Children’s Services
Review of the Educational Psychology Service in
Worcestershire
An examination of the current role of Educational
Psychologists within Children’s Services, with particular
reference to opportunities to enhance or change the role
to better meet the needs of children and young people
in Worcestershire
1
EP Review Format
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Background information
3.
Profile of the Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire
4.
Methodology for Review
5.
Stakeholder Consultation
6.
Analysis of research and data
7.
Conclusions of Review Team
8.
Recommendations
Appendices
1.
Brief for Review of Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire
2.
Areas for Systemic Work
3
Case Study examples of work undertaken by Educational Psychologists in Worcestershire
4.
Analysis of existing activity data
5.
Analysis of comparative data
6.
Questionnaire to Local Authority Schools
7.
Summary of responses from questionnaire to Local Authority schools
8.
Questionnaire to Parents/carers
9.
Summary of responses from questionnaire to parents/carers
2
Review Working Group
Siobhan Williams, Service Development Manager (NW Area Integrated Services-lead)
Charles Matthews, Principal Educational Psychologist (Learning Opportunities Service)
Lisa Green, Operational Manager (Area Integrated Services – NE Worcs)
Andy McLeod, CET Team Manager (Community & Education Team NE Worcs)
Julian Radcliffe, Senior Educational Psychologist (Community & Education Team Sth Worcs)
Val Pardy, Educational Psychologist (Community & Education Team NW Worcs)
Lesley Wood, Personal Assistant (Service Development Managers - Area Integrated Services)
3
1.
Introduction
In May 2008, the Director of Children's Services commissioned a Review of the Educational
Psychology Service in Worcestershire.
The aims of the Review were:

To examine the current role of Educational Psychologists within the new structure and
to look at opportunities to enhance or change this to better meet the needs of the
children and young people in Worcestershire and provide best value from the service.

To provide clarity about the current range of services provided by the Educational
Psychology Service in Worcestershire.

To define the “core business” of
Worcestershire.

To examine opportunities for the Educational Psychology Service to provide “added
value” within the wider Children’s Services to improve measurable outcomes for
children and young people.

To propose how the positive impact of the Educational Psychology Service can be
better evaluated.

To develop proposals to provide additional services to children and young people that
schools and other educational establishments may wish to purchase (traded services),
that will enhance existing provision to improve outcomes.
the Educational Psychology Service in
Updated Brief - November 2008
The consultation with stakeholders took longer than anticipated. The options for traded
services were considered by the Leadership Team in November 2008. It was agreed that the
full report of the Review would be available by the end of January 2009, and there would be
liaison beforehand with the lead officer commissioned to undertake the Review of the
Behaviour, Emotional and Social Development Services.
2.
Background Information
2.1 The Profession of Educational Psychology
Educational Psychologists provide a unique contribution to raising outcomes for children and
young people through their training in psychology, child development and the systems which
impact upon children, especially in the education system.
They are the only professionals working within Children’s Services with this combination of
training, in particular bringing a psychological perspective to interventions with individual
children and those working with those children.
Educational Psychologists are trained and qualified to take a systemic psychological
approach to the assessment and support of children with additional educational needs.
In addition to a good honours degree in psychology, Educational Psychologists used to need
teacher training and experience prior to final Educational Psychologist training at Masters
Degree level. Training has recently changed to a three year doctoral route, building again on
a first Degree but now allowing a range of experience in working with children prior to
gaining entry on to a doctoral course.
4
This extensive training (8 years) equips Educational Psychologists to bring specialist
knowledge and a scientific approach to the most complex issues affecting outcomes for
children. They act as consultants to other professionals in addition to providing specialist
input to complex casework and strategic planning.
The professional practice of Educational Psychologists is governed by a set of standards
and ethics drawn up by the British Psychological Society and the Association of Educational
Psychologists. At present registration as a Chartered Psychologist is voluntary but
encouraged by Worcestershire Educational Psychology Service. However the Government
are in the process of requiring Psychologists to be registered instead with the Health
Professions Council.
The British Psychological Society occupational standards for Educational Psychologists
include a requirement to utilise evidence-based practice and to develop and train the
application of psychological skills, knowledge and practice.
In adherence to the latter, Worcestershire Educational Psychology Service meet the British
Psychological Society requirements for CPD and also commits itself to supporting doctoral
trainee Educational Psychologists both in year 1 placements and in employment during
years 2 and 3 as part of our staffing model.
In order to apply psychology effectively and efficiently to improve the life chances of all
children and young people, educational psychologists fulfil complex and diverse roles
and functions. They work:

at three main levels – first, with the child as an individual or in a group and with
the family; second, with and through other adults who are in contact with the child
and young person; third, with systems, organisations and processes;

delivering five core functions – consultation/collaborative problem solving,
assessment, intervention, training, and research and evaluation;

with children from pre-birth to 19 years of age - who might require universal
services or have vulnerable, complex or acute needs;

with those children who have complex or acute special educational needs where there is a statutory responsibility to provide psychological advice to the local
authority and where there might be a requirement to attend a Special Educational
Needs and Disability Tribunal as a witness for the local authority;

to multiple levels of accountability - National legislation, the British
Psychological Society’s code of conduct and ethics and requirements for
professional development, local authority policies and practices, Service policies
and practices. (The statutory regulation of Educational Psychologists, through the
Health Professions Council, is imminent.)
2.2 Statutory Framework for the Provision of Educational Psychology
A)
SEN and Disability

Education Act 1996 s321-331 (SI2001/3455 for consolidated SEN regulations)

Education and Inspections Act 2006 s74
5



The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
Disability Discrimination Act 2005.
The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice (2001)
The SEN Code of Practice states that under Part IV of the 1996 Education Act, Local
Education Authorities, maintained schools and early years settings receiving government
funding are required to have regard to this Code.
The Educational Psychology Service provides the psychological contribution that enables
the local authority to discharge this duty across the spectrum from universal to early action,
and targeted to specialist. - for the small minority with severe and complex SEN, for those
who require additional help and to build capacity universally in schools and early years
settings so that they are able to meet the needs of children.
In 1.11 of the Code: it is an essential function of the local authority to make effective
arrangements for SEN by ensuring that high quality support is provided for schools and early
education settings – including through educational psychology and other support services
In 7.74 of the Code: when undertaking statutory assessments and for children with a
Statement of Educational Needs, the local authority must seek psychological advice by
specifically making assessments using psychological advice and supporting the school’s
provision of educational advice, within prescribed deadlines and reviewed at prescribed
frequency.
The SEN Code of Practice also requires that schools access support services (including
Educational Psychology) with pupils on School Action+ in the local authority’s primary and
secondary schools.
B)


Inclusion
Statutory Guidance on Inclusive Schooling 2001:
Guidance on the statutory framework for inclusion under sections 316, 316A and
schedule 27 of the 1996 Education Act.
Local Education Authorities, maintained schools and early years settings receiving
government funding must have regard to this statutory guidance
The Educational Psychology Service assists the local authority in removing barriers to
inclusion through developing an inclusive ethos, a broad and balanced curriculum for all
pupils, systems for early identification of barriers to learning and participation and high
expectations and suitable targets for all children (from the statutory framework).
C)

Narrowing the Gap
Education Act 2005 describes the duty to use LA functions to promote high standards,
and opportunities for every child to achieve to their potential, to promote the broad and
balanced curriculum in schools, and to provide advisory services to failing schools.
The Educational Psychology Service supports the Local Authority to discharge these duties
for every child across the spectrum of need from universal to early action to targeted to
specialist - for the small minority with severe and complex SEN, for those who require
additional help and to build capacity universally in schools and early years settings so that
schools are able to promote high standards for all children.
6
D)


Every Child Matters (ECM)
The Children Act 2004 underpins the implementation of Every Child Matters and the
LA’s CYPP
The Education Act 2005 legislated that schools are inspected against the five
outcomes in the Children Act 2004 in addition to the quality of teaching.
The Educational Psychology Service support to schools, other settings providing services to
children, and to children and families directly through assessment, consultancy, intervention
and training, enables the local authority to meet the five ECM outcomes of the inspection
framework.
E)

CAMHS
Standard Six of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and
Maternity Services: this sets out the requirements on local authorities and partners for
‘The mental health and psychological wellbeing of children and young people’
This legislation underpins the preparation of the local authority CAMHS Strategy, and to the
extent that the Educational Psychology Service supports the delivery of the CAMHS
Strategy, this is a statutory duty. The Educational Psychology Service can be seen to have a
greater contribution to make to fulfilling this duty given their particular training and
understanding of child development and child psychology.
F)

Children Looked After
Section 22(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by section 52 of the Children
Act 2004) local authorities, in carrying out their duty to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children looked after by them, must give particular attention to the
educational implications of any decision about the welfare of those children.
Educational Psychologists make a contribution to enable the Local Authority to fulfil its
statutory duties by assisting in identifying educational needs (31.2) and learning styles
(31.4), ensuring that all looked after children have an effective, high quality Personal
Education Plan (PEP) and (42-52), working in partnership with designated teachers, other
education professionals and carers to ensure that the PEP sets clear objectives or targets
which relate to academic achievement and out of school activities/ study support as well as
other personal and, if appropriate, behaviour targets (48.3) and mediating on behalf of a
looked after child when he or she faces problems at school (31.7).
G)

Social Inclusion
2008 Guidance on Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on Exclusion from
Schools and Pupil Referral Units (updating circular 10/99 on Social Inclusion).
The Educational Psychology Service is a support service that enables the Local Authority to
discharge this duty across the spectrum of behaviour from universal to early action, and from
targeted to specialist - for the small minority with severe and complex Behaviour Emotional
and Social Development (BESD) needs, for those who require additional help at schools
action and to build capacity universally in schools – e.g. SEAL (Social & Emotional Aspects
of Learning)- so that schools are able to meet the emotional and behavioural needs of all
children and thus provide inclusive schooling and reduce exclusion.
7
H)

Responding to Critical Incidents
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
3.
Profile of the Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire
3.1 An Overview of the Role and Contribution of Educational Psychologists in
Worcestershire
Educational Psychologists are employed by Worcestershire Local Authority within Integrated
Services to work alongside Education Welfare Officers and Family Support Workers in three
Area-based Community Education Teams (South Worcs, NE Worcs and NW Worcs).
Educational Psychologists work with children and young people, aged from 0-19 years. This
means they work in a range of educational settings - pre/school/nursery, mainstream,
specialist, pupil referral unit, out-of-county provision - and community contexts - children’s
centres, residential settings - with a range of individuals - children, young people, teachers,
parents, carers and other professionals - as part of the support they provide.
Core Services
The Service is delivered through ‘core services’ that are available according to need, rather
than allocated or rationed in a fixed way to schools or other establishments. The only
exceptions to this are the specialist posts attached to Early Years, CAMHS, Birmingham
University, and ISL.
The core services are:
Consultation

Assessment

Direct work with individual children or a group of children

Training and support of staff in educational settings

Consultation and training to colleagues within Integrated Services

Strategic initiatives aimed at developing learning pathways
These core services are delivered in both casework/non-casework ways and a strategic
framework, including specialist contributions, and services are allocated and delivered as
part of an established time-management system based on identified need.
Casework
Individual casework with a child or young person is at both tier 2 and 3 and relates to the
SEN Code of Practice as follows:

Services at School Action (tier 2);

Services at School Action+ (tier 2);

Statutory work (tier 3); and

Post-statutory work - annual/interim/emergency reviews (tier 3)
Educational Psychologists predominantly receive requests for involvement in casework from
schools through termly School Support Team Meetings, but also Health - CASBAT, CAMHS
- SEN Services - out-of-county work, pre-school forum, tribunals - and increasingly
colleagues in Children’s Services. In the course of a year, an Educational Psychologist might
look to respond to approximately 150 new requests for involvement in addition to previous
and ongoing pieces of work.
Casework can be either direct or indirect. This would include consultation and aims to
develop a holistic understanding of an individual’s strengths and difficulties through the
8
assessment and analysis of the significant systems - community, school (culture, physical,
environment, curriculum, teachers, peers), family etc., - that interact with and influence an
individual’s development, and consequently their day-to-day experience of school. This
represents an eco-systemic model and is characteristic of an Educational Psychologist’s
view of the world, but other psychological paradigms, e.g., cognitive, behavioural,
humanistic, psychodynamic, biological etc., in additional to a detailed knowledge and
understanding of child development, also inform Educational Psychology practice.
Educational Psychologists use a range of assessment techniques, including
parent/teacher/other professional interviews, observation, questionnaires, schedules and
test materials, to develop guiding hypotheses and inform suitable, evidence-based
interventions in areas such as:

