Docstoc

SBU NEA setup 2005

Document Sample
SBU NEA setup 2005 Powered By Docstoc
					Reducing the Monitoring Burden on Centres:
Understanding the Current Environment

Summer 2006
Contents
 Objectives and approach
 Executive summary
 Centres and awarding bodies:
   •   Understanding how learners access qualifications
   •   Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
   •   Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
   •   Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring activity
 Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect centres / providers
   •   Inspectorates
   •   Funding and planning bodies
   •   Quality marks
 Identifying what makes a „good‟ centre
   •   Defining „good‟
   •   Measuring „good‟ and the impact on monitoring
 Other monitoring approaches
   •   In the education environment
   •   In other sectors
 Appendix
   A: Consulted organisations
   B: Bibliography
   C: Glossary

                                                                         2
This document analyses how centres are currently monitored and reviews the
approaches of other monitors, both in and outside of the centre environment


                                    Objectives                                                                           Approach
    Understand how awarding bodies monitor centres                                                  Secondary research:
                                                                                                      • Awarding body and other organisations‟ websites
    Understand how other bodies monitor or inspect                                                   • Industry publications and reports
     centres                                                                                          • Awarding body monitoring templates
                                                                                                      • Regulatory documents
    Analyse other monitoring approaches in and outside of                                            • Text line searches
     the education sector to understand what can be learnt
                                                                                                     Primary research:
   Scope                                                                                              • Interviews with organisations representing a wide
    The geographic areas in scope are England, Wales and                                               sample of the stakeholders involved in the centre
     Northern Ireland                                                                                   monitoring process
       •   Scotland is looked at in order to understand how monitoring
           dif f ers and what could be learnt

    The project scope includes only those qualifications in
     the National Qualifications Framework (NQF)
       •   In Wales, General Qualif ications are excluded




Note: A list of stakeholder interviews/ meetings and a bibliography is contained in the appendix.


                                                                                                                                                            3
Executive summary
Learners access qualifications in centres that are accountable to awarding
bodies that are, in turn, accountable to regulators

        REGULATORY                                         AWARDING
                                                                                                             CENTRE                                         LEARNER
           BODY                                              BODY

       Recognise                                      Seek recognition
        awarding body                                   from the regulator

       Accredit awarding                              Seek accreditation
        body‟s qualification                            for qualification
                                                        from the regulator

                                                       Recognise centre                               Seek recognition
                                                                                                        from awarding body

                                                       Approve centre to                              Seek approval to
                                                        offer a qualification                           offer a qualification
                                                                                                        from awarding body

                                                                                                       Offer qualification                            Seek qualifications
                                                                                                        to learner                                      at centre




  Before a learner can be offered a qualification, the centre needs to be recognised and approved for that qualification
  by the awarding body, and the awarding body needs to be recognised and the qualification approved by the regulator.

Source: www.QCA.org.uk; “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005; “The market for qualifications in the UK”,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2005.


                                                                                                                                                                                          5
There are over 115 awarding bodies in the markets and most centres (78%)
have between one and five awarding body relationships
                                       Number of awarding body relationships of centres
  Average number of awarding body (AB) relationships
                     of centresa                                                                                                     Commentarya,b

                                                                                                       Learners receive training and / or teaching at their
                                                                                                        centre and usually assessed for their qualification(s) at
                                                                                                        their centre also

                                                                                                       Schools, colleges, training providers and employers can
                                                                                                        all apply to awarding bodies to be recognised as
                                                                                                        centres

                                                                                                       There are over 115 awarding bodies eligible to offer
                                                                                                        regulated qualifications in the UK

                                                                                                       Most centres (78%) have between one and five
                                                                                                        awarding body relationships, but a significant minority
                                                                                                        (8%) have over sixteen relationships

                                                                                                       The number of awarding body relationships a centre
                                                                                                        has is driven by factors such as the range of
                                                                                                        qualifications a centre offers, personal preference and
                                                                                                        local demand
Centre sample size: 1,000


    Centres state that qualification content and reputation are more important when choosing awarding
    bodies and qualifications than paperwork and processes and fees.
Source: (a) “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews,
Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                           6
Awarding bodies monitor centres for regulatory, quality and commercial
purposes
                   Post-approval (or ongoing) monitoring of centres by awarding bodies


                                 Post-approval monitoring of centres is defined as:
 DEFINITIONa                        “The review of, and reporting on, the centre‟s quality assurance
                                                arrangements by the awarding bodies”a


                                  The purpose of awarding bodies‟ monitoring of centres is to:
                                   Maintain quality and standards in their qualifications
 PURPOSEb                          Ensure that they are able to satisfy the regulators
                                   Assure their own reputation

                                  Contact with centres that occurs through some monitoring can also result in:
 OTHER                             Support for programme leaders
 OUTCOMESb                         Relationship building
                                   Ensuring opportunities for learners



    Awarding bodies and others in the environment, including centres, stress that awarding bodies can
    provide significant support to programme leaders as part of the monitoring process.
 Source: (a) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, 11/2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based
 on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                                 7
                        Awarding body monitoring activity relates either to assessment or to a
                        centre‟s continued adherence to the centre approval criteria
                                                                         How awarding bodies monitor centres
                                                                                           Awarding body                                 Rationale for monitoring activity
                             Centre responsibilities                                      monitoring activity
                            Internal assessment and                                  External moderation of                          To ensure that standards are aligned
                             standardisation of learners‟                              internally assessed work                         within and across centres
                             written work
   ASSESSMENT RELATED




                            Conduct of examinations                                  Visits during examination                       To ensure a centre‟s conduct of
                             in line with instructions                                 periods                                          examinations adheres to awarding body
                                                                                                                                        expectations
                                                                                      Analysis of examination
                                                                                       outcomes

                            Internal assessment of                                   External verification of                        To ensure quality and consistency of
                             learner competence                                        internal assessment and                          assessment practices and procedures
                                                                                       verification                                     within and across centres
                            Internal verification of                                 Monitoring of external                           • This ensures standards are aligned
                             internal assessment                                       verifiers
                                                                                                                                       To ensure that the centre is continuing to
                            Adherence to centre                                      Systems audit
APPROVAL
 RELATED




                                                                                                                                        meet the requirements of the approved
 CENTRE




                             approval criteria                                                                                          centre criteria
                                                                                                                                        • By reviewing the centre‟s quality
                                                                                                                                           assurance arrangements


                           Awarding bodies tend to define their monitoring by qualification type, but different qualifications are
                           subject to the same types of monitoring if the assessment methods used are the same.
                         Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) “NVQ Code of Pract ice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c)
                         “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                                    8
On the surface, awarding bodies collect very similar information when
monitoring centres
                                                                                                                 Sample of awarding body VRQ assessment means
                                                                                                                 Externally assessed   Internally assessed   Both internal and external
                                                                       Awarding body
   Centre responsibilities                                            monitoring activity            GQ NVQ      A       B       C     D       E       F        G       H         I
 Internal assessment and                                                   Sampling of internally          n/a   n/a    n/a      n/a   n/a    n/a      n/a     n/a              n/a
 standardisation of written work                                                 assessed work       X                                                                  X
                                                                         Checking exam conduct       X     n/a   X       X       X     n/a    n/a      n/a      X       X        X
 Conduct examinations in line
 with instructions                                                                                         n/a                         n/a    n/a      n/a
                                                                      Analysing exam outcomes                    X       X       X                                      X
 Internal assessment of learner                                                  Sampling internal   n/a         n/a    n/a      n/a
 competence                                                                         assessments            X                           X       X       X                X        X
 Internal verification of internal                                  Checking internal verification   n/a         n/a    n/a      n/a
 assessment                                                        processes, e.g. sampling plan           X                           X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                      Recording details of centre,   n/a
                                                                    candidates and qualifications          X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                   Understanding changes since       n/a
                                                                        the last monitoring check          X     X       X                     X                X
                                                                   Understanding if actions have     n/a
                                                                               been implemented            X     X       X             X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                      Checking quality assurance     n/a
                                                                          records are maintained           X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                        QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKS




                                                                         Health and safety policy    n/a   X                           X       X                X       X        X
 Adherence to centre approval                                                                        n/a
 criteria
                                                                              Physical resources           X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                              Staff qualifications   n/a   X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                        Communications system        n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X        X
                                                                         Particular requirements     n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X
                                                                                 Appeals process     n/a   X     X       X                     X                X       X        X
                                                                      Equal opportunities policy     n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X        X

   Awarding bodies offering GQs or NVQs seek information according to the code of practice and, for
   VRQs, where they have more flexibility, appear to seek very similar information.
                 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews and awarding body documentation, Summer 2006                                                              9
       The level of monitoring a centre receives depends on the qualifications it
       offers as well as on the number of awarding body relationships it has
                                                                                          Monitoring activity
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Visits
    Centre scenario                   External moderation1                        Exam visits                   External verification2                     Systems audit                   ABs3           p.a.
    A school:                         Applies to each                     Maximum of one visit                n/a                                 n/a
     Of f ers GQs only                qualification with                   per exam cycle
A    Has 5 unitary body               internally assessed work                                                                                                                               5           0-1
       relationships
    A small employer:                 n/a                                 n/a                                 Two external verifier               n/a
     Of f ers one NVQ to 10                                                                                     (EV) visits per year
B      employees p.a.                                                                                            including a systems                                                          1            2
     Has a relationship with                                                                                    audit
       one awarding body

    A training provider:              n/a                                 Awarding body 1 may                 For NVQs, 4 EV visits               Awarding body 1 does a
     Of f ers several NVQs                                                 visit during its VRQ                 per year – 2 f rom each              systems audit as part
       and VRQs in                                                          exams                                awarding body                        of an EV visit
       engineering                                                          • (All externally                   An additional EV visit              Awarding body 2
C    Has two awarding                                                         assessed)                         f rom awarding body 2 f or           conducts a separate
                                                                                                                                                                                              2           6-7
       body relationships                                                                                        its VRQs                             systems audit visit
                                                                                                                 • (All internally
                                                                                                                     assessed)
    A college:                        Applies to each                     Receives one visit for              Two EV visits p.a. per         Conducted separately
     Of f ers a wide range of         qualification with                   all GQs p.a.                         NVQ programme area              by several of the
       GQs, NVQs and                   internally assessed work            May receive one visit per            f or each awarding body         awarding bodies
       VRQs                                                                 awarding body f or other            Additional 1 or 2 visits f or  Combined with external
     Has over 40 awarding                                                  qualif ications with exam            VRQs with internal              verifier visits f or some
D      body relationships                                                   elements                             assessment                      others                                     40+           40+
                                                                                                                Some awarding bodies           Some do not do audits
                                                                                                                 combine NVQ and VRQ
                                                                                                                 visits



            Each centre has a very different monitoring experiences and, as a result, different interpretations of
            the „burden‟ of this monitoring.
         Source: (a) “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC: Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006” , JCQ, 2005; (b) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC
         (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
                            Note; (1) External moderation of internally assessed and standardised written work; (2) External verification of internally assessed and verified learner competence; EV –
                            external verifier; (3) ABs – awarding bodies. Column indicates the number of awarding body relationships the centre has.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                10
    Centres commented on the benefits of awarding body monitoring such as
    support, but feel that awarding body approaches differ greatly

   Monitoring                                                                                                                        Monitoring
   is a burden                                                 RANGE OF CENTRE VIEWS
                                                                                                                                     is a benefit

   “I am paying awarding                                               “Some awarding bodies have a very                 “Awarding bodies can provide a lot
  bodies for a service and                                          supportive approach whereas others are                 of help to struggling centres.”
they are conducing tick box                                          there to check only.” Training provider                      Training provider
exercises on me that are of
 no benefit to me.” Training                                                                                   “Programme leaders find direct
          provider                                                                                               contact with an EV useful.”
                                                                  “It is burdensome having lots of
                                                                                                                    Examination officer
                                                                awarding body relationships, but we
       “Some of the information they ask                       wouldn‟t not have a relationship purely
      for does not relate in any way to the                     on the basis of burden. We want to
          quality and standards of their                          offer learners the best quality.”
        qualifications” Training provider                                 Examinations officer

                                    “All awarding bodies do things differently. All
 “All monitors – not just           their forms are very different, their visit cycles
awarding bodies – ask the              etc. It would help if these were aligned”
  same things” Training                             College Director
         provider




      Centres commented that increasing the number of awarding body relationships does increase burden, but they
      want to offer the best quality qualifications to learners and increased burden can be an acceptable by-product.

      Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                              11
    Many awarding bodies commented that the monitoring they do is not
    burdensome, and the support they provide can be very valuable

   Monitoring                                                                                                                           Monitoring
   is a burden                                        RANGE OF AWARDING BODY VIEWS
                                                                                                                                        is a benefit
                                                                                                                 “There are times where we have helped a
                                                          “Some centres feel burdened by                             failing centre to turn around and
 “I appreciate that we can only see the               awarding bodies because we give them                         subsequently receive a 1 in their ALI
   impact from our point of view and                  actions, but there‟s a reason they need                                   inspection”
   don‟t have a feel for the combined                               the actions!”
impact of awarding body monitoring.”                                                            “What burden?”

