A Single Inspectorate for Children and Learners

A NIACE response to DfES consultation on a single Inspectorate.

Published: October 2005

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) is an independent non­-governmental organisation and charity. Its members come from a range of places where adults learn: in colleges and local community settings; in workplaces, prisons and universities as well as in their homes through the media and information technology. NIACE's work is supported by a wide range of bodies including the DfES (with which it has a formal voluntary sector compact) and other Departments of State, by the Local Government Association and by the Learning and Skills Council. The ends to which NIACE activities are directed can be summarised as being to secure more, different and better opportunities for adult learners, especially those who benefited least from their initial education.

2. This paper sets out our immediate responses to the document on a single inspectorate and is a contribution to public debate. Comments are welcome and will refine and inform our work in the future. Please send to peter.lavender@niace.org.uk  or feedback@niace.org.uk

Q1
How does NIACE view the proposition that the ALI’s existing inspection remit should be brought together into Ofsted to create a single inspectorate for children and learners?

No.

NIACE is not convinced that the case for change in relation to the inspection of adult education in all its forms, and work-based training for young employees is clearly made. The arrangements for inspection in the areas within ALI’s current remit appear to be working well and to have credibility with and the respect of providers. Providers of adult and community learning for example have found the inspection process and outcomes rigorous, transparent and fair.

ALI has also been singularly successful in bringing about a situation where ACL providers who have not been successful at initial inspection are provided with detailed and constructive feedback; have access to clear information and advice; experience supportive working relationships during the planning of re-inspections; and subsequently go on to demonstrate, in most cases, significant improvements within relatively short time frames.

The arrangements for joint inspections involving Ofsted and ALI, such as inspection of general FE colleges with significant numbers of adult learners also appear to work satisfactorily despite some significant differences of philosophy and approach. For example, ALI remains committed to the principle that the observation of teaching and learning is a vital source of evidence whereas Ofsted rely more heavily on data. Inspection reports of provision inspected by Ofsted, where 8 in 10 learners are adults, does not always provide a sufficiently clear picture of adult provision, learning and achievements, as distinct from those of younger learners.

NIACE understands that the government wishes to reduce the cost of inspection and to reduce duplication of public services so as to free up resources for delivery. However the savings to be made from merging ALI with Ofsted to create a new inspectorate may not be sufficient to offset the dis-benefits that could arise. The level of public funding, which currently secures ALI’s services, is relatively small and levels of satisfaction with its services as currently delivered are high. There are risks associated with creating a very large single inspectorate with a broad and diverse remit. The response from Derbyshire LEA makes just this point.

NIACE is concerned that the needs and interests of adults will be overwhelmed and overlooked within a single inspectorate that incorporates the current remit of the ALI as well as absorbing Ofsted, CSCI and CAFASS. NIACE also recognises and accepts the arguments put forward by the Learning and Skills Council in their response (paragraph 5) where there is 'concern' expressed by the LSC about protecting the culture and the approach within the new organisation.

NIACE recognises that there are some helpful things about a single inspectorate. For example, the creation of a single inspectorate concerned with Children and Family matters (so incorporating Ofsted, the CSCI and CAFCASS) can provide a coherent approach in Family Learning, for example, (including Family Literacy, Language and Numeracy and wider Family Learning). There are benefits here but overwhelmingly there are also concerns that the needs and interests of adults may receive less attention. For the wider spread of adult education and skills in a variety of contexts, the benefits of incorporating a whole specialist inspectorate for adults into one designed for children and young people is less apparent, and the concerns larger. It is hard to envisage how the new inspection organisation can ensure that an appropriate balance is found between the needs of adults and those of children and young people, when a very small percentage of its activity will be directly concerned with provision for adults.

From a Family Learning perspective there are advantages in this provision being inspected by a single organisation. However, Family learning is a tiny part of the total provision for adults in education and training. A focus by inspectors on the five outcomes for children and the associated learning for parents, carers and families is likely to provide an appreciative perspective regarding the breadth and impact of Family Learning. Engaging adults in learning can assist in improving children’s motivation and achievements. Adult learning within the Family Learning context should not however be viewed as merely instrumental. Family Learning is ‘joint’ learning that is inter-generational, linked to existing attachments and relationships between child learners and adult learners, who have shared and also distinct needs and interests. It will be important that the needs and interests of adult learners within Family Learning are adequately taken into account.

Q2
Do we consider that there should be, in legislation, a single overarching statement to capture the core purpose of the inspectorate and characterise its overall ethos?

No.

It follows from the answer to the previous question that we would prefer a separate entity in relation to adult learners wherever they are learning. However, if there has to be one inspectorate it must have a clear overall purpose and ethos.

Given the wide remit, it is likely to be a long and complex statement if it is to adequately reflect the breadth of the new inspectorate’s remit. It may be wiser to have one statement about adding to the strategy for quality improvement in services and a set of other statements, each relating to a distinct area of the inspectorate’s remit.

Q3
Do we think the list of “other possible high level duties of an enlarged Ofsted” shown at para 29 are “a fair representation of the duties of a new enlarged inspectorate”?

We need a new inspectorate and not an ‘enlarged Ofsted’. Ofsted has become identified in the public's mind with children in schools. For a new inspectorate we need a new name that is inclusive.

What do we consider their relative merits as general duties beneath a single core statutory purpose?

NIACE considers that in the creation of a new inspectorate each of the key elements needs to have its own guidance for providers and service users. For adults we would like to see an adult learning committee set up through the legislation which would enable the new inspectorate to respond to advice from the sector. Such an arrangement was thought crucial during the creation of the Learning and Skills Council whose two statutory committees allow the LSC to retain a focus on both sides of its work.

