Ofsted’s criticism of the college sector last year was a bitter pill to swallow and the toughened up common inspection framework offered little hope for sector praise. However, it hasn’t quite worked out like that says Joy Mercer.

At this time last year, colleges felt they had not weathered an Ofsted storm but were beached, and stranded on unfamiliar territory.

The inspection results for general FE and sixth form colleges were forbidding. Of the 60 inspected, 22 per cent were judged inadequate and only 40 per cent graded good or better.

There were no colleges graded outstanding for teaching, learning and assessment. A new common inspection framework was due, with only two working days’ notice of inspection and a central focus on teaching, learning and assessment.

The quality in the classroom would influence all other grades. Satisfactory became Requires Improvement, with a senior inspector allocated to a college with this grade and re-inspection within 12 to 15 months.

Governors who felt confident in their role in ensuring financial health and probity now had a clearer strategic responsibility for what happened in the classroom.

This came against a political drive to encourage choice and competition for 16-year-olds created through new school sixth forms, the growth of university technical colleges and free schools, and employers being paid directly to deliver apprenticeships.

One year on, the story is different.

Ofsted trebled its number of inspectors and our figures show that 61 per cent of colleges were judged good or better and only five were graded as inadequate.

Given that Ofsted inspects colleges on risk, it is important not to forget the ‘state of the nation’.

Last year’s Ofsted annual report said that 64 per cent of colleges were good or better. This year we believe it is 74 per cent.

However, there is no room for complacency — just over a third were judged to Require Improvement.

Ofsted has indicated that the long love affair with success rates is over.

Last year’s Ofsted annual report said that 64 per cent of colleges were good or better. This year we believe it is 74 per cent.”

This year, they have focused on student progression to employment or further study.

Themes that run through inspection judgements of good or better colleges include strong student tracking; high levels of attendance; teaching that focuses on employment opportunities and enterprise; using every opportunity to develop students English and maths skills; teaching that challenges students; good quality work experience; and, governors who understand the quality of teaching and learning, with strategies to ensure teachers improve.

Ofsted introduced Learner View last September. Whether colleges have used this student satisfaction method or their own, students’ opinions of the quality of their experience at the college is paramount.

So what of next year? Students without the gold standard of A* to C at GCSE in English and maths will be expected to gain the qualification by the age of 18.

This is likely to be measured in the new 16 to 18 performance tables as well as Ofsted inspections.

We are hopeful that after Ofsted’s own report on careers guidance in schools, due soon, there will be a much stronger focus on guidance in school inspections.

This may be the year when success rates take a back seat to outcomes into jobs and HE.

Ofsted will be reporting on study programmes and 14-year-olds studying full time in colleges. With intense competition, these have to tell a good story.

 

Different delivery environments for vocational learning are a hallmark of many independent training provid­ers — and that’s something that needs proper recognition from inspectors, says Stewart Segal.

When the latest common inspection framework (CIF) was introduced, it was clear that inspections in the sector would be very challenging.

It was not just the reclassification of satisfactory to requires improvement, but the emphasis on teaching and learning was always going to be a challenge in a sector where employer engagement and on-the-job assessment play such important roles.

Despite attempts to ensure all learning is given equal credit, many providers feel the inspection process reflects traditional classroom approaches.

Work-based learning by definition takes place in the many different environments of the workplace, often involving very small groups or even individual trainees.

The training provider may also be operating across several sites, which requires management oversight of a consistent set of standards to maintain the Ofsted standards.

It is difficult to argue against teaching and learning being more influential in the overall grading, but in the case of work-based learning and the provider’s role, it is often assessment of the learner’s progress and the wider support in the workplace which is so important and this may not be given the same credit as good teaching in traditional settings.

It is also true that success rates play a significant part in determining the grade of the provider.

Delivering to some hard-to-help groups in difficult working environments can mean it is very challenging to deliver high success rates.

We have to make sure that success rates are seen in the context of the different delivery environments.

Classroom-based learning has traditionally had higher success rates.

This might partly explain that under the new CIF, work-based learning providers have seen pressure on their Ofsted grades.

Not enough are outstanding and too many require improvement so the grade profile overall is likely to be worse than last year.

The focus for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) must be on how we work with providers to support them to be good or outstanding.

The willingness to improve is not lacking, judging from the provider turnout that we see at our events on inspection, so AELP will continue to organise workshops that promote the sharing of best practice.

We have discussed with Ofsted the need to build capacity in the sector to ensure we have the skills and knowledge to deliver the standards required.

The discussions have covered a number of options around provider programmes and we hope to take those plans forward shortly.

The new Education and Training Foundation will also play a useful role in providing support to providers.

The new CIF is only a year old and providers need time to work with Ofsted to understand the standards and deliver the service to customers that meets the standards.

