Lessons from inspection pilots

The real college was judged says Principal Richard Atkins, not one that had spent three weeks preparing. 

We were keen to get a health check from Ofsted. Exeter College had last been inspected in 2008 and rated as good, but we had received a Notice to Improve (NtI) for learner success rates.

Having reacted quickly and decisively to the NtI, we then self-assessed as outstanding in 2009/10 and 2010/11. So, after consulting staff and governors, we agreed to put ourselves forward as a pilot for the new common inspection framework (CIF).

We had heard nothing by February this year and assumed that we were not to be included.

I then received a call asking if we would be a “no-notice” pilot on condition that I told no one, including the staff and governors. I agreed.

On Monday, March 12, I was telephoned by an Ofsted team who were on a train due in Exeter within 30 minutes to start a full unannounced inspection. I told all staff by email and our 21-day plan became a 21-minute plan.

The role of the internal nominee was crucial, and much more demanding than for an inspection with three weeks’ notice.  We ended up with three people — deputy principal, assistant principal and head of quality — working together as our internal nominee team. They set up a temporary base room for inspectors in a senior manager’s office.

Exeter College is a large provider of apprenticeships so employer visits and work-based assessment observations had to be organised quickly. Employers were supportive and flexible. Staff responded brilliantly too. By noon, teaching observations had started and 90 minutes later we had achieved our first grade one.

I told all staff by email and our 21-day plan became a 21-minute plan”

In all, the inspectors carried out more than 60 graded observations, completed numerous learning walks and observed many other student activities and interactions. There were far fewer meetings with managers and staff — about 10 in total.

The outcomes from the inspection were fantastic for everyone at Exeter. At the feedback session with me and our chair on the Friday, we were rated outstanding for teaching and learning, learners’ outcomes and leadership and management. We were all delighted and shared the news  with students, parents, employers and stakeholders.

Inevitably, having been the first no-notice inspection, we have subsequently received considerable interest from colleges across England.  We have also had time to reflect. There are many positives: Ofsted inspected and judged the real Exeter College, not the one that had spent three weeks preparing for a production, and teaching and support staff overwhelmingly preferred it to an inspection with three weeks’ notice

The focus on teaching, learning and assessment in the new CIF also suits us and reflects our own focus over recent years: there were far fewer meetings with managers and staff — four in total. Our best advocates were our students; their feedback was critical to our success.

I believed that no-notice should be replaced by short notice inspections, and this has happened. And inspectors will need to be flexible in their approach to limited notice inspections, especially with regard to base rooms, availability of students and staff and employer visits.

We offered this and other feedback to Ofsted after the pilot; several points that we raised have been incorporated in the new approach to inspecting colleges.

For me, as a long-standing principal, the whole process confirmed my view that inspections can be a useful and helpful part of a college’s quality improvement toolkit, provided that all sides approach the week in a positive frame of mind, with the will to learn.

Richard Atkins is principal of
Exeter College

Ofsted is a ‘distraction’ to be taken seriously

Don’t get bogged down in the new common inspection framework, says principal Chris Thomson. Give students the provision you’d wish upon your own children and you’ll be outstanding.  

You’ll probably think we’re mad, but for more than a decade at Brighton Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College we’ve cultivated the view that far from being a priority, inspection is a distraction.

Through four Ofsted inspections – the last in October this year – we’ve simply said to staff: “Concentrate on delivering the college mission. If we’re meeting the individual learning needs of all our students it doesn’t matter what the latest common inspection framework (CIF) says, we’ll be outstanding.”

If this sounds like quality-suicide, ask yourself two questions. Does your college mission put learners first and are you exclusively committed to that mission? If the answer to both is yes, our approach should begin to look more rational than it might at first seem.

But  no quick fixes. Even in a specialist A level sixth-form college the size of some general FE college departments, it has taken us years to develop a culture that will produce uniform high quality – and we’re not there yet.

Other colleges have accomplished it quicker. I know one that made astonishing progress through a marvellously simple instrument of change, the principal persistently asked one key question: “Is this provision good enough for our own children?”

If I can put it this way, there have been a host of strategies at the forefront of our vision, but inspection has, by comparison, constituted only the equivalent of an occasional glance in the wing mirror.

That doesn’t mean we haven’t taken it seriously. Having been inspected in 2007 and told by Ofsted last September that they would not be visiting us in 2011/12, it seemed a good bet they would drop by some time this year.

