Lorna Fitzjohn outlines key elements of the new unified common inspection framework that will be in effect from September.

Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw late last month outlined to attendees at Ofsted’s Future of Education Inspection conference in London details on how we will be changing the way we inspect early years, schools and FE providers.

These changes, beginning in September, will be some of the most significant since Ofsted’s inception more than 20 years ago.

While one of our goals is to simplify how we inspect and report across our remits, there are some notable specific changes for the FE sector.

Firstly, Ofsted has published its new common inspection framework, which will apply to all the remits mentioned above. Our aim here is to make it easier for parents, learners and employers to pick up an Ofsted report and understand it, regardless of the provision or remit it covers.

Seven out of every ten Ofsted inspectors will be a serving practitioner

One of the concerns I have heard from the sector over this approach is whether a common framework can account for the often complex and varied FE providers without over-generalising.

In particular, some have expressed concern over the new key judgement regarding the ‘personal development, behaviour and welfare’ of learners.

Through this judgement we will assess how well learners develop the skills they need for their next step — including things like strong careers guidance and work experience — and how well they are developing the attitudes and behaviours needed for future learning and employment.

This is not just an attempt to bring inspections in line with those in schools; it is highly relevant to the sector.

Secondly, Ofsted will be altering the way it inspects good schools and FE providers, moving to a process of shorter but more frequent inspections.

All providers currently rated as ‘good’ will receive a short inspection approximately every three years. These will be led by Her Majesty’s Inspector (HMI) and will last for one or two days. During the visit inspectors will focus on answering two key questions — is the provider still good? and is safeguarding effective?

All inspections will begin from the same starting point — that the provider remains good — and will work from there.

At the end of the inspection, the inspector will write to the provider to confirm they are still good. If inspectors see signs that the provider has either improved or declined, then it will be converted into a full inspection.

We are also bringing in some changes which are sector-specific, including the decision to no longer grade observed learning sessions. This approach will bring FE inspections in line with that of schools.

I acknowledge that, where the approach is popular with schools, reaction has been more mixed for those working in FE. We have stressed to schools that we don’t grade individual teachers or their lessons and we feel it only right that we make this clear to the FE sector as well.

We know that some providers, particularly large colleges, have used grading for individual sessions and they believe it to be valuable in evaluating the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. That they do this is the leaders’ decision — we do not condone or condemn this practice.

I would like to end by commending the work of the FE sector to date. Teachers, trainers and lecturers are constantly being asked to improve and Ofsted needs to do the same. This is why we are now bringing inspections in-house. This decision will mean that, from September, seven out of every ten Ofsted inspectors will be a serving practitioner.

Having this experience on our inspection teams will be a benefit to both Ofsted and the sector.

I hope some of the details I have set out here explain why we have taken these decisions and also help to alleviate any concerns some may have about the changes. We are confident the changes we are making, coupled with the commitment and drive of the FE sector, will help to raise standards across England.

Late last month, sector leaders handed a 42,5000-signature petition to Number 10 Downing Street calling on the Prime Minister to halt the implementation of further drastic cuts to FE.

The week before, hundreds of teachers, students and supporters packed the House of Commons to lobby MPs. Both of these events came in advance of a Summer Budget and Comprehensive Spending Review as the sector fears “the end of further education as we know it,” as Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna put it in the House of Commons recently.

Clearly, events and petitions as a national campaign can only be part of the strategy. It has been fantastic to see providers, unions and student groups work together to do what they can locally too.

In my experience, there are often occasions when you’re angry and passionate enough about something to call meetings with others who you think will also be angry and passionate about the same thing/s.

You then have a great meeting and feel even more inspired to take on the world. After a week or so though, it feels like your campaign partners start to drift away, taking longer to respond to emails, not fulfilling their commitments and so on. When the momentum goes like that it’s sometimes because people have had time to reflect on the likelihood of success against the resource required and then decide to step back/out.

There are a few things that high profile and successful campaigns have in common; one of them is time and the other is a little bit of bureaucracy — clear objectives and easy messages. If you think about campaigns which call for changes in the law, like equal marriage, or for a particular commitment, like the Global Poverty Project’s campaign for 0.7 per cent of GDP to be spent on international aid; those campaigns have been gathering public support and mobilising actions for several years.

One way to help keep your campaign on track is to agree which of your objectives are short terms and long term. In our case, I think this means pre-Spending Review and post-Spending Review. Comprehensive Spending Reviews (CSR) don’t happen often, but when they do they announce significant changes for the coming couple of years.