Providers score highly in terms of flexibility and meeting employers’ needs and we need to ensure these factors are seen as important elements of meeting the CIF standards.

Providers that have developed good working relationships with employers are now being excluded from delivering the traineeship programme because of their Ofsted grades.

Although we understand the importance of ensuring high quality delivery, we need to ensure Ofsted grades are not used to exclude effective provision especially where employers or learners are excluded as a result.

In the case of traineeships, the critical work experience element requires a large number of committed employers on board to ensure that the programme is a success.

There are many grade three work-based learning providers with access to these employers, but the grading threshold means employers will almost certainly not be participants in the programme.

We need a balanced approach to the quality threshold that puts the learner at the centre of the decision.

A fair, transparent and appropriate inspection regime should be the objective for everyone that believes in consistent improvement. We need to ensure that the inspection framework recognises excellent delivery and creates the platform for provider improvement.

Stewart Segal, chief executive, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

It’s been a tough few weeks for the Education and Training Foundation with criticism of its hiring practices and the resignation of chief executive Sir Geoff Hall. But, says David Hughes, there’s still much to be positive about.

In autumn last year I was invited to chair the steering group of membership and sector organisations that had agreed to work together to establish what has become the Education and Training Foundation.

It was to be focused on supporting high quality teaching and learning, leadership and governance and helping develop ‘the system’ to deliver ever better experiences and outcomes for learners.

At that stage I was unsure whether we needed a new body but I was happy to help facilitate debate as we did need to consider it.

I am now sure that there is a need and that the new organisation has a great opportunity to lead research, development and thinking across the diverse organisations in our sector. And I am sure that as a sector we need more investment in system-thinking.

We can now start to openly recruit into the new structure”

We had our first full board meeting as the foundation on August 1, and chairing the steering group and now, for interim only, the board, has been fascinating.

Firstly, the process has been open and inclusive despite the lack of time. This has been supported by all the sector membership bodies and organisations with a stake. With their help we managed to involve leaders, practitioners and stakeholders in developing the ideas, challenges and proposals so far.

Our priorities are clear and uncontroversial — teaching, learning and assessment; vocational education and training; leadership, management and governance; and research and innovation. Agreeing those priorities is the easy bit — delivering impact against them is the big challenge. Because of that we have spent time agreeing the very nature of the new organisation and its role.

We want the foundation to add value to the investment which all organisations in the sector already make in the areas I set out above and not to duplicate or get in the way of what is already working.

So, for instance, the foundation should not attempt to fund or control investment in leadership development because every organisation will be investing in that themselves.

The foundation role might be to support cross-organisation learning, bringing leaders and future leaders together across the sector, researching what works, sign-posting to organisations which are doing it well and supporting new ideas to be tested.

Another role for the Foundation is where there needs to be big change in the sector. The use of technology in learning is a good case in point, as is the set of recommendations in the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning or the new policies on English and maths and traineeships.

And these ideas are all fine, if they are what the sector needs. The foundation is a sector-owned body, and that ownership must come from consultations, research and continuing to involve practitioners and leaders in shaping our proposals.

Establishing a new organisation is never easy but when I have done it before we did not have such tight time constraints. That challenge was compounded because of the rapid winding-down of the Learning and Skills Improvement Service and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations issues impacting on staff.

The latter, for instance, resulted in us not being able to start recruitment of the permanent staff. The good news is that we have a new board and are in the process of recruiting an independent chair and a permanent chief executive. We can now start to openly recruit into the new structure and we can deliver better communications and engagement.

Our delivery plan is on our website and work is under way to commission and procure new activities as well as to review some legacy services such as the excellence gateway.

I have been pleased with the progress made in such a short time and I am confident we will make great strides in the coming months.

David Hughes, interim chair of the Education and Training Foundation and chief executive of the National Institute of
Adult Continuing Education

 

 

 

Sue Middlehurst, like many principals, is eagerly awaiting the challenges of the new academic year. Here, she examines the past year.

Since I joined the Grimsby Institute Group in January 2011, it has been pleasure to see the introduction of many innovative teaching and learning practices coupled with inspiring approaches to teaching.

Every day the staff seem to come up with yet another idea, or achieve beyond expectations, giving me more reasons to be proud I am the principal of one of the largest providers of further and higher education in the North East.

This past year alone has seen our TV channel, Channel 7, which is operated by the group and staffed with a crew of tutors and students, announced as one of only 20 local TV stations nationwide that have been awarded a licence to broadcast digitally.

We will be the first local TV channel to begin broadcasting when the channel officially launches at the end of November, under the name Estuary TV — on Freeview Channel 8.

Our vision is to be inspiring, innovative and outstanding”

Our beauty training facility, The Graduate Salon, was recently named as the Confederation of International Beauty Therapy and Cosmetology (Cibtac) centre of the year 2013.

