Lattice

							Barry Lewis

   Inspection Manager
   Adult Learning Inspectorate
Our Remit



                                    Adult FE
                                    ACL
                                    New Deals
                                    WBL
                                    Ufi
                                    Other Gov Depts
                                    Private Prov


                      ALI
        • At   least 5 million learners
Our Inspectors

    Around 140 full-time
      recruited from senior posts in the education
       and training sector
      bringing occupational expertise to the
       inspectorate
      trained as inspectors over six months
      highly paid and making judgements that
       count
    Around 600 associates
        All senior practitioners in their field
Approaches to Inspection

    Regulatory:
       contractual compliance
       adherence to awarding body regulations

       observance of external requirements
     such as equal opportunities, health and safety, financial audit etc.

    Public accountability
       value for money
       fitness for purpose
ALI’s Approach to Inspection

  Done with, not to
  Continuous quality improvement
  Key measure is the learners’ experience
  Evidence derived from primary research
  Use of vocational/occupational experts
  Examining inputs but judging outcomes
  Open and transparent
  Honest, but supportive
Done with, not To

  Our independence is vital
  Partnerships are essential:
     (Including representatives from awarding bodies, funding bodies,
     QCA, DfES, employers, colleges and other key players.)

  The role of nominee is key to our
   process
  Self-assessment
  Post-inspection quality improvement
   support
Evolution of the Inspection Process

    Immature Sector with little regard to quality
    Introduction of self-assessment process
    Full inspection against Common Inspection
     Framework (CIF)
    All government-funded providers inspected, 4
     yearly
    Snap-shot view
    Emphasis on observation of teaching
Evolution of Inspection (2)

  Maturing self-assessment process
  Greater provider self-awareness
  Contextualising the CIF
  Inspection over time, where appropriate
  Inspection resourced on risk
  Less burden on good providers
  Emphasis on learning
Raising Standards

    Teaching
        Professionally qualified staff
        Observation of teaching
             environment, resources, level, delivery style, inclusiveness
        Attendance and retention
    Learning
        Interaction, involvement, understanding
        Level of attainment and progression
        Achievements
Raising Standards (2)
    Assessment
        Timely
        Access to fair assessment
        Constructive
        Formative and summative
        Meeting the standards
    Leadership & Management
        Curriculum development
        At programme/course level
             right place, right time, right people
        quality assurance and equality of opportunity
    Report publication on the World Wide Web
How do we do it

    Train the nominees
        One day to explore the details of the role
    Planning meeting
        To scope the inspection and agree the
         samples for observation, interview etc.
    Select the correct inspectors for the team
        Fit the right expertise to the provision
    Inspect against the CIF
The Common Inspection Framework
(CIF)

    In its simplest form we need to know:
       How do people get onto the programme?

       What is the likelihood of their achieving

       What will they achieve and at what standard?

       What is the quality of their whole experience on the
         programme?
       Is that quality properly assured

    The CIF addresses all these and, given guidance, can
     be applied to any context
The inspection

    The team will gather evidence during the
     inspection from sources including:
      Lesson observation, interviews with learners
      Interviews with staff, managers, employers
       and sub-contractors
      Examination of data relating to retention and
       achievement
      Review of related documentation

      The providers self assessment report
Daily Feedback

  At the end of each day the team (including the nominee)
   meets for feedback
     To hear emerging thoughts on strengths and
      weaknesses
     To identify further sources of evidence required
     To ensure the nominee is fully briefed
  At the end of the penultimate day
     Strengths and weaknesses are finalised
  On the last day the team grades and formally feeds back
The grading meeting


    Using the strengths and weaknesses that have been
     formulated throughout the inspection the team:
       Debates and agrees a grade for each area of
        learning, leadership and management, equality of
        opportunity and quality assurance
       The nominee contributes to the debate, but not the
        grade
       Grade determine by professional judgement
Feedback

  The team formally feeds back
     Usually to the senior management of the provider.
      E.g. college principal and their team or company chief
      executive and their team.
  Each member of the team writes a report on the area of
   the inspection for which they were responsible, but the
   lead inspector is responsible for writing the final report
  The report is then moderated by an inspection manager
  After editing the report is published on the Web
Following Inspection

  The provider produces a post-inspection
   action plan
  If provision was found to be less than
   satisfactory there is a reinspection
  Even for satisfactory provision the ALI
   helps drive continuous improvement
   through quality monitoring visits
  Quality improvement support is on-going
Is it Popular?

  Not with those who are not seeking
   improvement
  The most common comment is
        “this was the best free consultancy we could
         have had”
    Even when the grade profile is poor
        “we are not happy about the outcome, but
         we recognise the weaknesses identified by
         the inspectors and will now improve things”
Does it Work?

  Fraudulent providers gone
  1998 over 50 per cent of work-based
   provision unsatisfactory
  2006 less than 10 per cent of work-
   based provision unsatisfactory
  Recognition of good practice
        About 11,000 hits a month on Excalibur
         good practice web site