By the time term started this September, our vice-principal and college nominee Sally Bromley had prepared data packs for every department, with an action plan that would kick in the moment inspection was notified.

This made the four days’ preparation time much smoother than it would have been. Key managers worked through the weekend and the college was open to any staff who wanted to come in. We made it clear there was no expectation that they should.

Although seven inspectors arrived rather than four, as was the case in 2007, I felt the inspection went even more smoothly than it had then. One or two teachers were disconcerted by the brevity of some drop-in observations, and some intervention was needed where an inspector’s assumptions were false-footed by our way of doing things.

But our 7.30am meetings to prepare for the day’s inspection were over in barely more time than it took to devour the Danish pastries and coffee. The inspectors found it a positive experience too. At the end of the first afternoon they were already commenting on how friendly and welcoming our staff were.

Our mood was enhanced by the supportive responses our students made on Ofsted’s Learner View website. Although we didn’t manage to see how parents responded, a number emailed us directly to express thanks for our work. We passed these on.

We felt tested but well listened to. No stone was left unturned, but our inspectors ensured that their conclusions were informed by all the evidence we presented.

Enormous credit must go to Sally; it wasn’t hard to encourage teachers to be bold and risk an exciting lesson rather than play safe.

If you are fortunate to have a nominee who is tireless, meticulous and enthusiastic, the process of inspection will go as smoothly as the college’s culture permits. As to whether that culture is best enhanced by focusing on Ofsted and the CIF, I am doubtful — but I’m reserving the right to change my mind if our grades change between now and publication.

Chris Thomson is principal of Brighton Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College

Strength at the top is key to improvement concludes Ofsted

Strong, effective leadership is one of the key features of success, suggests Ofsted’s How Colleges Improve report.

Winning colleges were seen to share characteristics of strong governance and management — as well as a clear vision and direction.

The report, commissioned by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) and Ofsted, highlighted how colleges built on best practice to ensure that the education and training they provided was at least good or outstanding.

Meanwhile, unrealistic self-assessments with little or no critical insight, and unexpected job cuts showed up time and again among poorly performing colleges.

The 43-page report  also warned colleges about the dangers of paying too much attention to building projects and mergers.

Ofsted’s national director for learning and skills, Matthew Coffey, said: “Successful colleges always had strong leadership and management and the importance of this cannot be underestimated.

Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group, Ofsted’s report, available on www.ofsted.gov.uk, Stephan Jungnitz, ASCL

“All the elements of this report are inextricably linked to the actions and behaviours of leaders and managers, and the example they set.

“In outstanding and improving colleges staff were more willing to accept change and could easily describe what their college stood for.

“As a result leadership teams were better placed to act decisively to tackle underperformance and secure improvement.”

Good and outstanding colleges were not afraid of self-assessment — even if it was self-critical — as they understood it was integral to both their and the college’s improvement.

While there was no single explanation as to why colleges underperformed there were often many interrelated reasons and common features.

Often, there was complacency, and lack of ambition, direction and vision from senior staff. This was  coupled with a defensive inward-looking approach, where colleges were slow to accept change or act when data showed decline.

Weaker colleges were often made up of a higher proportion of temporary staff who were not properly managed either due to weak lines of accountability or weak performance management processes.

LSIS chief executive Rob Wye said: “This report confirmed the importance of outstanding leadership and management, underpinned by informed governance, cannot be underestimated.

“It is also clear that robust and honest self-review and reflection is a vital ingredient of any provider’s improvement journey.

“The evidence in this report confirms what many will have thought for a long time — that the best colleges are those where the teaching, learning and assessment delivers excellent results that match the needs of learners, employers and the local community.

“LSIS commissioned this report to ensure that we all gained a thorough understanding of how colleges improve.

“LSIS is focused on improvement across the sector and there is much for other providers, as well as colleges, to consider and learn from this report.”

He added: “It was put out as a stimulus for debate at college level in order to encourage principals, senior teams and governing bodies to think about how to match what the best colleges are doing, with a very good number of case studies within that.

“It has prompted that debate. It hasn’t prompted a national debate and most of what it said was a reinforcement of what Ofsted has said before.

“But it’s a useful contribution — it will underpin what will go into chief inspectors’ reports in terms of what’s good and what’s not so good and where the focus need to be for improvement.”

The report was welcomed within the FE sector. Association of Colleges director of education policy Joy Mercer said: “Ofsted did two reports around 2009 on how colleges improve and how colleges fail, so we were really pleased it devoted resources to returning to these issues.

