Picking up the pieces of school-leavers’ maths GCSE failings is a heavy burden for the FE and skills sector. It is also one in which Alex Falconer thinks improvements are needed.

This year more than 550,00 year 11 pupils in England will complete their GCSEs. Most (86 per cent) will go on to training or FE of one sort or another.

Recent figures show that of these, roughly a third will stay on to their school sixth form, one in ten (68,000) will study at a sixth form college and another third (185,000) will transfer to general FE colleges for (mostly) vocational education.

Around 5 per cent will take apprenticeships, some will get employment and the rest will join the ranks of those not in employment, education or training (NEETs).

For those aspiring to science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) careers, a GCSE C grade or better in maths is essential.

The national A* to C grade GCSE maths pass rate in schools is currently around 70 per cent.

However, the fact that 172,000 pupils fail to achieve a grade C by the age of 16 has been a concern for some time.

In fact this year, around 64,000 school leavers will achieve a D grade in GCSE maths.

Of those who repeat GCSE maths in post-16 settings — school sixth forms, sixth form colleges, FE colleges and work-based learning providers — fewer than half achieve a C grade or better each year.

Certainly, the recent emphasis on teaching maths for understanding in our schools has had a positive effect on pupils and their attainment levels.

However, there are still too few pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds achieving five A* to C grade GCSE passes.

These young people are far more likely to miss out on well-paid jobs because they have not achieved their potential at GCSE.

This is precisely why, following the recommendations in the Wolf report, there is now a clear expectation from government that all post-16 learners will continue to study maths and will either prepare for, or take GCSE maths.

This is a huge challenge for all FE and skills providers. Ensuring all learners get their entitlement to maths provision that leads to a level two qualification or GCSE is currently taxing their minds and resources.

It is not an easy task as there is a shortage of teachers qualified to teach GCSE maths.

Where possible, providers have been actively recruiting more maths teachers and making sure that relevant training for others is in place.

However, it does look as though demand will continue to outstrip supply. To provide an initial solution, the National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics (NCETM) has developed a Mathematics Enhancement Programme to provide continued professional development.

But spare a thought for those who did not achieve a D grade or better — all 108,000 of them.

Many of these young people will train for apprenticeships, NVQs, BTecs and the like. Most of these learners will take functional skills courses in foundation English and/or maths.

From Ofsted’s perspective, teaching and learning in functional skills maths require considerable improvement. But where it is most successful, lessons are firmly rooted in vocational contexts.

That is to say, the maths operations they learn are taught within relevant, subject-based contexts.

It is therefore that maths is seen as a key underpinning subject, integral to all the 16 to 19 study programmes and not as an ‘add-on’ extra. A more numerate and mathematically confident workforce will make a positive contribution to the economy.

In addition, FE — always the leader in the ‘second chance’ market — can change the employment prospects of thousands of learners, and we might even see fewer people leaving saying, ‘I’m useless at maths, me’.

Alex Falconer HMI, Ofsted national lead on post-16 STEM, with additional research by Norma Honey, National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics

The new ‘toughened up’ Ofsted inspection regime looked likely to make 2012/13 an unhappy year for sixth form colleges, but the general result was an improvement in grades, says James Kewin.

It is fair to say that the introduction of the new common inspection framework (CIF) in September last year was greeted with a degree of trepidation by many in the sixth form college sector.

The previous academic year had been a bruising one in inspection terms.

The more risk-based approach to selecting providers for inspection had seen just one of the 13 colleges inspected receive an improved grade for overall effectiveness and 10 receive a lower grade.

These figures, combined with the increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and some of the significant changes to the new CIF — particularly the move to limited notice inspections — left many sixth form colleges hoping 2012/13 would not be the year inspectors called.

But call they did, and in significant numbers. Of the 93 sixth form colleges in England, no fewer than 30 were inspected.

Interestingly, the inspection performance of the sector improved markedly under what Ofsted itself described as a tougher, more rigorous CIF.

