An Evaluation of Special Educational Needs Co

advertisement
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
Download