Source: http://docplayer.net/5260421-Quality-management-in-local-authority-educational-psychology-services-self-evaluation-for-quality-improvement.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-17 19:52:20
Document Index: 268476074

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4']

Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services. Self-evaluation for quality improvement - PDF
Download "Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services. Self-evaluation for quality improvement"
1 Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services Self-evaluation for quality improvement
2 Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services Self-evaluation for quality improvement
3 Crown copyright 2007 ISBN: HM Inspectorate of Education Denholm House Almondvale Business Park Almondvale Way Livingston EH54 6GA Tel: Fax: Produced for HMIE by RR Donnelley B /07 Published by HMIE, March 2007 This material may be copied without further permission by education authorities and education institutions in Scotland for use in self-evaluation and planning. The report may be produced in part, except for commercial purposes, or in connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and date therefore are stated.
4 ii_iii Contents Foreword Acknowledgements iv vi Introduction 1 Part 1 Self-evaluation in the local authority context 4 Part 2 The framework for self-evaluation explained 8 Part 3 The six-point scale 16 Part 4 Indicators, themes and illustrations 20 Appendix 1 Relationship between Quality Management in 90 Local Authority Educational Psychology Services and other quality frameworks
5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Foreword In 2001 the Scottish Executive commissioned a national review of educational psychology services in Scotland. The subsequent report, Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland (2002) 1 made a number of recommendations including recommendation 20: Educational psychology services should have a more formal framework of evaluation which incorporates self-evaluation, peer evaluation and, inspection by HM Inspectorate of Education and which, in particular, takes full account of the views of children, young people and parents. In response to the above Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), in consultation with the profession have developed a self-evaluation framework which meets the requirements of recommendation 20, is consistent with the legislative framework pertaining to educational psychology in Scotland, 2 and matches similar quality frameworks used to evaluate and inspect local authority services, and services for children. The emphasis within the publication, Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services (QMILAEPS) is on the importance of the self-evaluation process and the role it plays in driving continuous improvement. The focus is on impact and outcomes for children and young people in the pursuit of excellence. The self-evaluation framework applies a set of six high-level questions to evaluate the performance and quality of the work undertaken by educational psychology services. They are: What key outcomes have we achieved? How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? How good is our delivery of key processes? How good is our management? How good is our leadership? What is our capacity for improvement? The questions allow a common framework to be used for self-evaluation and inspection of provision and services for children and young people, thereby achieving an integrated and consistent approach across services. The self-evaluation framework complements the Quality Management in Education 2 3 (QMIE2) model. This recognises the statutory basis for an educational psychology service, 4 and the integral relationship which exists between the educational psychology service and local authority. This relationship is further extended as the external inspection of educational psychology services by HMIE is undertaken within the context of the inspection of the education functions of local authorities (INEA). 1 Review of Provision of Educational Psychhology Services in Scotland (2002) published by SEED 2 Section 4 Education (Scotland) Act 1980; Children Scotland Act (1995); Standards in Scotland s School etc Act (2000) 3 Quality Management in Education 2 (HM Inspectorate of Education 2006) is a framework of self-evaluation for Local Authority Education Services 4 Section 4 Education (Scotland) Act 1980
6 iv_v To further support the profession in applying the self-evaluation framework, HMIE have been working closely with the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists and the British Psychological Society, Scottish Division of Educational Psychology, to develop a self-evaluation toolkit. The companion publications Part I and Part II of QMILAEPS will provide a sound basis for educational psychologists to engage in the process of self-evaluation alongside other services, and to improve the impact and outcomes for children, young people and families. I would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of a wide range of individuals and organisations to the development of this framework. It is important that the framework is owned by those who seek to use it for self-evaluation leading to quality improvement. GRAHAM DONALDSON HM Senior Chief Inspector
7 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Acknowledgements This document has been produced in consultation and partnership with the Scottish Division of Educational Psychology and the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists. The development of the document was undertaken through consultation with a professional reference group which included staff from Aberdeenshire, East Lothian, Fife, South Lanarkshire, and West Lothian Councils. Production of the document was assisted further by feedback from a number of services, the course directors of the professional training courses for educational psychology at the Universities of Dundee, and Strathclyde and through consultation with the profession at the annual national conference for educational psychology. Thanks are due to colleagues who gave their time in reading and responding to successive drafts of this document. The compilation of material for this document involved the identification of good practice within existing systems of monitoring and evaluation. In this context, the work of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), Charter Mark, Investors in People (lip) and the Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland, published in 2002, is acknowledged.
8 vi_1 Introduction The aim of this two-part framework is to assist staff working in educational psychology services to develop and implement a systematic approach to self-evaluation. Part 1 sets out the quality assurance model and provides illustrative examples of very good and weak aspects of provision. Part 2 is a toolkit and provides detailed practical assistance and advice on the process of self-evaluation at service and individual practioner level. Both documents focus on the role of self-evaluation in developing a service s capacity to drive continuous improvement and, most importantly, to demonstrate measurable improvement in the quality of stakeholder experience. The clear focus is on impact and outcomes. The framework materials are also provided as an online resource. This will assist educational psychology services in amending or augmenting the materials to suit local needs, priorities and circumstances. Services approaches to self-evaluation will build on existing good practice. The framework also includes the performance and quality indicators, measures and themes which will provide an external basis for the inspection of educational psychology services as part of the INEA. Each educational psychology service will be able, through its own self-evaluation arrangements, to gather management information and evidence that enable it to judge the effectiveness of its performance against six high-level questions, which will also form the basis for inspection by HMIE. These are: What key outcomes have we achieved? How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? How good is our delivery of key processes? How good is our management? How good is our leadership? What is our capacity for improvement? Each of these high-level questions can be answered by evaluating the quality of the service across ten Key Areas. At the centre of this framework are key performance outcomes and the impact provision is having on service users, the community and staff. Inputs, such as leadership and management, support the effectiveness of the key processes and together help us to arrive at an overall evaluation of the council s capacity for improvement. The framework is summarised in figure 1 on the next page. This framework aims to provide support for educational psychology services in carrying out the process of self-evaluation through which they can: achieve the best outcomes for all stakeholders; take action to sustain quality, improve services and achieve excellence; meet the responsibilities set out in the relevant legislation; and meet the requirements of Best Value and Efficient Government.
9 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT The use of performance and quality indicators, for both self-evaluation and external inspection, promotes consistency. Although these two processes may differ in terms of purpose and audience, their language and basis should be the same, enabling open and honest dialogue and consistency across different evaluations.
10 2_3 Figure 1: Over-arching framework What key outcomes have we achieved? How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? How good is our delivery of key processes? How good is our management? How good is our leadership? 1. Key performance outcomes 1.1 Improvements in performance 1.2 Fulfilment of general statutory duties What is our capacity for improvement? 10. Capacity for improvement 10.1 Global judgement based on evidence of all key areas in particular, outcomes, impacts and leadership 2. Impact on service users 2.1 Impact on children and young people 2.2 Impact on parents, carers and families 3. Impact on staff 3.1 Impact on staff 4. Impact on the community 4.1 Impact on the local community 4.2 Impact on the wider community 5. Delivery of Key processes 5.1 Consultation and advice 5.2 Assessment 5.3 Intervention 5.4 Professional development and training 5.5 Research and strategic development 5.6 Inclusion, equality and fairness 5.7 Improving the quality of services 6. Policy development and planning 6.1 Policy development and review 6.2 Participation of stakeholders 6.3 Operational planning 7. Management and support of staff 7.1 Sufficiency, recruitment and retention of staff 7.2 Deployment and teamwork 7.3 Development of staff 8. Partnerships and resources 8.1 Partnership working 8.2 Financial management 8.3 Resource management 8.4 Information systems 9. Leadership and direction 9.1 Vision, values and aims 9.2 Leadership and direction 9.3 Developing people and partnerships 9.4 Leadership of change and improvement
11 Part 1 Self-evaluation in the local authority context
12 Part 1 Self-evaluation in the local authority context 1 4_5 The Standards in Scotland s Schools etc. Act 2000 provides a framework for improvement planning that requires education authorities to set out and report on improvement objectives related to national priorities and associated measures of performance. Continuous improvement in education services is central to the work of education authorities. There is a clear expectation by Scottish Ministers that national priorities will be addressed through agreed local educational improvement objectives and related targets. To achieve these goals, it is essential for authorities, educational psychology services, community services and establishments to work together to achieve these objectives and to raise standards of attainment and achievement within an innovative culture of support and challenge. The process of self-evaluation should, as a matter of course, generate key management information which results in an evaluation of overall quality and improvement. This evaluation can then be used to create a set of agreed, targeted action points which, in turn, drive further improvement. The process of self-evaluation is central to the maintenance of quality and the pursuit of excellence. It has become firmly established as the basis on which improvement planning and public reporting on standards and quality are founded. Self-evaluation is complementary to external inspection. Indeed the latter now builds on the results and evidence of self-evaluation across the organisation. Self-evaluation, to be fully effective, is not designed to be a single or periodic event, but rather is an ongoing process which permeates the culture of the council as it strives to maintain and enhance the quality of provision. It is a well-focused means to an end rather than an end in itself. The concept of self-evaluation is now well embedded across the Scottish educational landscape. In the best examples, it leads to the identification of main strengths and areas in which performance needs to be improved in the pursuit of excellence. The evaluations derived through the self-evaluation process should enable the educational psychology service to establish how it is performing against its improvement objectives, and to plan the next steps in development, in order to maintain quality, secure continuous improvement and aspire to excellence. There are four main sources of evidence, from which evaluations can be made. These are: performance data; relevant documentation; stakeholders views and feedback; and direct observation of practice. These sources of evidence are complementary. No single source can meaningfully provide sufficient evidence on its own to enable a reliable or robust evaluation to be made. The process also involves key stakeholders in full and meaningful discussion of the issues. Each educational psychology service aims to develop a clear picture of its main stakeholders and a protocol for engaging them in ongoing, focused discussion regarding its performance in Key Areas.