The environment - home, school, community;

Self-image;

Perception/cognition - eliciting children’s views;

Cognitive skills - verbal, non-verbal and visio-spatial reasoning;

Curricular skills - literacy and numeracy;

Expressive/receptive/language skills;

Behaviour - social/emotional skills, and related to attachment, resiliency etc;

Neurodevelopmental difficulties - ADHD, ASC; and SpLD

Complex mental health difficulties - anxiety-related, self-harm etc
A significant number of the Educational Psychology Team have received training in cognitive
behavioural therapy and this, in addition to other therapeutic models such as Personal
Construct Psychology, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, can be used by Educational
Psychologists to undertake casework where more extensive involvement is felt appropriate.
Non-casework
A significant amount of Educational Psychology time, both in and out of schools, is spent on
activity with a non-casework focus. This is often referred to as systemic work as it aims to
develop and build on the significant systems - community, school (culture, physical,
environment, curriculum, teachers, peers), family etc., - that interact with children and young
people and influence their experience of school. Systemic work provides Educational
Psychologists with the opportunity to work preventatively at tier 1 and 2 with maximum
impact as this activity offers benefits for all, or at least a significant minority.
Casework techniques used vary based on a particular child's age, stage of development and
information available about their current needs. There is a paradigm between the learnerschool-community, and all factors need to be taken into account.
Systemic work tends to result from Educational Psychologist-school discussions regarding
either the school development plan and/or provision map, and in this respect, tends to be a
response to a local school or community issue or need. Systemic work would broadly fall
into one of the following areas:

Action research

Evaluation

Training

Projects
Whilst it is difficult to generate an exhaustive list, systemic work would tend to involve and/or
address a range of themes (Appendix 2).
9
In South Worcestershire, a pilot has been running for using Educational Psychologist time
differently
A proportion of the time (20 % of total) previously available to schools from the South
Worcs. The Educational Psychology Service has been redistributed to provide additional
opportunities for schools to commission project work from the Educational Psychology
Service. The defining characteristic of ‘project’, in this context, is work with a non-casework
focus.
Projects typically look to support initiatives identified either in a school development plan
(SDP) and/or provision map and would reflect issues of priority to individual schools or
school clusters. This model of working complements the established model of allocated
contact Educational Psychologists for all schools and termly SSTMs, which remain in place
and continue to ensure discussion in relation to individual children/ young people.
From 1st September 2008 to 10th February 2009, a total of 41 project bids have been
submitted by schools to the South Worcs. Educational Psychology Service and
consequently this has increased opportunities for Educational Psychologist contribution at
tiers 1 and 2 . Whilst it is difficult to evaluate the impact of the initiative at this stage (most
of these projects remain ongoing) the number of project bids submitted so far, suggest
that the initiative is both welcomed and valued by schools.
The Educational Psychology Team also provide centre-based training available to all
education professionals on the above as part of the broader Workforce Development
Strategy and has more recently delivered similar training opportunities to staff across the
Children’s Services workforce with more to follow.
Joint working/strategic
The holistic nature of the Educational Psychologist contribution ensures work within and
across multi-professional contexts - Health (SaLT, Paediatrician, CAMHS, OT), education
(LST, BST, ISSS, ISL, Parent Partnership) and Children’s Services. Recent developments,
and specifically the introduction of Integrated Area Teams, have resulted in a significant
increase in collaborative and consultative work with a range of professionals within
Children’s Services.
Educational Psychologists are able to draw on a broad evidence-base and their knowledge
and understanding of psychology, education and child development has resulted in
Educational Psychology Team representation on a number of multi-professional
forums/groups.
Those detailed below represent groups/forums where Educational
Psychologists are represented at this time and reflect issues and initiatives that have area or
countywide significance currently:

Principal Educational Psychologist
 Parenting Strategy Clinical Subgroup
 Children with Disabilities & Complex Health Needs Strategy Group
 Anti-bullying Strategic & Operational Group
 Young Carers
 Integrated Working Board
 BSF (Additional Learning Needs)
 Targeted Mental Health for Schools (TaMHS)
 CAMHS Multi-agency Working Group
10

Senior Educational Psychologists
 Communication & Social Behaviour Assessment Team (CASBAT)
 Pre-school Forum
 Neurodevelopment ‘umbrella’ Team (NDT)
 Behaviour Projects & Training Team
 PRU Management Committee
 Behaviour Attendance Group
 Exclusion Review Group
 Special School Panel
 County (school age) & Core (pre-school) Assessment Panel
 Targeted Mental Health for Schools (TaMHS)
 Healthy Schools Strategy Group & Quality Assurance Group
 ADHD & Behaviour Assessment Pathways (BAP)
 Nurture Steering Group
 Nurture Group Workforce Development Group
 Social & Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Strategy Group
 Positive Handling Practitioners Group
 Multi-agency Forums (MAFs)

Educational Psychologists
 Foster Panel
Specialist contributions
All Educational Psychologists (not including trainees) are allocated an area of individual
specialism. As part of their specialist contributions, Educational Psychologists remain up-todate with research and developments in their area of specialism, with an expectation that
this information is disseminated to Educational Psychologist colleagues as part of monthly
Professional Development Meetings. This ensures that Educational Psychologist
contributions at both a countywide and more local level are evidence-based and in-line with
current thinking. Educational Psychologists are allocated specialisms in one of the four
following areas:
1.
Behaviour - emotional health and wellbeing
E.g., delivery of high impact projects to educational settings identified as schools in
difficulty (SIDs)
2.
Early Years
E.g., collaborative working to develop a range of training programmes to children’s
centres and wider Early Years and Childcare Workforce
3.
Cognition, Learning & Language
E.g., collaborative working to develop and support countywide implementation of the
Dyslexia Pathway, support for language units
4.
Training
E.g., Educational Psychology Service - wide oversight for CPD links including
supervision of trainee Educational Psychologists
Appendix 3 details case study examples of the work undertaken by EPs in Worcestershire.
3.2 The Structure of the Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire
There are 29 Educational Psychologist posts in the County, plus 3 Senior Educational
Psychologists, and one Principal Educational Psychologist. However, many Educational
Psychologists work part-time hours, and some are term-time only posts. The WTE hours in
11
Worcestershire is 887.2. This equates to 23.7 WTE posts. 26% of these hours are currently
filled by Trainee Educational Psychologists.
Area
Post
Vacancies
(including held)
1 held
+0.7vac.(recruiting
TEP to these hours)
EP 0
NW
Qualified
5.5 WTE
Trainee
1(against AEP post)
NE
3 WTE
SW
5.2
4 (against maingrade
posts)
1.4 (1 against AEP post and 0
one against maingrade post)
EY - funded by EY
0.2
CAMHS - funded by 1
PCT/CAMHS grant +
RAAL
Training - funded by 0.5
University
ISL - funded by ISL
0.5
Behaviour - RAAL
0.5
The Educational Psychology Service sits mainly within Integrated Services for children,
primarily in the Community and Education Teams, within Area Integrated Services, with
some specialist Educational Psychologists attached to other Services/Teams.
The Area Integrated Teams, as well as Educational Psychologists, include Education
Welfare Officers, Family Support Workers, Social Workers and Social Work Assistants. The
CAF Co-Ordinator is also located within Area Services.
The rationale for siting Educational Psychologists in the Area Integrated Teams is to
capitialise on the ‘added value’ provided through the opportunities for greater communityfocused, multi-agency approach to their work. Areas where educational psychology advice
or support is requested by other professionals within Area Teams are identified through a
fortnightly Area Services Forum.
Educational Psychologists maintain their strong partnership links with Behaviour Support,
Learning Support and school-based specialist such as the SENCO, using a multiprofessional approach to school-based issues, identified through School Support Team
Meetings (SSTMs).
They maintain strong partnerships with Early Years and health settings through the PreSchool Forum. This enables early identification of children with special educational needs.
A 0.2 Educational Psychologist post is dedicated to providing advice and support to Early
Years settings. This is funded by Early Years. A limited amount of additional support is
offered to settings, children, and families/carers from within the Area Teams Educational
Psychologist time.
A Senior Educational Psychologist works with CAMHS, paid for by the grant and Raising
Achievement & Access to Learning, and provides a bridge between this service and
Educational Psychologists in Area Teams, as well as promoting Tier 1 and 2 interventions.
12
The Worcestershire Educational Psychology Service works in partnership with Birmingham
University, with a dedicated 0.5 post paid for by the University, giving direct input and advice
on educational psychology training.
There is also an additional post of 18.5 hours within Integrated Services for Looked After
Children (ISL), dedicated to providing Educational Psychology advice and support
specifically to looked after children, carers, and other professionals.
The Educational Psychologists’ professional development is overseen by the Principal
Educational Psychologist located within Raising Achievement & Access to Learning.
Matrix management is key to the links between the Principal Educational Psychologist, the
Senior Educational Psychologists, the CET Team Managers and the Operational Managers
they are responsible to.
3.3 Funding of Educational Psychologists in Worcestershire
The national standard Soulbury pay scale for an Educational Psychologist is 1-10 (£32,069£42,006)
There is also a national entitlement for Educational Psychologists to apply for up to three
additional SPA (Structured Professional Assessment) points, dependent upon their level of
experience and expertise.
In Worcestershire, SPA 1 and 2 can be applied for after being in post for two years and at
least 4 years Soulbury service. An application can be made for SPA 3 by Educational
Psychologists who have been in receipt of SPA 2 for two years, and can demonstrate an
exceptional contribution to the service.
In addition, in Worcestershire there is a locally agreed process for Educational Psychologists
to apply for one discretionary increment for their ‘specialism’. The specialisms are agreed by
the Educational Psychology Matrix Management Board and are reviewed annually. They
are based on the priorities identified for effective service delivery.
There are four specialist areas currently:

