Dropping graded lesson observations is no joke

The Ofsted pilot in which graded lesson observations will be dropped from FE and skills inspections, as revealed by FE Week, is evaluated by Phil Hatton.

At first I thought FE Week was doing a late — or an early — April Fool’s Day skit on seeing the headline about Ofsted dropping graded lesson observations, partially in response to a report that gives a particularly one-sided view.

The report by Dr Matt O’Leary, is based on the views of thousands of University and College Union (UCU) members (the ones who have posters in colleges saying ‘no to graded observations’) and very few college managers.

As a scientist myself, this does not seem a particularly valid methodology for conducting research, unless you want to load the dice (or as valid as asking turkeys to vote for Christmas). But what is this observation phobia of the last few years really all about?

I am very simplistic about my expectations of the FE system.

Students should get mostly good teaching as an expectation. Those entering the profession, whether as an assessor in work-based learning or a teacher in a college, should want to aspire to be good teachers – otherwise why bother?

I would also expect, as part of a sensible selection process, for all new staff to have conducted some form of ‘mini-teach’ as part of an interview day.

Giving feedback to someone who is doing a reasonable job of teaching, but saying they require improvement rather than being satisfactory is a world apart

On my first day in a college back in 1979, the senior lecturer in charge of applied science told me with a smile that I would probably not be watched in my teaching throughout my entire career, and that I should not to worry about how good a teacher I was.

There were inspectors at the time, who sometimes visited colleges, but it was very much a ‘hands off’ approach to gauging quality. Hence their ineffectiveness and eventual demise.

When I introduced a system of observation about 18 years ago at the college where I managed quality, observations were graded, but with a real focus on identifying and spreading good practice.

The unions agreed to this and the lead union representative was probably the best single teacher I have ever observed. At the same time the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) was inspecting, with graded observations that were actually published in reports, but with little of the objections that are currently being voiced.

Ofsted’s policy shift (or rather Sir Michael Wilshaw coming into Ofsted and wanting to make an immediate difference, telling inspectors what he wanted with no consultation on the likely impact) to re-classify grade three from “satisfactory” to “requires improvement” has had a completely negative impact on the use of graded observations in judging teaching and learning both on inspection and in internal quality improvement of teaching and learning (there was good reason to shake up those who repeatedly got grade threes as institutions).

This quickly translated into the four-point grading becoming two Ofsted grades in reality, two or above or below two.

Giving feedback to someone who is doing a reasonable job of teaching, but saying they require improvement rather than being satisfactory is a world apart, both during inspection and as part of internal quality improvement.

Some inspectors shy away from spending enough time to grade when they see where an observation is going and turn what would have been a graded observation, into an ungraded learning walk.

Hence there is a very different playing field to that which existed two years ago. The UCU, doing its best to protect the interests of its members rather than learners, lobbies for a three-week notice of observation, hopefully of an agreed session.

If you cannot put on a performance with notice, there has to be something very lacking in your ability. To be effective in giving students a good experience, managers surely need to know what the student is getting every day, not at a special performance?

Getting the way an observation system is viewed in a college right requires consultative management, not focusing on labelling people as a particular grade of teacher that somehow then defines them, but on a shared purpose of getting the overall package of course delivery to “good”.

I am very worried about the potential negative impact of not grading teaching during inspections. No one asks questions about how the quality and consistency of observation judgements are assured within Ofsted or by the three inspection service providers.

Learning and skills inspectors are being more and more absorbed into a homogenous inspectorate heavily focused on schools, with little time to share and standardise practice as specialist FE inspectors.

The FE Week coverage about colleges falling from outstanding to inadequate grading says a lot about the robustness of the previous inspection model.

When I looked at one 2009 report that had no curriculum areas inspected it had very little in the way of graded observation and inspection of curriculum areas (something Ofsted wanted to introduce two years ago but backed down on with unanimous feedback from the sector). This report concluded that teaching and learning was outstanding, but gave a weakness of needing to improve retention (the data included at the back clearly reflects outcomes not stacking up with the grade for teaching and learning).

