The introduction of a new Ofsted Common Inspection Framework (Cif) from this month was preceded by a number of pilot inspections under the new system. Ryan Longmate reflects on his pilot inspection experience.

The launch of the new Cif will no doubt pose many new questions to schools, colleges and FE providers across the country, so as an FE provider ourselves the opportunity to be a ‘guinea pig’ and pilot the new inspection model was too good to turn down.

As a grade two national provider, the new model allows for inspections to take place approximately every three years over a reduced period of two days.

The purpose of this inspection is to confirm that the previous grade for overall effectiveness is accurate; safeguarding is effective and the provision remains good.

We were notified of the impending inspection two days prior, which does not differ from previous inspections however the observation and inspection timetable itself was all new.

The structure of the inspection team was consistent with the previous framework and in essence not much was new — the inspection team consisted of a lead inspector and three inspectors who remained on site throughout the two days, along with an additional two field-based inspectors.

To begin with, we did have some reservations in relation to the reduced inspection time and was concerned that we possibly would not have sufficient time to demonstrate our abilities to meet all the objectives within the new Cif.

However, over the course of the next few days, we soon came to realise that the changes to the inspection process would allow this reduced timeframe to work and be successful.

As with any inspection, preparation was key to achieving a positive outcome, which was even more important under the new inspection model.

Communication was very good with clear and timely updates provided throughout.

Although the feedback was not as in-depth or as lengthy as it was under the old framework, it remained accurate and easily digestible for all to appreciate and understand.

So what else has changed?

In the past, a typical inspection would focus on the key elements of observing teaching and learning, quality of teaching provision and leadership and management.

We soon came to realise that the changes to the inspection process would allow this reduced timeframe to work and be successful

The subtle shift we experienced was more focus on all areas of our safeguarding practices and procedures, our ability to maintain and measure the quality of our safeguarding provision, and the continuous training and development of all of our workforce, learners and all stakeholders to achieving it.

Teaching and learning continued to play a big part in the inspection and the framework.

However, the whole experience was on a smaller scale than previous inspections.

This allowed for more focus and depth in areas and topics such as radicalisation, extremism, grooming and bullying.

The new levels of expectation and greater emphasis on driving these areas as a provider were extremely beneficial and allowed greater insight into what the future of FE standards looks like.

The feedback provided was honest and clear and we felt the judgements were not only fair but reliable; the flexible approach to the new inspection model was greatly received by all of our staff and learners.

In summary, our advice to all FE providers  who are to be inspected under the new framework in the future is to embrace the changes, be open and honest on where you are positioned against the framework standards.

Be prepared in all areas, as we firmly believe the changes made provide a ‘’better inspection for all’’.

As the prospect of a new academic year stretching out ahead becomes a working reality for FE sector, Jayne Stigger considers what might be to come for teaching and lecturing staff in 2015/16.

FE & Skills providers are being sorely tested; no one doubts that but those who endlessly shout, tweet and holler the doom and gloom scenarios are missing the point.

Teaching/lecturing is challenging but staff need to seize this opportunity to develop both their learners and their own skills. Delivery using #FELTAG principles, working with local employers, giving learners the opportunity to develop maths and English knowledge in their subject specialism isn’t some new-fangled plan to make life more difficult for teaching staff; it is the future and we should already be doing it.

We should be building learner show-reels to demonstrate their competence to employers, crowdfunding opportunities for them like @hearnesque and #Scrawlmovie and developing our own skills if we don’t know how.

Yes, finances are getting tighter, classes may get bigger, courses may vanish from the curriculum, we may teach other things, some providers will merge and job losses may seem inevitable but they aren’t. This is the opportunity that FE staff should be taking advantage of; to really demonstrate just how valuable we are to the learners, our industries, country and its place in the wider, global market. It is the reactionary culture that needs to evolve.

The relentless push for more apprentices, better vocational education and training with maths and English for all, isn’t going away and the sooner the ‘traditional’ FE get on board with the new thinking, the smoother the transition will be.

UTCs, independent learning providers and National Colleges are stepping out of the wings and learning our lines. If FE wishes to continue to deliver all the courses it currently enjoys, then teaching staff must play our part in the development of even more effective vocational learning opportunities by adapting to the new rules and proving our worth.

We are ‘not like the brazen giant of Greek fame’, we are different. We are staff who are talented in our vocational specialisms, we take those who wish to learn a trade and develop their talent. We also take ‘your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’, and it is essential that we do, but to continue to provide that care and support, we must generate our own income streams, which requires multi-talented staff.