Early Years

Behaviour

Communication, Literacy & Language

Training
All Educational Psychologists who have reached Soulbury pay scale (10) can also apply for
an additional point in recognition of the work undertaken relating to their specialist area.
A qualified, experienced Educational Psychologist at the top of their scale, including one
discretionary point plus 3 SPA points, will be on Soulbury 14.
Trainee Educational Psychologists are appointed on a separate scale (£21,522- £29,396).
Educational Psychologists are required to maintain a Personal Development Plan (PDP) as
a requirement to continue registration.
13
The Local Authority funds training towards Educational Psychologist development, currently
from savings within staffing budgets. Other development opportunities are self-funded or
combined with action-based learning and research within the Educational Psychologist’s
day-to-day work. The average training cost to the Local Authority, per annum, per
Educational Psychologist, is £500.
The new Educational Psychologist qualification is at Doctorate level. The Local Authority is
making a contribution currently towards the Doctorate fees for three existing Educational
Psychologists. The cost of Doctorate fees is £1,650 per annum.
The national shortage of Educational Psychologists has led to Worcestershire’s decision to
employ 7 trainee Educational Psychologists this year. As they qualify it is hoped a
percentage of those trainees will apply for posts within Worcestershire. The nature of the
new training programme means that it will be beneficial for Worcestershire to continue to
attract a proportion of trainees each year. This provides the Local Authority with
opportunities to recruit suitably trained and qualified Educational Psychologists in sufficient
numbers to meet our needs, whilst ensuring vacant posts are covered and a level of service
provided to those children with the most complex needs, whilst also engaging in preventative
work to reduce future needs and improve opportunities for achievement.
Currently the Local Authority funds the majority of the Educational Psychology Service from
base budget. The exceptions to this are the part-time posts funded by Early Years, the
CAMHS grant and Birmingham University.
The cost to the Local Authority of providing the current Educational Psychology Service is
£145,000 through Raising Achievement & Access to Learning plus £1,235,802 through base
budget within Children’s Integrated Services.
The core services are funded in recognition of the fact that the services provided are holistic
by their nature, and need to remain sufficiently flexible to meet the educational needs of
children across the county.
The legal requirement for Educational Psychology advice for statutory assessment would
not, by itself, contribute to the early identification and support for children with additional
educational needs.
The Local Authority has to prioritise the most effective use of the resources that educational
psychologists offer. However, whilst demand for the Service increases, the budget does not.
The Educational Psychology Service has been set an earnings target of £60,000 in 2009/10
and £70,000 in 2010/11.
In order to meet this target, the service will need to trade all or some of its services or there
will need to be a decrease in services offered.
3.4. Allocation of Educational Psychology resources
Requests for advice, consultation, assessment or direct intervention from an Educational
Psychologist are primarily made through the pre-school forum, and educational settings.
Each Educational Psychologist in Area Services works with a pyramid or cluster of schools
within their geographical area. There is flexibility to respond to local pressures, with
14
Educational Psychologists covering for colleagues if there are vacancies, or if there are
unusually high needs in a particular area.
Educational psychology resources are divided into three main area bases – North West,
North East and South Worcestershire.
There is a 'notional time allocation' to each school based on an annual assessment of need.
This assessment takes account of the size of the school, local demographics (e.g., socioeconomic factors) and levels of attainment and identified learning needs.
The 'notional time allocation' is divided between the number of educational psychology hours
available.
This 'notional time allocation' is monitored and adjusted through the year by the Senior
Educational Psychologist and CET Manager as new priorities emerge, and time is
redistributed accordingly.
The Senior Educational Psychologist monitors the time of each Educational Psychologist
through one-to-one supervision.
The service has to prioritise it's statutory functions in respect of children requiring statutory
assessment or psychological advice required at Review or Tribunal. The service will next
prioritise those pupils with complex additional learning needs, where educational
psychological advice or assessment is required to identify the right support or intervention to
meet those needs.
Where it is identified that provision of advice or training to particular staff, or a 'whole school'
intervention will better meet the additional needs of a group of pupils, or a particular need,
this is prioritised, sometimes as a joint intervention with the Education Improvement Advisor
and/ or learning or behaviour support colleagues or speech and language therapists.
Requests for intervention can be received from a number of routes but the service will coordinate those requests mainly through the School Support Team Meeting held in schools
on a termly basis with school representatives, behaviour and learning support colleagues
and, for some schools, the paediatrician and/or speech and language therapists.
15
This flowchart demonstrates how requests for involvement are received and prioritised.
Requests will be received that require a more urgent intervention. In these cases, the
Educational Psychologist will renegotiate their time with the Senior Educational Psychologist
and school concerned.
Requests for intervention from
school-based staff
Requests for
intervention from
other
professionals via
EP (e.g., Areabased staff)
Area Services
Forum – held
fortnightly in Area
Integrated
Services
Requests for intervention from other
professionals attending SSTM
School Support Team Meeting
(SSTM)
- held termly in schools
Requests from
parents/carers via
school/EP/other
professional or
County panel
Priorities agreed at SSTM &
which professionals most
appropriate
EP Service
in CET
Teams
Priorities for 'project' work
or 'whole school'
interventions
Educational Psychology
Steering Group
Educational Psychology Matrix
Management Board - Strategic
16
County
Assessment
Panel, Special
School Panel,
Pre-School Forum
Requests can be made directly by a parent or carer, often after contact with the Parent
Partnership Service, and are then discussed with the school to determine priority. Requests
are also received more recently through the Area Services Forum from colleagues within
Integrated Services.
All requests have to be prioritised to ensure time is given to children with identified additional
and complex needs requiring an Educational Psychology Service. Educational Psychologists
will signpost to more appropriate services, including school-based services, Behaviour
Support, Learning Support, CAMHS or community-based resources.
Requests for Educational Psychology engagement in systems development or strategic
initiatives may also be received through these routes.
In addition, the Senior Educational Psychologist will identify with individual Educational
Psychologists where they can best use their specialist expertise and knowledge to provide
greater value to an issue that may have been raised about an individual child or group of
children.
The Principal Educational Psychologist may also identify areas for systems development
arising from their strategic role and is a link to Senior Managers in other areas of the
Directorate. These links often give rise to requests for Educational Psychologist involvement
which are forwarded to the area teams in order that their priority can be determined.
The Principal Educational Psychologist liaises with the Area Service Development Manager,
who has the Education Psychology ‘strategic lead’. A Matrix Management Board meets halftermly consisting of the relevant Service Development Manager, an Operational Manager
with the Educational Psychology ‘lead’, the Principal Educational Psychologist, the CET
Team Managers and the Senior Educational Psychologists.
Strategic and systems issues are discussed here and the Board agrees the actions required
against service priorities. Any proposed major strategic or systems developments or
changes are taken by the relevant Service Development Manager and Operational Manager
to their Management Teams for agreement.
The Principal Educational Psychologist has a standing invitation to the monthly Children’s
Integrated Services Operational Manager Group Meeting, and also sits on the Joint
Management Team of the Learning Opportunities and Raising Achievement Services within
Raising Achievement & Access to Learning.
Issues raised are consulted on within the CET Team, led by the CET Team Manager and
Senior Educational Psychologist.
The CET Team Manager will take issues to the Area Management Team (AMT) Meeting for
dissemination with co-located Area Services Managers.
17
Structure of Educational Psychology Services within Worcestershire Children’s Services
SDM
SDM
SDM
OM
OM
OM
NW CET
NE CET
TM
EPS Matrix Management Board (1 SDM, 1 OM,
Principal EP, 3 TMs, 3 Snr EPs)
Line Management
Sth CET
TM
TM
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
Snr
FS
EWO
EP
FS
EWO
EP
FS
EWO
EP
EPs
EPs
(1 funded by B’ham Uni)
18
EPs
Senior EP
(CAMHS)
Principal EP
(Professional lead for EP
ISL EP
Service)
EY EP
Operational Matrix
Management
Senior EP
(Behaviour)
4.
Methodology for Review
The Review was commissioned by the Director of Children’s Services in May 2008. The
Brief for the Review was agreed by the Leadership Team in June 2008.
The Working Group carried out the Review between June and November 2008.
The methodology used included:

Literature Review

Analysis of existing activity data

Analysis of comparative data with Shire family

Stakeholder consultation
4.1 Literature Review
The Review team searched for existing research on the ‘core business’ of Educational
Psychology; on the potential for ‘added value’ within integrated services following on from
the Every Child Matters agenda; and on research into the impact on outcomes for children
and young people through the particular contribution made by Educational Psychologists.
Two reviews commissioned by the Government provide a comprehensive body of research
covering these elements.
Summary of DfEE Review (2000)
In their report (Department of Education & Employment - DfEE [2000] - Educational
Psychology Services [England]: Current role, good practice and future directions. The
Report of the Working Group) the DfEE defined the role of an Educational Psychologist as
“to promote child development and learning through the application of psychology by
working with individuals and groups of children, teachers and other adults in schools,
families other LEA (Local Education Authority) officers, health and social services and other
agencies”
The purpose of the Review was to examine the future role and training of educational
psychologists in the context of raising achievement for children with special educational
needs.
The Review used the definition from ‘Excellence for all children: meeting special educational
needs’ (1997 Green Paper) as the basis of Educational Psychology training:
“to apply psychology to promote the attainment and healthy emotional development of
children from 0-19”
The report’s findings were based on quantitative and qualitative data from local education
authorities, a sample of mainstream and special schools, groups of parents, health and
social services, and Educational Psychologists.
Findings

There was a wide variance in staffing ratios across the country. The data did not allow
correlation between staffing ratios and quality of service provided. However, the review
did find a correlation between staffing ratio per 0-19 population and certain areas of
Educational Psychology impact - training, research and development (including project
work)
19

Greater clarity, and reduced overlap with other services was achieved where
Educational Psychologists were combined in one service with advisory teachers,
assessment teachers and behaviour support teachers

Limited marketing of Educational Psychology services and functions limited take-up.
However, there was concern that by providing more information about what
Educational Psychologists could do, this may lead to oversubscription for services

Time spent on stages 4 and 5 of the Code of Practice by Educational Psychologists
could be reduced by clearer criteria for initiating a statutory assessment, and clearer
expectations for schools on the funding and provision for children with special
educational needs. This could enable Educational psychologists to move from a
referral base to a consultation and problem-solving model, establishing specialisms
and work empowering education-based staff.

Working with the Parent Partnership Service reduces the barriers for parental
acceptance and understanding of the Educational Psychology service.

Working with pre-school children enabled more preventative actions to be taken to
address potential special needs, and could provide more appropriate advice to primary
schools on admission.

Preventative work should not be at the expense of advice and support for those
children and young people with the most complex needs

Special schools and health professionals advocate for Educational psychologists
developing specialisms

Arrangements for clinical and educational psychologists and clinical psychiatrists to
work more collaboratively should be formalised

Educational psychologists have a key role in ensuring closer links for looked after
children between care plans and education plans
Summary of DCSF Review (2006)
The DCSF commissioned a further review of Educational Psychology services in 2006. (A
Review of the Functions & Contributions of Educational Psychologists in England & Wales in
light of ‘Every Child Matters: Change for Children’ Peter Farnell, Kevin Woods, Sarah Lewis, Steve
Rooney, Gary Squires, Mike O’Connor School of Education, University of Manchester Aug 2006 DCFS )
The purpose of this Review was to evaluate the views of a range of stakeholders about the
distinctive contribution made by Educational Psychologists in working with children aged 019 and their families within an integrated context - looking at the challenges and
opportunities, facilities and barriers that exist - with a focus on the ECM outcomes,
specifically:
a)
b)
SEN assessment - with particular reference to educational psychology impact on
reducing the number of statements and with reference to the CAF.
Multi-agency working in general, and in relation to CAMHS, BEST Teams and children
entering and leaving the Criminal Justice System.
20
c)
Strategic work and capacity building with schools to promote school improvement and
pupil achievement.
The methodology used was questionnaires to stakeholders, headteachers across
educational settings and parents. Telephone and face-to-face interviews were held with
representatives from a range of stakeholders and interviews with a sample group of young
people with recent contact with Educational Psychologists.
Findings

Majority of stakeholders reported educational psychology work contributing to meeting
each of the ECM outcomes in all areas of their work - individual assessment,
consultancy, intervention and training.
School-based respondents were less certain. The Review surmised this may be for two
reasons:
1) they were less aware of educational psychology work outside the school setting in
contributing to groups and systems that impacted on improving the five outcomes
for children;
2) school-based staff, at the time of this Review, were less focused on the five
outcomes as a measure of achievement or improvements for children.

Responses indicated a universal view that Educational Psychologists spend too much
time involved in statutory assessment and this prevented them from expanding their
work so as to make more effective contributions that maximise ‘added value’.
All respondents saw it as important for Educational Psychologists to work with
individual children who have severe, complex or challenging needs.
Where there is a reduction in educational psychology time relating to statutory work,
this allows them to undertake a greater variety of effective SEN work.

Respondents provided ‘abundant evidence’ of Educational Psychologists working in a
multi-agency context and reported evidence of them making an effective contribution in
these contexts.
Educational Psychologists' distinctive contribution
Respondents referred to Educational Psychologists’ academic background and training in
psychology as the factors that enable them to make a distinctive contribution.
When commenting on discrete pieces of work, most school-based respondents indicated
that an alternative provider might have been able to carry out the work.
Facilitators and Barriers
Facilitators:

Educational Psychologists have established good working relationships and effective
communication skills

Positive outcomes for children were more likely to be achieved when Educational
Psychologists, alongside other professionals, were clear about the contribution they
could offer to a particular piece of work
21
Barriers:

Limited contact time with Educational Psychologists - particularly from staff in schools
and especially in respect of therapeutic interventions
Implications & Recommendations from DCSF Review
1.
Impact of educational psychology work in meeting the five outcomes:
 Educational psychology development plans should be based on meeting the five
ECM outcomes. Annual reviews should be based on the extent to which these
plans have been successfully implemented.
 Plans should be made jointly with other agencies/professionals working with
children.
 In all areas of day-to-day work, Educational Psychologists should be considering
how their work contributes to meeting the five outcomes. The contribution should be
recorded and, as appropriate, communicated with partner agencies and the parent
and child.
2.
Extent to which the role and function of Educational Psychologists is distinctive:
 Educational Psychologists need to liaise with commissioners of services to ensure
there is clarity of purpose in their activities. Local commissioners and users of
Educational Psychology Services can be confident then of the Educational
Psychologist’s distinctive contribution.