The non-graded observation inspection model being spoken about, is harping back to the previous Ofsted model that was known internally as a ‘drive-by’ inspection (small teams locked in a room and not getting to the ‘nitty gritty’ of what a typical student experiences).

Look back at the boom in ‘outstanding’ grades given at that time and the correlation with how many did not focus on first hand observations.

The inspectorate of 20-plus years ago was disbanded partly because it was ineffective in judging teaching and learning, without which there was not a clear agenda to drive improvements in it.

The FEFC did some very good work in changing that focus, as did the Adult Learning Inspectorate. Hopefully the next government, whoever it is, will realise that the best way of gauging the quality of the experience of learners is to observe what they are getting in a quantitative way, in a transparent way.

Bring back the FEFC practice of allowing nominees (or others?) to co-observe a sample of observations — if you are confident in what you are doing there will not be a problem. FE is very different from schools, one model of inspection does not fit all.

Phil Hatton, former FE and skills inspector with 20 years’ experience, leading hundreds of college and work-based learning inspections. He now works as an adviser at the Learning Improvement Service

The long and ‘non-negotiable’ road to Ofsted improvement

A thorough improvement plan at City of Bristol College was put in place last year when Ofsted inspectors said it was no longer good, but inadequate. It started paying off inspection-wise this month with the grade shift up to ‘requires improvement’. Cliff Shaw explains what’s been going on to achieve the feat in 17 months.

When City of Bristol College was graded four in April last year, we knew we needed to put students back at the heart of everything we do. Only by achieving that could we raise the standards of teaching, learning, assessment and the student experience.

Everything Ofsted looks at is of course related to students. Are they attending college? Is the teaching stimulating and enjoyable? Is the college equipping them well to progress onto further study or employment? While all of this sounds very simple, we know of course that it can be very complex to deliver.

The most recent Ofsted inspection which took place last month confirmed that we have made a good start. The college is no longer inadequate and, while we have a way to go before we’re outstanding, we know we’re heading in the right direction.

So, how did we do it? Underpinning all of our changes was a thorough programme of teaching observations. We knew that without a reliable observation profile we would be unable to improve.

We decided to adopt co-observed lessons with internal and external observers for all observations to give us confidence in the grades awarded and to help college staff to improve their observation and feedback skills.

Underpinning all of our changes was a thorough programme of teaching observations. We knew that without a reliable observation profile we would be unable to improve

The observations allowed us to identify our best teachers and to make some of them into teaching, learning and assessment coaches.

We invested in a number of coaches to work in specific areas of the college, with individuals and groups, as needed. Teachers also share best practice through training sessions, filmed lessons, quality learning materials and subject specific ‘top tips’ handbooks written by and for teachers.

We also agreed and enforced a number of ‘non-negotiable’ teaching, learning and assessment elements to re-establish core practice.

Alongside improving our teaching, learning and assessment we also wanted to make sure that the student experience improved outside the classroom.

The college now has a team of apprentice youth workers who engage with students, encouraging them to get involved in events and activities.

They have introduced initiatives, such as The Forum where students come together to discuss current affairs that are affecting young people, breaking down barriers, starting conversations and challenging views.

The college’s data was a significant weakness at the time of our 2013 Ofsted inspection and we knew that investment in our data systems was crucial. We have now begun to roll out a series of new tools which will allow us to use data to drive further improvements and to accurately measure our success.

So, now that we have achieved a grade three for overall effectiveness, what next? Our first grade one subject area shows that we can do it — we now need to make sure that all areas offer outstanding teaching, learning and assessment.

In a college the size and scope of City of Bristol, we don’t underestimate this challenge. In terms of teaching, learning and assessment we will continue to frame improvement around ‘non-negotiable’ elements as we move away from inadequate and move towards good and then outstanding.