13 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Evidence shows that there is a strong link between effective leadership and management, robust self-evaluation, and development of the capacity for further improvement. To be effective, self-evaluation will: be embedded in the culture of the organisation; be rigorous, comprehensive, systematic and transparent; be focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses or areas for improvement; be based on a wide range of evidence; involve a wide range of stakeholders; lead to targeted action and improvement; be recorded and reported; and be a continuous, systematic process as opposed to an event. The framework has been developed in accordance with the principles of the EFQM and can be used in conjunction with other quality models, for example, lip, Charter Mark and ISO The approach is also consistent with the principles of Best Value, the statutory framework, which is provided in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.
14 1 6_7
15 Part 2 The framework for self-evaluation explained
16 Part 2 The framework for self-evaluation explained 2 8_9 Structure The framework described in this section provides a systematic approach for educational psychology services to use for self-evaluation. The framework does not assume a particular organisational structure. The framework has been developed in accordance with the principles of the Excellence Model of the EFQM (see Appendix 1) and evidence produced through the use of other models can contribute to overall evaluations. The framework is based on six high-level questions which can be answered by evaluating the quality of educational systematically across ten Key Areas. What key outcomes have we achieved? Key Area 1. Key performance outcomes How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? Key Area 2. Impact on service users Key Area 3. Impact on staff Key Area 4. Impact on the community How good is our delivery of key processes? Key Area 5. Delivery of key processes How good is our management? Key Area 6. Policy development and planning Key Area 7. Management and support of staff Key Area 8. Partnerships and resources How good is our leadership? Key Area 9. Leadership What is our capacity for improvement? Key Area 10. Capacity for improvement The inputs and processes outlined in Key Areas 5-9 contribute to the outcomes and impact identification in Key Areas 1-4. Key Areas 1-9 contain indicators and measures, each with themes which focus on specific aspects of the service being evaluated. Key Area 10 provides guidance which can be used to evaluated the degree of confidence reached by those carrying out the evaluation that the service has the capacity to continue to improve. This evaluation will take into account the evaluations of other Key Areas, its track record in improvements to date and significant aspects of its internal and external contexts.
17 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Using the framework in self-evaluation Educational psychology services can use the framework to provide a systematic structure for self-evaluation. They can also use the framework as a diagnostic tool. By looking first at the outcomes and impact of the service they provide (Key Areas 1-4), they can identify key issues for further exploration, observation and analysis using the tools provided within Key Areas 5-9. Finally, educational psychology services are encouraged to arrive at an evaluation of their overall capacity for improvement, using the guidance in Key Area 10. Using the framework in inspection When engaging in inspection and reporting activities, HMIE will focus on specific Key Areas and indicators selected from the overall framework. Some of these Key Areas and indicators may be used across all or most services, while others may be used only in particular contexts and will depend on the scope of the inspection. The inspection team will always seek to answer the questions: What key outcomes has the service achieved? How well does it meet the needs of its stakeholders? How good is the leadership of the service? What is its capacity for improvement? Indicators drawn from the Key Areas relating to these questions will normally form the core of the set of indicators used during inspection. Beyond this, inspection activities might focus on specific Key Areas and indicators selected from the rest of the framework. The selection will depend on decisions taken during scoping activities and may be determined following evaluation using the core set of indicators. HMIE will use the guidance in Key Area 10 to arrive at an evaluation of an individual service s overall capacity for improvement. Answering the high-level questions What key outcomes have we achieved? Key Area 1 focuses on the overall performance of a service in relation to its key functions. It provides a structure for services to use when evaluating their success as organisations in delivering demonstrable outcomes as outlined in legislation and programmes for development. For example, these could include outcomes in delivering national priorities for education, improvements in achievement for children and young people with additional support needs, reducing exclusion and promoting more effective transitions for children and young people entering school education or moving into the post-school sector. Also important are the improvements made in relation to the service s strategic priorities and distinctive vision, values, aims and targets. These targets may include locally determined targets for social, education, wellbeing and care objectives in the context of Children s Services and other plans.
