Impact of Doctoral Research on Local Authority Policy and Practice

Tracey Colville (CPsychol) and Heather Gorton (CPsychol)

City of Edinburgh Psychological Services

Annual Conference for Educational Psychologists, 2012

For more information, email: tracey.colville@ea.edin.sch.uk

Heather.gorton@ea.edin.sch.uk

Aims of the Workshop

To provide a brief overview of our research (20 mins)

To discuss the EP as research-practitioner

To evaluate the contribution of our research to changes in authority policy and practice

To invite you to consider possible avenues of research in your own authority

To share our own ‘highs and lows’ of doctoral study

Heather’s Doctoral Research

Overview

High levels of delayed school entry Query re criteria to apply Assumptions seemed to be made about

‘benefits’ No long term follow up of children/outcomes Voice of child not captured Literature review-a lot of international

research, very little Scottish research

Aims of study

To explore decision making process from a variety of perspectives

To set these against theoretical models of readiness

To follow the ‘journey’ of retained children from nursery through their first year of school

To focus particularly on transitions as part of this

To find a way to capture the views of the children involved

Methodology

‘Case study’ qualitative approach adopted 6 children and their families followed up over 2

years Documentary analysis Semi-structured interviews with key

participants Adapted mosaic methodology developed to

capture children’s views

Results

Participants held and applied different models of school readiness

Tension in giving advice and making decision Positives- ‘more time’ for assessment, development, parental

acceptance of needs Negatives- loss/reduction of services, child’s size/age in relation

to peers, lowered teacher expectations of child’s potential Most parents still happy with decision at end of P1 Children joining P1 of NC school/more transition activities Children moving to specialist provision less transition activities Methodology to capture children’s views developed

Conclusion/Next Steps

Need to develop a more ‘interactionist’ approach (Meisels, 1998) to this issue: Encourage parents and nursery staff to

discuss pros and cons Identify potential barriers Discuss with school how to

overcome/support these Plan more effective transitions for children

with complex needs Involve parents more fully in the process ‘Ready Schools’ rather than ‘Ready Children’

Tracey’s Doctoral Research

The mess of decision-making!

Context of the study:Self-evaluation identified the need for a review of a local authority decision-making process for specialist educational provision for children with additional support needs (ASN).

‘It is a highly elaborate process for the allocation of places that seems to work most of the time. The psychologist advises on placement, the PAG advises on placement, and eventually we see the puff of white smoke.’

‘I think the current system is an incentive for schools to give away their children.’

PAG as an activity system

Subject: Children and Families Services

Support professionalsObject: Assessing children’s needs

Outcomes:Appropriate educational placement

offered

Tools: protocols, systems, models of practice, assessment tools, reports, language

Rules:Legislation, time,

agreements

Community: other professionals,

family, peers

Division of labour: traditional working

practices

Key Tensions Within the Process

Partnership with parents Multi-agency working The role of the Educational Psychologist Complex, non-transparent process Lack of guidelines and criteria for process of admission to

special schools Inclusion vs Special Education - evidence base? Meeting learners’ needs

Compare with Lamb Inquiry Outcomes (2009 & 2010)

Aims of the study

To evaluate the extent to which Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Developmental Work Research (DWR) are useful analytical and intervention tools for local authority organizational change processes (Engestrom 2007b, 1987)

To contribute to the change process of local

authority policy and practice for children with ASN.

CHAT (Activity Theory) and DWR: Shaping and being shaped by...

Dialectical tradition – culturally mediated activity

Collaboration between researchers and practitioners to resolve

contradictions in complex work/learning contexts (schools, local authorities)

Expansive learning as cycles of change and development

•Application of Vygotskian theory

•DWR workshops as mediational mechanism to open up the ZPD of PAG activity to consider future practice

•use of conceptual tools •Internalization and externalisation•Dual stimulation•everyday understandings to theoretical generalizations

Developmental Work Research (Engestrom, 1987)

Activity system as the unit of analysis Multi-perspectives of PAG activity ‘multi-voicedness’ ‘Time travel’ (historicity) – past, present, future PAG activity Focus on sources of contradictions in individual and networks of (or

collective) activity systems as force for change By making contradictions explicit, new learning can occur within

activity systems. Reference to idea of ‘expansive learning’, achieved in DWR

workshops or ‘change labs’

Applications of DWR Methodology

Application of Activity Theory and DWR to consider inter-professional working within local authority systems to support children and their families (Edwards et al, 2009).