                                                                                                                    “Efficient centres have no problem
                               “The primary role of a verifier is to                                               providing awarding bodies with the
                              check assessment set up is robust –                                                  information they need therefore it‟s
                               QA purpose rather than support.”                                                              not burdensome”

                                                    “Centres have a choice about the
                                                       number of awarding body
           “Some of the burden                          relationships they have”
            centres feel is as a
            result of regulatory
              requirements.”




            Some awarding bodies felt that tweaks could be made to reduce some of the burden centres feel.

       Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                           12
The „burden‟ that awarding bodies place on centres as a result of ongoing
monitoring could be reduced by simplifying or integrating the activity


Simplify the monitoring process:

 Awarding bodies could reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring interaction
 • i.e. request less information for monitoring purposes or stop some monitoring

 Awarding bodies could reduce the frequency of their monitoring activity

Integrate the monitoring process across awarding bodies:

 Awarding bodies could standardise their monitoring activity
 • For example, standardising forms they use or the format of documents they request


 Awarding bodies could join up their monitoring activity
 • For example, combining visits or having one organisation monitor on behalf of others




          These burden reduction methods are not mutually exclusive and can all produce options for
          consideration.
 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                      13
Awarding bodies are already taking steps to reduce monitoring burden on
centres, with most initiatives being led by JCQ members
                      Simplify monitoring                                                                                 Integrate monitoring
       Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                       interaction                                                                        Standardise monitoring across awarding bodies

  Common centre approval criteria*                                                                     Common instructions for examination conduct*
   • Centres do not need seek approval more than once                                                   Common access arrangements*
  Consortium arrangements                                                                              Common centre approval criteria*
   • Moderation and verification of internal assessment is                                              Common external verifier reporting*
      done across the consortium rather than on each                                                    Common data standards*:
      centre                                                                                             • Building the capacity to share data
  Risk-based approaches – monitoring good centres                                                       • Common centre numbers
   less (but struggling centres more)                                                                    • Unique learner numbers
   • Conducting desk-based or telephone monitoring

         Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                                                          Join up monitoring across awarding bodies

  Risk based approaches                                                                              Combined exam visits for all qualifications*
   • For exam visits, for example, awarding bodies will                                                • One organisation monitors on behalf of others
     target spot checks at the centres they feel pose the                                             Common centre approval criteria*
     greatest risk                                                                                     • Some awarding bodies effectively approve on behalf
   • The risk assessment is often qualitative (for example,                                              of others
     the centre is new, therefore high risk)




All of the starred initiatives are part of the JCQ‟s Eight Pledges and, with the exception of common exam
instructions and access arrangements, apply to JCQ awarding bodies (or some of them) only at present.
Source: (a) “Consortium Arrangements for BTEC and Edexcel NVQ Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (b) “Consortium Arrangements fo r General Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (c) “Application for
Centre Consortium Arrangements“, JCQ, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                               14
In addition to awarding bodies, centres are inspected or reviewed by
inspectorates and funding and planning bodies, each for different purposes
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Maintain quality and standards  Raise quality and standards                                            Ensure that the provision they
                               in the qualifications            of education and training by                                            fund is meeting the demands
                              Ensure that they are able to     identifying and promoting                                               of learners, employers and
Purpose of                     satisfy the regulators           good practice                                                           local communities for
monitoring /                  Assure their own reputation     Provide an independent                                                  learning and skills
                              Provide support for programme    evaluation of the quality and                                          Ensure that the provision they
inspections
                               leaders                          standards achieved by a                                                 fund is of a high quality and
                              Ensure opportunities for         particular centre to inform the                                         represents value for money
                               learners                         government and the public                                              Also, they ensure that
                                                                                                                                        providers take ownership of
                      Need assurance that:                                         Need assurance that:                                 quality and demonstrate their
                  Learners achieve awards that                                 Learners‟ achievement levels                             commitment to continuous
                   are representative of their                                  are high and education and                              improvement
                          competence                                              training quality is high

                                                                                                                                           Need assurance that:
                                                                                                                                      Provision meets the needs of the
                                       A centre may be providing education and                                                        community, it is high quality and
                                    training to a low standard, but be maintaining                                                      represents value for money
                                          the correct level of standards in the
                                             assessment of qualifications


    To promote self-assessment and increase capacity for self-improvement, some centres also choose
    to adhere to certain external quality frameworks.
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           15
Awarding bodies are the only monitors to check the appropriateness of
assessment decisions or examination conduct
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Moderation of internally                            Observing learning                                 The provider‟s self-assessment
                               assessed work                                       Interviewing learners, staff                        report and quality
                              Visits during examination                            and other stakeholders                              development/ improvement
                               periods to ensure adherence to                      Examining learners' work                            plans
Evidence                       instructions
                                                                                    and documents relating to                          Inspection reports or reports
                              Analysis of examination
gathered                       outcomes                                             training, assessment,                               from other visits by the inspectors
                              Verification of internal                             verification and                                   Strategic plans
                               assessment and verification                          qualifications                                     Information from health and
                               through sampling and speaking                       Reviewing self-assessment                           safety monitoring, and financial
                               with staff and learners                              reports, quality assurance                          data
                              Systems audit to check                               processes, and strategic and                       Performance against national,
                               appropriateness of a centre‟s                        operational plans                                   regional and local benchmarks
                               quality assurance processes
                                                                                                                                        for learner success rates
                               • This may include
                                  conversations with staff and
                                  learners




                   However, all monitors appear to do a quality assurance / systems audit type check.

 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           16
Most monitors, even some inspectorates, monitor or review centres on a
annual basis with any visits lasting anything from a few hours to weeks
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Length: ranges from a few                           Length: ranges from two days                       Length: often conducted
                               hours to a full day                                  to eight weeks                                      remotely. Length of visits
Length and                    Frequency: some centres will                        Frequency: ranges from three                        vary
frequency                      receive no monitoring                                to seven years for inspections                     Frequency: often annually;
                               contact, others will receive                         • However, some                                     more for providers with
monitoring /                   multiple visits from many                               inspectorates conduct more                       failings either in the quality
provider                       awarding bodies per year                                frequent visits – for example                    of their provision, or the
reviews                                                                                Ofsted visits colleges to                        rigour of their own internal
                                                                                       conduct a quality monitoring                     quality management
                                                                                       visit every year                                 systems




     Inspectorates and funding and planning bodies and a number of awarding bodies also use risk
     assessments (sometimes informally) to determine the level of contact a centre / provider requires.
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           17
The monitoring scope varies between awarding bodies and other monitors
with inspectorates and funding bodies looking at total provision
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Awarding bodies are                                 Inspectorates are concerned                        Funding bodies are
                               concerned primarily with the                         with provision across an                            concerned with provision
                               programme areas delivering
Scope of                                                                            entire centre                                       across an entire centre
                               their qualifications
                                                                                    • Inspectorates may only                            • Providers that have
monitoring /                   • This may include a quality
                                                                                       sample a number of                                 demonstrated that
                                 assurance check at the
provider                         programme level                                       programme areas in order                           adequate quality
reviews                       However, some awarding                                  to make a judgement on the                         management systems
                               bodies check quality                                    quality and standards of                           are in place, may receive
                               assurance systems across the                            education and training in a                        a very light touch funding
                               centre                                                  centre                                             body review

                                                                A centre that has received an inspection result of
                                                               „satisfactory‟ may have shortcomings or areas for
                                                                improvement in the one programme area that an
                                                                        awarding body is concerned with.




     Note that a small number of centres may not be inspected or reviewed by inspectorates or funding
     and planning bodies meaning awarding bodies may be the only monitors looking at that centre
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           18
Inspectorates and funding and planning bodies use risk based approaches
to reduce burden on providers
                       Simplify monitoring                                                                            Integrate monitoring
       Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                       interaction                                                                                      Standardise monitoring
  Risk based monitoring approaches                                                                     Providers are usually monitored by one inspectorate and one
   • The extent of the review is determined based on the                                                 funding and planning body
     previous review and more recent data and reports                                                   Therefore, unlike in the awarding body environment where
      The inspectorates and funding bodies have                                                         centres are monitored by many of the same type of bodies,
         agreements in place to share data                                                               there is little scope for standardisation here
  Self-assessment is used to review providers                                                          The exception is in England where some providers are
  Desk-based reviews occur rather than visits in person                                                 monitored by both ALI and Ofsted and LSC and another
                                                                                                         funding bodies (e.g. Jobcentre Plus)
                                                                                                         • In these cases, the organisations are working together to
                                                                                                            standardise their approach

         Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                                                           Join up monitoring across awarding bodies
  Risk based monitoring approaches                                                                     Some bodies inspect or review on behalf of others
   • Some reviews are removed for providers that perform                                                 • ETI conducts all inspections or surveys on behalf of DEL,
     well, for example:                                                                                    the funding body in NI
      ALI conducts quality monitoring visits about a year                                              Co-ordinated visits to providers
         after inspections, but providers that perform well at                                           • Where possible LSC conducts Provider Financial
         inspection are not visited                                                                        Assurance visits in line with inspectorates
      LSC conducts an interim review six months after the
         annual review, but providers that perform well are not
         reviewed again



    Inspectorates visiting on behalf of other bodies (as occurs in NI with DEL and ETI) and coordinated
    visits also reduce the inspection and review burden on providers.
Note: (1) Providers in NI are reviewed by ETI, the inspectorate, only and ETI informs the funding body of outcomes.



                                                                                                                                                                       19
If a centre can be identified as being „good‟ then the monitoring activity it is
subjected to could be reduced
                 Identifying good and the potential impact on monitoring

   In order to understand whether monitoring activity could be reduced per monitor (by
    seeking less evidence per monitoring interaction or reducing the frequency of monitoring),
    two questions need to be asked:

       • What makes a centre „good‟?

       • How can a „good‟ centre be identified?




   What „good‟ looks like for each different centre monitor will be explored in turn followed by how
   „good‟ is measured to reduce monitoring activity.



                                                                                                       20
When asked what a „good‟ centre looks like, awarding bodies tended to
comment on the efficiency of the centre and its quality assurance processes
                                                      „Good‟ centres for awarding bodies

    A good centre…

             • …is one that returns all examination documentation on time and completed correctly

             • …has standard admin processes across the centre

             • …feels good when you walk through the door – you can smell it

             • …has excellent quality management processes in place

             • …sounds good. Our experience means we just know

             • …has good internal verifier processes so that not all verification is end-loaded

             • …has a balance of experienced staff versus new staff and these new staff have training
                opportunities available to them


According to awarding body commentary, identifying „good‟ tends to be a qualitative measure identified
as a result of the experience of the awarding body staff or contractors conducting the monitoring.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholders, summer 2006.



                                                                                                         21
For inspectorates, „good‟ centres are places where learners achieve high
standards, quality of provision is high and management is effective and efficient
                         „Good‟ providers for inspectorates
 The elements of „good‟ for inspectorates centre around the three elements of the common inspection
   framework:
  1. Achievements of learners
  2. Quality of provision
  3. Quality of leadership and management

 Quality of leadership and management underpins the achievement of learners and quality of provision,
   for example:
  • One of Estyn‟s key questions in part 3 of the framework is b:
      How well do leaders and managers evaluate and improve quality and standards?
  • Moreover, when grading, Estyn provides guidance to its inspectors that, if learner achievement and quality
     of teaching has been graded poorly, management and leadership cannot be rated highly d

  •    One of ETI‟s questions in part three of the framework is c:
        How well do leaders and managers set a clear direction leading to high quality education and training?

  •    ALI and Ofsted‟s key question in part 3 of the framework is a:
        How effective are leadership and management in raising achievement and supporting all learners?



      For the inspectorates, effectiveness of management underpins learner achievement and teaching
      quality and for Estyn, low grades for the latter two mean a low grade must be given for management.
 Source: (a) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI. (b) “The Common Inspecti on Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn;
 (c) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (d) Meeting with Ann Keane of Estyn, 08/08/2006.
                    Note: Ofsted and ALI publish one inspection framework

                                                                                                                                                                                          22
For funding and planning bodies, „good‟ centres have strong self-
assessment and development processes that enable them to self-improve
                                        „Good‟ providers for funding and planning bodies

                                                                    DELLS Planning and Funding                                     ETI (reviewing on behalf of DEL)
               LSC (England)a,1                                             (Wales)b,2                                                    (Northern Ireland)c,3

                                                                  “Providers have prime responsibility                                   “The greatest likelihood for
                                                                  for the quality of their provision, and                                 improvement, particularly
             “Primary responsibility for                          DELLS aims to ensure that providers                                improvement to be sustained over
              improving the quality of                                take ownership of quality and                                   time, occurs when a school has
              provision rests with the                                                                                               established a positive culture and
                                                                    demonstrate their commitment to
                  provider”, LSC a                                                                                                      commitment to professional
                                                                        continuous improvement.”b
                                                                                                                                                 growth.”c


     “The Government looks to all                                    “We expect providers to develop
                                                                      their own quality management                                  “Through rigorous self-evaluation a
   providers to adopt strategies for                                                                                                school can recognise its strengths
 securing continuous improvement as                                  systems... At the centre of these
                                                                        systems will be regular self-                              and put in place processes to ensure
  many already do. These strategies                                                                                                    that those areas identified as
 should be based on self-assessment                                 assessment to evaluate quality …
                                                                   and quality development planning to                             strengths continue to flourish, while
  and action planning.”, „Learning to                                                                                               other areas in need of improvement
    Succeed‟ White Paper, 06/1999 a                                   build on strengths and address
                                                                               weaknesses”b                                           are prioritised and developed.”c




  funding bodies, inspectorates and quality improvement The self-assessment guidance of the bodies
  was published in the last year and it will take time for all providers to achieve the expected standard.
Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Together towards improvement”, ETI.
Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding bo dy was previously ELWa, but this has merged with DELLs; (3)
                    DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.