18 2 10_11 Key Area 1 also focuses on the extent to which services fulfil their statutory duties, meet legislative requirements, follow appropriate codes of practice and are financially secure. The educational psychological service is a statutory service with a wide range of functions which are set down in Section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and in subsequent amendments including the Education (Additional support for Learning) (Scotland) Act The Children Scotland Act (1995) extended children s rights in a number of areas and the Standards in Scotland s School etc Act (2000) places additional duties on local authorities which have implications for the educational psychological service. The Scottish Executive report Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland published in 2002, makes specific recommendations about the way that educational psychological services are expected to perform in order to fulfil their statutory duties. Fulfiling these duties and following relevant codes of practice are key aspects of overall performance. How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? Key Areas 2, 3 and 4 focus on the impact on key groups of stakeholders of the service s delivery of key processes. In other words, these areas look at the benefits which stakeholders derive from the educational psychology service. Stakeholders include children, young people, families, schools, social workers and health professionals who are in direct receipt of the service together with those who support them and who also have a significant interest in the delivery of high-quality services, for example, parents and families. Stakeholders also include the staff within the service who receive care, support, training and opportunities for involvement in decision-making and career development. Their motivation and satisfaction is of considerable importance if the service is to operate effectively. Evaluations would draw upon the views of staff together with other information, such as rates of absence or retention. The quality of the care and support given to staff can be evaluated by considering evidence of teamworking, rates of involvement in professional development and achievement of qualification and accreditation of the service as a whole by national schemes like lip and Scotland s Health at Work (SHAW). Finally, stakeholders include members of the community. These stakeholders include those from the immediate local community on whose lives and experiences the service has a demonstrable impact. They also include the wider national and international community. The service may make a significant contribution to thinking and practice within a particular area of work. For example, staff may be actively involved in working groups, lead national initiatives and share innovative practice with others. Evidence of the service s impact beyond its immediate context may come from colleagues and peers, from published reports or from other media sources. When evaluating the impact of the service on the range of stakeholders, consideration should be given to the overall balance of strengths and weaknesses. Those carrying out the evaluation need to be alert to the possibility that in order to bring about improvements in one area of impact, the quality of service delivery in another area could diminish, with an overall detrimental effect on service to stakeholders.
19 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Evaluations of the quality of impact in these Key Areas will take into account direct observation and quantitative data together with evidence of stakeholders views, in order to arrive at overall judgements of the impact of the service on its key stakeholders. Where evidence from these sources is conflicting or indicates significant weaknesses, evaluators should follow audit trails to identify and address the possible causes, using indicators from other Key Areas in the quality framework. The focus of Key Areas 2, 3 and 4 will be on evaluating the impact on specific groups of stakeholders including children, young people and families, and arriving at holistic evaluations of the overall impact on their experiences. There may be apparent discrepancies between the evaluations given within Key Area 1 and those given within Key Areas 2, 3 and 4. An improving service may provide considerable evidence of impact on its stakeholders. Significant changes in measurable outcomes such as those included in Key Area 1, however, may take longer to become apparent. For example, young people may indicate through their views and behaviour, that they are learning more effectively. They may show increased motivation and less evidence of disaffection. It may take time, however, for improvements such as these to translate into increases in attainment levels or reductions in offending. In other words, there may be a time lag between improvements in terms of benefits for stakeholders and the overall measurable outcomes of the service. Evaluations of impact may therefore be noticeable more positive than evaluations of outcomes. The opposite may also be true. An organisation such as a high-performing school might deliver and maintain very good examination results. However, the experiences of young people may be evaluated less highly. They may not receive sufficient stimulation or challenge or have poor relationships with their peers or with staff. They may have few opportunities for, or little commitment to independent learning. In such circumstances, overall outcomes may be very positive but evaluations of impact on learners less so. How good is our delivery of education processes? Key Area 5 focuses on the work of the service in relation to its key functions. This relates to the quality of the delivery of the key educational psychological services. The Scottish Executive report Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland published in 2002, makes specific recommendations about the way that educational psychological services are expected to perform in order to fulfil their statutory duties. The Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland identifies a number of key services which underpin the delivery of the statutory duties of an educational psychology service. These are looked at in turn in Key Area 5. The way in which these services are delivered will impact on performance (Key Area 1) and stakeholders (Key Area 2) Consultation and Advice is grounded in applied psychology. This is used to assist young people and other stakeholders to articulate issues which are of concern to them and to generate appropriate plans of action in response to these. Assessment should be least intrusive and carried out in relevant contexts using a wide variety of techniques and resources to gather information and generate hypotheses. Intervention is planned which is least intrusive and based on evidence of effectiveness.
