View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Cultural Historical Activity Theory Analysis of Educational Psychologists' Statutory Assessment Process Post- 2014 Children and Families Act

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Cultural Historical Activity Theory Analysis of Educational Psychologists' Statutory Assessment Process Post- 2014 Children and Families Act
Language: English
Authors: Capper, Zoe, Soan, Colette (ORCID 0000-0001-8730-8611)
Source: Educational Psychology in Practice. 2022 38(4):428-447.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Educational Psychology, Psychologists, Counselor Role, Special Education, Special Needs Students, Foreign Countries, Psychological Evaluation
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2022.2135491
ISSN: 0266-7363
1469-5839
Abstract: The activity of educational psychologists' (EPs') statutory psychological assessment continues to be viewed critically within literature. The current research explores the understanding of EPs and special educational needs and disability (SEND) officers in this activity, considering the 2014/2015 policy reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a single Local Authority (LA) using Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to explore the constructions of each group. Identified contradictions within the data were explored within a Development Work Research (DWR) Lab to create shared actions. Over time, EPs' practice has remained constant in its recognised strengths, but identified contradictions within historic literature remained evident. Actions moving forward sought to redevelop graduated assessment processes, promote stronger multi-professional working, strengthen annual review processes, and create effective methods for efficient data collection.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1370724
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEdW2JYzvFieJGTg7RMOJXaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKOvgxyq7WK4F0EGnAIBEICBm22u4xwzyfzNeibw1PsuCsAE-ST0rA5PZqT_DEROIMfcUK0xZP7574SUON2MBLs_fHYnIhCE80uVOa8NB-MM2-dWe9vsF_ZAi1gZeJPNJfaZB3iVZHxrQ27fEqoYr6vcVEevliAM_SZpTzX1dHIn7NcsGfi5SG5SK8QI12PJip-UC6qjOhROGtN1r3QqtirwA3hI8ZaM-FT6HHkV
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0160113978;b8g01dec.22;2022Nov11.04:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0160113978-1">A cultural historical activity theory analysis of educational psychologists' statutory assessment process post- 2014 children and families act </title> <p>The activity of educational psychologists' (EPs') statutory psychological assessment continues to be viewed critically within literature. The current research explores the understanding of EPs and special educational needs and disability (SEND) officers in this activity, considering the 2014/2015 policy reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a single Local Authority (LA) using Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to explore the constructions of each group. Identified contradictions within the data were explored within a Development Work Research (DWR) Lab to create shared actions. Over time, EPs' practice has remained constant in its recognised strengths, but identified contradictions within historic literature remained evident. Actions moving forward sought to redevelop graduated assessment processes, promote stronger multi-professional working, strengthen annual review processes, and create effective methods for efficient data collection.</p> <p>Keywords: Statutory assessment; psychological advice; education health and care plans; cultural-historical activity theory; educational psychologist</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The role of educational psychologists (EPs) in England in statutory special educational needs and disability (SEND) assessments was formalised within the Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science (Department of Education and Science, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]) and subsequent 1981 Education Act. The Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]), positioned EPs as members of local educational authorities who could valuably contribute to the statutory assessment process and it was recommended that the profession should be given statutory status. Despite decreasing guidance within each subsequent Code of Practice (CoP; Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]; Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]; Department for Education and Skills ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>])) regarding how EPs should be included in this process, workforce demands have grown in this area (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is important to note that EPs are not the sole contributors in this process. The 1994 CoP (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]) identified that advice should be taken from educational, psychological, and social care professionals. This was extended in the 2015 CoP (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]) to state that health, care and educational professionals, including an EP, should be consulted as part of the statutory assessment process.</p> <p>However, EPs have continued to be positioned as key contributors involved in this process (Buck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]). In a recent review conducted by the Education Committee ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]), the poor input from health and social care professionals in the Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) process was criticised, leading to a likely focus being placed on educational and psychological advice in the construction of the final document.</p> <p>Historically, SEND statutory assessment processes and EPs' statutory psychological assessment processes have been criticised for failing to achieve their intended aims of assessment occurring over time to develop a robust hypothesis of a child or young person's (CYP's) needs (for example, Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). While the newest policy reforms intended to address these concerns (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]; Hellawell, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]), criticisms have persisted and growing requests for EHCPs have produced a system which cannot adequately support all pupils (for example, Education Committee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]; Hodkinson & Burch, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref17">39</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref18">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Cameron and Monsen ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]) suggest the profession experienced increasing demands to conduct statutory psychological assessments within decreasing timeframes, something which is supported by an EP workforce study commissioned by the DfE in [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>], which led to concerns about the quality of reports being produced. This has wider implications given the reported focus placed on EP assessment (for example, Buck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]; Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; Woods & Farrell, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref23">68</reflink>]) within final SEND documents.</p> <p>This research paper is based upon a 2021 doctoral thesis (Capper, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]) and focuses on the role of EPs within the EHCP process (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]). Through the lens of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT; Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]), this research explores how the activity of EP statutory assessment is conceptualised by EPs and SEND officers in one Local Authority (LA), anonymised as 'Seaview Metropolitan Borough Council' (MBC).</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-3">Special educational needs and disability policy in the UK</hd> <p>Between the Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]) and the 2015 CoP (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]), SEND policies have undergone several developments and periods of criticism, summarised in Table 1. To address these criticisms, changes were put forward within Section 3 of the 2014 Children and Families Act, introducing EHCPs as a new method of outlining the support that a child or young person (CYP) with SEND required. However, Lehane ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]) highlights that the vision put forward in the 2015 CoP (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]) of parental and personal choice regarding provision and placement was implemented against a 'background of austerity', where LAs sought to 'control expenditure', producing an adversarial SEND system (Lehane, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>], pg.54).</p> <p>Table 1. A summary of key policy leading up to the 2014/2015 reforms.