3.
To achieve this, there needs to be:
 Documentation about the range of work offered by the Educational Psychology
Service. This should be explicit about the psychological nature of their
contribution;
 In response to individual requests for an Educational Psychology Service,
Educational Psychologists should clarify the specific nature of the work required
and the psychological contribution that they can offer, and, where appropriate,
clarify whether an alternative provider is available who may carry out the work
with the same impact;
 When requesting educational psychology involvement, commissioners should,
wherever possible, be clear about the specific nature of the work required and
the psychological contribution that they are expecting from the Educational
Psychologist.
Impact of a reduction in the Educational Psychologist’s role in statutory work:
 The reduced emphasis of the Educational Psychologist’s role in carrying out
statutory SEN assessments was seen as potentially positive. School-based
respondents felt too much Educational Psychologist time was taken up with this
activity. Parents valued the contribution Educational Psychologists made to
assessments.

This indicates that Educational Psychologists should continue to have a key role in
the statutory assessment of children with the most complex needs.

The trend in reduction of statutory assessments should be used to expand and
develop educational psychology activities in areas where their skills and knowledge
can have greater effect - group and individual therapy, staff training and systems
work.
22
4.
Educational Psychologists and multi-agency involvement:
The Review noted the ‘key impact’ that effective multi-agency work can have on the
delivery of improved services for children. It drew no conclusions as to where
Educational Psychologists should be based in order to be effective.
Recommendations in this area were:
 Educational Psychologists co-locate their services where this seems to be
appropriate with the full agreement of all parties;
 Educational Psychology Services should seek to extend their number of specialist
Educational Psychologist posts, with the promotion of clear negotiation of
respective roles with professionals working in related services.
5.
The future role and function of Educational Psychologists within Children’s Services:
The Review concluded that Educational Psychologists are likely to become more
community focused with a reduced emphasis on school-based work.
This co-incides with the onset of restructured training for Educational Psychologists,
involving trainee and assistant Educational Psychologists in considering what their role
and function should be.
The Review recommendations in this area were: Documentation about the role of Local Authority Educational Psychology Services
should stress the community-based nature of the work;
 Educational Psychology Services should consider how assistant and trainee
Educational Psychologists can make a contribution that complements those of fully
qualified Educational Psychologists;
 Educational and clinical psychologists working in the same area should continue to
strengthen their professional relationships and develop plans for effective joint
working where their skills can be complemented effectively.
 Professional organisations representing Educational Psychologists should begin
discussions about the possible merger of the two professions - clinical and
educational psychology.
4.2
Analysis of existing activity data (Appendix 4)
The Educational Psychology Service has routinely collected data against a set of agreed
performance indicators. Appendix 3 gives the detail of the data for the last 3 years. The
perception indicators from children were discontinued in 2007, so the returns for these
indicators was from 2006/7. However, there was an 80% satisfaction rating reported at that
time.
The other data indicates a high level of performance against the indicators agreed:


70% of learners supported by an Educational Psychologist remained at an existing
stage on the Code of practice, or earlier
An Educational Psychologist had input in 100% of cases of phase transfer reviews
where the school identified possible risk of recommendation for special school
placements, so that appropriate strategies and support are agreed in order that pupils
remain in mainstream where possible
An Educational Psychologist responded to 100% of requests from schools for phase
transfer support where a child is at risk of permanent exclusion, in order that the
receiving school feels confident to meet their needs
23




90% of Appendix Ds for statutory assessments were submitted within CSA guidelines
90% of course attendees reported a positive impact of training provided by the
Educational Psychology Service to enable them to better support pupil development
100% of LAC were discussed at SSTMs and prioritised for Educational Psychologist
involvement if at risk of permanent exclusion
The Educational Psychology Service supports 100% of residential key workers for LAC
living in Worcestershire County Council Children’s Homes to improve engagement with
education
The Service Sector Plan for Area Integrated Services incorporated these indicators in the
Plan last year (2008/9). This year those indicators will be reviewed again when the new
Service Sector Plan is developed to ensure they are aligned with Service and Directorate
priorities and whether any new measures can be utilised.
Data on assessments of Special Educational Needs indicates that the number of request for
assessments has decreased by 100 per annum from 2002 to 2008, though there has been
an upward trend from a ‘low’ of 174 in 2006.
There has been a drop in the number of Statements that reached completion by 90 per
annum from 2002 to 2008, again with an upward trend from a ‘low’ of 203 in 2006.
This is mirrored in the number of Statements of Special Educational Needs- currently
standing at 256 per annum, down from 349 in 2002, but up from a low of 203 in 2006.
Educational Psychologists report a slight increase in requests for assessments again in the
Autumn/Winter of 2008, with a concern that some of these children have not previously been
notified to the Educational Psychologist by the school before. Normally they would expect
the school to have flagged concerns at the School Support Team Meetings from School
Action/School Action+ stage. The Assessment Panel would usually ask the school to
consider this before agreeing to request an assessment for statutory assessment from an
Educational Psychologist. The reason for this is not known.
However, Educational Psychologists are concerned that if there is an upward trend in
requests for assessments and reports for statutory assessment then this will limit the amount
of time they have for more systemic or therapeutic interventions with children or staff
working with children, and contributions to strategic developments to support a wider range
of children with additional and complex needs
4.3 Analysis of comparative data (Appendix 5)
The Principal Educational Psychologist is a member of the benchmarking group for large
Shire counties. The last available data is from 2007/08.
Summary findings

Ratio of centrally funded Educational Psychologists to children aged 0-19 in the Local
Authority:
Worcestershire’s ratio is the median range of 1:6122. The Shire Local Authorities with
a lower range have historically funded additional posts through accessing grant-based
funding streams or internal trading. The last piece of research advising of the ratio of
educational psychologists per 2-19 population was the Warnock Report (May 1978).
This recommended a minimum ratio of 1:5000
24
5.

Ratio of trainee Educational Psychologists in post:
In 2007/08, Worcestershire funded 2 wte trainee Educational Psychologists against
main grade posts. This ratio was in the median range at that time (the lowest being 0
and the highest being 10). This number has risen in response to the change in the
training programme for Educational Psychologists. Worcestershire currently funds 5.4
trainee Educational Psychologists. A further 3 have been recruited for September
2009, against main grade posts.

Ratio of statutory advice for assessments:
Worcestershire completed 98.4% of all statutory advice for assessments within the 6week timescale. This demonstrates good performance. The shire returns range from
84% - 99%.

Ratio of statements as percentage of 0-19 population:
Worcestershire held statements of Special Educational Need for 0.21% of the 0-19
population in 2007/08. This equates to 279 statements for SEN. This is within the
median range for the shire family (the highest being 0.49% and the lowest being
0.12%).

Percentage of posts entitled to additional increments:
Worcestershire is in the median ranges of shire authorities with 70% of posts entitled to
additional increments - the highest being 100% (5 Local Authorities) and the lowest
being 23.2%.
Stakeholder Consultation
Consultation took place using a combination of questionnaires and structured interviews.
The questionnaires were constructed by the Review group to elicit responses from schools
and from a sample of parents/carers about their understanding of the role and functions of
Educational Psychologists in Worcestershire, their perceptions of the impact of those
services for children and young people, and their perceptions as to what was most effective
in achieving positive outcomes for children and young people.
The questionnaires consist of a set of statements that respondents are asked to comment
on. Respondents were asked to score their answers using a perception measure from
‘strongly agree’ through to ‘strongly disagree’, with an opportunity for ‘free’ comments at the
end.
The structured interviews were undertaken using a set of questions as prompts for the
facilitators, who were members of the Review group. A wide range of professional groups
were interviewed, as well as a group representing parents and a group representing young
people who had experienced contact with Educational Psychologists.
The questions were also asked of a local authority in our Shire family and are included in the
feedback.
Other Local Authorities were contacted in relation to particular experiences (traded services;
restructure post ECM) and their responses have been included in this stakeholder
consultation.
25
5.1
Questionnaire to Schools
A questionnaire was sent to all Local Authority schools in Worcestershire (Appendix 6). Of
the 248 contacted, 75 responses were received- a 30% response rate. The charts in
Appendix 7 detail the responses.
There was strong agreement from schools as to what they valued most from the Educational
Psychology Service (agree/strongly agree):
Consultation regarding individual child - 64

Consultation regarding groups of children - 55

Assessments - 62

Direct interventions - 59

Interventions with groups - 47

Follow up support - 59

Work with other professionals - 56

Work with parents/carers - 45

Supporting transitions - 59

Support for critical incidents - 52

Work in early years settings - 50
Areas were schools were less certain were (uncertain/disagree):

Support for teachers - 31

School improvement - 21

Consultation on school policies & systems – 28
Comments from schools frequently mentioned particular Educational Psychologists in a
positive way
‘She is extremely professional in her approachability, advice, & recommendations…I know
(…) will respond quickly and efficiently to any concerns or requests we may have.’
‘We receive a fantastic service from our EP, she provides many services & is always there
for us if we need advice’
‘Our EP (…) is extremely supportive and helpful’
‘Our EP gives excellent service. She responds quickly to messages/requests from school
and is prepared to talk to all parties, e.g. parents, children, TAs, SSAs, SENCO, CTs and
other agencies. We greatly value her advice and try to act on it. She is a huge asset in
meetings, especially in situations where she has the expertise’
Other schools comment on particular skills provided
‘Recently I have worked collaboratively with our unit EP to provide intervention of staff
emotional well-being. This has proved highly effective & of immense value to individual staff
& also our sense of Team. Truly vital work and so skillfully managed by our EPs.’
‘What I particularly appreciate is a hands-on approach through leading/delivering inset,
supporting SENCO/TAs/Teachers in establishing intervention support. We learn best by
having good practice modelled’
26
There were a number of comments on the pressures on Educational Psychologist time, with
some indication that some schools still feel they have an ‘official allocation’ of Educational
Psychologist time
‘It would be great if EPs could get involved in interventions…our experience is that their
workload is heavy & this has not been offered in our school. EPs are so busy that we find it
difficult to take advantage of these services. Consultation & Assessment/Review of
individuals is prioritized as a result of this and often children wait for more than a month’
The list is very extensive-we only use a tiny part of this. Our EP is very supportive but her
allocation of time to this school is very limiting.’
‘As I am sure everyone else will say-more sessions!’
‘EP is so busy that I have difficulty doing this (speaking regularly by phone). This hinders
how quickly I can respond to difficulties, obviously her workload is too great’
Comments were received indicating an awareness of the need to prioritise Educational
Psychologist time, though there was not consensus about what those priorities are
‘For the boxes ticked disagree - we feel these services are provided by other support
services to our school’
‘The disagree column was only used because I know that EP time is limited & other people
could provide these services instead of EPs. The accurate assessment of a YP’s needs &
assisting in defining what interventions are necessary to meet those needs has to be the
priority of our EPs’
‘…writing paperwork for statutory assessment- I feel this is a waste of their professional time
when they could be doing training with staff and direct work with children..’
‘EPs currently spend a good deal of time writing reports for statements etc. These take up a
lot of their time & do not have much impact on the child’
Many schools commented on how they would like to make more use of the skills and
services of the Educational Psychology Service.
‘A more focused approach & working with individuals most needy & not just assessing will
be good’
‘Some of the tick boxes were subjects I was not aware the EP could cater for e.g.
training/school improvement/emotional support for teachers. It would be useful to have some
kind of information-sharing document outlining services available’.
‘More input during time running up to SATs in order to ensure children who need additional
support are given suitable assessments to ensure they qualify.’
‘A direct link to access mental health assessments as the NHS seem to take so long. Also
direct counseling for children with mental health issues’.
27
A minority of comments indicated there was still a lack of clarity as to the best use of
Educational Psychologist time and skills, or a debate still to be had about the best use of
their time
‘We would like the EP to be able to work to gain information from all areas including GPs as
this would help prevent a CAF form being initiated, which can be a most time-consuming
activity & delay support being put in place’.
‘I think it is vital that an EP should attend the annual reviews of statemented children. EPs
are part of the team that support our children. Parents of children with SEN need to feel
confident about the provision for their children. If any member of the team does not attend
then parents feel let down. This should not happen!’
Finally, some schools suggested new opportunities for working with Educational
Psychologists.
‘Parent/child workshops would be useful if we can get people interested. Possibly working
with Family Support going into homes to help support families with issues raised in schools’
‘Contribution to curriculum on sensitive topics e.g. depression, bereavement’
‘Support for pupils with their transition to second school. Improved ‘fast response’ for
students who ‘go critical’ quickly. Improved advice on practical strategies for those working
closely with the student’.
‘Is there scope for stress/workload/life management strategies for teachers to be available &
if so , how would schools/individuals access it?’
5.2 Questionnaire to Parents
A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 62 parents/carers whose children had
undergone statutory assessment within the last 12 months (Appendix 8).
33 responses were received - a 53% response rate. The charts in Appendix 9 detail the
responses.
The responses indicate parents who have experienced services were highly positive about
the value of Educational Psychologist interventions(agree/strongly agree): Advice for parents/carers on teaching strategies- 28
 Advice to parents/carers on behaviour management strategies- 29
 Assessment of strengths & difficulties in the home- 27
 Work with other agencies to support child’s development- 28
 Assessment- 30
 Advice on teaching- 28
 Advice on behaviour- 28
 Attending Review- 28
The only area where there was a less positive response was in respect of training,
workshops etc for parents - 9 were uncertain or disagreed and one parent strongly
disagreed.
28
Comments from parents were mainly positive about the Educational Psychologist’s
intervention
‘I believe the greatest outcome of my EP’s involvement has been the resulting co-ordinated
effort of all parties concerned. By parties I mean school and agencies.’
‘We would just like to thank the EPS for all the help we had in the support of our daughter’s
difficulties…..thanks to (…) our daughter is now attending high school & enjoying it. This is a
massive achievement after 2 years being out of school.’
Some parents were unhappy at the time it took to request an assessment from the
Educational Psychologist, and schools not appearing to follow strategies recommended by
the Educational Psychologist
‘EP gave sound advice to staff but they didn’t listen and take note…’
‘Staff aren’t even sure when they need to contact an EP & if they do eventually after being
made to they can never get hold of one. By this time it’s too late. Staff were unsure what a
PSP was…’
‘It took too long to assess my child despite many requests to her teachers…The (.EP..)
made my daughter feel better about herself…’
‘better access to EPs for parents if the school does not listen to concerns as in my
daughter’s case it took a long time to get an assessment’
Parents who responded commented on their need for support & training
‘It is such a real shame that most of these services are not available to the parents as it
would make a lot of difference to helping to give the right support to the child’
It is very important that the parents have support with training courses & what to expect both
from their child & what services are available. Also with schools the pot of money for special
needs should be used for those children…It should be standard for all schools to have
training courses for treating children with ADHD as it has increased so much & not wait for
the Ed Psych. To confirm there is a requirement’
‘Translation of technical written reports so as to be understandable & readable by parents
without EP training…follow-up required after preparation of written report’
‘Very early in process but feel strongly that we need an avenue for advice at home rather
than just help for teacher from EP’
Two comments were negative
‘We feel the contact and communication is not frequent enough’
Not very satisfied with the Psychology Service’ (not known if this is EPS or CAMHS)
29
5.3 Structured Interviews with Stakeholder Groups
A series of questions was agreed by the Review team to ask stakeholder groups. A wide
range were consulted working with children with additional and complex needs.
The interview questions were put to 18 panels made up as follows:
3 x Area Integrated Management Teams (AMTs)