Q4
What views do we have on any opportunities for the rationalisation of inspection legislation that might sensibly be taken at this stage?

NIACE considers that in the creation of a new inspectorate each of the key elements needs to have its own guidance for providers and service users.

NIACE does not feel there are opportunities for rationalisation at this time. Primary legislation will almost certainly be required to make the changes to inspection required, including the disbanding of ALI. We would also argue that a change to governance is clearly required. Some accountability to those sectors that are inspected is needed, perhaps through the judicious implementation of, for example, an ‘adult learning committee’. This was a solution adopted during the creation of the Learning and Skills Council when a Young People’s Committee and an Adult Learning Committee were created. These committees exist in legislation and have regard to the two halves of LSC’s remit. The same could be done to protect the adult learning/young people’s learning for the new inspectorate.

Q5
If ALI’s statutory post-16 learning and skills functions were brought within a single inspectorate, how best might its QI and commissioned support and advice roles be handled in future?

There are two aspects to consider.
First, ALI Quality Improvement services and products. These may not all require the same treatment in the event of ALI ceasing to exist.

a) The straightforward information (such as inspection processes and data requirements when inspected) is essential for ensuring that inspection takes place smoothly and efficiently. Summary/thematic reports concerning aspects of adult provision and work-based training, and the Chief Inspector’s Annual Report are extremely helpful in ensuring that the messages of inspection are widely disseminated. Providers can use such reports for benchmarking purposes, which will support accurate and self-critical self-assessment. It is everyone's wish to have more ownership of quality improvement embedded in the public and private sectors. Such reports, which focus specifically on adult and work-based learning, should be produced from within any new inspectorate that includes within its remit ALI’s current inspection responsibilities.

b) The value of the Excalibur database of good practice examples and the Building Better Practice database depend on the connection with inspection. This is their ‘unique selling point’ and is what gives these products such credibility with providers. Transferring these useful services, which can provide benchmarks for self-assessment, to an organisation not directly involved in inspection would be detrimental. Current products derive from inspection and their production draws on inspectors’ direct experience and the ALI’s inspection database. NIACE would wish to see similar products, based on the outcomes of inspection and directly linked to inspection experience, continue to be available. Such information should not in our view compromise the independence of inspection.

c) The Provider Development Unit’s support service has not been widely available. The service offered by this unit has we understand been valued by providers. The ALI appears to operate ‘Chinese walls’ between this activity and inspection, and to have in place proper arrangements to keep the service separate. The existence of this service has done little to enhance the view that inspection is completely independent however, and may indeed have undermined this perception. While NIACE does not take this view, we would not recommend that a similar service to the PDU be operated by the new inspectorate.

Second, commissioned inspections. It is a reasonable assumption that the credibility and value of such inspections to those organisations purchasing them relies to a significant extent on the involvement of participating inspectors in a wide range of other, relevant, inspection activities, and inspectors’ knowledge and experience of the occupational or subject area and delivery context. It is unlikely that the interest in commissioning/purchasing inspections would be enhanced by the disappearance of the ALI brand. Unless inspectors being put forward to deliver commissioned inspections exhibit the same level of expertise and experience of both inspection and the occupational/skills area and context, it seems unlikely that such products would be as attractive to either public or private sectors as the current ALI service.

Q6
How might the needs of organisations which are currently served by ALI best be met in future?

By ensuring that key features of the way in which the ALI operates are preserved within the new single inspectorate. These are:

Q7
Should the separate functions of the Children’s rights director be retained …and if so should they be given to the single inspectorate, to the Children’s Commissioner, or split between the two?

NIACE does not feel it can answer this question as it does not relate to adult learning.

Q8
The enlarged Ofsted would need a new statutory title to reflect its wider remit. What do we think of the name “Inspectorate for Children and Learners”?

Without being facetious NIACE suggests Her Majesty’s Inspectorate would do. We do not consider ‘an enlarged Ofsted’ is what is required. Given the wide function (covering child protection, learning, skills, education and training) perhaps ‘Inspectorate for Learning and Children’ might be the least worst option, even though it does not cover all aspects of the new inspectorate's role.

Q9
By what name should be used as the new single inspectorate generally be known? (Ofsted being a compression)

This entirely depends on the inspectorate’s name. As it is, the public are confused about what ‘Ofsted’ means and how it relates to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools and whether there is a difference between HMI and Ofsted. The concept of HMI is well known and credible. To retain the term Ofsted would be confusing; would undermine the concept that this is a new body, with responsibility for adult learners too; and would carry forward to the new body the negative connotations associated with Ofsted that exist in some parts of the sector.

Q10
Do we support the suggested change in Ofsted’s governance to reflect its enlarged remit?

NIACE supports the creation of a strong and representative Board and Independent Non–executive Chair. The Board’s remit should include acting as the eyes and ears of the various constituencies/parts of the wider learning and skills sector. All individuals appointed should be credible with one or more sub-sectors/constituencies.

The Board should establish advisory committees for the sub-sectors that the new inspectorate will be inspecting. At the very least there should be an Advisory Board for Adult Learning and Skills. The Advisory Boards would ensure that the Board and the Inspectorate would receive feedback and advice from recipients of the services of the new inspectorate.

Additional forms of accountability, other than reporting to Parliamentary Select Committee, are required. The new inspectorate should be required to report regularly against agreed performance targets/measures. There should be independent evaluation of its effectiveness and efficiency, which are made public. The public have a right to accountability here given that resources devoted to inspection could be used for the support of new learners.

Top of page