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Key Documents</td><td>Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">1978</xref>) & 1981 Education Act</td><td>1993 Education Act & 1994 Code of Practice (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">1994</xref>)</td><td>2001 SEN and Disability Act & 2001 Code of Practice (Department for Education and Skills, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2001</xref>)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Features</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>'Special educational needs' (SEN) and 'special educational provision' terminology introduced</p></list-item><list-item><p>An appeal process for parents/carers</p></list-item><list-item><p>Annual reviews process</p></list-item><list-item><p>Statements of SEN</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Legal requirement for government to produce a 'code of practice' to guide Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and educational settings</p></list-item><list-item><p>'Tribunals' as the formal terminology surrounding appeals</p></list-item><list-item><p>1994 CoP recognised key SEN categories for identifying need</p></list-item><list-item><p>Implemented five stages of intervention/assessment</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Disability policy was introduced into SEN policy</p></list-item><list-item><p>SEN categories of need were reduced to four and SEN graduated assessment stages were reduced to 'school action' and 'school action plus'</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Recognised Strengths</td><td>Warnock (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2005</xref>) reflected on this policy as a driver in removing the labelling and stigma previously associated with SEN and disability.</td><td>Bines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2000</xref>) recognised that this CoP promoted the development of whole-school SEN policy. Lehane (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2017</xref>) praised the accessible nature of the 1994 CoP which used language commonly adopted in schools, making it easy to read and follow.</td><td>Bines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2000</xref>) suggested this CoP aimed to promote greater school responsibility for supporting pupils with SEN and aimed to reduce the number of Statements of SEN produced.</td></tr><tr><td>Reported Limitations</td><td>Barton (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">1988</xref>) criticised the policy changes for coming with no additional funding to support schools in this major policy change. Powell and Booker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">1987</xref>) were notably critical of the 1981 Act. They criticised the within-child focus still adopted within the policy, alongside the absence of considerations such as a CYP's home/community within the Statement of SEN, the difficulty arising in distinguishing between needs and provision, and the absence of strengths within assessment.</td><td>The policy was seen to directly conflict with the education market forces culture of the time (MacBeath et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2006</xref>). The introduction of the National Curriculum directly conflicted with the CoP's promotion of personalisation (Armstrong, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2005</xref>). Also, a report by the Audit Commission (2006) criticised the responsibility placed upon LEA SEN services regarding funding, leading to poor internal support for pupils with SEN.</td><td>Armstrong (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2005</xref>) suggested the CoP's promotion of CYP's voice was largely tokenistic in nature. The Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2009</xref>) conducted a comprehensive review of SEN practices and found statutory processes were stressful for parents/carers due to poor support and information. Statements of SEN were seen to be lacking and vague (Lamb, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2009</xref>; Cameron & Monsen, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2005</xref> and Warnock, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2005</xref>). The enquiry (Lamb, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2009</xref>) also criticised the broad nature of outcomes within the statements. Despite previous intentions to reduce identification of SEN in CYP, numbers continued to rise (Norwich & Eaton, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2015</xref>).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Robinson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref32">56</reflink>]) expands this, explaining that many of the policy's recommendations (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]) could not be implemented by some LAs due to an absence of funding, or a lack of prioritisation of SEND funding when allocating budgets, leading to patchy provision across LAs. The 2015 CoP (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]) was also reported to be vague in nature, leaving statutory processes and SEND support open to LA interpretation and producing a lack of uniformity in EHCPs and the professional advice which guide them (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref35">56</reflink>]). This lack of uniformity has since been recognised by the current government, who in a recent green paper have stated a commitment to creating a 'new national SEND system' and a 'standardised EHCP process ... to minimise bureaucracy and deliver consistency' (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, while the changes in legislation aimed to address concerns of an over-identification of children with SEND (Tomlinson, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref37">63</reflink>]), such trends have persisted. According to data published by the Department for Education ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]), there has been a year on year increase in the number of new EHCPs issued, with 473,300 EHCPs currently in place as of January 2022 and 62,200 new EHCPs implemented in 2021.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-4">Implications for educational psychology practice</hd> <p>Policy changes have also led to challenges for EPs regarding the activity of statutory psychological assessment (for example, Buck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]; Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]; Woods & Farrell, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref41">68</reflink>]). One such challenge was identified within a Department for Education ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]) commissioned study in England which mapped out current workforce trends in EP services; 93% of LA principal EPs identified increasing demands for statutory assessment as the most common factor contributing to existing workforce shortages.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-5">Assessment over time</hd> <p>This growing demand for EPs' statutory assessment and advice has other implications. Cameron and Monsen ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>]) noted that EPs' statutory assessment is an activity which should occur over time to allow for 'comprehensive' investigation (p. 287) of real-world problems which cannot be easily explored in restricted working practices. Professional bodies support this notion, advising that assessment occurs over an extended period (British Psychological Society, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]) to allow for hypothesis testing and knowledge building. Despite this recognition that longitudinal assessment is a marker of effective assessment, this is by no means universal practice. In January 2019, an article published by Schools Week (Schools Week, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]) reported a maingrade EP's assertions to the education select committee that colleagues were being asked to conduct assessments of CYP in just one visit, while historical practice had allowed for multiple visits and assessments over time.</p> <p>This model of working has also historically been challenged by parents/carers (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref46">41</reflink>]) who reported that they felt less confident about the quality of assessment their CYP may have experienced when the EP involved was unable to spend extended time with a CYP to understand their needs.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-6">Psychological assessment or provision allocation?</hd> <p>The factors constraining the quality of EPs' psychological statutory assessment can also affect the quality of the end product of statutory assessments. The Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref47">41</reflink>]) reported that Statements of SEN were notably poor when information was replicated from professionals' advice without adaptation. The recognition that professionals' advice may be directly replicated within final documentation has been discussed within the literature. Buck ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]) suggested that the reports of EPs are 'reverse-engineered' to match statutory documents which led to EPs' assessments becoming longer to contain almost complete accounts of the SEND and provision. Reliance on these assessments becomes problematic when considering the reported literature and media concerns that EPs are required to conduct this activity in shorter timeframes, limiting their ability to gain a comprehensive picture of each CYP (Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref50">41</reflink>]) also reported the closeness between SEN teams and EPs led to a clear conflict: 'The people who have to pay for the additional needs are also the ones employing the specialist advisers – a massive conflict of interest'. (p. 86). The enquiry documented the growing pressure EPs experienced to produce statutory assessment reports which favoured LEA provision preferences. Lamb's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]) cautions about this conflict have been echoed within professional academic literature which report that EPs, through their assessments, are being asked to adopt the role of resource definers rather than being viewed as an accessible resource in their own right (Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]; Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]; Thomson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref54">62</reflink>]). Faupel and Norgate ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]) stated that the 1981 Education Act's proposals led to 'perhaps the single greatest disaster' for EP practice by positioning the profession as 'providers of additional resources ... via Formal Assessments' (p. 132). The paper argued that EPs had become bureaucrats at the cost of their applied practice and ability to advocate for CYP and parents/carers.