Area Community & Education Teams (CETs)

2 x Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS)

Children’s Services Integrated Operational Management Group (CSIOMG)

Learning Opportunities/ Education Performance & Achievement

Behaviour Support Team/Learning Support Team

Integrated Service for Looked After Children Team (ISL)

ISSS

Early Years/Children Centre representatives

Parent Partnership Service

County wide Consultants’ Group

Parent/Carers group

Young People in Care- Who Cares-We Care representatives

Speech and Language Team
In order to convert the answers received it has been necessary to group specific answers
into groups (e.g., training includes all training topics, assessment includes all types of
assessment etc)
Answers such as those received from countywide consultants where they have given a
broad perspective of the service rather than answered specific questions are included as
statements.
The results chart identifies the priorities by totalling how many groups identified the answers
listed. The totals at the bottom of each chart show the number of responses. Each chart
should be viewed separately to identify priorities as not all questions were answered by all
groups.
Question 1 –
What do you think are the key functions to be performed by the Educational Psychology
Service?
The main categories given as prompts were clearly identified with Training & Multi Agency
work, Casework, consultation, and assessment being recognised by around half of the
participants.
Working with Families was also highlighted by over half of the panels as being a major
function of the Educational Psychology Service.
It should be noted that comments were made by parent/carers group and one of the AMT
groups that they weren’t really aware of all of the functions of the Educational Psychology
Service.
30
Question 2 How would you describe the distinctive contribution of Educational Psychologists?
Psychological perspective and skills were clearly picked out of the prompts as being the
major contribution of Educational Psychologists with knowledge of wider systems, and
specialist knowledge also scoring high
Education specialists also highlighted the emotional support/wellbeing of staff in schools
which Educational Psychologists provide has being very valuable.
School parent liaising/facilitating was a further area where Educational Psychologists
received recognition.
Question 3 Which aspects of Educational Psychologist service delivery are most valued by your service?
Question three answers reflected the answers given in questions 1 and 2 with the additions
of Multi Agency working and Co location both scoring quite high.
The term a critical friend comes up several times in this and other questions with many of
the panel members referring to this as a highly valued element of the Educational
Psychology Service.
Question 4 What do you think the balance of work for Educational Psychologists should be in terms of
direct work with children and young people or empowering/enabling those adults who have
day-to-day contact with children and young people?
The balance of work question led to disagreement in panels with all members having their
own opinion of where the balance should sit. All agreed there should be a balance of
between 50/50 & 70/30 but this swings with a bias both ways.
Tier 2 work (early intervention) was highlighted as a specific need, with groups raising
concern that early intervention services lack specific Educational Psychology Service time
(links with question 7 – the miracle question).
Question 5 What are the opportunities/risks for maximising the impact of Educational Psychologists in
the new Worcestershire Children’s Services structure?
Opportunities were identified in the following areas:
Community Involvement

New delivery structure

Early intervention

Co-location
Risks:
EPS becoming stretched

Easy route to Social care as opposed to CAF

Over demand

Co-location
31
As can be seen some items are identified as being both opportunities and risks, it was
identified that work would need to be done with other agencies, schools, and families
perceive the new structure. In addition work around the breadth of work which Educational
Psychologists undertake and what could be available would be necessary.
Traded services was seen as a risk to the role of critical friend (different relationship when a
service is paid for).
The parent carer group as a whole stated they very rarely had interaction with Educational
Psychologists, do not know how to refer in their own right or even if this is possible, and that
they felt that the Educational Psychology Service moving into early years becoming more
proactive rather than reactive is beneficial.
Question 6 Given current resourcing, how might Educational Psychologists further contribute to children
and young people’s development?
This area brought up a recognition for more collaborative working together with more of what
is being provided already.
In addition there was a recognition that drop ins or a service where Educational
Psychologists could be contacted for advice without a referral would be beneficial to some.
A website was also suggested as an advice forum.
Question 7 If the Educational Psychology Service were able to increase its capacity, what other
services would you like to see it offer?
A wide range of ideas were put forward to this the ‘miracle question’ but most interestingly
the Educational Psychology Service, CAMHS, Area Management Teams and ISSS all
identified that they would like to see further co location.
Open Training in multi agency/parent carers groups was also brought up by 7 of the groups,
and outreach community work was a further area which some thought would be a good
service to be available.
Children's Centres were suggested as an area where development of new services could be
delivered (links with question 4).
5.4 Information from other Local Authorities
In addition to the structured interviews with stakeholders in Worcestershire, the Review
contacted five other Local Authorities - Norfolk, Milton Keynes, Lancashire, London Borough
of Newham and West Sussex - by telephone or e-mail- for comparative information on the
role of Educational Psychologists and their place in the structure.
Some services commented in full, whilst others only commented on particular elements.
Their comments are summarised here as they add to the overall picture.
32
Norfolk
In Norfolk, the Educational Psychologists are located within Area-based teams, including
social care assessment and looked after care social care professionals, Children with
Disabilities social care, CAMHS tier 1 and 2 professionals, behaviour support, specialist
teachers, attendance officers, SEN officers, early years and youth workers and some school
advisory functions.
Within these Areas are small self-contained teams called Locality Teams. These teams
focus on the school and the child, and Educational Psychologists contribute to these. There
are also specialist ‘Therapeutic Teams’ to which Educational Psychologists contribute.
Some Educational Psychologists remain centrally based, including the specialist Educational
Psychologists for looked after children. All Educational Psychologists are expected to
contribute 10-20% of their time for specialist ‘cross-county’ services.
Milton Keynes
The Educational Psychology Service in Milton Keynes has recently had ‘non-statutory’ work
bought back by mainstream schools. There was a negative response from schools, in part
because the sum delegated in respect of Educational Psychologists is not specified.
However, schools did understand the position of the service and most schools have bought
back.
Three key issues emerged:

Equity - the service has an ethical dilemma as the same standard of service is not
provided across all schools and hence not necessarily targeting those children most in
need.

There has been an increase in demand for statutory assessments and related
statement support budget, ‘schools feel they won’t go the extra mile for children and
young people at School Action Plus when it means paying the Educational
Psychologists for consultation as well’.

One pyramid of schools has employed their own Educational Psychologist who
undertakes SEN assessments, but not consultation for non-statutory work. This makes
it difficult to provide a joined-up service.
Milton Keynes activity data as a proportion of Educational Psychologist time:

42.6% - Statutory Assessments

1.3% - Statutory advice for moving children and young people in from out-of-county