20 2 12_13 Professional Development and Training is offered at individual, provision and authority level to assist in meeting the National Priorities. Training may also be offered as part of the planned response to an identified need. Research and Strategic Development opportunities are available to provision and to the educational service to inform policy and decision-making. Key Area 5 also looks at the quality of the service s processes for improving its work and how well it works with its key stakeholders and partners to achieve this. Quality improvement should be built into the core work of the organisation, it should not be a bolt on. Evidence of the effectiveness of the service s key processes will be seen in the impact they have on stakeholders and in its overall performance. How good is our management? Key Areas 6, 7 and 8 focus on the operational management activities necessary to ensure effective service delivery and to deliver Best Value. These activities include the service s arrangements for developing and updating policies, for involving its stakeholders, for operational planning, for managing staff, finance, information and resources and for developing productive partnerships. Strengths and weaknesses in these areas will normally affect the quality of the key processes delivered (Key Area 5), their impact on stakeholders (Key Areas 2, 3 and 4) and the performances of the service as a whole in relation to its key functions (Key Area 1). How good is our leadership? Key Area 9 focuses on the strategic direction of the service in relation to its key functions. It looks at its corporate purpose and the expression and delivery of its aspirations by means of strategic planning with partner agencies and the community. This Key Area 9 considers the quality of leadership and direction at strategic level, and within teams and across the service as a whole. It looks at the quality of interactions with people within the organisation and with partners in other agencies. It also focuses on the role of leaders in bringing about change and improvement, including innovation and, where necessary, step-change. Strengths and weaknesses in leadership will reflect the extent to which leaders make a difference to the quality of outcomes achieved by the service, and the authority as a whole and to the benefits derived by stakeholders. Evaluation will take account of the impact of leadership on the experiences of children, young people and families, and other key stakeholders and the extent and quality of the outcomes demonstrated. The indicators in Key Area 9 should be capable of being applied at more than one level within the organisation. They could, for example, be applied to the work of the principal educational psychologist and senior officers with responsibility for the service but also to the work of those who lead specific, teams, including project teams and working groups.
21 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT What is our capacity for improvement? Judgement of an organisation's capacity for improvement takes into account the evaluations arrived at in Key Areas 1-9, with particular reference to the quality of the leadership and management of the service and overall impact and outcomes. The service s focus on improvement and its track record in bringing about improvement are particularly important, as is the accuracy of its self-evaluation, which is used as the basis for planned improvements. The judgement also takes into account any significant aspects of the service s internal or external context, for example, impending retirements of senior staff, plans to restructure or significant changes in funding. The judgement reviews the past, and looks forward to the future. Judgements of a service s capacity for improvement could be expressed in terms of a degree of confidence that is has the capacity to continue to improve. The judgement may be that the evaluators are confident that the service has the capacity to continue to improve. This judgement would be made when highly effective leadership and management have sustained high levels of quality and brought about major improvements to outcomes and impact on children, young people, families and other stakeholders. Evidence at the time would indicate that these improvements were sustainable and that improvement would continue. No significant changes in the internal or external context of the organisation would be apparent or predicted at the time the judgement was made. When there are reservations about one or more of these aspects, the use of other terminology would be more appropriate. For example, those carrying out the evaluation might have only limited confidence, or indeed, no confidence that the service has the capacity to improve. It would be important for evaluators to note the nature of their reservations, for example, by pointing to specific aspects of the service s work or its current or future context.
22 2 14_15
23 Part 3 The six-point scale
24 Part 3 The six-point scale 3 16_17 Self-evaluation for quality improvement can be used to evaluate quality against six levels of performance. In the complex operational context of educational psychology services, there are a number of ways in which performance can merit a particular evaluation. It should be kept in mind, however, that service evaluation is not a technical process and awarding levels of performance should be based on professional judgement. The following general guidelines should be consistently applied. An evaluation of excellent applies to performance which is a model of its type. The experiences of children, young people and their families are of a very high quality. An evaluation of excellent represents an outstanding standard of performance which exemplifies best practice and is worth disseminating beyond the service. It also implies these very high levels of performance are sustainable and will be maintained. An evaluation of very good applies to performance characterised by major strengths. There are very few areas for improvement and any that do exist do not significantly diminish the impact and outcomes for children, young people and other stakeholders. While an evaluation of very good represents a high standard of performance, it is a standard that should be achievable by all. It implies that it is fully appropriate to continue to deliver services without significant adjustment. However, there is an expectation that the service will continue to take opportunities to improve and strive to raise performance to excellent. An evaluation of good applies to performance characterised by important strengths which, taken together, clearly outweigh any areas for improvement. An evaluation of good represents a standard of performance in which the strengths have a significant positive impact. However, the impact and outcome for children, young people and other stakeholders is diminished in some way by aspects in which improvement is required. It implies that the service should seek to improve further the areas of important strength, but also take action to address the areas for improvement. An evaluation of adequate applies to performance characterised by strengths which just outweigh weaknesses. An evaluation of adequate indicates that children, young people and other stakeholders have access to a basic level of service which may not fully meet their needs. It represents a standard where the strengths have a positive impact on the outcomes for service users. However, while the weaknesses will not be important enough to have a substantially adverse impact, they will constrain the overall outcomes for children, young people and other stakeholders It implies that the service should take action to address areas of weakness while building on its strengths. An evaluation of weak applies to performance characterised by some strengths, but where there are important weaknesses. In general, an evaluation of weak may be arrived at in a number of circumstances. While there may be some strengths, the important weaknesses will, either individually or collectively, be sufficient to diminish the impact and outcomes for children, young people in substantial ways. It implies the need for structured and planned action on the part of the service.
25 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT An evaluation of unsatisfactory applies to performance characterised by major weaknesses in performance requiring immediate remedial action. The impact and outcomes for children, young people and other stakeholders is at risk in significant respects. In almost all cases, staff responsible for a service evaluated as unsatisfactory will require support from senior managers in planning and carrying out the necessary actions to effect improvement. This may involve working alongside staff from other departments or agencies in or beyond the authority. Using the six-point scale in evaluation The indicators in QMILAEPS are designed to be used in conjunction with the six-point scale described above. The following pages provide examples of the kinds of evidence you should take into account when identifying strengths and weaknesses and assessing the impact of these on children, young people, families and other stakeholders. For Key Areas 2-9, that use quality indicators (QIs) we have also provided illustrations at Level 5 and Level 2. Key Area 1 uses performance indicators (PIs) and similar measures that can provide evidence to inform evaluations against the QIs.
26 3 18_19
27 Part 4 Indicators, themes and illustrations
28 Part 4 Indicators, themes and illustrations 4 20_21 Key Area 1. Key performance outcomes No. Performance Indicator Measures WHAT KEY OUTCOMES HAVE WE ACHIEVED? 1.1 Improvements in performance 1.2 Fulfilment of general statutory duties Key Area 2. Impact on service users No. Quality Indicator Themes Performance data and measures showing trends over time Performance against national, local authority and educational psychology service aims, objectives and targets Financial performance Compliance with legislation, and responsiveness to guidance and codes of practice HOW WELL DO WE MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS? 2.1 Impact on children and young people 2.2 Impact on parents, carers and families Qualitative and quantitative data that demonstrates the extent to which children and young people are: included and participating attaining and achieving progressing. Extent to which children and young people report that they are: successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respected, responsible and included. Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the extent to which parents/carers and families are: treated equally and fairly satisfied with the quality of service included and engaged in planning and decision-making. Extent to which parents, carers and families report that they are: treated equally and fairly satisfied with the quality of service included and engaged in planning and decision-making.
29 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN EDUCATION 2 SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Key Area 3. Impact on staff No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW WELL DO WE MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS? 3.1 Impact on staff Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the extent to which staff: are motivated, confident and valued improve their practice through training and development activities have positive experiences of the quality of central services and external/partner agencies work effectively in teams. Extent to which staff report that they: are motivated, confident and valued improve their practice through training and development activities have positive experiences of the quality of central services and external/partner agencies work effectively in teams. Key Area 4. Impact on the community No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW WELL DO WE MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS? 4.1 Impact on the local community 4.2 Impact on the wider community Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the extent to which support services, educational provisions and community stakeholders are: supported by the service involved in joint planning regarding service priorities satisfied with the quality of the service included and engaged with the service in wider developments. Extent to which support services, educational provisions and community stakeholders report that they are: supported by the service involved in joint planning regarding service priorities satisfied with the quality of the service included and engaged with the service in wider developments. Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the extent to which the service: encourages and supports creativity and innovation learns from and adopts leading-edge practice influences wider policy or practice anticipates and responds rapidly and flexibly to change.
30 4 22_23 Key Area 5. Delivery of key processes No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW GOOD IS OUR DELIVERY OF KEY PROCESSES? 5.1 Consultation and advice Range and appropriateness of consultation and advice services to meet the needs of all stakeholders Staff skill, knowledge and expertise in consulting with and providing advice to stakeholders 5.2 Assessment Arrangements and range of assessment services to meet the needs of all stakeholders Staff skill, knowledge and expertise in delivering appropriate psychological assessment 5.3 Intervention Arrangements for advising, planning, delivering and evaluating strategies to meet the needs of all stakeholders Staff skill, knowledge and expertise in planning and delivering effective psychological intervention 5.4 Professional development and training 5.5 Research and strategic development 5.6 Inclusion, equality and fairness 5.7 Improving the quality of services Range and appropriateness of professional development and training to meet the needs of all stakeholders Staff skill, knowledge and expertise in planning and delivering effective professional development and training to stakeholders Range and appropriateness of the research and strategic development programme to meet service and authority priorities Skill, knowledge and expertise of staff in the participation and undertaking of research and strategic development activity Promotion of inclusive practices Evidence of equal opportunities and fairness embedded in all aspects of practice Arrangements for quality assurance and improvement Support and challenge Evaluating outcomes, and feedback from stakeholders Planning for improvement and monitoring progress Reporting progress to stakeholders
31 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Key Area 6. Policy development and planning No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW GOOD IS OUR MANAGEMENT? 6.1 Policy development and review Range and appropriateness of policies Coherence with council-wide policy Links with vision, values and aims Managing, evaluating and updating policies 6.2 Participation of stakeholders Involvement in policy development Communication and consultation Active participation in the work of the service 6.3 Operational planning Developing, implementing and evaluating plans Structure and content of plans Use of management information Joint planning with partner organisations and services Planning for sustainability Key Area 7. Management and support of staff No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW GOOD IS OUR MANAGEMENT? 7.1 Sufficiency, recruitment and retention of staff Identifying and meeting human resource needs Recruitment, appointment and induction procedures Care and welfare Equality and fairness in recruitment and promotion Recognition 7.2 Deployment and teamwork Appropriateness and clarity of remits Deployment to achieve planned priorities Teamworking Communication and involvement in decision-making 7.3 Development of staff Processes for staff review and support Training and development Joint staff training with staff from partner agencies
32 4 24_25 Key Area 8. Partnerships and resources No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW GOOD IS OUR MANAGEMENT? 8.1 Partnership working Clarity of purposes and aims Service level agreements, roles and remits Working across agencies and disciplines Staff role in partnerships 8.2 Financial management Budget management and enterprise in securing funding Range and implementation of financial procedures and controls Processes for collecting, analysing and evaluating financial information Providing Best Value 8.3 Resource management Accommodation Resources and equipment Efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources Health and safety 8.4 Information systems Data collection storage and retrieval Linkages between, and sharing of information Process for analysing, evaluating and using information Key Area 9. Leadership and direction No. Quality Indicator Themes HOW GOOD IS OUR LEADERSHIP? 9.1 Vision, values and aims Appropriateness and coherence with corporate and community vision, values and aims Sharing and sustaining the vision Promotion of positive attitudes to social and cultural diversity 9.2 Leadership and direction Strategic planning and communication Strategic deployment of resources Evaluation of risk 9.3 Developing people and partnerships Developing leadership capacity Building and sustaining relationships Teamwork and partnerships 9.4 Leadership of change and improvement Support and challenge Creativity, innovation and step change Continuous improvement
33 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT WHAT IS OUR CAPACITY FOR IMPROVEMENT? The last of the high-level questions requires a global judgment based on evidence and evaluations of all Key Areas. In answering this question services should also take into account contextual issues such as plans to restructure and retirements of senior staff. They should also consider their ability to respond quickly to change and to be creative and innovative in the pursuit of excellence. The service should be able to make a statement with the following components: The service is confident/not confident that the evidence and evaluation to date indicates that: overall improvements have been made to key outcomes and to impacts on stakeholders; leadership and management are effective; and quality improvement arrangements are effective and that the service has capacity to continue improving. The levels of confidence expressed for each component may be different and may include some reservations or caveats, but should lead to an overall statement of confidence in the educational psychology service s capacity to improve in relation to its functions. For example, the statement could say, The service is confident that the evidence and evaluation to date indicates that: improvements have been made to achieving almost all key outcomes and, overall, improvements have been made to meet the needs of children and young people but the communication and involvement with parents, carers and families requires further improvement; leadership and management are currently effective but key posts will become vacant in the near future; and quality improvement arrangements are effective in all areas except in relation to the wider community and the service has demonstrated the capacity to continue improving.