</p> <p>In addition, Norwich ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref56">50</reflink>]) reported that EPs were pressured to tailor their advice to available provisions, rather than what they felt was most appropriate for a CYP. EP psychological assessments were identified by Norwich ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref57">50</reflink>]), as being heavily relied upon in statutory assessments due to their objective and unbiased nature. Norwich ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref58">50</reflink>]) goes on to explain that this evaluation of EP assessment did not provide a clear rationale for the role of psychological assessment in statutory procedures. If psychological assessment was about hypotheses development and construction of a CYP's needs to remove barriers to learning, Norwich ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref59">51</reflink>]) argued that this should be viewed as distinct from the statutory process of SEND identification for additional support.</p> <p>However, there are strengths to this way of working that should be recognised by considering the alternative. Within the 2019 workforce survey (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]), it was recognised that one approach to address workforce challenges was to hire locum EPs. While this strategy would remove some of Lamb's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]) criticisms by bringing in EPs with little long-term connection to a LA's SEND systems, it also produces a workforce who may have limited long-term understanding of a CYP's context, obtained through an understanding of school and LA cultures over time, alongside extended graduated assessment, something which is seen as a strength in statutory psychological assessment by authors such as Cameron and Monsen ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-7">The current study</hd> <p>At present, very little academic and empirical literature exists exploring EPs' statutory psychological assessments following the 2014/2015 policy reforms. Current research literature was found to focus solely on the views of EPs, despite the recognition within the Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]) and Woods and Farrell ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]) research that practice is heavily influenced by LA guidance.</p> <p>Given the increasing demands placed upon EPs, and their role at present within the wider statutory process, it could be argued to be an important time to revisit this activity (Buck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]) to ascertain whether the process is effective in its aims, and professionally valuable.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-8">Methodology</hd> <p>This research explores EPs' and SEND officers' understanding of the EP psychological statutory assessment process within Seaview MBC. Exploration of policy and academic literature recognised that changes in SEND practices, and therefore EP statutory psychological assessment, cannot be understood without recognition of driving cultural values and wider political agendas. With this in mind, Engestrom and Miettinen ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]) CHAT framework was used to provide a conceptual and theoretical framework for exploration.</p> <p>The research adopts the epistemological position of social constructionism, recognising that knowledge is context-bound (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref67">14</reflink>]) and meaning is individually constructed from personal human experience (Lock & Strong, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]; Robson & McCartan, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref69">57</reflink>]). Moreover, it emphasises language and socio-cultural factors as mediators of knowledge construction, as supported by Vygotsky and CHAT (Engestrom & Miettinen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]; Yamazumi, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref71">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>The purpose of this activity, the role of each team, and beliefs about best practice were explored using semi-structured interviews, considering development over time and future practice.</p> <p>The final research questions were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do EPs and SEND officers conceptualise the purposes of and processes undertaken within EPs' contribution to statutory assessment in Seaview MBC?</item> <p></p> <item> What are key changes in the purposes and processes of this activity following the 2014 Children and Families Act and 2015 Code of Practice, as understood by Seaview MBC EPs and SEND officers?</item> <p></p> <item> How do the views of EPs and SEND officers regarding EPs' contribution to statutory assessment complement and contradict each other?</item> <p></p> <item> How can the data be harnessed within Seaview MBC to facilitate group learning, addressing identified contradictions and supporting the development of actions?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0160113978-9">Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)</hd> <p>CHAT is a conceptual and analytical framework which seeks to understand the social and cultural drivers which shape an activity both historically and in the present (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref72">43</reflink>]). An activity is defined within the framework as 'social practices orientated at objects' (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>], p. 380). The CHAT framework has its roots primarily in the work of Marx (Sannnino & Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref74">58</reflink>]), Vygotsky (Engestrom & Miettinen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]; Yamazumi, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref76">69</reflink>]), Leont'ev (Engestrom & Miettinen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref77">34</reflink>]), and Engeström (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref78">42</reflink>]), moving through three generations of the theory as knowledge and understanding of the original ideas have been translated and developed.</p> <p>Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref79">66</reflink>]) early work on CHAT focussed on the idea that all actions are directed towards a goal (object) and are influenced (mediated) by a subject's (individual or group) cultural and social contexts (Engestrom & Miettinen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]). These mediating contexts include both concrete (for example, machinery) and abstract artefacts (for example, language; Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref81">44</reflink>]). First-generation CHAT had three nodes; subject, object, and artefacts. Second generation CHAT (Figure 1) extended this, incorporating three new nodes; rules, division of labour, and community (Greenhouse, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]) to recognise that actions do not take place in a 'sealed environment' (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref83">44</reflink>], p. 256). Objects within a group are difficult to define and interpreted differently based on an individual's motivations, which are shaped by macro-level elements such as historical and cultural factors (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Second-generation CHAT (Taken from Leadbetter, 2016, p. 257).</p> <p>Third generation CHAT incorporates Engeström's expansive learning process (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]). Through a process of individual questioning of practice and group level developments, new ways of working are established which address previous tensions and contradictions. By considering expansive learning cycles over time, and recognising the voices of multiple subjects, the contradictions surrounding an activity can be both identified and addressed. Engeström ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>]) stated that contradictions can occur on four levels (summarised in Table 2 using an example relevant to statutory assessment), depending on the nature of the contradiction and whether it occurs across nodes, time, or activity systems.</p> <p>Table 2. A summary of Engeström's proposed contradiction levels (Taken from Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref87">32</reflink>], p. 71).