 | a recognition that 'success rates' (a combination of achievement and
retention) may give a realistic picture of the quality of provision,
and the need for ensuring excellence in teaching and learning which
will benefit adult learners (para 5); |
|
| that strategies should 'minimise the burdens on providers', which
will help smaller providers (para 8); |
|
| the firm statement that there is "no single strategy" to
deliver quality improvement and consistency; |
|
| a commitment to consulting "others", as well as
inspectorates, about how improvements in quality standards can be
accurately tracked (para 16); |
|
| the intention to systematically collect the views of learners, which
is welcome (paras 19 - 24); |
|
| the commitment to consult about collecting information on quality
matters. NIACE would be pleased to offer the advice of our members and
the Adult Learners' Forum; |
|
| the intention to work in partnership with agencies on self
assessment; NIACE is currently involved in this process as mentioned
in the draft LSC basic skills delivery plan, although this is not
mentioned here (para 25); |
|
| the intention to recognise excellence which aims to "lever up
excellence" rather than simply give a quality mark, and the
intention to link with other "quality marks". NIACE looks
forward to contributing to this process (para 26); |
|
| the commitment to work on robust measures of achievement on
programmes that are not accredited (para 30); |
|
| the commitment to encouraging providers to investigate the impact of
learning and to help record broader achievements; NIACE considers this
a major development (para 31); |
|
| the Council's intention to work with providers with 'satisfactory'
provision as well as poor provision, so that standards are improved
overall. |
|
| the lack of recognition given to local education authority adult
education providers and to the voluntary and community sectors when it
comes to building on best practice in collecting views from learners (paras
19 and 20); |
|
| the rather limited view of learners' roles. There is more to
"putting learners at the heart of the system" than
collecting their views on how satisfied they are. Many education
providers make learners a key part of quality improvement processes by
involving them in governance, learners' forums, self assessment and
determining the curriculum. The Council's commitment is good to see
but is a direct result of the remit given by the Secretary of State;
it is not an option; |
|
| the views of learners are important for the LSC to monitor, but
there is no mention in para 22 of using the process and the results to
benefit what providers do. It would be helpful to share questions and
methods with providers as well as the "LSC nationally and
locally, and … other organisations". Providers need to benefit
from the process, and this is explained in the next section (para 24),
but included earlier would be helpful; |
|
| the lack of recognition of NIACE's work in providing support for
self assessment in adult and community learning, some of which is
funded by the LSC (QSP) (para25); |
|
| the lack of mention of unsatisfactory provision for adults in para
29. Because there are no area inspections for adult provision and
because provision designed for adults may not fall neatly into
"vocational areas" it might be more necessary to focus on
areas of relative weakness in provision for adult learners (para 29); |
|
| the use of the word "calibrate" in identifying achievement
on programmes that are not accredited. This fails to recognise that
assessment of achievement on these programmes is best done using
qualitative methods (para 30); |
|
| the 'college focussed' nature of the comments about NTOs. No mention
is made of the thousands of teachers and workers not in colleges who
provide learning opportunities for adults, which might be covered by
the Paulo NTO or the new sector skills council. What is to be done
about those teaching in sectors other than colleges? Qualified teacher
status only applies to college teaching staff (para 32); |
|
| the lack of recognition that some providers will be partly funded by
the LSC. There needs to be some awareness of what this would mean for
reviewing their performance (para 34 and 35). Additionally, the
"common criteria" will need to apply to all providers
including very small voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups and
agencies whose main purpose may not be educational. This needs to be
recognised in whatever criteria are devised (paras 34 -5); |
|
| "the four monthly cycle of reviews". The concerns
expressed by providers about bureaucratic overload has to be balanced
by the need for quality improvement. However, it is important that LSC
staff have the proper expertise: Contract compliance is not the same
as quality improvement; |
|
| the insufficient mention of the Council's strategy to raise the
professional competence of its own staff, particularly those without
the necessary experience in the fields for which they have direct
involvement (para 42). |
|
