Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services 1: Self-evaluation for Quality Improvement: page 6

Quality Management in Local Authority Educational Psychology Services 1: Self-evaluation for Quality Improvement

Part 3 The six-point scale

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.
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.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]