“What they produced didn’t really contain any surprises and predictably what was of most interest were the key features of outstanding colleges. And what is essential is that everybody can be moved into that place.

“The sort of things that repeat themselves were around leadership and management with the need for determination and drive, plus the ability to affect change.

“Governors are key too. They need the right information. Where there were failings, governors didn’t know what questions to ask — perhaps they were too close to the management?”

She added: “The reaction to the report has been positive — it’s been good to have good practice underlined, but what colleges do say is ‘so what is the next stage?’

“We now know what Ofsted thinks, so how can we commit resources, how can government commit resources, to bringing everybody up to the standard of the best. It’s a call to action.”

Further issues highlighted in the report, which was released on September 27, were inconsistent tracking of learner progress, financial instability and defensive, inward-looking colleges being slow to accept change or act when data showed decline.

This report confirmed the importance of outstanding leadership and management”

Association of School and College Leaders spokesperson Stephan Jungnitz said: “I’m pleased the report recognised the pivotal role of college leaders in driving forward institutional success, as well as the complex and demanding range of areas they have to deal with, from buildings and finance to teaching and learning.

“As we well know, each college is unique and the road to success will be different for each — there is no magic formula. Having said that, the insights in the report will be useful to college leaders, and for many will reinforce what they instinctively already know about improving their institutions.”

Lynne Sedgmore, executive director at the 157 Group, said: “Ofsted’s report has to be a useful tool for the sector.

“The 157 Group welcomes the focus that it puts on leadership and management and on placing teaching and learning at the very heart of what every college is about.

“Teaching and learning is a key priority area for us and for our members and it is good to see its importance re-emphasised.

“Robust and meaningful self-assessment is something we in the 157 Group spend a lot of time supporting members and others to achieve — we have a number of peer support networks working in this area, for example. Ofsted’s report reaffirms how vital this is.”

Visit www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/how-colleges-improve to download a copy of the report.

Short shrift for new-look Ofsted reports

Joy Mercer, AoC                    Jan Webber, ASCL

Reports of inspections under the new common inspection framework (CIF) are to become shorter, Ofsted has said.

The move will disappoint many in FE who see the reports as a valuable source of information on where colleges and providers are performing — and where they are failing.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) have both told of their concerns about the move.

However, an Ofsted spokesperson defended the change, saying the revamped reports would be more “user-friendly,” containing bullet points rather than lengthy pieces of text.

Nevertheless, AoC director of education policy Joy Mercer said: “Some of what we’ve heard about the new reports from inspections is concerning.

We understand that reports are going to be much shorter.

“Colleges do respect Ofsted and look to it — it has such a mass of information, so it’s a pity inspection reports have become shorter and shorter since the early 1990s.

“It seems they’re missing a trick given what Ofsted thinks is so important to colleges.

Colleges and providers that have been inspected want to know what Ofsted thinks of them, but also want to know in a detailed way what works elsewhere so they themselves can improve.

“So there needs to be a lot more detail than it is rumoured there will be in the reports that come out from inspections under the new common inspection framework.”

The ASCL said it was important reports were easy to understand, but there was a “danger” that by making them too short useful information would be lost.

Jan Webber, ASCL inspections specialist, said: “Colleges are large and complex institutions and to describe them accurately in a series of bullet points without much detail or clarification will be hugely challenging.”

Ms Webber also had concerns about the tone of Ofsted reports.

“The new school report format is more brusque and starts by listing weaknesses rather than strengths, which immediately puts the institution on the back foot,” she said.

“The effect is to paint a picture that is more negative than it needs to be. Given how important inspection outcomes are
to a college’s reputation, if this is replicated in the CIF reports, it could be a real issue.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “The new CIF reports for learning and skills are designed to be clearer and more precise in order to be more user friendly both for learners and the sector.

“They will be shorter because they contain bullet points in place of text.”

The X Factor star put through his paces

Singer Danyl Johnson (left) was put through his paces by students when he recorded a live BBC broadcast at a south-eastern college.

No obstacle stood in the way of The X Factor 2009 contestant and star of ITV’s Benidorm as he presented a live show while completing outdoor pursuits at Berkshire College, including launching himself off a 10 metre pole to grab hold of a flying trapeze.

The public services students also taught him bush craft techniques, such as starting a fire without matches.