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Contradiction</td><td>Explanation and Example</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Primary</td><td>Contradictions within a node <italic>(for example, while EHCPs should include multi-professional input, these documents often focus largely on educational advice and data – 'division of labour' contradiction)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Secondary</td><td>Contradictions between two nodes <italic>(for example, while policy promotes greater parental rights and advocacy within assessment ['rules'], parents/carers may not get to review the EP's statutory advice before submission ['division of labour]))</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Tertiary</td><td>Contradictions between previous models of the object, and new ones <italic>(for example, historically, the object of EP assessment was to categorise children for special school placements based on their deficits but now the object is to gain a holistic perspective of a CYP's strengths and their SEND)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Quaternary</td><td>Contradictions between the central activity and neighbouring systems <italic>(for example, if the function of EP assessment is to define the resources a CYP requires [including placement] this is contradicted by what is available in LA's budget and special school spaces)</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Within this research, second generation CHAT was used to inform the semi-structured interview framework which explored SEND officers' and EPs' constructions of the activity of statutory psychological assessment both prior to, and following, the 2014/2015 policy reforms. Key contradictions within these constructions were identified, comparing data within and across each node.</p> <p>Third generation CHAT was then utilised, adopting Engeström's Development Work Research (DWR) method, which involves a focus group design. Within the DWR Lab process, the CHAT framework mediates participants' exploration of contradictions within the activity system, aiming to create a new activity system model which moves practice forward. It is important that this work focuses on both short and long-term change and is conducted at a point where an organisation is ready to undertake change (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]; Engeström & Glăveanu, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-10">Local context</hd> <p>This research took place within an English LA, 'Seaview MBC'. Seaview MBC has mirrored national trends of increased EHCP requests each year, showing small (approx. 0.1%) yearly increases since EHCPs began in 2015 (Seaview MBC data, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref90">60</reflink>]), although the percentage of pupils with EHCPs falls slightly lower than the region's average (DfE, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref91">18</reflink>]). The EP service is part of a multi-disciplinary education service, 'Seaview SEND Service', which includes specialist teachers for learning, mental health and autism, who, alongside EPs, work with schools in identifying and supporting pupils with SEND.</p> <p>Seaview MBC has undergone a recent SEND Ofsted inspection (Ofsted, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref92">54</reflink>]), reviewing weaknesses across the LA's Children's Services identified by a 2017 inspection (Ofsted, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]) which found the quality of statutory assessments and plans to be poor. During the 2017 review, EHCPs were seen to be dominated by educational assessment, frequently lacking health and social care information which was either not provided by relevant professionals or not used by SEND officers in EHCP construction. The 2019 inspection (Ofsted, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref94">54</reflink>]) reported improvements in health and social care contributions to EHCP assessments but identified that opportunities for further improvement remained. In addition, the overall quality of EHCPs in Seaview MBC was judged to have improved, presenting as more accessible and showing stronger co-production with parents/carers and CYP.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-11">Seaview MBC statutory assessment process</hd> <p>As reported previously, government policy surrounding EHCPs leaves many aspects of the implementation of the statutory process to the discretion of each LA (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref95">56</reflink>]). Seaview MBC's process for conducting statutory assessments is summarised in Figure 2.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. A summary of Seaview MBC process for statutory assessment for EHCP.</p> <p>Where an EHCP assessment is agreed, a request is made to the assigned EP to conduct a psychological statutory assessment. While no LA guidance or policy exists to inform the writing of these reports, a proforma co-developed by SEND officers and EPs is available which closely matches the final EHCP document. The proforma asks EPs to comment on the needs of a CYP, establish outcomes for a CYP over two key stages of education, and make provision recommendations which support these outcomes being achieved.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-12">Process</hd> <p>Nine participants from Seaview SEND Service (four EPs and five SEND Officers) were recruited using voluntary sampling (outlined in Figure 3):</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. A summary of the sampling procedure.</p> <p>Prior to the pilot interview, a question framework was established using the CHAT nodes (Table 3) and additional prompt questions were developed based on literature reading. In addition to this, the pilot interview established which CHAT nodes may require further explanation during the interviews, or where additional prompts may be required. Through this process it was recognised that a visual aid was required to support participants' understanding of the type of response sought when considering the 'Rules' node (Figure 4).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Supplementary visual aid summarising the CHAT node of 'rules' for semi-structured interviews.</p> <p>Table 3. Outline of semi-structured interview questions and prompts used in semi-structured interviews.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>CHAT Node</td><td>Prompts for EP</td><td>Prompts for SEND officer</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subject – Introductions: tell me a little bit about yourself. How long have you been in your role? How long have you worked for the Local Authority?</td></tr><tr><td>Object: what are you/ the EP working on? Outcome: what are you/the EP hoping to achieve?</td><td>Where does the statutory assessment process begin? What are you trying to find out? What is the intended end product? How will this be used in the wider aim of an EHCP?</td><td>Where does the statutory assessment process begin? What is the EP hoping to achieve/produce at the end of the report? What do you need to achieve from the produced statutory advice?</td></tr><tr><td>Rules: what supports or constrains the work? <italic>Supplementary figure used</italic></td><td>What, before the Children and Families Act of 2014, helped guide your assessment process? What made it difficult? What helps guide you now? What makes this harder? What would help you in the future? What do you see as a future threat to this work and your intended aims?</td></tr><tr><td>Community: who else is involved in the activity?</td><td>How do you give weighting between different stakeholders' views?</td></tr><tr><td>Labour: how is the work shared? What is your role in the assessment process?</td><td>What is the role of SEND officers when presented with EP psychological advice? How should the EP's psychological advice be used to guide the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) writing process?</td><td>How does the EP information guide the EHCP construction?</td></tr><tr><td>Artefacts: what measures are used in the assessment?</td><td>What measures are most/least useful? What is the purpose of these measures? What guides your approach to this assessment? Do you feel some methods of collection hold more impact? What systemic drivers are here for which assessment tools are used? How do you distinguish between good advice and less good advice?</td><td>What methods of assessment do you expect to see in EP advice? Are there any methods of collecting information that are more useful/ less useful? Which methods of assessment hold more benefit for informing the EHCP process? How do you distinguish between good advice and less good advice?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Individual semi-structured interviews were then conducted with the nine participants using this schedule, with interviews audio recorded and then transcribed by the interviewer.</p> <p>Interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref96">5</reflink>]) Thematic Analysis process (TA), which aims to identify patterns and meaning across data sets through a process of thematic coding (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref97">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref98">7</reflink>]). While there are several variations of TA, the approach adopted in this research is deductive or theoretical, more recently refined as reflexive TA (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref99">8</reflink>]), aiming to understand the data in relation to the selected CHAT nodes.