10.9% - Statutory advice and attendance at Annual Reviews of statements

5.4% - preschool assessment and advice
60.3% - statutory sub-total


38.4% - Consultation with pupils, parents and teachers in School Action Plus, direct
therapeutic work, work with looked after children, training
1.3% - Critical incident responses
39.7% - non-statutory time
33
Lancashire
A brief response was given by Lancashire relating to funding rather than role or structure.
Lancashire uses ‘other government funding streams’ (unspecified) to assist in funding its
Educational Psychologists, in addition to funding from the PCT for an Educational
Psychologist working in CAMHS.
The services has an ‘income target’ equivalent to 2 Educational Psychologist posts.
Schools are under no pressure to purchase additional services, but will purchase training
and on occasion, additional individual assessments.
West Sussex
West Sussex provided a full response in a telephone interview.
1.
What is the composition of your integrated area teams?
West Sussex initially had a relatively large number (8) of small teams, each under an
Integrated Service Development Manager. These comprised: Education Welfare
Officers; Educational Psychologists; Family Links Workers; Portage; Family Support
Workers; Social Work Assessments/Performance.
The above formed a ‘core team’ and there was then a concept of ‘aligned services’
which had separate management routes e.g. CAMHS and School Health.
The experience has been that these teams were too small and they are now reducing
in number to four for the whole county.
2a.
What have been the advantages and disadvantages of locating Educational
Psychologists within integrated area services?
The experience in West Sussex has been that having a line manager from a different
discipline to that of the professional groups within the integrated teams has not been
effective. The highest proportion of work for these integrated teams has been around
child protection and it has been concluded that the managers of these teams need to
be experienced social care professionals. In the latest version of their restructuring,
therefore, all the ISDMs have been Social Care Managers.
Approximately three quarters of the work of Educational Psychologists within these
teams has remained heavily biased towards learning (including work in schools,
supporting the SEN service – including out county placements etc), school support
team meetings, bringing an education psychology perspective to CAF meetings etc.
The total time for these activities has been calculated at around 75% of the total
available.
In view of the different emphasis of the Educational Psychologists compared to other
members of the integrated team, it has been decided to relocate the Educational
Psychologists within a single profession service.
2b.
Has the Educational Psychologist role changed as a result of re-structuring?
Demand for Educational Psychology services has increased, but not from integrated
services. The increased demand has been for training across a wide variety of areas
34
– School Workforce Development, Children’s Workforce Development etc, etc. This
work has only been accommodated through providing less casework time to schools.
3.
How is the work of Educational Psychologists evaluated?
Educational
Psychologists are valued as process consultants helping colleagues formulate
responses to complex and challenging issues.
This is difficult to evaluate in a scientific way but feedback from colleagues is positive.
Single case studies have been used to illustrate the value added by Educational
Psychologists in which areas of ESM.
4.
What evaluation approaches have you discarded?
Evaluation of individual case outcomes has been trialled and while useful for
illustrative purposes has been difficult to manage in regular practice.
5.
The ‘miracle question’ – what would you observe if overnight the Educational
Psychologists were maximally adding value through integrated services?
 Unified line management for a single professional group.
 Clear recognisable core service i.e. majority of time allocated to learning issues.
 Strategic representation to enable the Educational Psychology perspective to
influence policy and strategy.
 A small number of additional staff for permissioned work, a small number of these
being employed on temporary contracts.
London Borough of Newham
The Review had been advised that this Local Authority had reduced its Educational
Psychology Service to one Educational Psychologist. However, when they were contacted
this was found to be inaccurate. The Educational Psychology Service had been reduced by
four Educational Psychologists, from eleven down to seven some years ago. However
staffing has since been increased to match demand for the service and now stands at ten.
The additional staff are funded through internal trading.
The proportion of Educational Psychologists to 0-19 child population is not known but
Newham is a relatively small Borough in comparison with Worcestershire.
6.
Analysis of research and data
6.1 Role and Functions of Educational Psychologists
The activity data and comparison data with Worcestershire’s Shire Family indicates that the
Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire is performing at a high level, serving
those children with the most complex needs and fulfilling its statutory functions.
The evidence from stakeholders in Worcestershire shows a high regard for the value of the
Educational Psychology Service, in particular the skills of individual Educational
Psychologists, and the links they provide with other services.
Specialist Educational Psychologists are valued within their area of service - the example
provided in the case study for Early Years demonstrates evidence of positive impact through
the unique contribution of the Educational Psychologist
There is feedback to indicate that there remains some confusion from some people about
the role of the Educational Psychologist and where their priorities lie. The consultation has
35
raised the profile of Educational Psychologists and may have raised expectations about the
services that can be provided.
There is a risk that unless the Educational Psychology Service clarifies its priorities there will
be over-demand for services in areas that do not address the most pressing needs, or where
there is less impact.
Several stakeholders expressed concern about this and for the need to be clear about
respective roles and functions between professionals.
The DCSF Review highlighted this as an area to be addressed to ensure the skills of
Educational Psychologists are used where they have most impact, and to ensure
stakeholders are directed to other more suitable services where appropriate.
Whilst most schools valued input with individual children, some schools who had
experienced such a service also valued the ‘whole school’ approach with interventions to
train and develop staff.
Parents clearly identified their need for more direct contact and support for themselves in
helping their children with complex needs.
Educational Psychologists are seen by parents as a ‘key’ to appropriate recognition of, and
access to, services to support their child’s needs.
There was less clarity from parents’ feedback about whether other services could equally
meet their need for training, though this is likely to be because the focus of the questions
was about the role of the Educational Psychologist.
The DCSF research indicated parents valued the role of the Educational Psychologist in
assessments and the need for Educational Psychologists to remain involved with statutory
assessment of those children with the most complex needs.
6.2 Resourcing Educational Psychology Services
Current staffing levels are within the Shire average, though any reduction may bring the
Service below this average. Pay and remuneration is also within the Shire average.
Evidence from the one Local Authority that significant reduced its Educational Psychology
Service indicates that demand soon led to a subsequent increase almost back to its previous
level of resourcing.
Some Local Authorities have begun trading services - though the Local Authority that linked
this to specific services has seen a correlation with a less equitable service across their
Authority, and consequent concern that the Service is not necessarily able to prioritise those
children who most need the service.
The Local Authorities that have traded services would have had to reduce their Educational
Psychology Service if they had not done so.
Feedback from stakeholders indicated some concern about the Educational Psychology
Service trading with schools as this may reduce their ability to provide critical challenge.
36
However, there was also feedback that the service is under pressure from competing
demands and that at its current level it is a high performing and valued service, so there was
no appetite for a reduced service.
There is concern that demand for statutory assessment may be rising - this needs to be
monitored further to establish if this is a trend and if so, the reasons for this as it may affect
the proportion of Educational Psychology time available for more preventative or strategic
initiatives. A number of schools felt that time spent on statutory assessment and reports was
a less effective use of Educational Psychologist time.
The DCSF research indicated that where there is a reduction in educational psychology time
relating to the statutory work, this allows them to undertake a greater variety of SEN work.
However, in terms of resources this must be balanced by Local Authorities being clear about
the specific nature of the work required and the psychological contribution they can offer
and, where appropriate, clarify if an alternative provider is available.
6.3 Opportunities within Integrated Children’s Services
From the feedback from stakeholders, there is evidence that integration within Area
Integrated Teams is beginning to provide opportunities for earlier intervention with children
and young people ‘in need’.
Educational Psychologists have maintained their strong links with school-based support staff
and the Behaviour & Learning Support Teams through School Support Team Meetings but
have increased their links with professionals within Integrated Services at the same time.
Educational Psychologists are providing an important ‘bridge’ between Integrated Services
and other professionals and the feedback indicates there is potential to capitalise on this
further. There was significant feedback from other professionals about the value provided
by Educational Psychologists to strategic initiatives using their evidence, research-base and
systemic approach. Schools were less positive about this but some commented that this
related more to their lack of awareness of what other things Educational Psychologists do.
The DCSF research highlighted the need to capitalise on the skills and experience of
Educational Psychologists in facilitation, empowering groups, and using their understanding
of psychology, child development and systems in strategic developments as diverse as CAF
and learning pathways.
The profile of the Educational Psychology Service demonstrates the breadth of individual,
group and strategic work the service contributes to. This only profiles one service though
and does not provide an overview of where other services are engaged in similar potentially
overlapping activities or are working collaboratively to provide a better outcome than they
might through a single professional.
The lack of a co-ordinated overview of all services working with children with additional or
complex educational needs was apparent when trying to collate data for this Review. The
BESD Review may fill this gap.
7.
Conclusions of Review Team
7.1 The Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire is highly regarded and performing to
a high standard in comparison to its Shire family.
37
7.2 The Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire is clear about its role and function
and its core services, but this is not always communicated fully to colleagues and
stakeholders. There is a lack of clarity about how services are prioritised and distributed, and
what can be provided.
7.3 The Educational Psychology Service has become integrated within the relatively new
Community & Education Teams within Integrated Services, with no loss of performance, and
maintaining its strong collaborative working with colleagues and schools through the PreSchool Forum and School Support Team Meetings.
Matrix management is effective between Integrated Services and the Principal Educational
Psychologist (PEP) acting as professional lead within Raising Achievement and Access to
Learning. The PEP provides an essential bridge between the services, and is able to provide
a psychological and systemic input to strategic developments, freeing up the time of
Educational Psychologists at the front-line to be involved in more local developments and
training.
Whilst there is emerging evidence that their skills and experience is being utilised to support
and inform the work of colleagues within Integrated Services, this needs to be embedded
further by raising awareness of what Educational Psychologists offer.
7.4 The Educational Psychology Service has maintained an overall high level of service to
children with complex and additional needs in spite of pressures from vacancies, largely
created through the new qualification and training structure.
Trainees have been successfully recruited and provide good support for children and
schools. A few schools have experienced changes in their Educational Psychologist, which
has been disruptive, whilst recruitment was ongoing. However it is hoped this will again
stabilise now posts are filled.
7.5 The Educational Psychology Service is not resourced to maintain current staffing levels,
unless services can be ‘traded’ further with partners. Early Years, CAMHS and the
University already resource their use of Educational Psychology services.
The evidence from the Review indicates that to make a charge for specific core services or
to set an ‘allocation’ of Educational Psychology time, limits the services available and does
not ensure that the children with the most complex or emerging additional needs receive
them.
The evidence from the DCSF Review indicated that no correlation can be drawn between
staffing ratios and performance, but there was some correlation between staffing ratios and
service delivery.
These are areas highly valued by stakeholders in terms of their impact on staff groups, and
improving their ability to meet the educational needs of children they work with and in terms
of their contribution to strategic developments where a psychological perspective and
systems-based approach are seen as necessary.
In addition, the Review Team has been mindful of the concern raised to maintain the
independence of Educational Psychologists so they can provide ‘critical challenge’ when
necessary.
38
Currently, mainstream schools do not make any contribution and all the Educational
Psychology services available to schools are provided through base budget. This does not
cover the current level of resources provided to mainstream schools.
If there is to be continued delivery of the Educational Psychology Service at its current level
then there is a need to request a contribution from mainstream schools.
The Review Team has a proposal that continues to maintain a holistic service without
charging for specific core services and without imposing a fixed allocation per school that
cannot respond to individual children or groups of children with complex or additional needs
as those needs arise (Appendix 10).
7.6 In addition to ‘core services’, there is a need to ensure that the Educational Psychology
Service does not set up inequitable or unfair ‘competition’ for related training and that the
service makes the same charge for training as other Children’s Services professionals. The
Learning Support & Behaviour Service provide related training for schools.
There needs to be a more co-ordinated response in the provision of this training to ensure
there is no overlap, that there is a pooling of resources when this adds value to the training
provided, and to ensure training resources are prioritised towards evidenced needs.
The training needs to meet the identified needs, and provide ‘best value’ rather than be
chosen on the basis of lowest cost to the purchaser.
7.7 There is also a need to consider and co-ordinate a Children’s Services response to the
training and support needs of the parents of children with additional and complex needs as
this is an under-developed area and has the potential for significant impact on the outcomes
for those children and young people.
8.
Recommendations
8.1 The Educational Psychology Service publish details of core services and additional services
that can be provided to support the delivery of these core services, on Edulink and on the
internal and external Children’s Services website open to parents and partners.
8.2
The Educational Psychology Service publish information showing how services are
requested.
8.3 The Educational Psychology Service continue to evaluate the efficacy of the pilot 'project
time' in South Worcestershire as a model for service delivery and considers how this links to
evaluation of other project work being undertaken within Community & Education Teams,
and with other colleagues throughout the County to ensure 'best practice' models are used
to enable best value.
8.4 Integrated Services embed the use of the Area Services Forum as a mechanism for
identifying need from School Support Team Meetings, and when consultation and advice is
required from Educational Psychologists for children ‘in need’ or children missing from
education, where the child has additional or complex educational needs.
8.5 The Educational Psychology Service work with Parent Partnership to develop clear guidance
for parents on the role of the Educational Psychologist and the criteria for requesting a
service, and how those services are accessed and prioritised.
39
8.6 The Educational Psychology Service works with School Support Team members and Parent
Partnership to develop a clear pathway for parents to request consultation, assessment,
advice, support or training in respect of children with additional or complex educational
needs, alongside requests from professionals.
8.7 The proposal for a Service Level Agreement with schools to go out for consultation with
schools at the start of Summer Term 2009. If accepted this will enable the Service to be
funded at its current level. The consultation proposal needs to include information for
schools re. 8.2.
8.8 The Leadership Team ensures there is a 'whole systems' approach to join the conclusions
and recommendations of this Review with those of the Behaviour Support Review, the
Inclusion Strategy, the 14-19 Strategy and the Building Schools for the Future initiative.
8.9 The Leadership Team identifies a process to co-ordinate training and development
opportunities provided by Children’s Services to support early years and educational
establishments in their work with children with additional and complex educational needs.
The purpose of this would be to target training offered to match identified needs, to
maximise the potential for collaborative training between services, and minimise the risk of
duplication, and to agree a ‘standard charge’ for training.
8.10 A steer is also required in respect of ‘internal trading’ within Children’s Services and whether
it is the view of the Leadership Team that there should/should not be a policy in respect of
internal charging.
40
Appendix 1
Brief for Review of Educational Psychology Service in Worcestershire
Background
The Educational Psychology Service has positive feedback from schools and other educational
establishments in Worcestershire, and has constantly met performance targets set to measure the
efficiency of the service.
The service became part of the Children’s Integrated Services in September 2007. This followed
the integration of Children’s Social Care and Education Services in Worcestershire, and a
subsequent restructure aimed to meet the challenge of the Every Child Matters agenda.
Educational Psychologists are now located within three area-based Community & Education
Teams, with Education Welfare Officers and Family Support Workers, and working alongside
Social Workers, Social Work Assistants and Family Support Workers in Family Assessment &
Support Teams and Children & Families Teams. Their line-management is located with the CET
Team Manager, and their professional development is supported by the Senior Educational
Psychologist within each Area team.
The Principal Educational Psychologist, who is located within Raising Achievement & Access to
Learning, provides the overarching professional development and monitoring of professional
standards of the Educational Psychology Service.
This ensures a link is maintained with other educational colleagues providing services to children
via schools and other establishments, enabling the most appropriate deployment of Educational
Psychology time.
The review will take account of the Children’s Workforce Development Council’s national Review
due to be published in Autumn 2008.
Proposed Actions
June 2008