                                                                                                                                                                                              23
In order to reduce monitoring activity, a monitor must conduct one cycle of
„standard‟ monitoring or a pre-monitoring analysis in order to assess „good‟
                  Examples of activity to baseline in order to reduce monitoring activity
              Awarding bodiesa                                                Inspectorates b,c                                 Funding and planning bodies c
     Awarding body A using „standard‟                              ALI using one cycle of standard
                                                                                                                                   LSC using a pre-review analysis to
     monitoring to determine monitoring                          monitoring and pre-inspection analysis                               determine monitoring level
                    level                                            to determine monitoring level
  Awarding body A conducts annual                              ALI is conducting one cycle of standard   Prior to annual planning reviews,
   monitoring visits (systems audits) to                         monitoring to gather baseline data         providers submit self assessment reports
   check that the required quality                              After this, the extent of a provider‟s
   assurance processes are in place                              inspection is determined by a pre-        Providers that demonstrate, through
                                                                 inspection analysis                        self-assessment, effective management
  Centres are graded on a scale of 1-5                         This analysis draws on a range of          of the risks to outstanding or good
   with 1 being the top grade                                    information including:                     quality receive less intensive Annual
                                                                 • Previous inspection report or quality    Planning Reviews from the LSC
  The grade impacts the level of monitoring                        monitoring report
   centres receive the following year                            • Retention and achievement data and  If the review identifies poor quality
   • Centres scoring 1 or 2 are offered the                         other performance information           provision or lack of progress towards
     opportunity to self-assess the                             ALI conducts a Quality Monitoring Visit    the achievement of headline performance
     following year                                              about a year after inspection              measures, the LSC will discuss with
                                                                 • Providers that perform well at           providers options for support and
                                                                    inspection are exempt from this visit   intervention
                                                                                                           If the LSC considers the self-
                                                                                                            assessment to lack rigour it will work
                                                                                                            with the Quality Improvement Agency
                                                                                                            (QIA) to support the provider in the
                                                                                                            revision of its self-assessment


     Whilst monitoring activity may reduce for those centres that are identified as being good, it will
     increase for struggling centres as the monitor provides them with additional support and contact.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholder, summer 2006; (b) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (c) “Quality improvement and self-
assessment”, LSC, 05/2005.
                  Note: ALI – Adult Learning Inspectorate (England), LSC – Learning and Skills Council (England)

                                                                                                                                                                                          24
Even once a centre has been identified as being „good‟ its performance is
still often reviewed frequently to check that performance has not dropped
                                               The risk associated with risk assessments
              Awarding bodiesa                                                 Inspectorates b,c                                Funding and planning bodies c
     Awarding body A using „standard‟                              ALI using one cycle of standard                                 LSC using a pre-review analysis to
     monitoring to determine monitoring                          monitoring and pre-inspection analysis                               determine monitoring level
                    level                                            to determine monitoring level
  Annual monitoring occurs for all                             ALI conducts a pre-inspection analysis to                    The LSC reviews all providers annually
   centres                                                       determine the extent of an inspection
                                                                                                                              Prior to annual planning reviews, provider
  „Good‟ centres self-assess, all others                       If the quality of some aspect of provision                    submit self assessment reports that are
   are visited                                                   is found to be unsatisfactory in reduced                      used to determine the extent of the
                                                                 intensity inspections, ALI may allocate                       Annual Planning Review
  If standards are suspected of slipping                        further days to the inspection
   in a „good‟ centre as a result of the self-
   assessment, a visit is triggered

  Investigations are also triggered if the
   awarding body identifies any potential
   malpractice through its analysis of exam
   outcomes or the exam documentation
   submitted by the centre




 Awarding bodies, inspectorates and funding bodies mitigate against the risk of risk -based monitoring
 by frequently reviewing performance and having triggers in place that prompt monitoring action.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholder, summer 2006; (b) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (c) “Quality improvement and self-
assessment”, LSC, 05/2005.
                  Note: ALI – Adult Learning Inspectorate (England), LSC – Learning and Skills Council (England)

                                                                                                                                                                                          25
Other monitors in and outside of the education sector are illustrating a
number of methods that they are using to reduce monitoring burden
                Simplify monitoring                                             Integrate monitoring
     Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                     interaction                                                  Standardise monitoring
  Risk based monitoring approaches                               The heath concordat is promoting standardisation through
   • The extent of the monitoring is determined based on the       the tools it has developed for implementation, for example:
     previous review and more recent data and reports              • Baseline assessment, using gap analysis to map
  Self-assessment is used to review organisations                    existing processes against recommended practice
   • Self-assessment reports are often used as part of reviews     • Evaluating costs and benefits against a best practice
   • SQA centres can be delegated more authority and are              report
     monitored only on their quality assurance processes           • Developing guidelines for information gathering and
  Conducting desk-based reviews                                      sharing
   • For example, Edexcel is no longer visiting HEIs but           • Guidelines for making recommendations to providers,
     reviewing information submitted electronically                   to allow co-ordination and prevent duplication

       Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                     Join up monitoring across awarding bodies
  Risk based monitoring approaches                               Some bodies inspect or review on behalf of others
   • For example, SQA conducts systems audits according            • QAA assesses quality of teaching on behalf of all higher
     to a risk system that means poor centres are                    education funding bodies
     monitored more and good centres less                         Co-ordinated visits
                                                                   • For example, health concordat members are co-
                                                                     ordinating inspections with other reviews




  Risk based approaches, monitoring via self-assessment and conducting desk-based reviews (rather
  than visits) are all common.



                                                                                                                                 26
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
• Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring activity
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
• Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring activity
Learners have a wide range of regulated qualifications available to them,
ranging from general to vocational to occupational qualifications
                               Categories of regulated qualifications available to learners
                       General qualifications                                                                           Occupational qualifications
  24% of the qualifications in the National Qualifications                                             37% of the qualifications in the NQF are Occupational
   Framework are General                                                                                Occupational qualifications comprise the largest group
  The „true‟ general qualifications are recognised as                                                   of qualifications in the National Qualification Framework
   AEAs, GCSEs, GCEs and GCE AS                                                                          • They are primarily NVQs
     •   In April 2005, there were 768 qualif ications in this market                                   The majority of qualifications are at Levels 2 and 3
     •   GCSEs are at levels 2 and 3 and GCEs at level 3                                                 (65%)
  The General category also includes „other‟ general
   qualifications such as graded music and free-standing
   mathematics qualifications


            Vocationally Related qualifications                                                                                Other qualifications
  27% of the qualifications in the NQF are Vocationally                                                18% of the qualifications in the NQF are in the other
   Related                                                                                               category
  These qualifications can be offered at all levels                                                    This category includes Key Skills, Entry Level, Basic
                                                                                                         Skills and Higher Level qualifications.




    In April 2005 there were over 4,500 qualifications in the National Qualifications Framework – the list
    of all regulated qualifications.
Source: (a) “The market for qualifications in the UK”, PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2005.
Note: NQF – National Qualifications Framework. Due to their dominance, NVQs are used in this report as a proxy for the occupational qualifications market.


                                                                                                                                                                     29
Learners access qualifications at centres which can include schools,
colleges, training providers and employers
                                                                             Types of centresa
                                     Schools                                                                                                Colleges
  Schools provide learning to children usually up to the                                                 Colleges include
   age of 16, on behalf of the state                                                                       • Further education and sixth form colleges
  Learning and assessment predominantly take place                                                        • Higher education colleges (outside project remit
   within the school‟s own building                                                                          unless offering qualifications on the NQF)
  Principal qualifications offered are general                                                            • Sixth form colleges
   qualifications such as GCSEs                                                                            • Independent schools
  Schools may offer a broad range of qualifications                                                      Qualifications offered can be the same as at school but
                                                                                                           often include level 3 general qualifications and
                                                                                                           vocational courses

                                   Employers                                                                                       Training providers
  Many employers offer qualifications to their                                                           Training providers generally provide training in specific
   employees in house                                                                                      skills at designated centres or on an employer‟s site
   • According to research by PricewaterhouseCoopers b,                                                    • For example, business skills workshops
      40% of employers surveyed provided internal training                                                Qualifications offered often include VRQs
      leading to a qualification                                                                          Training providers often offer training in specific areas
  Qualifications offered include both NVQs and VRQs                                                       and therefore have a more focussed range of
  Employers are most likely to provide job specific                                                       qualifications than, for example, a college
   training (80%) with 69% providing health and safety
   training and 53% providing training in new technologyc

     Normally, learners receive training and / or teaching at their centre and are also assessed for their
     qualification(s) there.
Source: (a) “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, Mori, September 2005, (b) “The market for qualifications in the UK”,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2005; (c) “National Employer Skills Survey”, 2003; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                  30
In order to offer qualifications, centres need a relationship with an awarding
body as it is these organisations that develop and award qualifications
                                    Awarding body market and relationships with centres
        Awarding body market overview b,c,d                                                             Awarding body and centre relationship a
  Awarding bodies develop and award qualifications                                                    A centre is defined as “any organisation, establishment
    •   They also assess and quality assure qualifications and                                          or individual entity accountable to an awarding body
        provide customer service to centres and candidates                                              for the assessment arrangements leading to an
                                                                                                        accredited qualification or unit.”a
  There are over 115 awarding bodies that offer                                                       A centre must be recognised by an awarding body and
   qualifications that are part of the National Qualifications                                          approved to offer one of its qualifications before the
   Framework                                                                                            qualification can be offered to learners
                                                                                                          • Centre recognition is defined as “a process through which
  There are only five awarding bodies in England, Wales                                                    a centre is recorded as having committed itself to
   and NI that can offer General Qualifications                                                             maintain the required quality and consistency of
    •   These are AQA, Edexcel, OCR, WJEC (Wales) and CCEA                                                  assessment and comply with other expectations of the
        (NI) and are known as the unitary bodies                                                            relevant awarding body”a
                                                                                                          • Centre qualification approval is defined as “a process
  The awarding body market is dominated by the large                                                       through which a centre is confirmed as being able to
   players that make up the Joint Council for                                                               maintain the required quality and consistency of
   Qualifications (JCQ)                                                                                     assessment and comply with other expectations of the
    •   Members of the JCQ are the unitary bodies listed above                                              relevant awarding body”a
        plus SQA, the unitary body in Scotland, and City & Guilds,                                     Once approved, a centre is subjected to post-approval
        the largest vocational awarding body                                                            monitoring by the awarding body
                                                                                                          •   This is defined as “the review of, and reporting on, the
  Of the 115 awarding bodies, the majority are members                                                       centre‟s quality assurance arrangements by the awarding
   of the Federation of Awarding Bodies – FAB e,1                                                             bodies”a


    Centres are accountable to awarding bodies on an ongoing basis for the quality and consistency of
    assessment and any other expectations that awarding bodies define.
 Source: (a) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, 11/2005; (b) “The market for
 qualifications in the UK”, PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2005; (c) www.JCQ.org.uk; (d) www.QCA.org.uk; (e) www.awarding.org.uk
                       Note: (1) For a list of FAB members, go to the FAB website and click on the „members‟ tab: www.awarding.org.uk

                                                                                                                                                                                        31
Most centres (78%) have between one and five awarding body relationships,
but a significant minority (8%) have over sixteen relationships
                                       Number of awarding body relationships of centres
  Average number of awarding body (AB) relationships
                     of centresa                                                                                                     Commentarya,b

                                                                                                       According to research by MORI, 80% of centres have
                                                                                                        formed relationships with only 1-5 awarding bodiesa
                                                                                                        • However, 8% of centres have complex relationship
                                                                                                           networks, working with over 16 awarding bodies
                                                                                                       Colleges tend to have the most relationships with
                                                                                                        awarding bodies, and schools the least when
                                                                                                        considering applications for recognition and qualification
                                                                                                        approval

                                                                                                       The total number of awarding body relationships a
                                                                                                        centre has is determined by factors such as:
                                                                                                        • The range of qualifications the centre offers
                                                                                                        • Personal preference of programme leaders
                                                                                                        • Availability of funding for particular courses or
                                                                                                          qualifications
                                                                                                        • Local demand
                                                                                                        • Legal requirements, for example, health and safety
                                                                                                          training requirements for employers

Centre sample size: 1,000


      The number of awarding body relationships a centre has is driven by factors such as the range of
      qualifications a centre offers, personal preference and local demand.
Source: (a) “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews,
Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                           32
Centres‟ decisions about which awarding bodies they have relationships
with is affected by the content of the qualifications and reputation
                                Factors affecting which awarding bodies centres choosea
     Factors affecting choice of awarding body                                                                                     Commentary
                                                                                                       MORI research found that the content of qualification
        The content of a
                                                                                                        and the reputation of that qualification were seen as
particular qualification/                                                                               important by 96% of centres
    fitness for purpose


         The reputation
                                                                                                       95% of centres felt that the reputation of the
                 of their                                                                               awarding body is also important
          qualifications


         The reputation
                                                                                                       Fewer centres felt that considerations about the
        of the awarding                                                                                 paperwork and processes involved were important
                  body
                                                                                                        when choosing an awarding body (73%)
        The paperwork
          and process                                                                                  Fewer still (66%) felt fees were important
              involved

                                                                                                       Two thirds of centres also cited other factors affecting
           The fees an
        awarding body                                                                                   their choice
              charges
                                                                                                        • This included the overall or ongoing support and
                                                                                                          guidance offered by an awarding body
                                                                                                           14% of centres cited this factor and it was more
                                                                                                              important for training providers (19% citing the
                                                                                                              factor)



    Centres state that qualification content and reputation are more important when choosing awarding
    bodies and qualifications than paperwork and processes and fees.
Source: (a) “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005.