Student Steph Reed said “It was great fun to be part of a live broadcast and we all enjoyed meeting Danyl.”

Bruce Petty, outdoor activities manager, said: “Danyl was a brilliant sport taking part in archery, zipwire, bush craft and the ‘leap of faith’. The weather was a bit dismal, but it was a great experience for everyone and the students enjoying showing off our wonderful facilities.”

Colleges undecided on ‘Trip Advisor’ website

Providers are remaining on the fence about Ofted’s Trip Advisor-style Learner View website.

The website, which cost £65,000 to develop and went live in time for Ofsted’s 2012/13 inspections, draws together the opinions of students about their courses and comes up with provider ratings.

Students are faced with statements such as ‘my course/programme meets my needs’ and ‘I receive the support I need to help me progress’. It then offers responses ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

The public can see the results, which are updated after every ten responses.

And among the providers to have had student feedback since Learner View’s launch were Lewisham College, which had around 80 largely positive responses by the end of October.

A spokesperson from Lewisham College, incorporating Southwark College, said: “At Lewisham College incorporating Southwark College we believe getting learners involved is a real positive, as long as it’s regarded as a snapshot picture and used productively and appropriately.

“Understanding what learners think is a very good idea, and we are interested in how Learner View will be used, especially whether it is going to trigger inspections if there are complaints or concerns.”

Bill Jones (right), executive director of planning and performance at Sheffield College, which had not received any student feedback on the website, said: “As the website has only recently been launched, it is too early to say how useful it is going to be. More of our students would need to complete the questionnaire.

“There are other questions that would also be useful to us, for example, asking students about their reasons for attending college and what their intended destination is, and it would be interesting to hear their views on teaching and learning methods.”

However, an Ofted spokesperson said there were no “current plans” to alter the website.

“The Learner View website is working well and Ofsted has been pleased with its results, therefore there are no current plans to change any of its features,” she said.

“So far, there have been 9,310 completed surveys, highlighting Ofsted is well on the way to reaching its 10,000 completed survey target by Christmas or in fact sooner.

“Currently, there are 424 providers with surveys completed and 87 with more than 10 completed surveys.

“It has been providing useful information for inspectors and providers. Ofsted is keen that learners continue to contribute their views in a variety of ways including Learner View.”

Ofsted’s national director for learning and skills, Matthew Coffey, said: “The National Union of Students and our learner panel quite liked the immediacy of Learner View — that what they think can be seen by people who can do something about it immediately.

“It gives an overview of what the student body is saying about their provider.

“But what is really important is that it doesn’t replace the interaction inspectors have with individual learners on individual courses.”

Skills Funding Agency ‘assured’ over Elmfield Training payments to Morrisons

A system of payments from the provider behind the UK’s biggest apprenticeship programme to the firm whose staff it trains has been given the green light by the Skills Funding Agency.

Elmfield Training, which was allocated £41m by the agency for the current academic year, has previously defended the payments to giant supermarket chain Morrisons, saying that it was “only right to share costs”.

The payments — understood to be £60 for every learner — began after the provider started one-day development sessions on key skills with apprentice staff at the chain, which last financial year had a turnover of £17bn.

Funding rules state that providers “must not use apprenticeship funding provided by the SFA to pay apprenticeship wages”.

But an agency spokesperson told FE Week that it is happy with the payments.

we are assured that funds are not being used in an inappropriate manner.”

“A training provider would not be able to use public funds to pay the salaries of staff covering for apprentices being released for off-the-job training sessions,” she said.

“Under the apprenticeship contract, employers agree to release staff for a minimum of one day a week and it is anticipated that this would be sufficient time to cover the needs of the individual and the requirements of the programme.

“In this instance we are assured that funds are not being used in an inappropriate manner.”

A spokesperson for Elmfield, which claims to have delivered around 100,000 apprenticeships for Morrisons since October 2009, said: “We’ve always supported Morrisons’ learners one-to-one with key skills, and last year we decided to add a one-day development day with groups of learners.

“The extra tuition means that we’ve been able to maintain high pass rates on both literacy and numeracy.

“For many of our learners in Morrisons, it’s the first time that anyone has supported them with these skills — and obviously it’s had a very positive effect on their confidence, as well as their ability to perform well at work.

“Morrisons makes a huge financial contribution to the apprenticeship through all the training and support it provides learners. Where additional costs are incurred to improve the quality of the programme, it is only right they are shared fairly, with ourselves as the provider.”