</p> <p>Engeström's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref100">29</reflink>]) DWR Lab method was then undertaken in a focus group session with four EPs and three SEND Officers. Within the session, two key contradictions identified through the thematic analysis of the data from the semi-structured interviews were presented to the group by the facilitators, who were able to discuss and unpick these contradictions further. The session was facilitated by two additional EPs (both university supervisors, one working with Seaview MBC as a senior specialist EP), facilitating the development of a detailed action plan which sought to address the tensions in current practice which may have led to these contradictions.</p> <p>During the session, the facilitator's role is to present back the analysed data through quotes and labelling of the contradictions within the CHAT framework and to invite participants to comment and reflect (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]) on these contradictions and possible actions. The facilitators guide, but do not donate their own ideas.</p> <p>DWR Lab sessions are typically video recorded for multiple sessions to occur. However, in this single-session research, the session was audio-recorded, rather than video recorded. This decision was made as analytic focus was placed on the actions developed rather than behavioural and non-verbal reactions to the data/DWR Lab. One facilitator also took the role of creating a graphic record of ideas and actions which could then be kept by the group to support ongoing development work.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-13">Findings and discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160113978-14">How do EPs and SEND officers conceptualise the purposes of and processes undertaken within EP...</hd> <p>Both groups were consistent in their focus on CYP at the heart of any assessment and were driven to ensure they 'did a CYP justice'. Where SEND officers had been able to work more closely with EPs on development work outside of EHCP construction, values and objectives underlying the activity were found to be more closely aligned.</p> <p>'I think you're trying to achieve a holistic understanding of that young person, of their needs and how they've come to be in the position they are in at the moment.' (Participant #2, EP)</p> <p>Overall, EPs viewed the main objective of statutory psychological assessment as the creation of a holistic story of a CYP's needs, with wider outcomes linked to the application of psychological knowledge to authentically formulate a CYP's strengths and needs. EPs did not place statutory aims centrally but reported that informing the final EHCP document was currently the sole purpose of assessment.</p> <p>SEND officers' conceptualisation of the activity focussed on statutory objectives (needs, outcome, provision recommendations) and how assessments could support them in holding schools accountable for implementing a CYP's stated provisions and outcomes. EPs were construed as 'experts', providing reliable, objective advice and bringing psychological knowledge of child development which could be used to shape the EHCP. It was expected that EPs would clearly state their preference for mainstream or specialist education within assessments, to support SEND officer decisions.</p> <p>'If we receive EP advices ... that aren't specific and aren't quantified and aren't clear, then it's difficult for us to make a decision and ultimately it may mean the child doesn't end up in an appropriate setting.' (Participant #3, SEND officer)</p> <p>In addition, SEND officers required specified provisions and outcomes to allow funding decision criteria to be applied appropriately and to ensure accurate checking of the support in place in schools during annual review processes. However, the data suggest that this purpose has emerged from a recognition of EPs' psychological knowledge and SEND officers' inability to conduct direct casework to build their own understanding of a CYP.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-15">What are key changes in the purposes and processes of this activity following the 2014 childr...</hd> <p>EPs reported that their assessment processes had remained constant before and following the 2014/2015 policy reforms, with the 2015 CoP (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref102">23</reflink>]) enshrining existing practice (for example, the promotion of person-centred methods of assessment).</p> <p>'They encapsulate the child's views and aspirations and in terms of the report in a totally gather it in a person-centred way.' (Participant #8, SEND officer)</p> <p>'A person centred meeting where we generate outcomes, co-construct outcomes with parents, carers, teaching staff and the young person themselves ... I think for [Seaview] that's been a real strength.' (Participant #4, EP)</p> <p>Within Seaview MBC, the adoption of person-centred meetings was endorsed and seen to be a key tool in conducting a strong psychological assessment, with both groups agreeing that the person-centred practices within Seaview MBC were strong.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-16">How do the views of EPs and SEND officers regarding EPs' contribution to statutory assessment...</hd> <p>Two key conflicts were found during data analysis (presented in Table 4), which were presented back to the group for reference and discussion in the DWR Lab. Contradiction one arose from a common perspective. Repeatedly, both groups discussed the need for a graduated assessment where problem-solving occurred over time, allowing for triangulation of data and EPs to slowly build an accurate picture of a CYP's strengths and needs. The focus on assessment over time within the data produced a key contradiction for further analysis. Capacity, workload pressures and LA processes meant that EPs were not always able to engage in periods of graduated assessment with a CYP. Both groups recognised that when EPs were absent from early 'assess, plan, do, review' cycles, the subsequent psychological advice they produced was weaker, lacking in depth and knowledge of a CYP. By including specialist teachers in early stages of the statutory process, instances arose where EPs had no knowledge of a CYP before the request for statutory psychological assessment.</p> <p>Table 4. Key contradictions and example quotes used for DWR lab.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Identified Contradiction</td><td>Contradiction Level</td><td>Example Quotation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Contradiction One</italic>: <italic>Need for graduated assessment</italic></td><td>Primary contradiction within rules Secondary contradiction between rules and object Secondary contradiction between community and division of labour and object</td><td><italic>'A reasonable majority of the time we have known that child over a period of time, so we are able to show that graduated approach and demonstrate the person-centeredness. The problem is when it doesn't happen, it really doesn't happen, so when it happens well it's really good but when it doesn't happen, and you just get this snap request it's not good at all'</italic> (EP) <italic>'EP involvement should be well ahead of the statutory assessment'</italic> (SEND officer)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Contradiction Two</italic>: <italic>Extent of contribution</italic></td><td>Primary contradiction within division of labour Secondary contradiction between rules and division of labour Secondary contradiction between division of labour and community Tertiary contradiction between previous practice and currently policy</td><td><italic>'We are working to what SEND want and need and what makes things easier to write a plan rather than focussing on what we need to do as psychologists to write a good report'</italic> (EP) <italic>'We better mirrored the EHCP template so now what you'd see our EHC template is the same as the EP advice so when I said that the EP advice is the backbone of the EHCP that's what I meant'</italic> (SEND officer)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>While both groups agreed that EP assessment data currently functioned as the backbone of the final EHCP, contradiction emerged between the groups as to whether this supported or constrained the activity. This led to the identification of contradiction two. SEND officers valued EP statutory psychological assessments as an objective and reliable resource to inform an EHCP, especially given the absence of other professionals' reports. Given this, the current structure of EP statutory advice, which mirrored the final EHCP closely, was seen to be an additional strength which removed the possibility of SEND officers misinterpreting EP information. Alternatively, EPs reported an unease that their assessment data were 'cut and pasted' into the final EHCP document, but again recognised this was often linked to the absence of other professionals in the process.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-17">How can the data be harnessed within Seaview MBC to facilitate group learning addressing iden...</hd> <p>Through the DWR Lab, the group was able to create a detailed action plan to address recognised tensions in Seaview MBC. Actions focussed on revisiting the LA graduated assessment process, establishing annual reviews as a critical part of the EHCP process, group learning to strengthen further the role of SEND officers and remove pressure away from EPs during assessment, and consideration of how to include EP formulations in the final EHCP document.</p> <p>The actions arising in Contradiction One redefined the activity's objectives by incorporating annual reviews into the graduated assessment cycle, removing apprehensions held by EPs and SEND officers regarding single assessments and the insufficient data they produce. These actions also sought to change divisions of labour, removing the pressure placed upon EP capacity and incorporating Seaview SEND Service specialist teachers in annual reviews.