                                                                                                                                                                   33
In order to award regulated qualifications, awarding bodies must seek
recognition and then approval for each qualification from the regulators
                          The regulatory bodies and relationships with awarding bodies a
                  Regulatory bodies overview                                                           Regulatory and awarding body relationships
  QCA is the regulatory body in England, DELLS in                                                    In order to award qualifications that are part of the
   Wales and CCEA in Northern Ireland 1                                                                NQF, an awarding body must first be recognised by a
                                                                                                       regulator
  These organisations work together to regulate                                                        •   An organisation can also enter into partnership with an
   awarding bodies and qualifications                                                                       existing recognised awarding body

  The purpose of regulation is to ensure that                                                        Once recognised, awarding bodies can submit their
   qualifications are fair, standards are secure, and public                                           qualifications to the regulators for accreditation
   confidence is maintained                                                                             •   Once accredited, the qualification is placed on the
                                                                                                            NQF
  They regulate by:
                                                                                                      The recognition process and qualification
     • Developing and publishing criteria for the accreditation of
       qualifications                                                                                  requirements are outlined in the regulatory document
        There are three types of regulatory criteria – statutory                                      „The statutory regulation of external qualifications‟
          regulations; subject criteria; and codes of practice
     • Accrediting qualifications against those criteria                                              Awarding bodies with qualifications on the NQF are
     • Keeping qualifications under review                                                             subjected to ongoing monitoring from the regulators
     • Publishing and sharing information relating to accredited                                        •   Monitoring findings inform decisions about re-accrediting
       qualifications                                                                                       qualifications or, if necessary, withdrawing accreditation




           Awarding bodies are monitored by regulatory bodies to ensure that they deliver high quality
           qualifications and provide good customer service in compliance with the regulatory criteria.
Source: (a) www.QCA.org.uk.
Note: (1) QCA – Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills; CCEA – Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.


                                                                                                                                                                                           34
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
  • Summary
Learners access qualifications in centres that are accountable to awarding
bodies that are accountable to regulators

        REGULATORY                                         AWARDING
                                                                                                              CENTRE                                        LEARNER
           BODY                                              BODY

       Recognise                                      Seek recognition
        awarding body                                   from the regulator

       Accredit awarding                              Seek accreditation
        body‟s qualification                            for qualification
                                                        from the regulator

                                                       Recognise centre                               Seek recognition
                                                                                                        from awarding body

                                                       Approve centre to                              Seek approval to
                                                        offer a qualification                           offer a qualification
                                                                                                        from awarding body

                                                                                                       Offer qualification                            Seek qualifications
                                                                                                        to learner                                      at centre




  Before a learner can be offered a qualification, the centre needs to be recognised and approved for that qualification
  by the awarding body, and the awarding body needs to be recognised and the qualification approved by the regulator.

Source: www.QCA.org.ukl; “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005; “The market for qualifications in the UK”,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2005.


                                                                                                                                                                                           36
There are over 115 awarding bodies in the markets and most centres (78%)
have between one and five awarding body relationships
                                       Number of awarding body relationships of centres
  Average number of awarding body (AB) relationships
                     of centresa                                                                                                     Commentarya,b

                                                                                                       Learners are trained and / or taught and usually
                                                                                                        assessed for their qualification(s) at their centre

                                                                                                       Schools, colleges, training providers and employers can
                                                                                                        all apply to awarding bodies to be recognised as
                                                                                                        centres

                                                                                                       There are over 115 awarding bodies eligible to offer
                                                                                                        regulated qualifications in the UK

                                                                                                       Most centres (78%) have between one and five
                                                                                                        awarding body relationships, but a significant minority
                                                                                                        (8%) have over sixteen relationships

                                                                                                       The number of awarding body relationships a centre
                                                                                                        has is driven by factors such as the range of
                                                                                                        qualifications a centre offers, personal preference and
                                                                                                        local demand


Centre sample size: 1,000


    Centres state that qualification content and reputation are more important when choosing awarding
    bodies and qualifications than paperwork and processes and fees.
Source: (a) “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews,
Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                           37
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
• Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring activity
Awarding bodies monitor centres for regulatory, quality and commercial
purposes
                   Post-approval (or ongoing) monitoring of centres by awarding bodies


                                 Post-approval monitoring of centres is defined as:
 DEFINITIONa                        “The review of, and reporting on, the centre‟s quality assurance
                                                arrangements by the awarding bodies”a


                                  The purpose of awarding bodies‟ monitoring of centres is to:
                                   Maintain quality and standards in their qualifications
 PURPOSEb                          Ensure that they are able to satisfy the regulators
                                   Assure their own reputation

                                  Contact with centres that occurs through some monitoring can also result in:
 OTHER                             Support for programme leaders
 OUTCOMESb                         Relationship building
                                   Ensuring opportunities for learners



    Awarding bodies and others in the environment, including centres, stress that awarding bodies can
    provide significant support to programme leaders as part of the monitoring process.
 Source: (a) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, 11/2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based
 on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                                 39
Awarding bodies tend to define their monitoring by qualification type, but
different qualifications are often subject to the same types of monitoring
              Approaches of awarding bodies monitoring centres by qualification types
              Main types of                                           Assessment of the                                       Typical associated monitoring
              qualification                                             qualification
    A general qualification                                     External assessment of                                      Visits during examinations to check
     (GQ)                                                         learner achievement through                                  centre‟s conduct of exams
                                                                  examinations / tests                                        Analysis of exam outcomes
                                                                 Internal assessment of                                      Moderation of internally marked work
                                                                  written work                                                 in line with the code of practice 1
    A national vocational                                       Internal assessment of                                      External verification of internal
     qualifications (NVQ)                                         learner competence                                           assessment and verification
                                                                                                                               conducted in line with the code of
                                                                                                                               practice1


    A vocationally related                                      External assessment of                                      Visits during examinations to
     qualification (VRQ) (or                                      learner achievement through                                  check centre‟s conduct of
     other qualification) that is                                 examinations / tests                                         examination process
     examined                                                                                                                 Analysis of exam outcomes


                                                                                                                              External verification of internal
    A VRQ (or other qualification)                              Internal assessment of                                       assessment and verification
     that is based on an                                          evidence of learner
     assessment of learner                                        competence
     competence


Monitoring is driven by the manner in which learner achievement is assessed, meaning different
qualification types will be subject to the same monitoring if the assessment methods used are the same.
 Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) “NVQ Code of Pract ice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c)
 Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
                    Note: (1) The code of practice is a regulatory document to which awarding bodies must adhere. The regulators in England, Wales and NI have produced two codes of
                    practice, one applying to GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA qualifications and the other to NVQs.
                                                                                                                                                                                       40
As monitoring is driven by assessment method, awarding body monitoring
can be cut by assessment type as opposed to qualification type
                                                          Monitoring relating to assessment
                                                               Associated
    Assessment types                                        monitoring activity1                                                 Assessment process

  Internal assessment of                                  Internal standardisation                      1.   Work is completed by the learner, usually at the centre
   learners‟ written work                                   of marks                                      2.   The centre supervises and authenticates the work
                                                                                                          3.   Work is marked and standardised internally at the centre
                                                           External moderation of                        4.   The centre submits requested samples of marked work
                                                            internally assessed and                       5.   The awarding body moderates and adjusts marks
                                                            standardised work

  External assessment                                     Visits during                                 1. Learners sit the examinations at their centre
   learner achievement of                                   examination periods                           2. The centre conducts with exam in line with awarding body
   examinations / tests                                                                                      instructions
                                                           Analysis of examination                       3. The centre submits scripts to the awarding body
                                                            outcomes                                      4. All marking is done externally by the awarding body
                                                                                                          5. The awarding body analyses results

  Internal assessment of                                  Internal verification                         1. Learners provide evidence of competence against
   learner competence                                                                                        standards within the qualification
                                                           External verification of                      2. Internal assessors ensure the validity, authenticity and
                                                            internal assessment                              sufficiency of the evidence produced
                                                            and verification                              3. Internal verifiers ensure the accuracy and consistency
                                                                                                             of assessment decisions between assessors
                                                           Monitoring of external                        4. External verifiers monitor the quality and consistency of
                                                            verifiers                                        assessment practices and procedures
                                                                                                          5. Awarding bodies monitor their external verifiers for
                                                                                                             accuracy and consistency

    Further details of the monitoring relating to the assessment of learner achievement are dictated by
    the codes of practice for NVQs and GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA qualifications.
Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) “NVQ Code of Pract ice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c)
Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
                   Note: (1) This monitoring activity is carried out by both the centre (for example, standardisation of marked written work) an d by the awarding body (for example, moderation of
                   internally marked and standardised work).
                                                                                                                                                                                                      41
Internally marked work is monitored remotely, with centres submitting
samples of marked work to awarding bodies for external moderation
                                       Monitoring „internal assessment of written work‟
                     Centre responsibilities                                                                Monitoring by awarding bodies
  The centre is responsible for assessing work                                                 Awarding bodies moderate the marks submitted by
   internally and standardising assessment across the                                            each centre against the specified assessment criteria
   centre                                                                                        • This ensures that standards are aligned within and
                                                                                                   across centres
  The centre must ensure that internally marked work is:
   • Supervised                                                                                 Awarding bodies draw samples of marked, internally
        •   Carried out by learners under awarding body specified                                standardised work, to cover the full range of units and
            conditions                                                                           to represent adequately the range of attainment in the
     • Authenticated by an internal assessor, and                                                centre
     • Assessed in accordance with awarding body
        guidance                                                                                Where deemed necessary, an awarding body will
        •   This includes standardising assessments across                                       adjust the marks that have been given by internal
            different assessors and teaching groups                                              assessors
  The centre is also responsible for ensuring that the                                         For GQs, any monitoring of internal assessment must
   requested samples of marked, internally standardised                                          adhere to the “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA
   work are submitted to the awarding body
                                                                                                 Code of Practice” that is produced by the regulators in
                                                                                                 England, Wales and NI




            This type of monitoring often applies to GQs and sometimes elements of VRQs and „Other‟ 1
            qualifications in the NQF also.
 Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
 Note: (1) Other qualifications include Key Skills, Entry Level, Basic Skills and Higher Level qualifications. See slide 7 fo r details of qualifications on the NQF.


                                                                                                                                                                               42
Examination scripts are marked externally, so the monitoring of centres
relating to exams involves checking adherence to exam protocols
                                                     Monitoring of „examination conduct‟
                      Centre responsibilities                                                                   Monitoring by awarding bodies
  Awarding bodies set clear instructions for                                                      Visits during exam periods
   examination conduct that centres must adhere to                                                  A centre‟s conduct of examinations is monitored by
                                                                                                     visits during the examination period
  These include protocols to be followed                                                            • These checks are in line with the instructions for
     •   When preparing for the examination                                                             exam conduct set out by the awarding body
     •   At the beginning of the examination                                                         • This would include, for example, checking where
     •   During the examination                                                                         exam papers are stored, and checking
     •   At the end of the examination                                                                  procedures carried out at the beginning, during and
     •   After the examination
                                                                                                        at the end of the examination
  Examples of procedures specified include:
      Conditions for storing question papers securely
                                                                                                   Analysing exam outcomes
      Accommodation requirements, for example, having a                                            Exam scripts are marked externally and awarding
       clock displayed that all candidates can read clearly                                          bodies will review the outcomes to identify any
      What to do if malpractice is suspected                                                        potential issues

  For GQs, a centre must adhere to the instructions set
   out in the “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC:
   Instructions for conducting examinations”
   document produced by the JCQ




    This type of monitoring often applies to GQs and some VRQs and „Other‟ 1 qualifications in the NQF
    with examined elements also.
 Source: (a) “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC: Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006” , JCQ, 2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder
 interviews, Summer 2006.
                    Note: (1) Other qualifications include Key Skills, Entry Level, Basic Skills and Higher Level qualifications. See slide 7 fo r details of qualifications on the NQF.