Activity Theory framework provides a means of conceptualising the systems that exist when people work together on specific activities.

It is increasingly used to understand, investigate and make sense of social and professional practice and organizational change.

The Empirical Investigation

Three workshops based on a CHAT/ DWR interventionist methodology with ten participants: senior education professionals, strategic managers and the research-practitioner (EP)

The aim was to consider the PAG process in terms of systemic contradictions and to discuss the change potential of the authority to transform the process.

•Information from two internal authority studies of the PAG process was used as ‘mirror’ data in the empirical investigation as catalysts for critical discussion.

•Workshop activity led to a table of recommendations. Functioned as catalyst for an expansive cycle of change in authority processes

•‘centripetal potential’ – making inroads into central structures and processes

Tools

Hypothesising contradictions in PAG activity: The Perceptions of DWR Participants

Object of PAG activity

Outcomes of PAG activity

Subjects

CommunityRules Division of Labour

PAG may be influenced by several factors and constraints:•Meeting individual needs vs needs of other children vs prioritisation criteria•Parental vs professional opinion•Need for the ‘mess of good decision-making vs transparency and clarity of decision-making criteria

•Recommendations/ decisions may lead to inappropriate placement in which aspects of a child’s needs are not met

•Placement decisions may be challenged

•Outcomes of appeals/tribunals may lead to placement of child in a provision that may or may not meet needs

•Education professionals•Authority officers•Head teachers•Researcher-practitioner

• Assessment tools and criteria may make decision-making more difficult.:

• Criteria vs unclear evidence on which decisions are based

• Use of IQ vs contextual assessment methodology

• Written communication with parents• Limited authority resources vs

meeting children’s needs

The equity of the PAG process may be compromised because of national placing request and ASL legislation

Assumption by some that special school meets needs better vs lack of evidence base to support some of these assumptions

There may be gaps, overlaps and dis-coordination within and between services that affect how needs are met:

There may be problematic partnerships with stakeholders

Key Turning Points in Expansion of Object of PAG Activity

Develop inclusive capacity of mainstream

schools

T

O

DOL3

T

O

DOL2

T

O

DOL

1

Review of PAG

Broaden scope of

PAG review

•Mo

T

O

DOL

4Re-configure services for children and

families

2. Analysing the needs and possibilities of development

3. Creating a new model for the activity

5. Implementing the new model

1. Charting the situation

4. Concretising and testing the new model

DWR 1 (2009)Questioning the PAG process

Need for review

DWR 1Analysis of ethnographic (mirror/case

study) dataConsider past and present PAG activityWhat are the central contradictions in

PAG activity?

DWR 2 (2009)Consider new ways of working in PAG activity

based on analysis of contradictionsDWR 3 (2010)Developing a work plan /model

New tools, DOL, expanded object of activityTable of recommendations produced

Evaluation (2010-2011)Presentation to senior LA officers –EP

Various work-streams establishedNew tools developed ; new models systems planned

Literature for parents; Links with parent groupIn ASL self-evaluation plan

On-going tool (eg new Form 1 & 3. guidance)

6. Spreading and consolidating the new modelUpdate on PAG change process (2011)PAG review group established ; EP role

New SEBN model; new language class modelNew EP roles in case mgt group

Profiling of need/specialist provisionsLinking PAG to GIRFEC/ASL pathways

Quality assurance of PAG applications Research on children’s trajectories (P7-S1) EP role

DWR workshop recommendations

Promote inclusive learning Match needs to provision Develop single planning

process - new allocation model in alignment with GIRFEC service delivery model

More robust evidence of need Develop & publish

Criteria for allocation of provision

Profiles of special schools and provisions

Guidelines for parents and professionals of the decision-making process

Consider professional roles in the process; emphasise the multi-disciplinary nature of the process

Develop a support and challenge role within new allocation model

Develop training for professionals

Create a more evidence-based process; commission on-going research to establish this