Teaching staff can do much to support this by changing the culture of a provider, with enthusiasm and positivity. If we constantly talk our positions down, why should anyone else value us?

The coming year will be the watershed for FE Staff; those who stand up and evolve into forward thinking, employment-focused delivery partners, those who facilitate skills development in all our learners will thrive

The coming year will be the watershed for FE Staff; those who stand up and evolve into forward thinking, employment focused delivery partners, those who facilitate skills development in all our learners will thrive. If they help develop independent income and secure partnerships, then they can still deliver A-levels, Access, Esol etc. I hope they do, for they are as needed by those the government doesn’t seem to see as clearly, as the favoured ones.

Governments aren’t always right and their hearing is very selective. This may be unfair, wrongheaded, short-sighted and ultimately destructive but it is the hand we are dealt. We should be working with employers, from choosing the units we deliver in a BTec, to relevant careers advice and great learner IAG, useful, logged work experience and staff training opportunities.

I urge all in FE to take the current political climate with a large pinch of salt. Governments come and go, their impact, for all their posturing, is only as great as we allow it to be. The time for standing on the edge, shouting at the water and urging it to recede is long past and those who do will drown.

The smart ones will develop their own training opportunities, build rafts, link together, use social media alongside local knowledge and industry to partner their ambitions and evolve so they can continue to offer courses to everyone who needs them, not just those who are caught in the current spotlight.

The government has been crystal clear about the need for structural reforms (spending less on FE, curriculum rationalisation, higher and technical specialisation and financial sustainability) and their desired outcome is fewer and more financially sustainable institutions [read: colleges]. The status quo is not an option.

Rather than take you through the pages and pages of policy intention and guidance, covered on feweek.co.uk and also elsewhere in these very pages, I wanted to focus on what is missing and what those in the Offices of the FE and Sixth Form Commissioners, or indeed any Local Enterprise Partnerships (Leps), local authorities or colleges wanting to instigate a review, should not forget.

Talking to learners is essential

It’s inevitable when you have FE principals, Leps, local authorities, regional school commissioners and employers around a table, they will talk about information, advice and guidance. While not a core objective of Area Reviews, there will be implications around learner choice and accessibility of provision nonetheless. There will be issues Area Review teams probably wouldn’t consider without insight from learners around issues such as quality, progression opportunities, student support and transport.

An ‘Area Review of Post 16 Education and Training Institutions’ that only looks at colleges won’t be worth it

If you’re a training provider, local authority provider or higher education institution, the provision you offer will be looked at as part of a review’s analysis of what’s available to learners and employers, your performance and financial data will be analysed by a local steering group, but you’ll only be subject to recommendations if you opt-in. Achieving consistency across all Area Reviews is cited as a key responsibility of the FE and Sixth Form Commissioners and a big part of that has to be about who is in scope. Having neighbouring reviews, one of them fully involving training providers and Universities, while the other only looking at FE and Sixth Form Colleges, leaves the whole process open to criticism later down the line. More than that though, the reviews should be empowered to make recommendations covering all provision that contributes to the economic growth and wellbeing of areas, people and businesses. Which leads on nicely to…

Nothing to say on community learning?

The absence of any reference to adult and community provision should be a cause for concern, primarily because the reviews are about economic contribution and what this could mean in the spending review. If community learning provision is not in scope for Area Reviews, then it gives no opportunity for local areas to, unless they choose to, objectively analyse the economic (in its widest possible sense) impacts this provision delivers for people and businesses. You can see how in areas with higher proportions of older people, for example, benefit from people who can be economically active for longer, and reviews should be able to demonstrate how important a lifelong learning infrastructure will be as our population gets older.

Saving money doesn’t just mean FE cuts

There is a danger that Area Reviews focus very narrowly on the impacts of post 16 provision in local areas using direct economic metrics around productivity, business growth or earnings in isolation of the wider benefits that learning brings to communities that save people, businesses and the public sector money. If you’re going to deep-dive into the economic impacts and potential that post 16 education and training does and could deliver for a local area, you should also look at things like changing demographics, crime, social care, health services and migration.

Area Reviews are not going to be the mechanism when we win the argument that Central Government spending on FE is an investment, not a cost, but they can empower local areas with their own resources to make things happen.

Not starting from scratch

The Area Review policy documents have dramatically under-estimated the amount of rationalisation, integration, specialisation and collaboration that colleges in particular have already delivered in the last five years. The sector never stands still and so it’s right that, given this experience, college leaders play a principal role throughout the review process.