Working Group to be established and timescales agreed
July 2008

Research to be undertaken with other Local Authorities who have integrated their
Educational Psychology Service with other Children’s Services

Mapping of existing range of services

Schools to be advised of review including proposal for pilot in South Worcestershire. to
redeploy 20% of Educational Psychologist time for group/project development in September
2008 and use of Trainee Educational Psychologists across the county
August - September 2008

Consultation with colleagues within Worcestershire Children’s Services

Define “core business” and measurable outcomes

Develop proposal for traded services
End September 2008

Incorporate findings of national Review

Proposals for “core business” and traded services to be consulted on with colleagues,
schools and other educational establishments
41
Appendix 2
Areas for Systemic Work

Peer mediation

Emotional coaching

Anger management

Nurture group provision - establish and evaluate

Dyslexia (pathway)

Social interventions (Circle of Friends)

Anti-bullying - good practice

Cognition and learning and related (IDP)

Problem-solving groups/solution circles/coaching

Anxiety management

Behaviour management

ASCs (management/awareness training)

ADHD (management/awareness raising)

Peer mentoring

Social skills

Inclusion

Parent groups - support/consultation/training

Resiliency

Attachment

Promoting self-directing behaviour

Self-harm

Completed structured observations

Bereavement

Research/evaluation/impact measures etc

Self esteem

Promoting positive mental health in schools

Policy development

Document development (provision maps/IEPs etc)

Emotionally based non-attendance (EBNA)

Critical incidents
42
Appendix 3
CASE STUDIES
Case study 1
EP acting as a facilitator for complex piece of work
The Community & Education Team (CET) was approached by the Children with Disabilities (CWD)
Team to undertake some family support work with a parent of a child with complex needs. The
parent was struggling to engage with any professionals at a level that would have a positive impact
on the child.
I had done an EP assessment and had a good relationship with the parent.
Agreement was reached that I would facilitate work being done by CWD team, portage, respite
provider and other agencies, whilst undertaking the type of work which would normally be
undertaken by a family support worker. I was able to use my extensive EP experience and
knowledge to tailor some extremely powerful therapeutic work with the family by doing four monthly
visits alongside visits by other professionals, increasing mother’s understanding of the child’s
needs and behaviours, with a result that strategies and support of other agencies were accepted
and successful.
Case study 2
Joint working between the Educational Psychology Service and Family Support Workers within the
Community and Education Team (North East).
As an EP, I have been attending monthly meetings with Family Support colleagues within
Integrated Services in my area, in order to provide a psychological perspective to case
discussions. This generally takes place within the last hour of the meeting and colleagues identify
needs within their own casework, which require further direction. All present are able to share their
views and ideas and my role is as part of this discussion. Feedback from colleagues would suggest
that the addition of a colleague able to look at the situation from a different perspective is useful
and suggests ways forward not initially considered. The opportunity to share evidence-based
practise and interventions based on psychological theory fits within a community psychology
perspective, which is appropriate to the values and aims of the team.
Case study 3
Together Time: The Attachment Parenting Programme
(Early Years EP)
Over the past 2 years I have used my specialism time as an EP to work on “Together Time: The
Attachment Parenting Programme”. The aims of the programme are to support the emotional
bonds between parents and their babies aged 0 – 2 years, thereby reducing a child’s risk of abuse
or neglect, later mental health difficulties, social-emotional needs and anti-social behaviour.
Practitioner training in “Together Time” has successfully been delivered to Children Centre staff in
Worcestershire in a pilot process with very positive feedback (‘Good – Excellent’ in all areas). A 2day 'Training of Trainers Course' has also been established so as to facilitate the recruitment of
trainers & countywide delivery of “Together Time”. This training also received a very high standard
of evaluation (‘Excellent’ for the majority of areas).
“Together Time” is now being rolled out in Children’s Centres countywide, having received a
substantial amount of funding from the Children’s Centre Manager. It is anticipated that all
Children’s Centres in Worcestershire will receive practitioner training in “Together Time” during
2009 and that “Together Time” parent courses will begin to run and to be formally evaluated from
this year onwards.
I believe that the work myself and other colleagues have put into “Together Time: The Attachment
Parenting Programme” demonstrates that EPs have made a significant contribution to facilitating &
43
empowering a group of staff in early years settings to deliver more positive outcomes for the
children with whom they work.
Case Study 4
Case of an EP facilitating the inclusion of a child of four years of age with communication, cognition
and other skills ranging from a developmental age of around 6 months to 18 months (normally
regarded as severe learning difficulties) at her local primary school.
Four-year-old B arrived at the beginning of the school year with her parents and 6-year-old brother
at the local primary school having just returned from living abroad. B’s parents were adamant that
she should attend her local school and be in the same school as her older brother. B was taken
into the Reception Class, but within a very short space of time it was realised that in their view her
difficulties needed specialist support in a special school setting. The staff and governors of the
school did not believe that they could include this child.
The EP role became one of facilitator and enabler in order to accommodate the parents’ desire for
a mainstream placement for their child and the ability of the school to feel well enough supported to
include B. This involved close work with SEN Services, assessment of the needs of the child, and
advice about the range of help and support needed by the school professionals – including the
wording of an advertisement for a teaching assistant.
As the EP, I continue to lead the planning of a manageable and well-constructed programme of
learning with other involved professionals and B’s parents, that meets B’s developmental needs,
and considers the needs of the newly qualified teacher and newly appointed TA involved. B’s
parents’ insistence that she should be immediately included full-time, has given the EP the difficult
task of tempering the differing agendas of everyone involved, whilst keeping the needs of the child
as the paramount consideration.
Case Study 5
Anxiety Group
This group was set up in collaboration with a local high school to address the needs of a group of
young people who had been out of school, or missing school as a result of anxieties related to
school attendance. The group was run by the professionals within the Community & Education
Team within an area- with each profession- Education Welfare (EWO), Family Support (FSW) and
Educational Psychology (EP) contributing their particular area of expertise and skill. The
psychological perspective in terms of possible underlying causes and activities that address
anxiety, as well as the combined understanding of group work, led to successful outcomes for the
young people who attended.
This is the record of the Senior Educational Psychologist at the evaluation after the last session:‘We have just had a very moving last session of this group which is one of the most successful of
this type I have ever been involved with, which is mainly due to the excellent collaboration of the
FSW's, EWO's and EP's who planned and facilitated it. Some of the outcomes that will come out in
the evaluations are very significant.
The most important is that these young people felt listened to and more importantly they felt that at
least there were five other students in their year or school who understood them and could give
them support.
The growth in confidence was phenomenal- one lad who was very shy contributed a hilarious 5- 10
min stand up routine prompted by one of the other students and he revelled in the applause.
Another is now attending lessons after an 18 month gap and all present as more confident than
they appeared in October.’
The ongoing concern it highlights though is bullying which surfaced in most sessions, that is
occurring even in our good schools.’
44
Case study 6
High School Project –school in difficulty

Meetings took place with EP service and the school, focusing on whole school issues for the
school; including a volatile cohort of Year 9 and 11 pupils; use and consistency of behaviour
policy application.

A focus from this was on the development and application of whole school systems. Two
strands of agreed actions were followed through, following a meeting between EP colleagues
and school staff viz. helping develop nurture group and activities in the school and use of
structured observations over time from members of the Educational Psychology Service
(together with a Behaviour and Attendance Consultant) in order to inform development of
whole school practices re behaviour throughout the school.

On the basis of these observations and forward planning with a staff committee/working party
for behaviour, training sessions were organised by the EP service on Motivational/Assertive
Discipline. This working party staff presented work they had undertaken on development of
clarity in key areas: rules and routines in school and classroom, including 6 Bs (broad
aspirations); positive and negative consequences for compliance with the 6Bs. Guidance for
behaviour and consequences outside the classroom, including a focus on corridor behaviour;
clarity of systems for detentions, senior staff call out, being on report, isolation. A training day
entitled ‘Principles of Motivational/Assertive Discipline’ was presented on one of these days
(4th July 2007) by 2 Senior EPs and a Behaviour and Attendance Consultant.

All staff critically reviewed what was presented to them and the changes implemented by
senior staff to policy and practice. Further periodic meetings were arranged to see if
improvements have been maintained and what further developments were needed.
Outcomes

The greatest increases in teacher behaviour were in the categories of use of class rules,
setting expectations, use of redirections and contingent use of rewards. This is likely to be
due to the presence of the posters about the new school rules in all classes and the
increase in staff awareness of the Behaviour Policy booklet following the training day.
Having the positive stamp hanging around their neck or very visible was also a tangible
prompt. Clearly a virtuous circle was established where, because students were
responding to the new reward and consequence systems, the staff were much more likely
to be pre-disposed positively to giving feedback on acceptable behaviour, and reminding
students of how to achieve them by following the rules. In some subjects the general
rules had been adapted to the specific needs e.g., PE and Science, which again was
having positive results.

Positive recognition of work had already been high but continued at that level with some
much more specific and creative examples. Positive recognition of behaviour doubled but
was still at a relatively low level each lesson.

The application of consequences more than doubled and had become much more related
to the new consequence hierarchy (C1-C5: consequences for identified unwanted
behaviour). As a result of the consistency of use of the new system, it is reasonable to
expect that the number of serious sanctions would reduce as it has done, particularly fixed
term exclusions and senior management referrals.

The Behaviour Management Handbook and disposables (e.g., Good Choice cards) were
excellent and in place for the start of term.

Staff Behaviour Committee had obviously worked hard to have strategies/ processes in
place and to induct new staff.
45

Overall the lessons felt calmer due to the clarity and increased confidence of the staff (the
ethos was more proactive and less reactive).

There had been a very significant reduction of fixed term exclusions. For Sep – Nov 2006,
there were 26 exclusions leading to 70+ days cumulatively, but for Sep – Nov 2007 there
were 11 leading to 20 days cumulatively. This is a very clear performance indicator.

In PE specifically it was reported that in many lessons they were achieving full
participation with appropriate kit. Even in year 11, which had been a hotspot last year,
often there was only one student without kit, which was a big improvement.

There was clearly a significant improvement in corridor behaviour due to the new team
approach to monitoring the lesson changes.

There was regular use of the Good Choice Cards and stamps in lessons and on the
corridors. All students were aware of them and valued the resulting positive feedback.

There was definitely more use of social pleasantries such as “thank you”, “please” and
“good choice” as well as more use of humour, which is a sign of being more relaxed.

Staff seemed to be circulating amongst the pupils more, thus giving more opportunities for
praise.

The Isolation Room model was excellent with a clear Behaviour Recovery component.

The role of the form tutor was enhanced by the passing on of discipline hierarchy
information on a daily basis and being able to monitor the receipt of Good Choice Cards
for each student.
The new staff room provided a much more nurturing environment to help them meet the
demands in lessons.