A total of 10 sixth form colleges received an improved grade for overall effectiveness and two were judged to be outstanding, while three of the colleges previously judged as inadequate received an improved grade for overall effectiveness.

How can the improved inspection performance of the sector be explained?

Well, in some respects the approach of inspection teams and their interpretation of the new CIF were as significant as the CIF itself.

For example, the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association (SFCA) has long campaigned for inspectors to stop using a separate success rate benchmark for sixth form colleges.

This benchmark is higher than that used for other colleges and is based on a misguided assumption about the prior attainment profile of students that attend sixth form colleges.

Some of the more inexplicable inspection grades awarded during 2011/12 can be largely explained by this practice. In 2012/13 this was much less widespread and on the whole, inspection teams were more willing to take ‘all college’ and sixth form college national averages into account.

The greater emphasis on teaching and learning has seen an increase in lesson observations and learning walks under the new CIF. This has helped to change the perception that inspection judgements were entirely data-driven.

In some sixth form colleges, there was a clear sense that what was observed in the classroom, and the general ‘direction of travel’ being taken by the institution was a bigger factor in arriving at the final judgement.

Despite initial misgivings over the limited notice regime, some colleges found having less time to prepare resulted in less anxiety among staff and a more effective performance.

But concerns remain. The approach of inspection teams, and in particular their use of data, can still vary dramatically.

The inspections of outstanding sixth form colleges this year have in some cases been conducted harshly. And inspection teams have been largely uninterested in the work sixth form colleges are doing to support schools, academies or other colleges.

More attention and more credit should be given to colleges that are attempting to drive up standards and improve outcomes for learners in other institutions.

Staff and leadership teams in sixth form colleges should be applauded for their flexible and effective response to the introduction of the new CIF.

At a national level, Ofsted should also be credited for listening to, and acting on, some of the concerns expressed by the SFCA and its members. Looking ahead, we are encouraged by plans to consult on the introduction of a separate grade for school sixth forms and the roll-out of focussed improvement support for colleges with an Ofsted grade three or four inspection result.

Ofsted can help the sector to build on the progress made over the next 12 months by ensuring that their inspection judgements are fair, consistent and transparent.

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.

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?

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.

Many providers feel the inspection process reflects traditional classroom approaches”

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.

Being under the Ofsted spotlight can be an uncomfortable place, says Denise Brown-Sackey, who turns the inspection tables back on the education watchdog.

Are providers fit for purpose — but is Ofsted fit to judge?

Being under the Ofsted spotlight can be an uncomfortable place, says Denise Brown-Sackey, who turns the inspection tables back on the education watchdog.

More than a decade ago, the academic Leslie Rosenthal said: “The efforts required by teaching staff in responding to the demands of the… inspection system are great enough to divert resources from teaching so as to affect pupil achievement in the year of the visit.”

This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to those who’ve experienced the Ofsted inspection regime first-hand — whether we’re managers, lecturers, support staff or students.

Indeed, a separate study of Hertfordshire students reported a, “tenser relationship with their teachers” ahead of inspection.

Of course, as the Commons Education Select Committee pointed out in its 2010 report on Ofsted, and citing the evidence above, a degree of stress in any form of examination is arguably both inevitable and healthy.

For me, the real issue lies with the reasons for that stress, and — perhaps unsurprisingly for one whose college was inspected this year [going from outstanding to good] — there do seem to be areas for reform.

I was delighted that Ofsted’s visit to Newham validated the education we provide for our 21,000 learners, and that we were deemed to be a high-performing providers.

In light of that, it could seem churlish to slander the new framework under which that visit took place, but I do believe it has serious flaws.

Essentially, the new framework for providers is now the same as that for schools.

But, for me, they are fundamentally different entities and need to be treated in the appropriate manner.

Let me take the example of community cohesion. For this to exist as a judgment in its own right for a small primary school, or even an average-sized secondary school, was arguably excess to requirements.

While many such institutions have valuable regional, national and global partnerships, the essentially local nature of their operation means that community engagement is not a constant leadership focus.

For providers, the opposite is true — the breadth of both our curricula and the geographical areas we serve make that engagement critical to our mission.