</p> <p>Contradiction Two further addressed the expectations placed upon EPs regarding the extent to which their data contributed to EHCP development. By promoting the person-centred meeting artefact as a data collection method rather than statutory assessment step, EPs could work more collaboratively with professionals, parents/carers, CYP, and schools to strengthen their assessment data.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>The themes and actions arising from these data present a range of implications and opportunities for future research that might continue to address concerns regarding the time-consuming nature of EP assessment and the pressure reported by professionals to serve as 'resource definers', adhering rigidly to LA guidance and priorities.</p> <p>SEND officers' focus on EPs providing information to inform placement decisions, funding allocations and accountability criteria for provisions seem to support academic literature which reports EPs' concern that the activity has taken on a purpose of 'resource definition' (Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref103">11</reflink>]; Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref104">35</reflink>]; Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref105">50</reflink>]). SEND officers' expectation that EPs should advocate for mainstream or specialist education, and the heavy reliance on EP data in the final EHCP at present meant the profession was expected to provide specific and measurable provision statements which could be checked out during annual review processes to assess the support offered by a school.</p> <p>While the group's discussion of the purpose of statutory assessment matches closely with policy (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref106">23</reflink>]) and academic literature (for example, Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref107">11</reflink>]), news articles (Schools Week, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref108">59</reflink>]) and interview data demonstrate that this way of working is not always achieved. Cameron and Monsen ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref109">11</reflink>]) identified that assessment is effective where the EP can undertake extensive information gathering over time to build an understanding of the CYP's 'problem' (p. 288), as often they will not have immediate understanding and solutions to any occurring difficulties. This requirement of adequate assessment time was clear within the data and led to discussions regarding the challenges of conducting single assessments. This also supports the data presented within the Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref110">41</reflink>]) which included reports from parents/carers that assessments were weaker where the EP had been unable to work with their CYP over time.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-19">Implications for EP practice</hd> <p>Within the DWR Lab, one EP queried whether the profession needed to 'let go' of its priority for longitudinal assessment, something prioritised in the data and wider academic literature (for example, Association of Educational Psychologists, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref111">2</reflink>]; British Psychological Society, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref112">9</reflink>]; Cameron & Monsen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]). The group discussed whether parents/carers expected prior EP input or EP assessment over time to build a picture of their CYP's needs, or whether they prioritised the securing of funding and additional support which came with an EHCP, regardless of how this was conducted. The Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref114">41</reflink>]) historically challenges this, with parents/carers emphasising the need for extended EP assessment. However, with academic literature reporting that children without an EHCP receive poor SEND support (Education Committee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref115">27</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref116">56</reflink>]), parents'/carers' priorities and expectations regarding EP assessment may have changed.</p> <p>If this is the case, it raises an interesting question regarding who the main stakeholders are within EP statutory psychological assessment. Professional body advice (Association of Educational Psychologists, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>]; British Psychological Society, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]) and current policy (Department for Education & Department of Health, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref119">23</reflink>]) place CYP and parents/carers at the heart of assessment processes. With this in mind, EPs may need to revisit their conceptualisation of this activity to consider how to balance professional values with stakeholder needs.</p> <p>This thinking is extended further when considering the data regarding the service's person-centred meetings. Within the DWR Lab, it was recognised that this process could be used to address concerns raised by both groups regarding the quality of assessment data where the EP had no prior knowledge of a CYP.</p> <p>Alongside this research, the Joint Professional Liaison Group (JPLG) undertook developments in this area, recognising that the activity requires streamlining by promoting strategies which will encourage multi-professional working. The JPLG updated advice (JPLG, July 2020) promotes the use of person-centred meetings, where EPs verbally contribute their assessment information to support the co-production of a single advice which informs EHCP construction.</p> <p>The research and JPLG developments highlight the opportunity for EPs to work creatively with SEND officers to develop and discuss current statutory psychological assessment processes to create a system which works for both groups that is meaningful and efficient. Through this research and ongoing professional development work, these groups have been able to address tensions in the activity and create an action plan which hopes to reduce workload and create an artefact which works for both groups.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-20">Critical reflection on methodology</hd> <p>Since this research was completed, a new critique has been published exploring the common errors made within reflexive TA (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref120">8</reflink>]). Upon reflection of the TA process used and final data set, it is felt the common problems identified by Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]) were not evident and the methodology remains robust.</p> <p>Those involved in the DWR Lab praised the session as a mechanism for strengthening inter-professional working and were keen to continue the working group to monitor and adapt practices regarding this activity. The second-generation CHAT framework (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref122">44</reflink>]) provided an effective framework for recognising the 'multivoicedness' (Engestrom & Miettinen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref123">34</reflink>]) of this activity and for conceptualising tensions which existed within the activity system.</p> <p>The CHAT framework is often criticised for its lack of consideration of how subject identity construction may alter the wider activity system (Leadbetter, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref124">45</reflink>]). This may be notably relevant within this research, with EPs' identity construction varied in their perspective of whether they are 'expert' contributors during this activity or a mechanism for multiple perspectives to be assimilated.</p> <p>The views and experiences of some stakeholders are absent from this research and provide a variety of possible future research opportunities. One such direction this research could take in the future is to consult with a range of LAs to explore constructions and contradictions which may be present across English EP and SEND services.</p> <p>Parents/carers are an important stakeholder group absent from this research, given the question raised within the data as to whether they require longitudinal EP input to feel confident in the psychological assessment undertaken. Future research could aim to revisit the Lamb Enquiry (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref125">41</reflink>]) findings within a new policy context to explore how tensions and concerns in this activity may have changed or stayed constant over time.</p> <p>EPs and SEND officers both reported frustrations regarding the absence of other professional groups in the EHCP assessment process and the constraints this placed upon EP assessment. This absence has also been recognised within government literature (Education Committee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref126">27</reflink>]). An important next step in this research would be to explore the perceptions and experiences of health and care professionals, and EPs and SEND officers in other LAs. Such research would not be limited to their conceptualisation of EP assessment, considering what they feel this professional group brings to the EHCP process and where their professional reach should end, but should also explore perceptions of their role in EHCP assessment. By understanding the potential constraints experienced within these professions, and their construction of the EHCP process, it may be possible to identify ways in which strong multi-professional working can be established.