Overall, the clearer rewards and consequences were working more for 98% of the
students.
Issues across school noted by staff at meeting in April 2008

Certain difficult behaviours have decreased, especially in public areas

Pupil/Staff relations are less “them and us”

Teachers feel more in control of corridor behaviour

Punctuality to lessons is working well

Approaches felt to working well “for 80% [of pupils] 80% of the time”

The approaches continue to have a positive impact on fixed term exclusions and attendance

School is developing future supportive strategies around SEAL (whole school) and House
systems, using 6th Formers and staff collaboratively
46
Worcestershire Dyslexia
Pathway 2009
A small group of Educational Psychologists and Learning Support Teachers have been
working together to map a clear pathway to be followed in Worcestershire by schools,
support services, pupils and parents when children begin to have difficulties with reading,
writing and/or spelling. The pathway incorporates the Inclusion Development Plan (IDP),
which was launched by the Government in 2008 as an on-line CPD tool to support schools
in developing their practice so that dyslexia (and other barriers to learning) is identified
and addressed effectively by all staff in all schools.
The Worcestershire Dyslexia Pathway builds on recent research, DCFS guidance for
Teaching Literacy, general principles of Quality First teaching and advice for schools in
the Inclusion Development Plan (IDP) for overcoming the barriers to learning associated
with dyslexia. These all emphasise the importance of the emotional climate as well as
good pedagogy.
Every child matters. All too many children and young people are not ‘enjoying and
achieving’1 in literacy. Failure to succeed in reading and writing frequently impacts on
other curriculum areas and leads to a school career full of frustration, exhaustion, low
self-esteem and often withdrawal or aggression. The other ECM outcomes also become
elusive – inability to read and write affects one’s chances of staying safe, being healthy,
making a positive contribution and getting a good job with consequent economic security.
This could be avoided by early identification and appropriate intervention and provision.
The impact of this work will be demonstrated by measurable improvements in pupil
achievements or standards and general classroom behaviour as more pupils are actively
engaged in their learning. There is also likely to be an associated measurable reduction in
fixed term and permanent exclusions over time.
There is evidence of a “route to offending” among certain young people,
which starts with difficulties in the classroom, moves through low selfesteem, poor behaviour and school exclusion, and ends in offending.
British Dyslexia Association (2004)
Anna Lewis, Educational Psychologist, 19.02.09
1
One of the five desired outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda (DfES, 2003).
47
Appendix 4
80% of children with whom an EP has worked will have completed a
perception measure indicating positive impact of intervention
80% of EP consultees report that they now have an increased
understanding of pupil difficulties/ educational issues
100
100
D
I
S
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2005-2006
2007-2008
80% of EP consultees report that they now feel more able to respond to
consultation issues
2006-2007
2007-2008
75% of learners supported by EPT remain at existing stage of CoP or
earlier
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2005-2006
2007-2008
48
2006-2007
2007-2008
EPT responds to 100% of request from schools for phase transfer support
where children are at risk of permanent exclusion in order that receiving
schools feel confident in meeting needs
EPT has an input to100% of those phase transfer reviews where school
has identified possible risk of recommendation for special school
placements so that appropriate strategies & support are agreed in order
that pupils can remain in mainstreaming whenever
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2005-2006
90% of Appendix Ds submitted within CSA guidelines
2006-2007
2007-2008
80% of course attendees report positive impact of training provided by EP
Team so that they are better able to support pupil development
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2005-2006
49
2006-2007
2007-2008
EPs support 100% key workers for LAC living in children's homes in order
to improve engagement in education
100% of LAC are discussed at SSTMs & prioritised for EP involvement if at
risk of permanent exclusion
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2005-2006
2007-2008
50
2006-2007
2007-2008
Appendix 5
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Appendix 6
WORCESTERSHIRE CHILDREN’S SERVICES
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE 2008
Following the restructuring of Worcestershire Children’s Services last year we are seeking the
views of stakeholders on how to develop aspects of the service in order to best support
children and young people in Worcestershire.
As part of this review we want to ensure that the Educational Psychology Service is
appropriately targeted, and are inviting schools to complete this questionnaire and return it to:
Lesley Wood, Worcestershire County Council, Children’s Services, County Hall, Spetchley
Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete.
In anticipation of your support: Thank You.
(Please Tick)
Nursery
Inf/First
Jun/Midd
Primary
Secondary
All Age
Mainstream
Mainstream & Unit
Special (please state MLD
etc)
No. of Pupils
No. of Teachers
No. of
Teaching Assistants
SEN Profile Code of Practice (please indicate number of pupils)
None
School Action
School Action
+
Statement
School: …………………………………………………….
Headteacher: ………………………………………
Completed by: ……………………………………………
Post: ………………………………………………..
Signed: ……………………………………………………
Date: ………………………………………………..
Please rate the importance of having each of these services available from the Educational
Psychology Service for your school/community
Consultation re: Individual Children
e.g. a structured discussion between the EP and relevant staff to share information
and assessments about a child, in order to arrive at agreed interventions
Consultation re: Groups of Children
e.g. Discussions between a member of the senior management team and an EP
about the behaviour / vulnerability of a group of children, and how to improve the
situation
Consultation re: School Policies/Systems
e.g. An EP’s involvement in developing behaviour/ anti-bullying/ critical incident
policies
Assessments
e.g. Observation, consultation and work with individual children to profile strengths
and difficulties and clarify needs.
Interventions: Individual Children
Direct work, e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy; solution-focused work etc.
Interventions: Individual Children
Indirect work, e.g. planning, monitoring, and reviewing strategies with teaching
colleagues.
Interventions: Groups of Children
These might include a course of social skills, leading a Circle of Friends Support
Group, bereavement issues, developing Nurture Groups, Self-esteem Courses, etc.
Follow-up support (including reviews)
Monitoring a child’s
interventions
progress in order to
advise
on
appropriate
future
Support for Teachers
Emotional support e.g. stress management; counselling; bereavement support and
facilitating difficult meetings.
Training, INSET, Workshops etc.
In relation to Cognition and learning, ESBD, Language and communication etc.
Work with TAs
Delivering university accredited courses, e.g Talking and Listening Course
(Mentoring); DfES TA Induction Course (Behaviour Module); school-based training.
Work with Parents/Carers
Home visits; Parent Groups; work with foster carers
School improvement
Project work e.g. SEAL, Raising Boys Achievement, Management for Inclusion
Training, consultation with middle/senior managers, support for schools in OFSTED
categories
Working with other professionals/ agencies on behalf of pupils in
the school
(e.g. ISL, Health, CAMHS, Social Care, EWS etc)
Working with children in Early Years settings
Assessment and intervention; liaison with other professionals
Supporting transition of children with additional needs into school
Joint working with pre school and school staff to plan and support transitions
Support for schools experiencing Critical Incidents (sudden / traumatic
death of pupil/teacher etc) Immediate response and support, Critical Incident Policy
available on Edulink
( as appropriate)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
agree
Range of Available Services
Please suggest any activities not covered above that you would wish to see provided by the
EPS:
Other: (please state)
Thank you for completing this response. Should you have any further comments you
wish to make, please use the space below:
Appendix 7
Question 1
Consultation re individual children
0%
Strongly Agree - 69
Agree - 6
Uncertain - 0
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
8%
0%
92%
Question 2
Consultation re groups of children
Strongly Agree - 35
Agree - 29
Uncertain - 9
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
1%
12%
0%
48%
39%
Question 3
Consultation re school policies/systems
9%
0%
Strongly Agree - 8
Agree - 35
Uncertain - 23
Disagree - 6
Strongly Disagree - 0
11%
32%
48%
61
Question 4
Assessments
1%
13%
0%
Strongly Agree - 63
Agree - 10
Uncertain - 1
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
86%
Question 5
Interventions - individual children (direct)
0%
5%
Strongly Agree - 52
Agree - 18
Uncertain - 4
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
24%
71%
Question 6
Interventions - individual children (indirect)
1%
4%
Strongly Agree - 42
Agree - 28
Uncertain - 3
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
38%
57%
62
Question 7
Interventions - groups of children
5%
0%
18%
33%
Strongly Agree - 24
Agree - 32
Uncertain - 13
Disagree - 4
Strongly Disagree - 0
44%
Question 8
Follow-up support (including reviews)
0%
5%
Strongly Agree - 47
Agree - 23
Uncertain - 4
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
31%
64%
Question 9
Support for Teachers
12%
0%
Strongly Agree - 11
Agree - 30
Uncertain - 24
14%
Disagree - 9
Strongly Disagree - 0
33%
41%
63
Question 10
Training - INSET, workshops etc
2%
12%
0%
35%
Strongly Agree - 26
Agree - 37
Uncertain - 9
Disagree - 2
Strongly Disagree - 0
51%
Question 11
Work with TAs
0%
4%
Strongly Agree - 12
Agree - 44
Uncertain - 15
Disagree - 3
Strongly Disagree - 0
16%
20%
60%
Question 12
Work with parents/carers
0%
10%
0%
35%
Strongly Agree - 26
Agree - 39
Uncertain - 8
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
55%
64
Question 13
School improvement
0%
Strongly Agree - 11
Agree - 38
Uncertain - 20
15%
5%
Disagree - 4
Strongly Disagree - 0
27%
53%
Question 14
Work with other professionals/agencies
1%
8%
Strongly Agree - 44
Agree - 23
Uncertain - 6
0%
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
31%
60%
Question 15
Working with other professionals/agencies on
behalf o pupils in school
0%
12%
34%
Strongly Agree - 35
Agree - 22
Uncertain - 8
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
54%
65
Question 16
Working with children in Early Years
settings
Strongly Agree - 35
Agree - 22
Uncertain - 8
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
12%
0%
54%
34%
Question 17
Supporting transition of children with
additional needs into school
Strongly Agree - 40
Agree - 28
Uncertain - 2
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
1%
2%
0%
40%
57%
Question 18
Support for schools experiencing critical
incidents(sudden/traumatic death of
pupil/teacher etc)
1%
16%
0%
40%
Strongly Agree - 30
Agree - 32
Uncertain - 12
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
43%
66
Appendix 8
WORCESTERSHIRE CHILDREN’S SERVICES
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2008
CONFIDENTIAL
Worcestershire Educational Psychology Service is committed to providing the highest quality
services for Worcestershire children, families and schools. The views of parents are extremely
important in deciding how we can best support your children
In order to help us improve our services, parents are invited to complete this questionnaire and
return it to: Lesley Wood, Worcestershire County Council, Children’s Services, County Hall,
Spetchley Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to
complete. In anticipation of your support: Thank You.
(Please Tick)
Pre Sch/|Nurs
Inf/First
Jun/Midd
Primary
High Sch
F.E.
Mainstream
Mainstream and/or Unit
Special (please state
MLD etc)
Child’s date of birth
Child’s age
Sex
Stage of the SEN Code of Practice: (None; School Action; School Action +; Statement)
Completed by: ……………………………………………
Parent/Foster/Adoptive/Carer
Please
the importance of having each of these services
available from the EPS for your
Signed:rate
……………………………………………………
Date: ………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP
Please rate the importance of having each of these services available:
67
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Range of Available Services from the EP
Work outside school on your child’s behalf to include:
Advice for parents/ carers on teaching strategies
Advice for parents/ carers on behaviour management strategies
Assessment of your child’s strengths and difficulties in the home
Work with other agencies to support your child’s development
Training, Courses, Workshops etc.
Work with the school on your child’s behalf to include:
Assessment
Advice on teaching
Advice on behaviour
Attending review
Other (please state)
( as appropriate)
Thank you for completing this response. Should you have any further comments you wish
to make, please use the space below:
68
Appendix 9
Question No 1
Advice for parents/carers on teaching strategies
Strongly Agree - 20
3%
6%
Agree - 8
Uncertain - 2
0%
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
26%
65%
Question 2
Advice for parents/carers on behaviour m anagem ent
strategies
3%
Strongly Agree - 20
Agree - 9
0%
Uncertain - 2
6%
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 1
28%
63%
Question 3
Assessment of your child's strengths &
difficulties in the home
3%
Strongly Agree - 20
Agree - 7
Uncertain - 3
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 1
3%
9%
22%
63%
69
Question 4
Work with other agencies to support your
child's development
3%
Strongly Agree - 19
Agree - 9
Uncertain - 3
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 1
0%
9%
28%
60%
Question 5
Training, course, workshops etc
6% 3%
38%
19%
Strongly Agree - 12
Agree - 11
Uncertain - 6
Disagree - 2
Strongly Disagree - 1
34%
Question 6
Assessment
3%
3%
Strongly Agree - 22
Agree - 8
Uncertain - 1
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 1
0%
25%
69%
70
Question 7
Advice on teaching
Strongly Agree - 22
Agree - 6
Uncertain - 2
Disagree - 2
Strongly Disagree - 0
6%
0%
6%
19%
69%
Question 8
Advice on behaviour
Strongly Agree - 22
Agree - 6
Uncertain - 3
Disagree - 1
Strongly Disagree - 0
3%
9%
0%
19%
69%
Question 9
Attending review
Strongly Agree - 24
Agree - 4
Uncertain - 3
Disagree - 0
Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
10%
0%
13%
77%
71
72