We will also be able to enjoy the first full year of the implementation of our new electronic assessment and target setting systems, part of our new fully integrated management information system. These tools will transform the quality of our work and the visibility of performance information and learners’ progress.

Although our attendance figures have improved we still have work to do here. In addition to the range of initiatives we have put in place we are confident that as lessons continue to improve, so will attendance.

College staff have put in an enormous amount of hard work and dedication during the last fifteen months and should feel very proud of what they have achieved so far as we continue on our journey to become an outstanding college.

Cliff Shaw, deputy principal, City of Bristol College

Match Clegg’s ‘cradle to college’ pledge, sector demands

Labour and the Conservatives have been urged to match a Liberal Democrat promise to protect education spending “from cradle to college”.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg made the manifesto pledge during his monthly press conference on Monday last week (June 16).

His party wants to ringfence the entire education budget for two to 19-year-olds. The current budget is only protected for learners aged five to 16.

Mr Clegg said the pledge would mean an extra £10bn of education spending would be protected based on this financial year, rising with inflation.

He said: “The Liberal Democrats will protect the full education budget, covering children from the age of two to the age of 19 — from cradle to college”.

But the Lib Dems have stopped short of pledging specific protection for 16 to 19 education to ensure funding could not be moved to younger age groups with a spokesperson saying that to move large amounts of money from one end of the wider age group to the other was not “consistent with the policy”.

Nevertheless, the ringfence announcement was welcomed across the sector, with senior leaders calling for a similar promise from other parties.

Association of Colleges (AoC) chief executive Martin Doel said: “We welcome this very significant announcement from the Lib Dems, which reflects AoC lobbying over the last few months.

“We hope the Conservatives and the Labour Party follow-suit and pledge to protect funding all young people up to the age of 19.”

Dr Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group, said the pledge was “most welcome”.

She said: “Nick Clegg is right to acknowledge that the education of 16 to 19-year-olds is as vital as their experience in schools in enabling them to play full and active roles in society and in the economy.

“Because of the current ring fence on schools spending, further education colleges have borne the brunt of austerity measures in education over the last five years, and we are now beginning to see a direct impact on the availability of some programmes for young people.”

And Sixth Form Colleges Association deputy chief executive James Kewin said: “One of the main objectives of our funding campaign has been to convince the three main political parties that the funding ring-fence should be extended to include 16 to 19 education.

“We were therefore very pleased to hear Nick Clegg’s announcement yesterday. We will continue to press Labour and the Conservatives to match this commitment, which would provide a very clear sign that they are serious about improving the life chances of 16 to 19-year-olds.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about education, so does that mean vocational and work-based options as well?

“Growth for apprenticeships for 16 to 18- year-olds is currently uncapped and they are fully funded. So if Nick Clegg is saying that he would protect this and funding for traineeships, his commitment would be welcomed by providers.”

Shadow Skills Minister Liam Byrne said: “I’m working closely with my colleagues, including [Shadow Education Secretary] Tristram Hunt, to determine how the education budget is best spent.”

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock has previously expressed support for the current ringfence of five to 16 funding, but a Conservative Party spokesperson said he would not comment on the announcement, adding that the party would reveal its education policy in its manifesto.

 

Commissioner points at leadership hitting staff morale

FE commissioner Dr David Collins criticised leadership styles at two colleges and said staff morale was being hit, his newly-released findings have shown.

Dr Collins was appointed last year to investigate colleges issued with notices of financial concern, inadequate Ofsted ratings or which failed to meet standards set by the government.

But summaries of Dr Collins’s findings at eight of the 10 colleges visited so far have only just been published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Most of the summaries focus on financial concerns and issues around quality of teaching, but in documents about Lesoco, in South London, and City of Liverpool College, Dr Collins called for a change in management style.