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-21">Summary</hd> <p>The data outlined in this research presents EP statutory psychological assessment as an activity which continues to play a key role in guiding wider EHCP assessment and is valued for its robustness and psychological knowledge. Nationally and locally, concerns regarding the efficacy of EP assessment in a time-bound and pressured environment remain persistent. However, through the CHAT framework and DWR Lab process adopted within this research, future actions to address current local tensions within this activity were able to be collaboratively developed.</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of Sue Morris</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-23">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0160113978-24">Data availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0160113978-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, D. (2005). Reinventing 'inclusion': New labour and the cultural politics of special education. Oxford Review of Education, 31 (1), 135 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000337237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref111" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Association of Educational Psychologists. (2004). Guidance to educational psychologists in preparing statutory advice to children's services authorities. Association of Educational and Child Psychologists.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barton, L. (1988). The politics of special educational needs. Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bines, H. (2000). Inclusive standards? Current developments in policy for special educational needs in England and wales. Oxford Review of Education, 26 (1), 21 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/030549800103836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref96" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref97" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref98" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589 – 597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref99" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (3), 328 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> British Psychological Society. (2015). Guidance for Educational Psychologists (EPs) when preparing reports for children, young people following the implementation of the children, & families act, 2014. The British Psychological Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buck, D. (2015). Reconstructing educational psychology reports: An historic opportunity to change educational psychologists' advice? Educational Psychology in Practice, 31 (3), 221 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1030724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cameron, R. J., & Monsen, J. J. (2005). Quality psychological advice for teachers, parents/carers and LEA decision‐makers with respect to children and young people with special needs. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21 (4), 283 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360500344864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capper, Z. (2020). 'A cultural historical activity theory analysis of educational psychologists' contributions to the statutory assessment of children and young peoples' special educational needs post-2014 children and families act' [ Doctoral thesis ]. University of Birmingham.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Children and Families Act 2014, c.6. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From <ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/introduction/enacted">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/introduction/enacted</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (1994). Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED385033.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability – Consultation. Retrieved May 11, 2020, From https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-and-aspiration-a-new-approach-to-special-educational-needs-and-disability-consultation">www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-and-aspiration-a-new-approach-to-special-educational-needs-and-disability-consultation</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2019). Research on the educational psychologist workforce. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/787417/Research_on_the_Educational_Psychologist_Workforce_March_2019.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2021). Statements of SEN and EHC plans: England, 2021. Retrieved October 17 from https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021">www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2022a). Education, health and care plan data. Retrieved August 08, 2022, From https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/education-health-and-care-plans</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2022b). Summary of the SEND review: Right support, right place, right time. Retrieved August 08, 2022, From https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-the-consultation/summary-of-the-send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time">www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-the-consultation/summary-of-the-send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (n.d.). Statements of SEN and EHC plans: England, 2021. Retrieved October 17 from https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021">www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills. (2001). Special educational needs (SEN) code of practice. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-educational-needs-sen-code-of-practice">www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-educational-needs-sen-code-of-practice</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education & Department of Health. (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Retrieved March 18, 2020, From https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25">www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education and Science. (1978). Special educational needs (The Warnock Report). H.M.S.O.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Act 1981, C. 60. Retrieved May 19, 2020, From <ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/60/enacted">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/60/enacted</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Act 1993, c.35. Retrieved May 19, 2020, From <ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/35/contents/enacted">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/35/contents/enacted</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Committee. (2019). Special educational needs and disabilities. (Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmeduc/20/2002.htm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19 – 38). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (1999b). Introduction. In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1 – 18). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 (1), 133 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In: H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to vygotsky (pp. 363-382). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (2019). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y., & Glăveanu, V. (2012). On third generation activity theory: Interview with Yrjö Engeström. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8 (4), 515 – 518. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engestrom, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19 – 38). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon, K., Woods, K., & Rooney, S. (2010). A discussion of the developing role of educational psychologists within children's services. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26 (1), 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360903522744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faupel, A. W., & Norgate, R. (1993). Where to, educational psychology? Roles, responsibilities in the world of the 1993 education act. Educational Psychology in Practice, 9 (3), 131 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736930090301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhouse, P. M. (2013). Activity theory: A framework for understanding multi-agency working and engaging service users in change. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29 (4), 404 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2013.853650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hellawell, B. (2018). 'There is still a long way to go to be solidly marvellous': Professional identities, performativity and responsibilisation arising from the send code of practice 2015. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66 (2), 165 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1363374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodkinson, A., & Burch, L. (2019). The 2014 special educational needs and disability code of practice: Old ideology into new policy contexts? Journal of Education Policy, 34 (2), 155 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1412501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joint Professional Liaison Group. (2020). Guidance for EPs making contributions to education. Health and Care Needs Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, B., (2009). Lamb inquiry: Special educational needs and parental confidence: Report to the secretary of state on the lamb inquiry review of SEN and disability information. DCSF Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leadbetter, J. (2002). A sociocultural and activity theoretical investigation of the changing patterns of professional practice in educational psychology services [Doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham]. EThOS. <ulink href="http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.270022">http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.270022</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leadbetter, J. (2011). Change and development in the professional practice of educational psychologists in the UK. In H. Daniels, & M. Hedegaard (Eds.), Vygotsky and special needs education: Rethinking support for children and schools (pp. 128 – 152). Continuum International Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leadbetter, J. (2017). Activity theory and professional practice of educational psychology. In: B. Kelly, L. M. Woolfson, & J. Boyle (Eds.), Frameworks for practice in educational psychology: A textbook for trainees and practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 254 – 276). Jessica Kinsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leadbetter, J. (2017). Activity Theory and professional practice of educational psychology. In: B. Kelly, L. M. Woolfson, & J. Boyle (Eds.), Frameworks for practice in educational psychology: A textbook for trainees and practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 254 – 276). Jessica Kinsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehane, T. (2017). SEN's completely different now": Critical discourse analysis of three "codes of practice for special educational needs. Educational Review, 69 (1), 51 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehane, T. (2017). "SEN's completely different now": Critical discourse analysis of three "codes of practice for special educational needs" (1994, 2001, 2015). Educational Review, 69 (1), 51 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lock, A., & Strong, T. (2010). Social constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A., & Page, C. (2006). The costs of inclusion. National Union of Teachers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich, B. (1995). Statutory assessment and statementing: Some challenges and implications for educational psychologists. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11 (1), 29 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736950110104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich, B. (2002). Education and psychology in interaction: Working with uncertainty in interconnected fields. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich, B., & Eaton, A. (2015). The new special educational needs (SEN) legislation in England and implications for services for children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20 (2), 117 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2014.989056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. (2017). Local area SEND inspection.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. (2019). Local area SEND inspection.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, J., & Booker, R. (1987). Needs, provision and the wider context in the 1981 education act: A challenge to current practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 3 (3), 34 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736870030306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, D., Moore, N., & Hooley, T. (2018). Ensuring an independent future for young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND): A critical examination of the impact of education, health and care plans in England. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 46 (4), 479 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2017.1413706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2018). Cultural-historical activity theory: Founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 14 (3), 43 – 56. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2018140304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schools Week. (2019). Educational psychologists forced to identify pupils' needs 'in one visit', MPs told. Retrieved May 11, 2020, From https://schoolsweek.co.uk/educational-psychologists-forced-to-identify-pupils-needs-in-one-visit-mps-told/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seaview SEND Data Dashboard. (2018). SEND data dashboard.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, c.10. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From <ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/10/contents">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/10/contents</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomson, L. (1996). Searching for a niche. Educational Psychology in Practice, 12 (2), 99 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736960120207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomlinson, S. (2012). The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education, 38 (3), 267 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.692055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations General Assembly. (1989). The united nations convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved May 27, 2020, From https://<ulink href="http://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/">www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. In: M. Warnock, B. Norwich, & L. Terzi (Eds.), Special educational needs: A new look (pp. 11 – 46). Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01187.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, K., & Farrell, P. (2006). Approaches to psychological assessment by educational psychologists in England and wales. School Psychology International, 27 (4), 387 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034306070425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamazumi, K. (2006). Learning for critical and creative agency: An activity-theoretical study of advanced networks of learning in new school project. In K. Yamazumi (Eds.), Building activity theory in practice (pp. 73 – 98). Centred for Human Activity Theory: Kansai University.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Zoe Capper and Colette Soan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref124"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1370724
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Cultural Historical Activity Theory Analysis of Educational Psychologists' Statutory Assessment Process Post- 2014 Children and Families Act
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Capper%2C+Zoe%22">Capper, Zoe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Soan%2C+Colette%22">Soan, Colette</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8730-8611">0000-0001-8730-8611</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+in+Practice%22"><i>Educational Psychology in Practice</i></searchLink>. 2022 38(4):428-447.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Psychology%22">Educational Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychologists%22">Psychologists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Role%22">Counselor Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Evaluation%22">Psychological Evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02667363.2022.2135491
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0266-7363<br />1469-5839
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The activity of educational psychologists' (EPs') statutory psychological assessment continues to be viewed critically within literature. The current research explores the understanding of EPs and special educational needs and disability (SEND) officers in this activity, considering the 2014/2015 policy reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a single Local Authority (LA) using Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to explore the constructions of each group. Identified contradictions within the data were explored within a Development Work Research (DWR) Lab to create shared actions. Over time, EPs' practice has remained constant in its recognised strengths, but identified contradictions within historic literature remained evident. Actions moving forward sought to redevelop graduated assessment processes, promote stronger multi-professional working, strengthen annual review processes, and create effective methods for efficient data collection.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1370724
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1370724
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02667363.2022.2135491
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 428
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychologists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counselor Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Cultural Historical Activity Theory Analysis of Educational Psychologists' Statutory Assessment Process Post- 2014 Children and Families Act
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Capper, Zoe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Soan, Colette
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0266-7363
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5839
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Psychology in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1