« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction
The Professional Development Programme ( PDP) for Educational Psychologists ( EPs) is supported by the Scottish Government Schools Directorate. The Support for Learning Division, part of the Schools Directorate, currently funds the PDP and commissioned this independent evaluation of the Programme. The main aim of the evaluation was to carry out an assessment of the effectiveness and value for money of the PDP and options for improvement within the current level of funding.
Specific objectives of the evaluation were to:
1. Investigate and assess the value of the PDP taking into account both the quality of the CPD and research opportunities that it offers, including its fit with other CPD opportunities for educational psychologists.
2. Assess the effectiveness of the management and organisation of the PDP including how PDP opportunities are currently publicised and the range of educational psychologists participating in the scheme.
3. Assess how the output of the PDP is accessed and utilised by educational psychologists and local authorities and the perceived impact on the professional expertise and practice of educational psychologists.
4. Assess how the output of the PDP is disseminated to other interested parties in the educational community and how it could be improved.
2. Methodology
One hundred and seventy EPs from at least 31 Local Authorities ( LAs) responded to the online questionnaire in Phase I. In Phase II, further in-depth data was collected through interviews and focus groups from 19 EPs who had participated in Phase I, some of whom were members of the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists ( ASPEP). In addition, other stakeholder views were gathered through interviews and focus group which included the existing PDP Steering Group members, Heads of Education Service (for the perspectives of both the Association of Directors of Education Scotland [ ADES] and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities[ COSLA]), representatives of Scottish Division of Educational Psychology ( SDEP), Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education ( HMIE) and Scottish Government including one representative from the Schools Directorate and two strategic officers from the Post School Psychological Services.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Sources of information about the PDP
Sources of information about the PDP varied with the questionnaire respondents being informed about the PDP mainly by their line managers (57%) and by others in the Educational Psychology Service ( EPS) (58%). Other respondents had been informed by the ASPEP (20%), the PDP Steering Group (15%) and the University tutors (16%) on the professional training programmes.
3.2 Experience of the PDP
Eighty one (48%) questionnaire respondents had participated in the PDP over the years, with a representation of at least 28 LAs. Seventy four (91%) of the 81 PDP participants and all Steering Group members and co-ordinators reported that this experience had been useful to them as individuals as well as to their EPS. Forty one (24%) questionnaire respondents reported changes in their experience of the PDP process over time; however 97 (57%) felt that there had been no change. Changes were viewed both positively and negatively.
3.3 Decision making regarding the PDP themes
One hundred and two (60%) questionnaire respondents had been involved in selection of themes. All EP grades had been equally involved in the selection and the process was seen to be consultative. Other stakeholders from Phase II (namely, members of ADES, SDEP and Scottish Government) also felt that their views had been taken into consideration in the selection of themes. It was suggested that other wider stakeholder groups such as parents and other professionals should also be consulted.
3.4 Views about the PDP reports
One hundred and twenty (71%) questionnaire respondents had read the PDP reports at least once and up to 10 times, with most reading them as hard copies (n=104, 61%). A large number of questionnaire respondents (n=134, 79%) had found the PDP reports very easy or easy to access. However, some indicated that online access was not always easy. The PDP reports were shared with others mainly within the following contexts: in a discussion around a theme with other EPs, sharing with school and/or post-school staff and parents; for staff development within the Service, to inform practice at individual level, to inform policy/practice at authority level, to increase individual's knowledge base, to help develop further collaborative work and sharing thinking through national/international conferences and university modules. It was suggested that this sharing can be improved, especially with the parents and children.
3.5 Usefulness of the PDP to EPs and EPSs
The PDP was reported to be useful to EPs and EPSs. The top 5 aspects of the PDP that were found to be useful to EPs as professionals and EPS were, that it led to:
- the development of knowledge base
- collaboration with EPs in other services
- development of practice
- opportunities to do research
- better service delivery for children and young people
Thirty (18%) questionnaire respondents provided reasons for the PDP not being useful to EPs and EPS. In no particular order, the reasons can be summarized as follows:
- Insufficient time allocation
- Travel barrier
- Topic/research themes
- Quality of research and outputs
- Lack of focus on service delivery
- Variable quality of coordination and financial constraints
3.6 Overall suggestions for improvement of the PDP
- Improved and more transparent process for selection of topics/themes
- Improved research methodology and process
- Improved quality of coordination
- Increased funding/resources
- Better protected time allocation
- Better ways of dealing with travel barriers
- Broader dissemination and easier access
- More effective outcomes for children and family
3.7 Additional views from Phase II about the PDP
Interview and focus group participants also commented on other ways of improving the PDP, replacing it with something different and retaining certain aspects of the current PDP. They reported that the PDP was good value for money, given the level of funding provided.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The PDP was reported to be very useful for EPs and EPSs, and provided good value for money. The process and outputs were seen to impact positively on the professional expertise and practice of EPs, and on service provision for children and young people. Overall suggestions were made for the improvement of the PDP research process and output, which are reflected in the following recommendations:
1. Maintain the existing consultative process for initial generation of ideas and the subsequent decision making about the PDP themes.
2. More discussion needs to take place around the methods and a clear rationale should be presented for the use of certain methods.
3. There is a need for a streamlined product which is more cohesive. Editing of the output should be undertaken, perhaps as a required task for the PDP project team. However, further resource implications of this have to be considered.
4. Project management and leadership skills should be prerequisites to becoming a PDP co-ordinator. However, project management and leadership training could be offered to PDP coordinators, where required. The PDP Steering Group (including the Scottish Government) should ensure that appropriate levels of support and resources required to undertake the role effectively are provided.
5. Maintain the focus of the PDP on collaborative research across EPSs and LA boundaries. However, it is important to ensure improved communication and opportunities for participation of EPs from remote and/or small EPSs.
6.PDP material should continue to be made available in hard copy and wider dissemination should be ensured through online sources.
7. Wider dissemination of the PDP output should take place through the LAs and EPSs and by encouraging PDP participants to publish the research in peer reviewed national and international journals.
8. More CPD opportunities should be provided through the PDP, with more effective links with the EPS development plans, the CPD framework for EPs and the annual review process for EPs.
9. The EPSs and ASPEP should consider taking responsibility for discussion sessions at local level (within the EPS or LA) and national level (through ASPEP meetings or SDEP newsletter).
10. The PDP Steering Group should consider evaluating the effectiveness of the process for the PDP participants and the output for all EPs on an ongoing basis.
11.PDP Steering Group should liaise with other relevant parties to look for opportunities to access alternative sources of funding and resources. This would complement the current funding provided by the Scottish Government. On the basis of the available funding and resources, they should review the format of the PDP and should consider: a reduction of themes and/or expansion of the PDP cycle, the relevance and applicability of the research to practice when selecting themes, the possibility of carrying out longitudinal studies and ensuring there are tangible links between the themes from one cycle to the next.
« Previous | Contents | Next »