                                                                                                                                                                                           43
For internal assessment of a learner‟s competence, internal as well as
external verification of the assessment is used
                                    Monitoring „internal assessment of learner competence‟
                        Centre responsibilities                                                                             Monitoring by awarding bodies
  Centres are responsible for both internally assessing                                                     External verifiers monitor the quality and consistency
   and verifying a learner‟s competence                                                                       of assessment practices and procedures by
  Internal assessors are responsible for:                                                                      • Ensuring assessments are conducted by appropriately
    • Managing the assessment process in a centre                                                                 qualified and expert assessors
       This includes planning and maintaining accurate                                                         • Checking assessment decisions through sampling and
         and verifiable learner records                                                                           speaking with staff and learners
    • Assessing evidence of learner competence                                                                  • Confirming assessment decisions are regularly sampled
    • Ensuring the validity, authenticity and sufficiency of                                                      through internal verification
      evidence produced by learners                                                                          External verifiers provide support and guidance
  Internal verifiers are responsible for:                                                                      •   They also define actions required for centres to bring
    •    Sampling evidence of assessment decisions to ensure                                                        assessment practices and procedures in line with awarding
         consistency in the interpretation and application of                                                       body expectations
         standards                                                                                           External verifiers visit centres on behalf of awarding
    •    Maintaining records of internal verification and sampling                                            bodies
         activity                                                                                            Awarding bodies monitor the performance and
    •    Monitoring and supporting assessors, including                                                       judgements of their external verifiers for accuracy and
         facilitating staff development and training                                                          consistency
    •    Providing feedback to the external verifier on the
                                                                                                             For NVQs, any monitoring must adhere to the “NVQ
         effectiveness of assessment
                                                                                                              Code of Practice” that is produced by the regulators in
    •    Ensuring adjustments required by the awarding body
         are implemented                                                                                      England, Wales and NI



        This type of monitoring applies to all NVQs and also some VRQs and „Other‟1 qualifications in the
        NQF with internally assessed learner competence.
 Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
 Note: (1) Other qualifications include Key Skills, Entry Level, Basic Skills and Higher Level qualifications. See slide 7 fo r details of qualifications on the NQF.


                                                                                                                                                                                44
In addition to assessment related monitoring, awarding bodies also monitor
centres to ensure ongoing adherence to the centre approval criteria
                                                     How awarding bodies monitor centres
                                                                        Awarding body                                               Assessment process
      Centre responsibilities                                          monitoring activity
    Adherence to centre                                           Systems audit                                     1. Post approval to offer a qualifications, the centre
     approval criteria                                                                                                   ensures that it continues to meet the approval
                                                                                                                         requirements
                                                                                                                      2. The awarding body reviews the centre‟s
                                                                                                                         arrangements for ensuring that the approval
                                                                                                                         criteria continue to be met
                                                                                                                      3. Where necessary, approval is removed by the
                                                                                                                         awarding body




           Post approval monitoring is defined as “the review of, and reporting on, the centre‟s quality
           assurance arrangements by the awarding bodies”a
 Source: (a) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, 11/2005; (b) “NVQ Code of Practice”,
 QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c) “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews,
                    Summer 2006.

                                                                                                                                                                                                45
Systems audits can review the management structure of the centre, the
implementation of centre policy statements and availability of resources
                                                      Non-assessment related monitoring
                      Centre responsibilities                                                                    Monitoring by awarding bodies
  Centres are responsible for providing the awarding body                                           Awarding bodies request information from centres to
   with evidence that demonstrates that it is continuing to                                           assure themselves (and the regulator) that the centre is
   meet the centre approval criteria                                                                  continuing to meet the requirements of the approved
                                                                                                      centre criteria
  Centre approval criteria may include:
   • Details of the management structure for the centre                                              This information can be requested via centre self-
   • Policy statements, for example,                                                                  assessment, over the telephone or during visits
      Health and safety policy                                                                       • If an awarding body collects information during visits,
      Access to fair assessment statement                                                              these visits may be part of an external verifier visit
      Employer and public liability insurance certificate                                            • Awarding bodies often speak to staff and learners
      Disability Discrimination Act 1995                                                               to gather evidence
      Complaints procedure
      Appeals procedure for candidates                                                              In cases where a centre may not be meeting
      Equal opportunities policy                                                                     requirements, awarding bodies impose sanctions and/
      Malpractice procedure                                                                          or penalties on the centre
   • Commitment to provide resources or systems                                                       • For NVQs, any sanctions imposed must be in line
     required for the qualification                                                                      with the “NVQ Code of Practice” that is produced
                                                                                                         by the regulators in England, Wales and NI

                                                                                                     This type of monitoring is often called a systems audit


    This type of monitoring is more prominent for NVQs and / or VRQs and „Other‟ 1 qualifications in the
    NQF rather than GQs as centre approval requirements tend be more complex.
 Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA, ACC AC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005; (c) Capgemini analysis
 based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
                   Note: (1) Other qualifications include Key Skills, Entry Level, Basic Skills and Higher Level qualifications. See slide 7 fo r details of qualifications on the NQF.

                                                                                                                                                                                          46
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
  • Summary
                        Awarding body monitoring activity relates either to assessment or to a
                        centre‟s continued adherence to the centre approval criteria
                                                                         How awarding bodies monitor centres
                                                                                           Awarding body                                 Rationale for monitoring activity
                             Centre responsibilities                                      monitoring activity
                            Internal assessment and                                  External moderation of                          To ensure that standards are aligned
                             standardisation of learners‟                              internally assessed work                         within and across centres
                             written work
   ASSESSMENT RELATED




                            Conduct of examinations                                  Visits during examination                       To ensure a centre‟s conduct of
                             in line with instructions                                 periods                                          examinations adheres to awarding body
                                                                                                                                        expectations
                                                                                      Analysis of examination
                                                                                       outcomes

                            Internal assessment of                                   External verification of                        To ensure quality and consistency of
                             learner competence                                        internal assessment and                          assessment practices and procedures
                                                                                       verification                                     within and across centres
                            Internal verification of                                 Monitoring of external                           • This ensures standards are aligned
                             internal assessment                                       verifiers
                                                                                                                                       To ensure that the centre is continuing to
                            Adherence to centre                                      Systems audit
APPROVAL
 RELATED




                                                                                                                                        meet the requirements of the approved
 CENTRE




                             approval criteria                                                                                          centre criteria
                                                                                                                                        • By reviewing the centre‟s quality
                                                                                                                                           assurance arrangements


                             The level of monitoring a centre receives will depend on the number, type and subject areas of the
                             qualifications it offers as well as on the number of awarding body relationships it has.
                         Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) “NVQ Code of Pract ice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c)
                         “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                                    48
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
• Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring activity
Monitoring impact on a centre is driven by the assessment method of the
qualifications it offers and the number of awarding body relationships it has
                                           Impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
                                                                         Awarding body                                        Monitoring impact relating to:
      Centre responsibilities                                           monitoring activity                              Each qualification                Each awarding body
     Internal assessment and                                      External moderation of
      standardisation of written
      work
                                                                    internally assessed work
                                                                                                                                                                             Note that JCQ
                                                                                                                                                                           conducts all exam
                                                                                                                                                                         visits for GQs and this
                                                                                                                                                                          is being extended to
                                                                                                                                                                            other exams also
     Conduct of examinations                                      Visits during examination
      in line with instructions                                     periods

                                                                   Analysis of examination
                                                                                                                                                                            1



                                                                    outcomes

     Internal assessment of                                       External verification of
      learner competence                                            internal assessment and
                                                                    verification
                                                                                                                                     
     Internal verification of                                     Monitoring of external
      internal assessment                                           verifiers

    Adherence to centre                                           Systems audit
     approval criteria                                                                                                                                                  

          For internally assessed qualifications, monitoring activity occurs on a per qualification basis
          meaning the more qualifications a centre offers, the greater the potential monitoring impact.
 Source: (a) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (b) “NVQ Code of Pract ice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c)
 Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006; (d) “Eight Pledges: Delivering better service with less bureaucracy, Autumn 2005 - Progress Report”, JCQ, Autumn 2005.
                    Note: (1) JCQ is responsible for conducting all exam visits on behalf of the unitary bodies. If a centre offers GQs from a unitary body and VRQs with examination elements
                    from the same unitary body, then it may receive two exam visits – one from JCQ for GQ exams, and one from the awarding body itself for the VRQ exams.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 50
Although different awarding bodies have similar expectations of centres, the
centre will need to accommodate the monitoring activity of each one
                                            Impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
              Centre
          responsibilities
                                                                                               Detail of monitoring requirements
    Internal assessment and                                  Centres assess, standardise and submit internally marked work to each awarding body for
     standardisation of                                        each qualification with internally assessed work
     written work                                             Centres must be familiar with the assessment criteria of each different qualification
                                                              Centres must be familiar with the submission protocols of each different awarding body


    Conduct of                                               Centres must be familiar with examination conduct instructions
     examinations in line with                                 • There are JCQ exam instructions for GQs and FAB bodies have a good practice guide
     instructions                                             Centres must facilitate any examination visits required by each awarding body
                                                               • These visits are often spot checks only usually carried out during each exam cycle
                                                               • Note for GQs, centres receive one visit for all qualifications under a JCQ arrangement
    Internal assessment of                                   For each qualification, internal assessors and verifiers must be competent and familiar
     learner competence                                        with information and guidance provided by the awarding body
                                                               • Assessors and verifiers at centres access training or specialist advice where required
    Internal verification of                                 Centres must facilitate visits from external verifiers for each qualification
     internal assessment                                      These visits occur twice a year for each NVQ and often annually for each VRQ1
    Adherence to centre                                      Centres must be familiar with the approval criteria for each qualification
     approval criteria                                        Centres must facilitate systems audit visits required by each awarding body, usually on
                                                               an annual basis
                                                              These visits may be conducted as part of an external verifier visit (per qualification) or a
                                                               specific systems audit is conducted (per awarding body)


  Irrespective of the number of awarding body relationships a centre has, it always needs to be familiar
  with the assessment criteria of and standards required for each internally assessed qualification.
 Source: (a) “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC: Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006” , JCQ, 2005; (b) “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA
 Code of Practice, 2006/07”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2006; (c) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (d) “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA,
                     ACCAC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005; (e) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006; (f) www.JCQ.org.uk; (g) Good practice guide: Common
                     procedures for centres on examination conduct and replacement certificates”, FAB, 07/2006.
                     Note: (1) Frequency of visits for VRQs with internally assessed learner competence will depend on the awarding body. Many aw arding bodies use the NVQ code of practice
                     as a guide for their VRQ monitoring. Some VRQ will be externally examined and therefore will require no external verifier vi sit. A systems audit may still take place however.   51
On the surface, awarding bodies collect very similar information when
monitoring centres
                                                                                                                 Sample of awarding body VRQ assessment means
                                                                                                                 Externally assessed   Internally assessed   Both internal and external
                                                                       Awarding body
   Centre responsibilities                                            monitoring activity            GQ NVQ      A       B       C     D       E       F        G       H         I
 Internal assessment and                                                   Sampling of internally          n/a   n/a    n/a      n/a   n/a    n/a      n/a     n/a              n/a
 standardisation of written work                                                 assessed work       X                                                                  X
                                                                         Checking exam conduct       X     n/a   X       X       X     n/a    n/a      n/a      X       X        X
 Conduct examinations in line
 with instructions                                                                                         n/a                         n/a    n/a      n/a
                                                                      Analysing exam outcomes                    X       X       X                                      X
 Internal assessment of learner                                                  Sampling internal   n/a         n/a    n/a      n/a
 competence                                                                         assessments            X                           X       X       X                X        X
 Internal verification of internal                                  Checking internal verification   n/a         n/a    n/a      n/a
 assessment                                                        processes, e.g. sampling plan           X                           X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                      Recording details of centre,   n/a
                                                                    candidates and qualifications          X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                   Understanding changes since       n/a
                                                                        the last monitoring check          X     X       X                     X                X
                                                                   Understanding if actions have     n/a
                                                                               been implemented            X     X       X             X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                      Checking quality assurance     n/a
                                                                          records are maintained           X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                        QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKS




                                                                         Health and safety policy    n/a   X                           X       X                X       X        X
 Adherence to centre approval                                                                        n/a
 criteria
                                                                              Physical resources           X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                              Staff qualifications   n/a   X     X       X       X     X       X       X        X       X        X
                                                                        Communications system        n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X        X
                                                                         Particular requirements     n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X
                                                                                 Appeals process     n/a   X     X       X                     X                X       X        X
                                                                      Equal opportunities policy     n/a   X     X       X             X       X                X       X        X

   Awarding bodies offering GQs or NVQs seek information according to the code of practice and, for
   VRQs, where they have more flexibility, appear to seek very similar information.
                 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews and awarding body documentation, Summer 2006                                                              52
However, offering several qualifications from one awarding body often
reduces the monitoring activity to which a centre is subjected
     Impact on monitoring if multiple qualifications from one awarding body are offered
             Centre                                                             Multiple qualifications from one awarding body
         responsibilities
    Internal assessment and                              No impact
     standardisation of                                    • Centres must still be familiar with the assessment criteria of each qualification
     written work



    Conduct of                                           If visited (awarding bodies tend to conduct spot checks only), the visit tends to cover all
     examinations in line with                             qualifications with exam elements from that awarding body that are offered at the centre
     instructions                                          • Note for GQs, a centre will receive one visit only regardless of the number of unitary
                                                               body relationships it has, under a JCQ arrangement
                                                           • Moreover, this is being extended to cover non-GQ exam visits of the JCQ members