Developing a Shared Vision at the Organisational and Leadership Levels

Re-examine provision and targeting of services

Promote transformational change of services Develop an organizational culture of co-

creation, learning and knowledge-sharing Involve families in the co-design of services

with professionals Create resourceful and inclusive schools to

meet learners’ needs Create an evidence-base for local authority

decision-making and resource allocation

Evidence of impact of the DWR intervention

New tools PAG reconfigured within GIRFEC

service delivery model Child planning process and Case

management CMRGs developed – support and

challenge function Solution focused child planning

meetings Resilience matrix; well-being

indicators Child’s plan Progressive intervention -ASL

pathways and GIRFEC now aligned

Professional roles Named person (not EP) gathers

assessment information for CMRGS Partnership working with children

and families to find solutions Tiered progressive intervention and

evidence of reasonable adjustment

Object of activity Meeting the development, learning

and care needs of children and young people

Progressive and proportionate response to meeting needs locally

Commitment to inclusion

CommunityRules Division of Labour

Tools

Children’s Service Delivery Model: Supporting Children’s and Families’ Needs

Object of activity

Outcomes of activity

SubjectsAll stakeholders

•Revised ASL pathways•Universal services /Early intervention•Shared assessment •SEEMIS IT information sharing •Team around the school/cluster•Children’s plans and SF CPMs•Progressive Case Management for resource allocation (CMRGs)•CSDM information web-site•WLD

•Children’s and families needs met effectively and efficiently at the local level•Mainstream schools meet learners’ needs•Effective partnership working

Progressive and proportionate response to meeting needs

•ASL Act, 2010•Presumption to Mainstream•Placing Request Legislation •Pupil participation agenda•GIRFEC national policy•Curriculum for Excellence

Local communityand wider societal context

•Partnership working with families and young people•Children’s participation in planning meetings•Children’s contributions to plans•Clearly defined professional roles and remits •Sharing of knowledge and expertise between authority, professionals, carers and young people

Figure 26: Children’s Service Delivery Model as Activity System.

‘Centripetal potential’ – making inroads into central structures and processes

On-going EP involvement at strategic level: PAG review group GIRFEC Language class provision development group Secondary resources development group Leading development day for CMRGs To co-chair CMRG – P7-S1 transitions Case management development group Case management modelling group - poster

Research in your own authority

In pairs, discuss your authority’s priorities

What opportunities are there for EP research?

What would some of the challenges be doing this?

10mins + 5 min feedback

Impact of Research on Local Authority Policy and Practice

Impacting on policy and practice

Continuous process of change Work embedded in authority plans,

policy, practice Application for deferrals (by 57%) PAG allocation model replaced by case

management process (GIRFEC) Four groups called case management

review groups. Aligned with pathway 3 (EY, primary, transition & secondary

The change process: Impact of inspection and research

Before.... Lack of coherent

pathways or processes for EPS to link at authority/ strategic level

Limited influence on policy and practice

Unclear role of EP at operational and strategic level

Therefore limited research involvement

After.... EPS continuous improvement

planning directly linked to authority priorities

Research group Strategic involv’t:New

developments, policy, training More influence on policy Requests for consultation and

advice from authority managers Recognising the need for

evidence-based practice and research in authority practice

EPS offers vehicle for research

The EP as research-practitioner

Aligning work with authority priorities Applying theoretical models and

evidence-based approaches Action research as cyclical and on-going

‘problem analyser, solution implementer and change evaluator’ Blacker (2009:34). On the role of the researcher in DWR interventions

Keeping to timescales Juggling work as EP and research Power imbalance Resistance to change Managing expectations Challenging established views and assumptions Risky activity (maingrade EP questioning

authority processes) Growing arms and legs.....

Challenges of research in authority settings

Doctoral survival kit

Very patient husband /partner Time turner Sympathetic boss Perseverance Determination Putting life on hold and life happens Saying goodbye to worry- free

holidays

The last stand:Defending our theses!

So why do it?

Doing the research is absorbing /exciting /interesting....

Enables you to have a different perspective

Raised the research profile of the service Supports career progression Promoting the profession Leads to better outcomes for children

and families