View
226
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended