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

 

With Ofsted’s careers guidance review due out soon, Karen O’Donoghue explains what she thinks needs to be done so that youngsters are getting pointed in the right direction.

 

The Ofsted Thematic Review on careers guidance in schools is due out soon.

The debate on careers provision for young people, simmering since the introduction and then demise of the Connexions Service, has reached a rolling boil since schools took over responsibility from local authorities last year.

From September the statutory duty is extended to include FE and sixth form colleges, with colleges needing to demonstrate the provision of independent, impartial careers that promotes the best interests of the student.

While there are examples of great practice, these seem isolated and dependant on affordability or priority. Until Ofsted gives us its view, “seem” is the only word we can use with any degree of accuracy, although the education committee has already reported that the quality and quantity of guidance for young people is deteriorating just when it is most needed.

Nevertheless, the “seeming” lack of robust careers guidance and the removal of the statutory duty to provide both careers education and work-related learning has stirred up views like never before.

The Confederation of British Industry and Chamber of Commerce have berated the poor preparation young people receive before leaving school and the National Careers Council Report called for a cultural shift in provision.

The Career Development Institute (CDI), launched this year, represents career development professionals throughout the UK, operating across a spectrum of contexts, including private sector, public services, schools, colleges and higher education.

Our mantra relates to quality and standards in career development provision, wherever it is practiced and we welcomed Ofsted Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw’s statement that the education watchdog had to look “very, very carefully” at the school inspection framework to focus more on careers guidance.

It is our view that Ofsted needs to show its teeth and report that the statutory guidance does not provide a reliable statement for schools to comply with consistently across England, resulting in an unhelpfully fragmented service that cannot, in all fairness to schools, be properly inspected.

We want to see Ofsted calling for careers education provision in schools being quality assured on an ongoing basis, with schools adopting quality awards that are assured by the Quality in Careers standard — another ready-made opportunity to unify, develop and improve careers provision. Schools are best placed to understand how such a programme might work and without good careers education, careers guidance interventions are inevitably reduced in effectiveness.

Ofsted should be clear that the minimum standard for guidance practitioners, in line with the aspiration for the National Careers Service, is QCF level six. In fact, CDI goes further — it is our view that a qualification is an incomplete demonstration of quality and capability and that deliverers must be part of the UK Register of Careers Development Professionals, a standard that verifies the qualification, provides a statement that the practitioner adheres to a code of ethics and ensures commitment to continued professional development.

Finally, we hope Ofsted comments that “independent” is more than a little access to a website or a single visit to a training provider. There must be access to a blend of provision, including face-to-face guidance for those who need it, to create the opportunities that challenge a young person’s thinking, opens up their horizons and includes all relevant pathways — FE, apprenticeships, traineeships and higher education.

So many reports have called for action this year and the government has rightly awaited this review to inform decision making. The CDI hopes Ofsted’s voice will be the final push to improve the future of England’s young people and UK skills as a whole.

 

Karen O’Donoghue, president, Career Development Institute

 

As the time for the next Chief Inspector’s Annual Report approaches, three members of the Policy Consortium — which provides professional policy analysis for learning and skills — look for messages that may emerge about the past year, as well as some of the possible implications they might have. Colin Forrest, Carolyn Medlin and Mike Cooper (pictured from left to right above) lay down challenges for the education watchdog as it becomes more involved in the improvement agenda.

Crunching the inspection numbers

Highly-contested claims by Ofsted earlier this year that no colleges could be judged outstanding for teaching and learning still rankle throughout the FE sector, as people ask how and why the Chief Inspector and others involved got it so apparently wrong.

This assertion was based on the observation in the Chief Inspector’s 2012 Annual Report published last autumn (and of course covering the final year of inspections under the 2009 Framework) was: “For the second year running, no colleges were judged outstanding for teaching and learning.”

It begged the question as to how this finding from a sample of 40 or so general FE colleges subsequently extrapolated to the college sector as a whole.

In 2012/13, the sample size of colleges inspected has doubled. In the published inspection reports since September 2012, two general FE colleges and two sixth form colleges have been awarded a full suite of outstanding grades for their cross-college aspects — including the key matter of the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.

Will this most recent pattern reassure the inspectorate that making these elements central in the revised common inspection framework (CIF) has had the desired effect?

Some recent comments from Skills Minister Matthew Hancock have been rather more conciliatory — a change in rhetoric that may signal some changes in perception and approach.

It’s hard to tell. But it would seem unlikely.

Reading individual inspection reports suggests what an overview of teaching, learning and assessment might look like but there is little other help.

The inspectorate’s Data View website was launched at the same time as the publication of the Annual Report.

Alas, it doesn’t help much. At the time of writing the data set relates to March 2013.

Although the data can be presented by provider type, number of learners, organisations, and local authority, it covers only the overall effectiveness or leadership and management grades.

Moreover, apart from schools, it doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.

The graphs in Data View show the proportion of providers in each of the four grading categories at August 2010, 2011, 2012 and as of March 2013.

Strangely, the plotting points are joined up, suggesting a smooth trajectory between those dates — a somewhat unlikely pattern for any change, and perhaps still more so in such complex and shifting landscape as FE and skills inspection.

For overall effectiveness, the proportion of colleges with good or outstanding grades increased from 63 per cent in August 2011, to 64 per cent in August 2012, and then to 70 per cent by March this year.

For leadership and management, the proportion judged good or outstanding has increased from 66 per cent in August 2012 to 73 per cent as of March 2013.

Data View does report the proportion of schools with the different grades on the quality of teaching, alongside the other grades. The proportion with good or outstanding quality of teaching is 73 per cent at March this year. However, it doesn’t do so for FE and skills providers — making what would be a useful comparison very difficult to see.

Sharper than Data View

Contradictory messages and conflicting priorities set by Ofsted are in danger of leaving colleges at best confused and at worst without the essential support they need.

Although its year old Data View system lays claims to simplicity and transparency, it is too blunt a scalpel either for forensic analysis or the surgery leading to healing.

Analysis of the reports published since September last year suggests the proportion of colleges inspected in 2012/13 that are good or outstanding for teaching, learning and assessment is around 56 per cent.

Broadening the analysis to adult and community learning providers, the proportion becomes around 61 per cent for that category. For work-based learning providers it is 51 per cent.

Similar figures in 2011/12 attracted HMI comments like “teaching and learning are not good enough”.

Ofsted reports that teaching and learning needs to be stimulating and demanding, involving real-life scenarios to enhance employability.

Quite how this is to be achieved across the full range of courses and subjects has been not made at all clear.

The inspectorate also highlights that more needs to be done to enhance ownership of learning by learners.”

They further highlight that a vocational context often needs to be emphasised more in links with employers and there are frequent references in reports to the need to meet the best industry standards.

But again, this raises some questions about how effectively and convincingly this could universally be applied.

Subject expertise is seen as essential and the links between the curriculum and the workplace are crucial.

The role of using a range of alternative technologies to make learning “exciting and fun” is sometimes a priority as is the need to develop personal and social skills as well as employability skills.

All good points, but how to prioritise these among all Ofsted’s other concerns?

As if this is not enough, then the inspectorate also highlights that more needs to be done to enhance ownership of learning by learners, in evaluating their own progress and target-setting and developing personal, vocational and functional skills targets.

Employers, providers, and teachers need to prioritise working together with learners to ensure there is shared ownership of targets.

Altogether, it’s quite an agenda. Little of it is arguable per se.

The question is, what to do about it for the best, and at a time where energies, ideas, resources and time especially are all at a premium?

All of this cries out for closer, more compelling links to be made between an inspection regime that often claims somewhat loftily to be concerned solely with making judgements, and not with improvement.

However, other activities undertaken by Ofsted contradict this stance.

It may be that linking providers that require improvement with HMIs for a limited degree of support will change the situation — and the outcomes.

It may be that more of Ofsted’s good-practice reports will help. But there is a way still to go, clearly — and the route looks increasingly awkward and perilous.

Not least because that ‘support and challenge’ initiative is restricted in its application to grade three providers — and was not designed for the absence of an improvement body (which the new Education and Training Foundation (ETF) insists it is not).

Moreover, for the provider graded as ‘requires improvement’, what is the best stance to take when Ofsted return prior to the next inspection and ‘provide support’?

Should the provider ‘fess-up’ warts and all, to help them move forward for the next inspection positively?

Or, should they put their best foot forward?

There are certainly implications with the former.

That is, while the report from the support and challenge visit is not published, a copy of that report is passed to whoever leads the next full inspection.

Does this conflict with Ofsted making judgements and supporting improvement?

Ofsted often argues that self-assessment ends up being unduly complex and ill-focused. If so, could it be the inspectorate’s own approaches and methods are partly to blame?

At the organisational level, the inspectorate argues that the process of self-assessment needs to be systematic in coming to judgements on teaching, learning and assessment, and to incorporate a broad base of evidence including views from those organisations to which learners progress.

How feasible this is as anything beyond a counsel of perfection for most or nearly all providers is a fair question.

Similarly, Ofsted argues that self-assessment can be overly complex and not sufficiently focussed on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.

This complexity is not altogether surprising, given Ofsted’s previous approaches and methods, and the size and complexity of the CIF itself.

That links, too, with the reluctance by the inspectorate to commit itself whole-heartedly to the processes of improvement in recent years.

This has begun to change to a degree, but more may well be required to convert judgement to real and positive change.

Ofsted further highlights a need to reduce the variability of the quality within providers, through the sharing of good practice internally.

This is a fair cop — learners, parents and others are entitled to be frustrated or even angered where they perceive such gaps, and explaining them away is difficult.