    Internal assessment of                              If qualifications are in the same or similar programme areas:
     learner competence                                   Internal assessor and verifier requirements/ competencies are often similar for all
    Internal verification of                                qualifications in a programme area and are therefore the same, qualified people are used
     internal assessment                                     by the awarding body for all qualifications in the programme area
                                                          Only one external verifier visit is usually conducted for all qualifications in this area
                                                             • As opposed to a visit per qualification
    Adherence to centre                                  If these checks are conducted as part of external verifier visits, the information may be
     approval criteria                                     gathered once per programme area, as opposed to once per qualification
                                                          An awarding body may conduct one check across the entire centre rather than at
                                                           qualification or programme level




     Awarding bodies often bundle their centre monitoring activity, such as exam visits and external
     verifier visits, across all qualifications or qualifications in a particular programme area in a centre.
 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                         53
       As a result of the qualifications offered and the number of awarding body
       relationships, different centres have very different monitoring experiences
                                                                                          Monitoring activity
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Visits
    Centre scenario                   External moderation1                        Exam visits                   External verification2                     Systems audit                   ABs3           p.a.
    A school:                         Applies to each                     Maximum of one visit                n/a                                 n/a
     Of f ers GQs only                qualification with                   per exam cycle
A    Has 5 unitary body               internally assessed work                                                                                                                               5           0-1
       relationships
    A small employer:                 n/a                                 n/a                                 Two external verifier               n/a
     Of f ers one NVQ to 10                                                                                     (EV) visits per year
B      employees p.a.                                                                                            including a systems                                                          1            2
     Has a relationship with                                                                                    audit
       one awarding body

    A training provider:              n/a                                 Awarding body 1 may                 For NVQs, 4 EV visits               Awarding body 1 does a
     Of f ers several NVQs                                                 visit during its VRQ                 per year – 2 f rom each              systems audit as part
       and VRQs in                                                          exams                                awarding body                        of an EV visit
       engineering                                                          • (All externally                   An additional EV visit              Awarding body 2
C    Has two awarding                                                         assessed)                         f rom awarding body 2 f or           conducts a separate
                                                                                                                                                                                              2           6-7
       body relationships                                                                                        its VRQs                             systems audit visit
                                                                                                                 • (All internally
                                                                                                                     assessed)
    A college:                        Applies to each                     Receives one visit for              Two EV visits p.a. per         Conducted separately
     Of f ers a wide range of         qualification with                   all GQs p.a.                         NVQ programme area              by several of the
       GQs, NVQs and                   internally assessed work            May receive one visit per            f or each awarding body         awarding bodies
       VRQs                                                                 awarding body f or other            Additional 1 or 2 visits f or  Combined with external
     Has over 40 awarding                                                  qualif ications with exam            VRQs with internal              verifier visits f or some
D      body relationships                                                   elements                             assessment                      others                                     40+           40+
                                                                                                                Some awarding bodies           Some do not do audits
                                                                                                                 combine NVQ and VRQ
                                                                                                                 visits



                                                             Each scenario will be looked at in more detail.

         Source: (a) “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC: Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006” , JCQ, 2005; (b) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC
         (as was), CCEA, 2001; (c) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.
                            Note; (1) External moderation of internally assessed and standardised written work; (2) External verification of internally assessed and verified learner competence; EV –
                            external verifier; (3) ABs – awarding bodies. Column indicates the number of awarding body relationships the centre has.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                54
A school offering GQs faces relatively little monitoring from awarding bodies
and this is further helped by the JCQ exam instructions and combined visits
                         Scenario A: A school offering GQs through 5 unitary bodies
        Monitoring
         activity
                                                         Centre responsibilities                                      Potential benefits and issues
    External                                   Centre assesses, standardises and submits Issues:
     moderation of                               internally marked work to each awarding    Submission protocols are different for each
     internally assessed                         body for each qualification with             awarding body
     and standardised                            internally assessed work
     work




    Visits during                              Centres must be familiar with examination                   Benefits:
     examination periods                         conduct instructions set out by the JCQ                      There is only one set of exam instructions and
                                                Centres must facilitate any examination                        one exam visit for all 5 awarding bodes
    Analysis of                                 visits required by the JCQ                                  Issues:
     examination                                Centres must submit scripts and other
     outcomes                                                                                                 Submission protocols are different for each
                                                 exam documentation to each awarding                            awarding body
                                                 body                                                         Little direct contact with each awarding body




       However, this school would still need to be familiar with the different protocols of each awarding
       body when submitting scripts, exam documentation or written assessments.
 Source: (a) “AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and ELC: Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006” , JCQ, 2005; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder
 interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                          55
An employer offering one NVQ to a small number of employees per year
receives two external verifier visits per year from the one awarding body
                                    Scenario B: An small employer offering one NVQ
        Monitoring                                      Centre responsibilities                                      Potential benefits and issues
         activity
    External                                  The employer must ensure suitably                           Benefits:
     verification of                            qualified internal assessors and verifiers                   The employer can develop a good relationship
     internally assessed                        are in place and familiar with the                             with the specialised awarding body
     and verified learner                       assessment criteria                                          Visits can provide support
     competence
                                                • Assessors and verifiers may have to                       Issues:
                                                   receive training to reach the necessary                   The employer sometimes struggles to find enough
                                                   level of competence                                         staff to act as internal assessors and verifiers
                                               Centre must facilitate external verifier                     The assessment and verification records that
                                                visits twice a year                                            are required for NVQs are seen as burdensome
                                                                                                               by the employer
                                                                                                             Two one day external verifier visits p.a. is often
                                                                                                               too much
                                                                                                               • Learning is not always continuous for
                                                                                                                  employees and sometimes there have been
                                                                                                                  few developments from one EV visit to the
                                                                                                                  next
                                                                                                               • In these cases there is no benefit of the visits
                                                                                                                  to the employer




   Although this monitoring seems light compared to other centres, given that offering qualifications is
   not an employer‟s core business, it can still be perceived as a drain on resources.
 Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                                    56
A sector specific training provider offering qualifications from two awarding
bodies can face significant differences in the two monitoring approaches
Scenario C: An engineering training provider offering NVQs and VRQs from 2 bodies
        Monitoring
         activity
                                                        Centre responsibilities                                      Potential benefits and issues
    Visits during                             Centre must be familiar with examination                     No notable benefits or issues
     examination                                conduct instructions
     periods                                   Centres must facilitate any examination
     • Applies to                               visits required by awarding body 1
       awarding body                           Centres must submit scripts and other
       1‟s VRQs                                 exam documentation to awarding body 1
    External                                  Suitably qualified assessors and verifiers                  Benefits:
     verification of                            must be in place for all NVQs and for                        EV visits are bundled and cover all NVQs or
     internally assessed                        awarding body 2‟s VRQs                                         VRQs belonging to that awarding body
     and verified learner                      The centre must facilitate two external                      Programme leaders are supported by EVs
     competence
     • Applies to NVQs
                                                verifier visits p.a. for each awarding                      Issues:
        and awarding                            body‟s NVQs and one external verifier                        The EVs request some of the same information
        body 2‟s VRQs                           visit p.a. for awarding body 2‟s VRQs                          although in different formats
    Systems audit                             The centre must facilitate separate audit                   Benefits:
                                                visits for awarding body 2                                   Can highlight failings in the centres‟ systems –
                                                • Awarding body 1 combines its systems                         e.g. lack of staff training and development
                                                   audits with EV visits                                    Issues:
                                                                                                             No notable issues as only conducted by one
                                                                                                               awarding body at the centre level




    Although programme leaders can benefit from external verifier visits, two awarding bodies seeking
    the same or similar information results in duplication for the centre.
 Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                                 57
 A college with many awarding body relationships must be familiar with the
 different exam instructions and submission protocols of each awarding body
Scenario D: A college offering GQs, NVQs and VRQs through over 40 awarding bodies
         Monitoring
          activity
                                                          Centre responsibilities                                       Potential benefits and issues
     External                                   Centres assess, standardise and submit                       Issues:
      moderation of                               internally marked work to each awarding                       Submission protocols are different for each
      internally assessed                         body for each qualification with                                awarding body
      work                                        internally assessed work

     Visits during                              Centre must be familiar with examination                     Benefits:
      examination periods                         conduct instructions of the JCQ and                           There is only one set of exam instructions and
                                                  those of non-unitary awarding bodies                            one exam visit for all unitary awarding bodies
                                                 Centres must facilitate any examination                       From August 2006, FAB awarding bodies will use
                                                  visits required by the JCQ and non-                             the FAB good practice guide for exam conduct
                                                  unitary awarding bodies                                      Issues:
                                                 Centres must submit scripts and other                         Submission protocols are different for each
                                                  exam documentation to each awarding                             awarding body
                                                  body
                                                                                                                The centre could face many exam visits from
                                                                                                                  different awarding bodies each exam cycle




             Colleges such as these will often have dedicated exams offices with several staff members
             responsible for co-ordinating exams and submitting documentation to awarding bodies.
  Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) Good practice guide: Common procedures for centres o n examination conduct and replacement certificates”, FAB,
  07/2006; (c) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                            58
 ... however, a bigger challenge for this college is managing many different
 external verifier visits whilst continuing with „business as usual‟
Scenario D: A college offering GQs, NVQs and VRQs through over 40 awarding bodies
         Monitoring
          activity
                                                         Centre responsibilities                                      Potential benefits and issues
     External                                  Suitably qualified assessors and verifiers                  Benefits:
      verification of                            must be in place for all NVQs and for all                    EV visits are bundled and cover all NVQs and / or
      internally assessed                        VRQs with internally assessed elements                         VRQs belonging to one awarding body
      and verified learner                      The centre must facilitate two external                      Programme leaders are supported by EVs
      competence
                                                 verifier visits p.a. for each awarding                      Issues:
                                                 body‟s NVQs                                                  The awarding bodies request some of the same
                                                The centre must also facilitate external                       information although in different formats
                                                 verifier visits required for VRQs                            EV approaches are very different
                                                 • Either one or two visits per year                            • Some include systems checks, some are more
                                                                                                                   support focussed, some are „tick box‟ exercises
     Systems audit                             The centre must facilitate separate audit                   Benefits:
                                                 visits for awarding bodies that require                      Can highlight failings in the centres‟ systems –
                                                 such a visit                                                   e.g. lack of staff training and development
                                                                                                             Issues:
                                                                                                              Awarding bodies seek the same information
                                                                                                                although often in different formats
                                                                                                              Centres feel that there is no clear purpose for
                                                                                                                some of the information they seek and there is no
                                                                                                                clear benefit to the centre, especially if it is „good‟
                                                                                                              Awarding bodies‟ approaches are very different
                                                                                                                • For example, asking what a centre‟s health and
                                                                                                                   safety policy is, is very different to asking how it
                                                                                                                   is applied

     Whilst some staff in large colleges can benefit greatly from the support provided by external
     verifiers, others are frustrated by the lack of benefit for them from some systems audit approaches.
  Source: (a) “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, 2001; (b) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                                          59
  Centres stated that awarding bodies do need to monitor them and that the
  support provided is valuable, but some monitoring activity was questioned

   Centres stated that awarding bodies need to monitor and can provide support to the centre
                                                               “It is absolutely reasonable for awarding bodies to              “Awarding bodies can provide a lot
“Of course awarding bodies                                    monitor centres. However, we have our own internal
 need to monitor centres.”                                                                                                        of help to struggling centres.”
                                                              processes to ensure quality. We need some sort of                          Training provider
     Training provider                                                 middle ground.” Examinations officer
     “Awarding bodies can provide a fantastic                                                            “Self-assessment is no less burdensome than an
      level of support to programme leaders.”                          “Programme leaders find direct
                                                                                                         EV visit and centres prefer the contact of an EV.”
                  Training provider                                      contact with an EV useful.”
                                                                                                                      College quality manager
                                                                             Examination officer

   However, some centres questioned the value of some of the monitoring activity
        “I am paying awarding                          “Asking what the centre‟s policies are serves no
       bodies for a service and                      purpose. If you have to ask at all, you have to look at
     they are conducing tick box                                                                                       “Sometimes it feels like the
                                                    how they are put into practice. This can be done by an
     exercises on me that are of                                                                                     awarding bodies are taking on a
                                                              external verifier.” College Director                   regulatory role and I think that‟s
      no benefit to me.” Training
               provider                                                                                                 wrong.” College Director

                                                                             “If an awarding body asks
                    “I am unsure whether the purpose of a                    a question that you don‟t
                        centre wide systems audit is to                        have an answer to, you
                    moderate the awarding body‟s external                      make it up!” Ex-college
                      verifiers or to check on the centre”                         member of staff        “A verifier report commented on the fact that our Equal
                                 College Director                                                        Opportunities policy had not been updated for two years.
                                                                                                         This was in line with the centre‟s policy as it updated on
               “Some of the information they ask                                                          a three-year cycle so the centre saw no issue here. The
                                                                  “All monitors – not just awarding          verifier didn‟t ask. This type of thing is frustrating”
              for does not relate in any way to the                bodies – ask the same things”
                  quality and standards of their                                                                                 College Director
                                                                         Training provider
                qualifications” Training provider


      Although EV contact can provide support, there is some awarding body monitoring that centres feel
      does not benefit them or does not appear to ensure quality and standards in qualifications.
    Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                                       60
Some centres also commented that it can be difficult to manage many
awarding body relationships