34 4 26_27 What key outcomes have we achieved? (KEY AREA 1: KEY PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES) PI 1.1 Improvement in performance Themes: Performance data and measures showing trends over time Performance against national, local authority and educational psychology service aims, objectives and targets This indicator evaluates continuous and sustainable improvement against local and national objectives such as those contained in the authority s Children s Services Plan. Examples of performance data and measures might include measurable outcomes from the authority s strategic and operational plans. Performance will also be measured against objectives within the service improvement plan or equivalent. It will include the contribution of the educational psychology service in meeting local targets for education and care in the Children s Services Plan and other plans. Examples could include: achievement of targets for children and young people; improvements following service reviews relating to Best Value, and outcomes of research and development initiatives which have had an impact on the learning and wellbeing of children and young people. Illustration PI Level 5 Performance information clearly demonstrates high levels of success against both local objectives and, where appropriate, national objectives, for example in social justice and inclusion. Positive trends and standards of performance measured against appropriate benchmarks and comparative data indicate a high level of continuous improvement. The service makes a significant and comprehensive contribution to meeting the aims, objectives and targets of the authority. The service makes a very effective contribution to the provision relating to the statutory procedures for children and young people with additional support needs. Illustration PI Level 2 Performance data and measures demonstrates limited improvement based on trends linked to local and, where appropriate, national objectives for example in social justice and inclusion. Trends and benchmark information indicate that performance is weak in a number of key areas. The service makes a limited contribution to meeting the aims, objectives and targets of the authority. There is little evidence of the service s contribution to provision relating to the statutory procedures for children and young people with additional support needs.
35 QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL AUTHORITY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES SELF-EVALUATION FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT What key outcomes have we achieved? (KEY AREA 1: KEY PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES) PI 1.2 Fulfilment of general statutory duties Themes: Financial performance Compliance with legislation, and responsiveness to guidance and codes of practice Evaluation of financial performance will be based on financial data and measures derived from local Best Value reviews, and from the authority budget construction and management systems. Compliance with statutory requirements relates to legislation and codes of practice such as the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Standards in Scotland s Schools etc Act Illustration PI Level 5 The service has in place robust financial procedures for monitoring and regulating their budget which takes effective account of service and authority priorities. The service effectively complies with all appropriate guidance and legislation. Statutory requirements are well embedded in individual practice and service documentation. The service builds on best practice and ensures that the rights and needs of stakeholders are well met. Illustration PI Level 2 The service has in place a number of financial procedures to monitor expenditure. However, expenditure is not always appropriately linked to meeting service and authority priorities. Service staff comply with appropriate guidance and legislation. Practice guidance and service documentation does not sufficiently take account of statutory requirements. The service does not take appropriate account of best practice and the rights and needs of stakeholders are not always well met.
HOW WELL DO WE PROTECT CHILDREN AND MEET THEIR NEEDS?
HOW GOOD ARE WE NOW? HOW WELL DO WE PROTECT CHILDREN AND MEET THEIR NEEDS? HOW GOOD CAN WE BE? HOW WELL DO WE PROTECT CHILDREN AND MEET THEIR NEEDS? Crown copyright 2009 ISBN: 978-0-7053-1154-0 HM Inspectorate
include foster carers and carers who are relatives or friends. 1 Throughout this report, the term parents should be taken to
Jimmy Dunnachie Family Learning Centre Glasgow City Council 8 July 2009 This report tells you about the quality of education at the centre. We describe how children benefit from learning there. We explain
LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development. Revised Edition
LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development Revised Edition LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development Revised Edition