This is an international award recognising the outstanding work that our beauty staff have been undertaking to ensure that, even though we are a traditional FE college, we provide training that is equal to, and often surpasses, that of specialist training providers.

Cibtac offers international qualifications that our students achieve alongside their traditional beauty qualifications.

Another initiative we are introducing this month is the achievement coach scheme. We have employed a team of local people — mostly graduates — who will be working closely with our most gifted and talented level two and three students to support them in maximizing their potential.

One thing we do very well is growing the potential of our staff and students. This was highlighted again recently when one of our students, Rebecca Oxborough, qualified at the Association of Accounting Technicians and then returned to run our course while studying Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector. Rebecca has proven so popular she is now looking at gaining an assessor’s qualification before embarking on a postgraduate certificate in education.

But our successes aren’t just restricted to our FE provision. We were recently announced as the first predominantly FE provider in the UK to achieve higher education academy status for our continued professional development programme at our University Centre Grimsby.

Our costume design degree course at Yorkshire Coast College (YCC) has seen great success.

Past alumni have gone on to work with on films such as Sherlock Holmes and Mad Max — Fury Road. Students have won the BBC apprentice scheme and worked on TV programmes such as Luther and Whitechapel. Others have secured work at Glynbourne within the men’s cutting department, toured with major West End productions such as We Will Rock You and Les Miserables.

Over the summer, students from YCC’s Music Department supported headline acts including Leona Lewis, Olly Murs and Katherine Jenkins at the Scarborough Open Air Theatre.

Hospitality students at YCC even got the chance to cook for the stars when they took over the catering at the theatre, offering everything from dressing room requests to crew breakfasts.

And last month we invited our first cohort of business professors to a special event in their honour. We launched business professors at the start of the year as a way of bridging the gap between education and employment and a number of high profile names have already signed on for the scheme we will be rolling out during 2013/14.

Finally, I am thrilled that I am finally able to announce that we have received confirmation that we he have been granted Foundation Degree Awarding Powers (FDAP) from the Privy Council.

Our vision is to be inspiring, innovative and outstanding. I am privileged to be leading an organisation that lives up to the expectations of students, staff and stakeholders in our community.

Sue Middlehurst, principal, Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education

 

 

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers was one of the voices opposing a minimum duration rule on apprenticeships, before the government said they had to last a year. Stewart Segal reviews the rule a year on.

The news that starts for apprenticeships lasting less than a year have fallen significantly during the last twelve months hardly came as a surprise — providers have responded to the drive to extend the length of apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships are a mix of different types of learning combined with real employment skills and experience, and providers have to adapt every programme to the employer and individual needs.

But the issue of quality is far more complex than simply a question of programme duration, and if we are serious about improving quality as a result of all of the apprenticeship reviews conducted over the last 18 months, then we need a wider discussion on the way forward.

Looking at the minimum duration rules first, we were not alone in seeking to keep some flexibility in terms of delivery. The House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee heard evidence from employers that they would like the flexibility for very talented apprentices to complete the programme in less than twelve months.

We support the need for combining different ways of learning on and off the job with time spent doing the job”

The MPs also listened favourably to our argument that experienced adult members of the workforce who could show their job competence should not have that element of the apprenticeship framework bound by minimum durations.

The committee was therefore right in our view to recommend that the government should keep the rules under review. Nevertheless, the government has applied different rules for 16 to 18 apprentices and 19+ apprentices.

For the former, programmes must last a minimum of 12 months without exception, while exceptional circumstances are allowed for apprentices aged over 19 to complete in less than a year, but this means that the provider cannot claim all of the funding.

We believe exceptions should be allowed for all ages and there are a number of reasons for this. In addition to the points that found favour with the select committee, there should be recognition of the framework elements that an apprentice has already accomplished.

This is particularly pertinent to the apprentice who has already achieved a level one or two in English and maths.

We feel that exceptions could also be given to apprentices who need to progress onto their level three, especially if a job promotion is involved. Other possible exceptions relate to the long-standing debate around the portability of apprenticeships.

If a learner is leaving their employer and needs to complete their programme, but is a few weeks away from the end-date, do we want to deny them the chance to complete? Allowance should also be made for an apprentice who changes jobs and has already started an apprenticeship in the previous role.

The government has not made its own recommendations about the future of the apprenticeship programme and therefore we should not be making recommendations on how the system should be funded until we understand the details of what the frameworks will be.

We support the need for combining different ways of learning on and off the job with time spent doing the job. Clearly time is an important factor, but having the flexibility to respond is all important.We believe this flexibility is key to driving the quality of the apprenticeship programme and this should continue to apply to the duration.

Stewart Segal, chief executive, Association of Employment and Learning Providers