. Use of videos or planning attendance to parts of meetings. Training in relation to meaningful involvement to key professionals. Revisiting barriers at termly PCAR meetings. EPs collate a list of different ways CYP can meaningfully contribute to PCARs. 6 Special schools in the borough who were not part of this evaluation have creative and effective approaches in supporting CYP with complex needs. Working with special schools to share their good practice will be beneficial to both project and new schools developing their inclusion of CYP with complex needs. Use of EPs to facilitate PCARs and supporting in championing CYP views. Continuing use of buddy or partner schools. Use of ICT and assistive technologies to aid participation. Working collaboratively with special schools to share effective practice in seeking views of children with severe or profound learning difficulties. 7 APPENDIX 1- Initial Questionnaire sent to all SENCos and relevant professionals. An evaluation of SENCos’ views of PCARs Educational Psychology Service London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mulberry Place 5 Clove Crescent London E14 2BG Tel Fax 020 7364 4323 020 7364 3099 www.towerhamlets.gov.uk An Evaluation of SENCos’ Views of Person Centred Annual Reviews (PCARs) Please complete and return the questionnaire by email or post to st Leanna.Lopez@towerhamlets.gov.uk or by post to the above address by Friday 1 March 2013. Name: Your role: School name: 1. What are the outcomes of an effective Annual Review (AR)? 2. What do you think are the main elements of PCARs? 8 3. What are the advantages of PCARs compared to the school’s previous AR process? 4. What are the disadvantages of PCARs compared to the school’s previous AR process? 5. Any additional comments? Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire! 9 APPENDIX 2- Follow-up Questionnaire sent to all SENCos and relevant professionals. An evaluation of SENCos’ views of PCARs Educational Psychology Service London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mulberry Place 5 Clove Crescent London E14 2BG Tel Fax 020 7364 4323 020 7364 3099 www.towerhamlets.gov.uk Date: Friday 22nd March 2013 Dear Colleague, An Evaluation of SENCos’ Views of Person Centred Annual Reviews (PCARs) Final Questionnaire. Thanks to the contribution of SENCos working on the PCAR project, I have now finalised my research questionnaire. I hope that all SENCos working in the project will participate in this research by completing the very brief questionnaire overleaf. Thank you for your continued support and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Findings from this survey will give us more information about the effectiveness of PCARs. I plan to give feedback to the project schools in the summer term. Please return the completed questionnaire by post to the above address, or by email to Leanna.Lopez@towerhamlets.gov.uk by Friday 26th April 2013. Best wishes, Leanna Lopez Educational Psychologist in Training 10 Your Name: Your Role: School Name: The 6 statements in the tables below highlight some of the overall advantages and disadvantages of PCARS. These were identified by SENCos through the first questionnaire. Please rank the statements in order of 1 to 6 on how strong of an advantage or disadvantage you view the statement as (1=I feel this is the strongest/biggest advantage of PCARs through to 6= I feel this is the weakest/smallest advantage of PCARs). Each statement must be given a different number between 1 to 6. 1 What are the advantages of PCARs compared to the school’s previous Annual Review (AR) process? Advantage statement Rank given (1,2,3,4,5 or 6, 1= Biggest, 6=Smallest) a. More involvement for pupils. b. More involvement from parents, peers, school staff and other professionals. c. A more positive experience for all. d. A celebration of pupil strengths, success and progress. e. The paperwork reflects the PCAR meeting. f. An accessible and meaningful way to have an AR meeting. 2 What are the disadvantages of PCARs compared to the school’s previous AR process? Disadvantage statement Rank given (1,2,3,4,5 or 6, 1= Biggest, 6= Smallest) a. Difficulties in fully including pupils who are non-verbal or have significant difficulties. b. More time is needed to organise and prepare for PCAR meetings. c. Some professionals do not engage fully in the process. d. Difficulties with permission to include a friend at PCAR meetings due to sensitive information being shared. e. Targets which are not ‘SMART’ being agreed. f. Not referring to previous targets or progress over time. 3 Additional Comments? Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire! 11 APPENDIX 3- Venn Diagram to show respondents and overlap in those who responded. Number of respondents who completed both questionnaires. Initial Questionnaire Respondents 3 Respondents 4 4 Respondents Follow-up Questionnaire Respondents 12