In the Liverpool summary, Dr Collins said: “The ‘command and control’ model adopted by the present senior management team has brought about many positive changes but there has been a cost. Good staff members have felt under threat and a number whose skills would have benefitted the college as it moves forward have left. A change of style will be needed if the college wishes to achieve its full potential.”

And on Lesoco, he said: “Attention also needs to be paid to reducing the unusually high levels of discontent evidenced by significant numbers of staff and middle managers. A change of style will be needed if the college wishes to achieve its full potential and avoid the risk of staff dissatisfaction impacting on learner success.”

Both visits were triggered by Ofsted grade four results, but leadership and management at Lesoco was given a grade three result while leadership at the Liverpool college recently improved to grade three.

Nevertheless, his focus on leadership was defended by Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL) president and former Lewisham College principal Dame Ruth Silver. She said: “The commissioner is right to shine a spotlight on leadership style because the lives of others depend on it.

“His role is two-fold, firstly, to show to the individual institution the flaws that are damaging it and others and secondly to pass on to the sector as a whole , the findings from the investigations in order to avoid further decay in standards.

“However, how it is done needs to take account of impact and intention to improve matters.”

A spokesperson at City of Liverpool College said: “The commissioner gave us credit for the positive steps we are taking here, commenting particularly on us having the right leadership team in place.”

Nobody from Lesoco was available for comment. However, new principal Ioan Morgan said this month: “We must ensure that leadership at all levels in the college focuses on high-quality teaching and learning. This is our core business.”

Publication of the commissioner’s reports was welcomed by 157 Group chief executive Dr Lynne Sedgmore, who said other colleges could learn “valuable lessons”.

She said: “It is important to recognise the incredibly tough demands and financial stringencies currently being placed on leaders, teachers and support staff.

“Most are doing valiant work to ensure the highest standards for our learners and the majority of colleges are doing incredibly well under the circumstances.

“Having said that we will always learn from and support as best we can colleges that do run into difficulties.”

Pay cut fears for apprentices

Fears have emerged that government proposals to streamline “difficult” minimum wage rates for apprentices could lead to lower pay.

The Low Pay Commission (LPC) has been asked to look at simplifying the rate for apprentices, which is £2.68-an-hour for those in year one before normal worker minimum rates apply.

A government spokesperson said: “The current system can be difficult for employers to understand, leading to poor compliance. The new remit will look at streamlining
the apprenticeships rate so that apprentices get the minimum wage they are entitled
to.”

The fear is that a simplified system could entail a new minimum rate for all apprentices, with learners no longer moving up after 12 months to the higher rates enjoyed by normal workers.

Toni Pearce, president of the National Union of Students, told FE Week: “It would be completely unacceptable for ministers to let companies off the hook under the guise of simplification with one hand, and then to give them free reign to pay a lower flat rate minimum wage for the duration of an apprenticeship with the other.”

It comes after findings in the apprenticeships pay survey 2012, which came out late last year, showed 29 per cent of learners did not receive the then-legal minimum of £2.65 an-hour in 2012, up from 20 per cent the year before.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “I want to see apprentices paid the right wage, so I am asking the LPC to simplify the system to make it easier for employers to know exactly what wage they must pay.”

The apprentice minimum wage is set to rise by 5p an-hour to £2.73 from October and the LPC is due to report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Dr Cable in February.

Ms Pearce added: “Although Dr Cable is suggesting that it is not currently easy enough for firms to understand the rules on apprentice pay, in reality the issue is quite simple.

“We need to see both government enforcement to ensure companies obey the law, and moves to close the discriminatory pay gap by adopting an equal minimum wage which is both fair for employees and simple for employers to understand.”

John Allan, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “While minimum wage legislation is already fairly straightforward, simplification of the apprenticeship rate has the potential to help small businesses by reducing some of the complexity of taking on an apprentice.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, whose director for employment and skills, Neil Carberry, has been appointed to the LPC, said: “The LPC is an independent body that will review this issue and make recommendations. We will be consulting our members on this in the coming weeks.”