   “Everyone does
  things differently”                                         “Awarding bodies have different
  Training provider                                      frequencies and cycles of visits that it can
                                                              be hard to keep on top of them.”
                                                            Examinations officer in a college with
                                                           around 60 awarding body relationships
                                                                                                            “All awarding bodies do things differently. All
                                                                                                            their forms are very different, their visit cycles
                                                                                                               etc. It would help if these were aligned”
                                                                                                                            College Director
     “All awarding bodies have different
 processes and procedures. We juggle a lot
    of balls and are always thinking about
       deadlines.” Examinations officer                                                        “We can have an external verifier visiting our
                                                                                                 college every week of the academic year.
                                                                                                Their visits always last a day, during which
                                                                                                 time someone needs to „entertain‟ them!”
                            “Awarding bodies are very different. Some                           College Director of a college with around 40
                             awarding bodies have a very supportive                                     awarding body relationships
                              approach whereas others are there to
                                 check only.” Training provider
                                                                                     “It is burdensome having lots of awarding body relationships,
                                                                                     but we wouldn‟t not have a relationship purely on the basis of
                                                                                            burden. We want to offer learners the best quality.
                                                                                      Programme leaders complete a form for a new qualification
                                                                                       and the quality and standards department says yes or no.”
                                                                                                          Examinations officer




   Centres stated that increasing the number of relationships increases burden, but they want to offer
   the best quality to their learners and accept increased burden can be a by-product of this.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                                 61
Many awarding bodies feel that the monitoring they do is not burdensome,
and the support they provide can be very valuable

 The approach of awarding bodies can be very different:
                                                             “There are times where we have helped a
      “The primary role of a verifier is to                      failing centre to turn around and
     check assessment set up is robust –                       subsequently receive a 1 in their ALI
      QA purpose rather than support.”                                      inspection”


 Awarding bodies also feel that some perceived centre burden is as result of centre approaches:
                                                                                                               “Some centres feel burdened by
             “Efficient centres have no problem                 “Centres have a choice about the           awarding bodies because we give them
            providing awarding bodies with the                     number of awarding body                 actions, but there‟s a reason they need
            information they need therefore it‟s                    relationships they have”                             the actions!”
                      not burdensome”

 Awarding bodies feel their burden is light, although they admit they have a limited view of the combined
  monitoring burden of all awarding bodies on a centre
                                                                                                               “If a centre is underperforming for one
        “What burden?”                                      “There may be some burden on the                    awarding body, the chances are that
                                                           admin side that could be reduced, but               it‟s a centre problem and it will under-
                                                           external verifiers are about support.”                         perform for others.”


                            “I appreciate that we can only see the                     “Some of the burden centres feel is as
                              impact from our point of view and                         a result of regulatory requirements.”
                              don‟t have a feel for the combined
                           impact of awarding body monitoring.”




     Some awarding bodies said that tweaks could be made to reduce some of the burden centres feel.

 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                                          62
Centres and awarding bodies


• Understanding how learners access qualifications
• Understanding how awarding bodies monitor centres
• Understanding the impact of awarding body monitoring on centres
• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring burden
The „burden‟ that awarding bodies place on centres as a result of ongoing
monitoring could be reduced by simplifying or integrating the activity


Simplify the monitoring process:

 Awarding bodies could reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring interaction
 • i.e. request less information for monitoring purposes or stop some monitoring

 Awarding bodies could reduce the frequency of their monitoring activity

Integrate the monitoring process across awarding bodies:

 Awarding bodies could standardise their monitoring activity
 • For example, standardising forms they use or the format of documents they request


 Awarding bodies could join up their monitoring activity
 • For example, combining visits or having one organisation monitor on behalf of others




          These burden reduction methods are not mutually exclusive and can all produce options for
          consideration.
 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                      64
   Awarding bodies are keen to reduce the bureaucracy felt by centres and
   FAB and JCQ have been working to standardise and join up monitoring
                                 Streamlining of assessment protocols and joining up of exam visits a
                        Initiative                                                Detail                                                             Centre impact
                 Common                           The JCQ already produces instructions for                                  Centres need to be familiar with only one set of
STANDARDISE




                  instructions for                  conducting AEA, GCE, VCE, GCSE, GNVQ and                                    exam instructions for vocational qualifications
                  examination                       ELC examinations                                                            • As opposed to different instructions per awarding
                  conductc                         Working with JCQ, FAB developed a good                                        body
                                                    practice guide for exam conduct for vocational
                                                    qualifications
                                                   This was finalised at the end of July 2006

                 Combined exam                    JCQ currently conducts all exam visits for all                             This potentially reduces the number of exam
                  visits for all                    general qualifications                                                      visits a centre receives
JOIN UP




                  qualifications                    • AQA provides this system on behalf of JCQ
                                                       members and WJEC in Wales
                                                   JCQ is looking to extend this arrangement to
                                                    include examined vocational qualifications
                                                   In an autumn 2005 report, JCQ stated that a pilot
                                                    would begin in March 2006
                 Common access                    Working with JCQ, FAB published a good practice  Centres need to be familiar with only one set of
STANDARDISE




                  arrangementsb                     guide for Reasonable Adjustments and Special      protocols for making reasonable adjustments
                                                    Consideration in vocational qualifications        and special considerations
                                                   This was published in November 2005               • This will ensure inclusion for learners in line
                                                                                                        with the Disability Discrimination Act whilst also
                                                                                                        maintaining standards in qualifications



                         The streamlining of exam protocols and the joining up of exam visits focus on reducing the
                         administrative burden placed on exams officers at centres.
              Source: (a) “Eight Pledges: Delivering better service with less bureaucracy, Autumn 2005 - Progress Report”, JCQ, Autumn 2005; (b) “Good practice guide: The application of reasonable
              adjustments and special consideration in vocational qualifications”, FAB, 07/2006; (c) “Good practice guide: Common procedures for centres on examination conduct and replacement
                                  certificates”, FAB, 11/2005.
                                  Note: JCQ members are Edexcel, AQA, OCR, City & Guilds, CCEA, SQA, and WJEC. FAB members can be seen by clicking the „member s‟ tab on its website:
                                  www.awarding.org.uk                                                                                                                                                  65
       JCQ is also working to standardise the information that external verifiers
       collect and remove any repetition in the centre approval process for NVQs
                                                Reducing centre approval activity and streamlining EV reporting
                                  Initiative                                                Detail                                                              Centre impact
                           Common centre                     A centre approved to offer an NVQ with one JCQ                            Centres potentially spend less time and money on
STANDARDISE & JOIN UP




                            approval criteria                  member will be eligible for fast-track approval                            approval activity:
                                                               from another JCQ member                                                    • Centres wishing to switch between the
                                                               • Evidence of the earlier approval and                                         qualifications of JCQ members do not need to
                                                                  satisfactory performance is required                                        be re-approved
                                                              In Autumn 2005 JCQ reported that this initiative                           • Moreover, centres offering NVQs in the same
                                                               was being rolled out at the time                                               programme area from more than one JCQ
                                                              This initiative is also being covered by the „Centre                           member need not be fully approved by each
                                                               Recognition Project‟ being delivered by the four                               body
                                                               regulatory bodies in the UKb                                              The Centre Recognition Project will extend this to
                                                               • This project will apply to all qualifications with                       all awarding bodies and all qualifications with
                                                                  regulatory requirements for centre approval                             regulatory requirements for centre approvalb

                           Common external                   JCQ members have each introduced on-line forms  Centres will no longer need to tailor the
                            verifier (EV)                      which are aligned to the NVQ Code of Practice     information required by each external verifier for
                            reporting                          requirements                                      each JCQ member
STANDARDISE




                                                              These are more closely aligned in the information
                                                               they capture than previously
                                                              However, there continue to be some differences in
                                                               format and approach
                                                              JCQ is aiming for identical reporting
                                                               requirements to be in place by September 2007




                              Common external verifier reporting removes issues around EVs seeking different information in
                              different ways, although non-JCQ member awarding bodies are not part of this initiative.
                        Source: (a) “Eight Pledges: Delivering better service with less bureaucracy, Autumn 2005 - Progress Report”, JCQ, Autumn 2005; (b) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre
                        qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, QCA, CCEA, WJEC, SQA, 11/2005.
                                            Note: JCQ members are Edexcel, AQA, OCR, City & Guilds, CCEA, SQA, and WJEC; EV – external verifier

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      66
   Data standards are also are being targeted by JCQ either directly with a new
   database and common centre numbers or by supporting the DfES and LSC
                                                                              Aligning data standards
                       Initiative                                             Detail                                                          Centre impact
                 Building the                    A shared database service has been created by                         Learners receive one certificate for all
                  capacity to share                some of the JCQ members                                                qualifications belonging to JCQ members
                  data                            It will hold all achievements of a learner with                       Information on learner achievement with the JCQ
                                                   these awarding bodies                                                  member awarding bodies is held in one place
                                                  In Autumn 2005, JCQ reported that a pilot was
                                                   being run in summer 2006 to produce a single
                                                   transcript for a learner‟s GCSE achievements
                                                   across awarding bodies
                                                  JCQ aims for this database to become a portal for
STANDARDISE




                                                   other transactions between JCQ members and
                                                   centres, for example, sharing lifetime learner
                                                   achievement records for all types of qualifications
                 Common centre                   A data cleansing exercise is being conducted to                       Potentially enables exams officers to process data
                  numbers                          remove any duplication of centre numbers                               more easily
                                                  This will be completed in January 2007




                 Unique learner                  JCQ is working with the DfES and the LSC on their                     This should streamline information management
                  number (ULN)                     proposals for a ULN                                                    systems across the education environment
                                                   • Edexcel, OCR and City and Guilds are
                                                      committed to piloting the use of this new
                                                      numbering system as soon as it is introduced



                Again, these initiatives should reduce the administrative burden mainly on exams officers at centres.

              Source: (a) “Eight Pledges: Delivering better service with less bureaucracy, Autumn 2005 - Progress Report”, JCQ, Autumn 2005.
              Note: JCQ members are Edexcel, AQA, OCR, City & Guilds, CCEA, SQA, and WJEC; DfES – Department for Education and Skills; LSC – Learning and Skills Council.


                                                                                                                                                                               67
Together these initiatives make up the JCQ‟s Eight Pledges – its
commitment to deliver better service to centres with less bureaucracy
                                                                          JCQ‟s Eight Pledges
               Pledge                                                                Detail                                                                  Timescale
       Building the capacity  Shared database service holding details of all learner achievement                                              Pilot in summer 2006 for
1       to share data                                                                                                                            consolidated GSCE results

       Common centre                    Data cleansing exercise to remove any duplication of centre                                           To be completed in January
2       numbers                           numbers                                                                                                2007

       Unique learner                   Working with the DfES and the LSC on their proposals for a ULN                                        2006 – subject to government
3       number (ULN)

       Common centre                    A centre approved to offer an NVQ with one JCQ member will be                                         Roll out was in progress in
4       approval criteria                 eligible for fast-track approval from another JCQ member                                               Autumn 2005

       Common external                  JCQ is aiming for identical reporting requirements to be in place by                                  In place by September 2007
5       verifier reporting                September 2007

       Common invigilation              FAB and JCQ have developed a good practice guide for exam                                             Published in July 2006
6       requirements                      conduct for vocational qualifications

       Common inspection                JCQ is looking to extend the GQ exam visit arrangement to include                                     Piloted from March 2006
7       regime for exams                  examined vocational qualifications

       Common access                    Working with JCQ, FAB produced a good practice guide for reasonable  Published in November 2005
8       arrangements                      adjustments and special consideration for vocational qualifications


        Whilst JCQ and FAB worked together to develop common invigilation requirements and access
        arrangements, the other pledges apply to JCQ awarding bodies (or some of them) only at present.
    Source: (a) “Eight Pledges: Delivering better service with less bureaucracy, Autumn 2005 - Progress Report”, JCQ, Autumn 2005; b) “Good practice guide: The application of reasonable
    adjustments and special consideration in vocational qualifications”, FAB, 07/2006; (c) “Good practice guide: Common procedures for centres on examination conduct and replacement
                        certificates”, FAB, 11/2005.
                        Note: DfES – Department for Education and Skills; LSC – Learning and Skills Council; FE – Further Education.
                                                                                                                                                                                            68
Some awarding bodies offer centres the opportunity to deliver qualifications in a
consortium, with one administrative centre responsible for quality assurance
                          Consortium arrangements
         Establishing an Edexcel consortiuma,b                                                               Scope of consortium arrangementsa,b,c
  A group of centres works collaboratively and assigns                                                Consortium arrangements can enable centres to
   the teaching and/or assessment of an awarding body‟s                                                 provide a broader, more flexible, more relevant
   qualification to named organisations in the consortium                                               curriculum and can help learners to achieve
                                                                                                        successful progression
  There is an administrative centre as part of the group
   and this centre must submit a consortium approval
   request to the awarding body                                                                        Consortium arrangements are available with some
                                                                                                        awarding bodies for GQs, NVQs and VRQs
  The administrative centre is responsible for:                                                        • AQA, CCEA, Edexcel, OCR and WJEC all offer
     • Submitting a qualification approval request for each                                               consortium opportunities to centres
       qualification that will be delivered and/or assessed
       through the consortium group
     • Overall coordination of quality assurance of each
                                                                                                       For example, Edexcel‟s consortium arrangements can
       qualification operating under a consortium arrangement                                           apply to the following GQs as well as its BTECs (VRQs)
                                                                                                        and NVQs
  Individual centres in the consortium are responsible for                                             • Adult literacy               • GCSE
   quality assurance of each qualification operating                                                    • Adult numeracy               • GNVQ
   under a consortium arrangement                                                                       • Advanced Extension Award • Key Skills
                                                                                                        • Certificate of Achievement • VCE
                                                                                                        • GCE




    With the introduction of the Specialised Diploma, consortium arrangements for centres will become
    more prevalent.
 Source: (a) “Consortium Arrangements for BTEC and Edexcel NVQ Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (b) “Consortium Arrangements fo r General Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (c) “Application for
 Centre Consortium Arrangements, JCQ, 2005.


