College Inspections Post 2005

A NIACE response to the joint letter from the Adult Learning Inspectorate and Ofsted

1. The consultative letter from Ofsted and ALI sets out six principles which will underpin the inspection process for colleges after 2005. The principles, as promised in the consultation paper on schools (April 2004, HMI 2057) follow the principles set out for school inspections.

2. NIACE responded to the consultation in April and found six causes for concern were they to be broadened to colleges (see www.niace.org.uk/organisation/advocacy/ofsted/futureofinspection.htm ) However, there are adjustments to plans for college inspections which are welcomed.

3. The 7 broad changes are:

The paper offers detail on each of these and goes on to propose

4. This response is from The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE). NIACE works to encourage more and different adults to engage in learning of all kinds. Its functions include research, development and consultancy; advocacy to inform and influence public policy; information services and dissemination; campaigning for, and celebrating the achievements of, adult learners. Established in 1921, it is an independent non-governmental organisation, a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Its corporate and individual members come from all sectors concerned with adult learning: colleges; local authorities; universities; voluntary and community organisations; churches; broadcasters, employers and unions.

5. There are several strengths in the review paper which NIACE welcomes:

6. The majority of learners in colleges are adults and the implications of the changes will indirectly benefit learners. However, there are real causes for concern in the proposals, which have been modified a little since the consultation document in April. These concerns are:

1. While a shorter period of notice will be helpful to staff and colleges in reducing the time focused on preparing papers, files and staff for the forthcoming inspection, three weeks’ notice is very little time, particularly for large, disparate institutions and for inspection teams. It is to be hoped that this does not mean that the scope of inspections is narrowed to programmes that are easier to inspect. Short notice should not mean that part-time provision, for example, is neglected. We note that ALI can manage with a slightly longer lead-in.

2. Varying the “intensity of an inspection” to take account of previous inspections is a helpful step forward but there is always the risk that institutions move away from their previous grades as time goes on. Too much variation can result in an inequitable system.

3. It is to be regretted that there will be less observation of teaching and learning. Effective teaching and learning is a college’s core business and adult learners expect there to be independent scrutiny of this aspect of their experience. The implication in the paper is that more reliance will be placed on performance data. This data is not yet robust in many programmes and rarely reveals the quality of learning. In programmes where there is no external accreditation it will be important to consider the quality of teaching and learning from observation.

4. The attachment of a full-time inspector with FE experience to each college is to be welcomed. Annual visits may make too long a gap and it is unclear what “assessment” will take place. It would be far better to have a full-time inspector providing more regular and supportive visits, if the intention is to both monitor progress and to keep up to date with developments. If one in ten colleges is “inadequate”, investment in understanding colleges and their progress will be important.

5. The rediscovery of the importance of self assessment takes colleges back to where they were a few years ago. The new arrangements will not validate the self assessment report itself but the processes involved and the extent to which the self assessment is an honest assessment. This is good news. However, as in the past, the inspectorate will have to make clear what they mean; what place the self assessment report will have in the general overview of quality assurance arrangements; how the self assessment report is to be validated; and the match between the assessment of quality assurance and the assessment of teaching and learning. If self-assessment is a critical process and published, what is the public’s guarantee that there has been external validation of it?

6. If colleges are to publish their self assessment grades backed up, presumably, by a little evidence, there is an enormous risk that it will turn into a promotional exercise on the part of providers. One of the concerns that NIACE has is that there will be selective reporting. It is this selectivity that can so mislead potential learners.

7. The importance of legislation concerning the right of children and young people is not questioned. However, it will be important that the different and varying needs of adult learners in further education colleges are fully taken into account. There is always the danger that the young and the full-time take precedence, whereas the older and part-time students are also significant.

NIACE would welcome a consideration of the Common Inspection Framework and looks forward to the consultation this Autumn. We would not wish to see major changes since many providers other than colleges have not yet been inspected under the current CIF. However, questions about criteria relating to reporting on value for money need to be raised.

Top of page