Skills Funding Agency job cuts ‘ideological’

A programme of job cuts at the Skills Funding Agency has been attacked as “ideological” by MPs who warned that staffing reductions could hit apprenticeships.

Around 20 Labour and Democratic Unionist Party MPs have so far signed an Early Day Motion (EDM) in Parliament condemning the cuts.

The agency shed 600 of 1,900 staff through cost-cutting schemes launched in October 2010 and December 2011 and it aims to reduce staffing levels further, by 30 per cent, to 925.

The EDM, tabled by Labour MP for Wansbeck Ian Lavery, said the house “condemns the reduction of staff numbers” and “notes that these ideological cuts to staffing will have a detrimental effect on the delivery of apprenticeships and the National Careers Service”.

It warned that reduced staff could “increase the potential for fraud” and could also mean small and medium-sized employers would have less support, limiting their ability to take on apprentices.

The EDM further called on the government “to acknowledge the value and dedication of staff working within the agency and to commit to further recruitment in the agency”.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock told FE Week the EDM “did not sound like something I would support”.

He added: “Making sure that we live within our means and that we deliver for learners as effectively as possible is what we’re all about.”

The latest job cuts formed part of the Civil Service reform programme, which is said to be aimed at making the service smaller, more open and flexible.

An agency spokesperson said that as of March, there were 1,278 agency staff. At the same time last year it was 1,320 and in 2012 it was 1,275.

He said: “The agency is nearing completion of reforming our organisational structure and ways of working.

 “By the end of June we will have reduced our overall headcount by just over 30 per cent and, more significantly, rebalanced our divisions to reflect more accurately where work should take place.

“As part of the changes the National Apprenticeship Service now operates as part of the agency enabling it to effectively deliver the government’s priorities on apprenticeships and traineeships.”

Copycat claim after Labour lays out youth plans

Labour has been accused by Skills Minister Matthew Hancock of copying Conservative Party policy with proposals to drop JobSeekers Allowance (JSA) for 18 to 21-year-olds.

Labour leader Ed Miliband’s proposals to instead bring in a parental means-tested youth allowance dependant upon enrolment in training up to level three, were compared to an announcement in October by Prime Minster David Cameron.

Mr Hancock tweeted Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves with a link to national media coverage in which Mr Cameron said under-25s would be stripped of benefits to ensure they either ‘earn or learn’, with school-leavers having to take a job, an apprenticeship or remain in education or training.

Mr Hancock’s Twitter message read: “Dear Rachel, imitation is flattery & all that, but you’ve just announced a weak & more costly version of our policy.”

It came on the same the day Mr Miliband endorsed proposals from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), made in its 270-page Condition of Britain report, to introduce the youth allowance.

The measure is expected to affect around 100,000 18 to 21-year-olds, but and those with a family income of more than £42,000 a-year would not be entitled.

Mr Miliband, speaking on Thursday (June 19) at the launch of the IPPR report, said: “We can’t succeed as a country with unskilled young people going from benefits to low paid work and back again without proper skills. Because it doesn’t give business the productive workforce they need.

“And it costs the taxpayer billions of pounds in extra welfare spending and lower productivity. So we’re going to change it.

“What the proposals in this report show is that we can address these issues and reform welfare in a way that is progressive not punitive.

“And a Labour government will get young people to sign up for training, not sign on for benefits.

“So for 18 to 21-year-olds, we will replace JSA with a new youth allowance. An allowance dependent on young people being in training. And targeted at those who need it most.

“These are the right principles: Britain’s young people who don’t have the skills they need for work should be in training not on benefits.”

It was reported that the reform would affect around seven out of 10 of the 18 to 21-year-olds currently claiming JSA, and initially save £65m.