There is, in that case, a strong argument for retaining a judgment for community cohesion for FE inspections. At the moment, all that valuable work feels effectively lost in inspection week.

A further problem, as also referenced in MPs’ 2010 investigation, lies with the expertise of inspectors themselves.

Far too few have real and relevant experience of the FE sector — a problem also reflected at the higher echelons of the organisation — and it can happen that those from within the field have preconceptions about institutions which bias their judgment one way or another.

These are difficult problems to solve, although I am glad Ofsted has been recruiting more FE experts recently.

In writing this, I am well aware that the sector should not, and must not, seem over-defensive, particularly in light of some of Ofsted’s own views on us and our standards.

While it may not curry me favour with some colleagues, I recognise some of Ofsted’s concerns — the need for even more robust governance, for example, and to raise standards across our capital city.

But in achieving those goals, I want to work with an inspectorate — the need for which I continue to stand by, on balance — which is on my side, which is properly equipped to monitor FE providers, and which does so by looking at appropriate evidence.

At the moment, just as Ofsted may reasonably feel that our sector is some way from perfect,

I have to throw the same right back at them.

One of the privileges of being vice-chair of the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning (CAVTL) was the opportunity to see genuinely world class vocational teaching and learning in action in a whole range of settings — with employers, colleges and training providers, across different sectors of the economy — much of which challenged our initial assumptions.

From the practice that commissioners saw, from the evidence that was submitted by employers, learners, and teachers and trainers, and the research we commissioned, we identified four key characteristics on which excellent vocational teaching and learning depend.

They were firstly, a clear line of sight to work on all vocational programmes; and secondly, ‘dual professional’ teachers and trainers who combine occupational and pedagogical expertise, who are trusted and given the time to develop partnerships and curricula with employers. Thirdly, access to industry-standard facilities and resources reflecting the ways in which technology is transforming work; and, finally, clear escalators to higher level vocational learning, developing and combining deep knowledge and skills.

What we also noted though, was how much vocational education and training practice was inconsistent, “because of the requirement to work within a system which continues to seek to specify so much from the centre”.

The commission argued that a key route to more widespread high quality practice will involve empowering and trusting vocational teachers and trainers to be “dual professionals” — to combine their occupational and pedagogical expertise, build strong partnerships with employers to deliver relevant vocational programmes, and to work together to spread and improve the practice and impact of quality vocational teaching and learning.

We called on partners to “play their respective roles in enabling adult vocational teaching and learning to flourish by addressing our recommendations to them”.

One of the recommendations was to Ofsted. We asked it “to consider the distinctive features of vocational teaching and learning identified [by the commission] as an additional lens through which to review vocational provision”.

We were delighted when Ofsted suggested a joint project, which we hope will do just that. We are now working with Ofsted and the CAVTL commissioners to further explore excellent vocational teaching and learning. By visiting providers and employers, who recently applied to be part of a case study project, Ofsted inspectors and the commission are seeking to further illuminate the characteristics of excellent provision, and the distinctive features of effective vocational teaching, learning and leadership.

Over the summer, I was delighted to be asked to lead the new Education and Training Foundation’s work to take forward the commission’s recommendations, working with Jenny Williams, author of the CAVTL report.

Building on our approach to the commission — of working from practice to theory — we are keen to learn from the case study examples from the joint Ofsted/CAVTL project, to be published later this year, as we develop arrangements to support vocational teaching and learning professionals.

Our contribution to the foundation’s goal — to enhance the professionalism of further education and training — will be to focus on building on the vocational expertise that already exists, making it more visible to teachers, trainers and leaders, to enable it to be adopted and adapted more widely.

Nothing less will do if we are to realise our collective ambitions to further improve the quality and impact of vocational education and training so that it genuinely supports individuals, businesses and communities to grow and succeed.

We want to consult widely as the Foundation’s programme develops over the autumn and will be putting in place a range of ways to engage with vocational education and training partners. We look forward to hearing from the sector and working with it as we do.