We have an awful habit in our sector of slipping in FE jargon. I do it all the time. It’s no wonder my parents have no idea what I do for a living

The last one, in 2010, cut government department budgets by 20 per cent, cut half a million public sector jobs, abolished the education maintenance allowance and cut more from the welfare budget. We’ve been told to expect such drastic measures again, so the CSR seems a sensible target against which to aim your short-term campaign.

If you’re planning a local campaign, here are some things to consider:

Cover the basics. Decide on precisely what it is you want to change. If you end up with a huge list of things, decide the issue you think you’ve got the best chance of winning and which you think you’ve got the best evidence for. Then decide on the people; who you need to help you and who can make the change happen.

Get some evidence. Go and see a management information system person.

Test your messages. We have an awful habit in our sector of slipping in FE jargon. I do it all the time. It’s no wonder my parents have no idea what I do for a living. Whether it’s wording for a public petition or a letter to employers or stakeholders calling for support, test your messages with someone who doesn’t work in education or training.

Stories. Graphs and charts are great, but so are learner stories. The good thing about story-telling is breadth of appeal. Those learners are also parents, grandparents, carers, workers, bosses and role models — learning also impacts on the people around them.

If the Budget this week stirs you in to wanting to take some action, big or small, public or behind the scenes, it will be a valuable use of your time. Let us know what you’re up to using #LoveFE on Twitter.

Nacro, the crime reduction charity took on Southampton’s struggling Totton College after the Education Funding Agency (EFA) paid a sum, believed to run into millions of pounds, to the Hampshire local authority in order to write off the sixth form college’s pension liabilities. Noel Johnson believes this highlights college favour over independent learning providers (ILPs).

Once again we see the inequality between colleges and independent learning providers (ILPs) highlighted.

To pay an undisclosed amount to the local authority, believed to be in the millions of pounds, in order to settle a failing college’s accounts, cannot in any way be justified, and it will be viewed and felt all the more severely by the sector, particularly at this time of further, significant, funding cuts, delays and uncertainty about payments for additional apprenticeship starters.

Further to this, what deal has been reached in relation to the assets of the college? Do these remain in public ownership or are they a gift to Nacro?

What is the current value of the college estate, and what is the total cost of this package to privatise Totton College?

Nacro has also announced the deal involves them taking on a £2m commercial loan. Is the EFA supportive of such a level of borrowing within a private training provider (albeit a charity) at a time of significantly reduced funding?

If a college wanted to take over a failing ILP, the EFA and Ministers would not have stepped in to make such a generous financial gesture

It’s unlikely that this information will be shared publicly. This is clearly a decision that was made by senior staff within the EFA, with approval from Ministers, but is it the right decision and, ultimately, the right fit?

Nacro has a very specific demographic and although it has worked hard to improve from its previous inadequate Ofsted grade to its current good rating, for which it should be commended, does it have the skills and experience to manage a sixth form college that requires significant improvement having gone from requires improvement to inadequate.

Does Nacro have the level of reputation within the FE sector to provide learners, parents and employers with the confidence to use Totton College, Because there is a real and present risk of learner migration at this time of uncertainty, and neighbouring colleges and learning providers will look to capitalise on this transitional period, and rightly so — this is a field of aggressive competition created by government to drive up quality, eradicating poor provision.

Had this been reversed, and a college wanted to take over a failing ILP, the EFA and Ministers would not have stepped in to make such a generous financial gesture.

It would, as we have seen before, been left to close, moving learners to alternative provision in the same area.

Or does this precedent now guarantee bailout for ILPs?

If the decision had been made to move learners to other, better suited colleges, and ILPs in the region, surely this would have strengthened provision in the area, at a time of increased competition in a sector plagued by a decreasing demographic and funding cuts.

This would have further helped to secure the future of the remaining provision and more importantly, providing a better standard of provision for learners.

Would DfE money not be better used now, within the FE sector, offsetting the previously announced cuts and developing the much-needed skills required to re-build our economy?

There is no doubt we will see more ILPs closing as a result of the current funding cuts and subsequent reduction in sub-contracted provision from colleges and large providers and we know that there will be no rescue package to avoid this taking place, regardless of quality.

There can be no justification for this level of money being used to pay off this college’s accounts, rather, the EFA’s involvement would have been better spent supporting the board of governors to attract an outstanding education leader to the college, with remuneration to generate interest, at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer, and protecting this public asset.

This bailout for a failing college — a college that’s had the opportunity and support to improve — is reprehensible and should be thoroughly investigated. There are still a lot of unanswered questions.