Ms Reeves, speaking earlier in the day during an interview with the Today programme, said: “The youth allowance that will replace JSA will be paid at £57 a week, which is the same as young person’s JSA but it will be means-tested on parental income. It is tapered off between £20,000 and £42,000.

“It is treating people in FE in the same way as we treat people in higher education. It is not saying all young people are required to go back and get this training; it is if people don’t have level three qualifications — the equivalent of an A-level.”

Progression payment for traineeships

The government has launched a long-awaited consultation on moving to a new traineeship funding system in which providers are paid based on learner destination.

Progression into apprenticeships, jobs or further learning could be incentivised from 2015/16 under the proposals.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “This consultation will test whether a funding approach designed specifically for traineeships, rather than based on existing arrangements, could produce better results for young people.

“We also want to make the experience more consistent, regardless of which department is responsible for funding.”

It comes after the Skills Funding Agency published new requirements earlier this year for traineeship providers to record outcomes such as progression into work as part of the individualised learning record funding returns.

The consultation will also ask about the need for greater consistency in funding arrangements between the 16 to 18 and 19 to 24 age groups.

It is understood the minister is keen to bolster the programme with FE Week having revealed in May that just 4,160 online applications were made for 3,480 traineeship vacancies in the first eight months since the programme’s launch in August last year.

And the consultation comes after the 16-hour rule that restricted the amount of learning trainees could do and still claim benefits was removed in March. And from August, 24-year-olds can do traineeships, while providers will be given greater flexibility to arrange work placements.

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “We’re pleased that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is asking a wide range of questions to ensure they can carefully consider all the potential consequences of any proposed changes to the funding of traineeships.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive Stewart Segal said: “AELP has consistently recommended more flexibility in the delivery of traineeships and we are pleased that these issues are being considered.

“We do need to move quickly on some of these issues to make a real success of the programme. One example of this in the consultation is a commitment to review the eligibility criteria for providers who deliver the programme.”

The results of the consultation, which ends on August 14, will be announced in the autumn.

Full-time learner concerns lead to EFA review on planned hours

Fears that a new planned hours system of funding 16 to 19 study programmes was being misused have prompted a review by the Education Funding Agency.

It is understood that the agency was alerted to possible problems after greater proportions of learners were registered as being in full-time study than were previously seen under the old funding system. It now pays per learner, rather than by qualification, as recommended in Professor Alison Wolf’s 2011 review of vocational education.

And for learners to qualify as full-time under the new system providers must record them with at least 540 planned hours, but it is understood that learners who would previously have been funded as part-time were now being funded as full-time.

The agency, FE Week understands, is concerned that providers were either not delivering the full 540 hours or, where delivered they were condensed into periods of as little as four months. However, it announced on Thursday (June 19) that it would be conducting a review this summer to ensure all data and funding claims were valid.

An agency spokesperson said: “The agency will ask institutions that have had the most significant increase in full time programmes to complete a straightforward return highlighting the main reasons for the increase. Institutions selected for funding audit,  that have had an increase in full time programmes, will also be asked to complete this return.”

In order for planned hours to qualify for funding, the activity done in that time must contribute towards a coherent study programme for the student, be timetabled, organised or supervised by the provider and be within the provider’s normal working pattern.

The spokesperson added: “All institutions should ensure that planned hours recorded for the 2013 to 2014 academic year meet these criteria. EFA will continue to monitor the returns it receives to decide if further audit work is necessary.”

The chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Stewart Segal, said: “We were expecting a review on the impact of study programmes at some stage and we would welcome input into it. AELP supports the flexibility of study programmes and hope that the review will reinforce that flexibility rather than create too rigid a definition of the learning activities.”

In her 2011 report, Dr Alison Wolf laid out her arguments for funding by student, rather than qualification. She said the move would “focus… management and staff attention on student programmes rather than the minutiae of individual qualifications’ fees” and “make it much easier for institutions to collaborate in offering different components of a programme”.