Nevertheless, there are questions to be asked about how to do this effectively, on so many fronts, in a period of shrinking resource and still greater demands.

So once again, for providers of good faith who dearly wish to address such issues, and even for very good providers, this can seem an almost unattainable goal.

Here’s a related observation. Is it appropriate to hope that Ofsted itself might transfer some good practice, and more consistently model its own ambitions for teaching and training? In particular, since providers come to learn, could there be more of a genuine learner-centredness in how such Ofsted sessions are handled by its own staff?

Some greater degree of better practising what is so powerfully preached might not go amiss.

And then of course there are mixed messages around self-assessment and the report that captures it. Since April 2012, providers are no longer required to upload a self-assessment report onto the Provider Gateway.

But, if they don’t and their data shows drops in performance, this could trigger an inspection.

So, in reality, if providers choose not to upload a self-assessment report, they may be more likely to be inspected.

The litany of complaint continues. For instance, weaker lesson observation processes are criticised for focussing on teaching rather than learning. There is potential, too, for learners to be involved more in organisational self-assessment and the impact of this involvement to be recognised and captured.

Both of these statements are certainly true in themselves. But to adapt a very useful response recommended by Ofsted to mere assertions with which they are presented in self-assessment, ‘So what?’

It is a challenge to move beyond the mere reporting of a fact to significance — how best to make the connections with the ways that it might be made an improvement reality.

Increasingly, then, these are significant and pressing issues. Not merely for the new ETF, the wider sector, or for individual providers, but for Ofsted itself with its new improvement remit.

A new focus on teaching and learning may well have become the valued hallmark of Ofsted’s current common inspection framework, but, asks Lynne Sedgmore, is there scope for a wider examination of the college offer?

Over this past year, mention of Ofsted has generated mixed emotions in many colleges.

Some ill-informed remarks have been made, grades have fallen — and risen — and the overall narrative has been one of ‘system failure’ in skills, and lack of attention on teaching and learning.

It is important to acknowledge appropriate criticisms of the system — particularly perverse funding which has created bizarre incentives and an over focus on chasing funding and qualifications.

We would add to the systems failure, an inspection framework which did not always focus on the broader aspects of colleges in their diverse communities.

So it is good to feel the future is turning to one of collaboration and better mutual understanding.

There is a huge risk that the current view of college success is severely limited by the criteria used in the CIF.”

Those who work in Ofsted are, on a human level, interested in the same things as the rest of us — student success and educational excellence. It is foolish to argue that the focus of the common inspection framework (CIF) is not right in these respects. A clearer, stronger focus on excellence in teaching, learning and assessment through understanding what actually happens in the classroom rather than looking primarily at results on paper has to be welcome.

And allying every judgment to the core business of teaching and learning is vital.

The 157 Group has long argued for colleges to work with Ofsted in a mature manner, not seeing them as the enemy, but as professional partners, with differing perspectives, to bring about needed change.

Ofsted plays a crucial and invaluable role in providing a nationally-recognised quality mark — and, for some constituencies (often parents, used to dealing with schools), it is their primary quality assessment tool.

However, there is a huge risk that the current view of college success is severely limited by the criteria used in the CIF and we would argue that the nature of a successful college is much broader in scope. There is a public perception that Ofsted judgments are made on the whole college. In reality, this is not the case.

Colleges are integral to their community and any judgement of their success should also include the extent to which they have contributed to the skills and growth of their locality — as demonstrated in their unique mission. 157 Group is keen to work with other college membership groups and Ofsted to set in motion a movement which requires additional processes and mechanisms for assessing the overall performance of colleges.

The outcome of such enhanced processes and mechanisms will provide judgements and information which will be useful, meaningful, reliable and relevant for everyone who has a stake in the skills and success of our society and economy.

We believe that colleges already hold an additional wealth of evaluation material that can usefully sit alongside current Ofsted criteria to give a more complete and rounded picture.

Suggested examples include student testimonies and industry or sector awards — awards, gained through competition and judged by peers and recognised experts in teaching and learning demonstrate innovation and excellence in the leadership of teaching and learning; and, student evaluations and employer satisfaction surveys, which demonstrate customer satisfaction and stakeholder feedback.

Further examples are winning contracts in competitive bidding processes — the recruitment of both fee-paying and employer-sponsored students and the number of associated entrepreneurs or spin-off companies demonstrates employer engagement; and genuine engagement with local enterprise partnerships and economic impact studies, which demonstrate a contribution to the local economy and community.

Finally, there’s global brand recognition — awards for international provision demonstrate the reputation of a college and the contribution they make to globalisation and UK plc; and, college support and sponsorship of university technical colleges, academies and other 14 to 19 models, which show how the college is an integral part of a whole phase approach to learning.

The future is bright – and the future may be Ofsted-plus?

Lynne Sedgmore, executive director, 157 Group