A Morrisons spokesperson said the company was also happy that the payments from Elmfield were above board.

The agency’s OK comes as company accounts reveal that Elmfield director Gerard Syddall, who owns 95 per cent of the company’s shares, took just under £900,000 in pay and dividends last year. Elmfield posted a £5.3m profit with Companies House — £7m down on the year before.

News of the payments and Elmfield’s continued profitability comes weeks after FE Week reported claims that the provider was proposing to shed a third of its 600-strong workforce.

In early October, two of every three staff were warned that they could face redundancy, according to a worker who wanted to remain anonymous.

The Elmfield spokesperson described the redundancy figures supplied to FE Week as “inaccurate, selective and misleading”. It would not comment further.

The company also declined to comment further on the payments system to
Morrisons.

Urgent reform to apprenticeships needed, says BIS Committee

An 11-month government inquiry into apprenticeships has recommended a host of changes, including “closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform”.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee today published its report on apprenticeships. Click here to download the report.

It has called for an “overarching government strategy and clear purpose for the apprenticeship programme,” along with a “formal” definition of apprenticeship.

It also recommends a simplified funding system and a review of profit levels among training providers.

Committee chairman Adrian Bailey MP said: “The apprenticeship programme can play a key role in resolving some of this county’s most pressing issues.

“It can help us to create a more skilled workforce, to increase employment and to generate sustainable economic growth.

There are many areas that require closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform”

“For these reasons, the government has, quite rightly, made apprenticeships a priority and has devoted significant resources to helping them thrive.

“But money does not guarantee success. The apprenticeship programme needs clarity, oversight and, in these straightened times, to demonstrate that it is providing value for money.

“There are many areas that require closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform.

“This wide-ranging, evidence-based report carefully lays out the areas where we feel the current model could better serve apprentices, their employers, or, in many cases, both.

“Young people in this country should be given every chance to fulfil their potential in school, in work and in life.

“An apprenticeships programme that is fit for purpose will help them do this.”

The inquiry looked at a number of areas on apprenticeships, including government policy.

“Without clarity, there is only confusion. Confusion as to what the Government is trying to achieve, what apprentices should be focussing on and what employers should be offering,” said Mr Bailey.

“An apprenticeship programme without a clear strategy and purpose will not achieve its goals and will be open to abuse.

“This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

He added: “Quality, not quantity should be the over-riding measure of success for apprenticeships.

“It may be more difficult to measure, but this should not be a barrier to trying.

“An increase in numbers may always be welcome but a guarantee of quality will always be vital.”

Further issues examined by the committee were delivery and funding, apprenticeship preparation and value for money.

Mr Bailey said: “Apprenticeships are not just for the young. The current funding structure does not reflect this.

“It is disturbing that the Minister has no idea of the impact his department’s funding decisions may be having on older applicants.

“Apprenticeships are a viable and attractive route to a career and should be seen as equal to the university route.

“It is the responsibility of the Government, our schools and the National Apprenticeship Service to make sure they are presented in this way at an early stage in the curriculum.

“Our workforce must be encouraged to be as skilled as possible. Progression through the apprenticeship programme is key to achieving this.”

He added: “This is a time of austerity for Government, individuals, for families and for businesses. But it is important that we continue to invest in skills.

“We heard evidence of excessive profits at the public’s expense, of a Government paying out too much money far too easily and of a lack of genuine value for money being provided by apprenticeship schemes. This is unacceptable.”

See the November 11 edition of FE Week for in-depth analysis and reaction to the committee’s report.

Dual success for Plymouth carpenters

Two carpenters at Devon college have won a national crafts competition.

City College Plymouth students Jack Weekes, 19, and Sebastian Roberts, 30, both won first place in their category and were awarded £250.

More than 200 colleges took part in the competition, run by The Institute of Carpenters.
The site carpentry students were awarded first place in the South West regional category for their age groups.

John Bolt, wood occupations lecturer at the college, said: “This is a fantastic achievement for Sebastian and Jack, their hard work and dedication are an inspiration to others. The Carpenters’ Craft Competition builds on a long tradition of encouraging young people to develop their skills and craftsmanship and achieve the very highest standards of carpentry and joinery.”

Since his win, Mr Roberts has been made a practical skills lecturer at the college. He said: “I would like to take the opportunity to thank the staff and college for their knowledge and facilities and for enabling me to fulfil my potential and become the best carpenter I can be.”