                                                                                                                                                                                                69
Consortium arrangements reduce the monitoring activity related to internal
assessment, but the administrative centre has new responsibilities
                     Consortium arrangements reducing assessment related monitoring
            Consortium                                                     Impact on monitoring of a consortium arrangement
          responsibilities
    Internal assessment and                                The centres will need to standardise the marking across all centres in the consortium
     standardisation of                                     One moderator from the awarding body will be assigned to all centres in the consortium
     written work                                           This moderator will select a single sample of work from across the consortium



    Conduct of                                             Exam conduct continues to be the responsibility of individual centres in the group
     examinations in line with
     instructions



    Internal assessment of                                 The centres will need to internally verify internal assessment across all centres in the
     learner competence                                      consortium
    Internal verification of                               One external verifier from the awarding body will be assigned to all centres in the
     internal assessment                                     consortium
                                                            The external verifier will select a single sample of assessments from across the
                                                             consortium
    Adherence to centre                                    The administrative centre will need to coordinate an annual review of the quality of
     approval criteria                                       delivery and/or assessment for each qualification approved across the consortium
                                                             • Records should be maintained and used to review performance
                                                            The evidence of continued adherence to consortium approval criteria may need to be
                                                             made available to the awarding body for monitoring and for relevant issues to be followed up


             Consortium arrangements also promote standards in qualifications, as there is one set of
             moderation or verification across a group of centres.
 Source: (a) “Consortium Arrangements for BTEC and Edexcel NVQ Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (b) “Consortium Arrangements fo r General Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (c) “Application for
 Centre Consortium Arrangements, JCQ, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on a conversation with Samina Khan from Edexcel, 22 August 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                                70
Some awarding bodies are also reducing their monitoring activity (per
interaction) for centres they identify as being „good‟
                              Examples of awarding bodies reducing monitoring activity
                           Awarding body A                                                        Awarding body B
  Awarding body A offers VRQs that are all externally                           Awarding body B offers both NVQs and VRQs
   assessed
                                                                                 Its VRQ monitoring is very similar to its NVQ
  It conducts annual monitoring visits (systems audits)                          monitoring, although the number of external verifier
   to check that the required quality assurance                                   visits may be less for VRQs
   processes are in place
                                                                                 Awarding body B risk assesses its centres and uses
  Centres are graded on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the                          this to determine whether monitoring can be desk
   top grade                                                                      based, over the telephone or face to face

  Centres scoring 1 or 2 are offered the opportunity to                         Where possible, awarding body B combines NVQ and
   self-assess the following year                                                 VRQ visits
     •   Some of these centres chose to continue with awarding
         body visits rather than self-assessing as they feel the                 Where centres have standardised quality assurance
         visits provide support                                                   processes across the centre, the awarding body is
                                                                                  able to monitor in a team
  Centres that are struggling receive additional visits                          • There is a principal verifier conducting a systems
   for support                                                                      audit and a team of subject specialists below
                                                                                  • The monitoring impact in this case is less for the
  Awarding body A also conducts spot checks during                                 centre
   exams and targets centres it feels pose the most risk

  In a risk based system, centres that are „good‟ receive less monitoring contact from awarding bodies,
  but those that are struggling receive more contact with the aim of providing support.
 Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                         71
Centres and awarding bodies


• Steps awarding bodies are taking to reduce monitoring burden
  • Summary
Awarding bodies are already taking steps to reduce monitoring burden on
centres, with most initiatives being led by JCQ members
                      Simplify monitoring                                                                                 Integrate monitoring
       Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                       interaction                                                                        Standardise monitoring across awarding bodies

  Common centre approval criteria*                                                                   Common instructions for examination conduct*
   • Centres do not need seek approval more than once                                                  • JCQ and FAB have both produced these
  Consortium arrangements                                                                            Common access arrangements*
   • Moderation and verification of internal assessment is                                            Common centre approval criteria*
     done across the consortium rather than on each                                                   Common external verifier reporting*
     centre                                                                                           Common data standards*:
  Monitoring good centres less (but struggling centres                                                • Building the capacity to share data
   more)                                                                                               • Common centre numbers
  Conducting desk-based or telephone monitoring                                                       • Unique learner numbers

         Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                                                          Join up monitoring across awarding bodies

  Risk based approaches                                                                              Combined exam visits for all qualifications*
   • For exam visits, for example, awarding bodies will                                                • One organisation monitors on behalf of others
     target spot checks at the centres they feel pose the                                             Common centre approval criteria*
     greatest risk                                                                                     • Some awarding bodies effectively approve on behalf
   • The risk assessment is often qualitative (for example,                                              of others
     the centre is new, therefore high risk)




All of the starred initiatives are part of the JCQ‟s Eight Pledges and, with the exception of common exam
instructions and access arrangements, apply to JCQ awarding bodies (or some of them) only at present.
Source: (a) “Consortium Arrangements for BTEC and Edexcel NVQ Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (b) “Consortium Arrangements fo r General Qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004; (c) “Application for
Centre Consortium Arrangements“, JCQ, 2005; (d) Capgemini analysis based on stakeholder interviews, Summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                               73
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates
• Funding and planning bodies
• Quality marks
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates
• Funding and planning bodies
• Quality marks
ALI, Ofsted, Estyn and ETI are the bodies responsible for inspecting centres
that offer regulated qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
        Sample of centres within the scope of inspectorates in England, Wales and NI
          ALI (England)a,1                             Ofsted (England)b,2   Estyn (Wales)c                                                                    ETI (NI)d,3
                                                               SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
   Further education                                Childcare providers                           Nursery schools4                               Pre-school centres
    colleges                                         Children‟s services                           Primary schools                                Nursery schools
   ALI also works with Ofsted                       State schools                                 Secondary schools                              Primary schools
    to assess education and                          Independent schools and                       Special schools                                Post-primary schools
    training for 14-19 year olds                      colleges                                      Pupil referral units                           Special schools
    in a local area                                                                                 Independent schools                            Further education
                                                                                                    Further education                               colleges


                                                         TRAINING PROVIDERS AND EMPLOYERS
   Work-based learning          Teacher training                                                Adult education provided by  Training organisations
   learndirect provision         institutions                                                     local authorities and        The youth and
   Adult and community          Youth work                                                       voluntary organisations       community sector
    learning                                                                                      Youth support services       Initial Teacher Education
   Training for employment                                                                       Teacher education and         organisations
    funded by Jobcentre Plus,                                                                      training
    including the New Deals                                                                       Work-based training
   Training of service men and                                                                   Careers Wales companies
    women across all three                                                                        The education, guidance
    services as well as MoD                                                                        and training elements of
    civil servants                                                                                 New Deal


     Some inspectorates are responsible for inspecting organisations other than centres, for example,
     Local Education Authorities.
Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; b) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (c) “The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for
The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI.
                   Note: (1) ALI – Adult Learning Inspectorate; (2) Ofsted – Office for Standards in Education; (3) ETI – Education and Training Inspectorate; (4) And non-maintained nurseries
                   including family centres, day nurseries and play groups in the independent, private and voluntary sectors which are included in the Early Years Development and Childcare
                   Partnerships.                                                                                                                                                                  76
The purpose of inspection is to raise quality and standards of education and
training by identifying and promoting good practice
                                     The inspectorates‟ stated purposes of inspection
                               There are three main purposes of inspection:
                                To give an independent, public account of the quality of education and training, the standards achieved
 ALIa                            and the management of resources
                                To bring about improvement by identifying strengths and weaknesses and highlighting good and poor practice
                                To inform the Secretary of State and funding bodies about the quality and standards of education and
                                 training
                                Ofsted does not explicitly state a single purpose for all of its inspection activity
                                As an example, for schools, it states that:
 Ofstedb                         • For parents, schools and the wider community inspection reports provide an independent, external
                                    evaluation of the quality and standards of education at the school and whether pupils are achieving as
                                    much as they can
                                 • They also provide a measure of accountability and should promote the improvement of the school
                               The purposes of inspection are to:
                                Identify strengths and weaknesses so as to help providers to improve quality and standards
 Estync                         Provide an independent published evaluation of the quality and standards achieved by the provider
                                Keep the National Assembly for Wales and the wider public informed about the standards and quality of
                                 education and training
                                Identify and promote good practice and help providers to strive for excellence
                                The purpose of inspection is to promote the highest possible standards of learning, teaching and
                                 achievement throughout the education and training sectors
 ETId                           The report of the findings of the inspection should acknowledge good practice and outcomes and, where
                                 appropriate, provide a clear basis for improvement




     Inspectorates also provide an independent evaluation of the quality and standards achieved by a
     particular centre to inform the centre itself, government bodies and the public.
Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; b) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (c) “The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for
The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI.


                                                                                                                                                                               77
Inspections aim to answer overarching questions about the effectiveness
and efficiency of provision in meeting learners‟ needs
                                                  Overarching questions for inspections


                                 How effective and efficient are the provision and related services
 ALI and                          in meeting the full range of learners‟ needs and why?
 Ofsteda,1                       What steps need to be taken to improve the provision further?


                                 How good are the standards achieved by learners and what
                                  effect does the quality of provision and management have on
 Estynb                           these?


                                  How effective and efficient is the provision of education and training in
                                   responding to local circumstances and in meeting the needs of learners and
 ETIc
                                   why?




  To answer the overarching questions, inspectorates focus on three areas: achievements of learners;
  quality of provision; and the quality of leadership and management.
Source: (a) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI. (b) “The Common Inspecti on Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn;
(c) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003.
                   Note: Ofsted and ALI publish one inspection framework

                                                                                                                                                                                         78
Inspectorates evaluate and report on key questions within the three areas of learner
achievement, quality of provision and quality of leadership and management
                Inspection framework and associated key questions
      Inspection
      framework                            ALI and Ofsteda,1                                          Estynb                                               ETIc
                                 1. How well do learners achieve?                   1. How well do learners achieve?                   1. How well do learners achieve?
                                                                                                                                       For example
                                                                                                                                        How successful is the
   Achievements                                                                                                                           organisation in helping
    of learners                                                                                                                           learners of all ages to acquire
                                                                                                                                          good standards of knowledge,
                                                                                                                                          understanding and skills?

                                 2. How effective are teaching,                     2. How effective are teaching,                     2. What is the quality of learning?
                                    training and learning?                             training and assessment?                        For example
                                 3. How well do programmes and                      3. How well do learning                             How effective are teaching and
       Quality of                   activities meet the needs and                      experiences meet the needs                         training in meeting the needs of
       provision                    interests of learners?                             and interests of learners and                      the learners
                                 4. How well are learners guided                       the wider community?                             How effective are the
                                    and supported?                                  4. How well are learners guided                       arrangements for pastoral care
                                                                                       and supported?                                     in providing guidance
                                 5. How effective are leadership   5. How effective are leadership   3. What is the quality of the
                                    and management in raising         and strategic management?         leadership and management?
     Quality of                     achievement and supporting all 6. How well do leaders and        For example
                                    learners?                         managers evaluate and           How well do leaders and
  leadership and                                                      improve quality and standards?    managers set a clear direction
   management                                                      7. How efficient are leaders and     leading to high quality
                                                                      managers in using resources?      education and training?



    Inspections focus on the experiences of learners and the key questions apply to a centre as a whole
    as well as to aspects of its work such as areas of learning, subjects, courses and programmes.
 Source: (a) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI. (b) “The Common Inspecti on Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn;
 (c) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI.
                    Note: Ofsted and ALI publish one inspection framework

                                                                                                                                                                                          79
                  Inspectorates use a broad range of evidence to evaluate the questions in
                  each framework area, including learner‟s work and staff interviews
                                                  Examples of evidence used to evaluate learner achievement
                                  ALI inspecting work-based
                                      learning providers a                               Estyn inspecting FE provision b                               ETI inspecting FE provisionc
                             1. How well do learners achieve?                           1. How well do learners achieve?                           1. How well do learners achieve?

                             Examples of evidence used:                                 Examples of evidence used:                                 Examples of evidence used:
                              Observations of learners at work                          Provider‟s self-assessment report                         Observation of teaching/training and
                              Numbers of learners starting and                          Data on learner completion and                             learning sessions
                               completing their programmes                                attainment rates                                          Learners‟ individual action plans and
Achievements of learners




                              Destinations of all learners                              Individual learning plans                                  learner agreements;
                              Learners‟ written and practical work,                     External and internal verifier reports                    Discussions with staff and learners
                               including portfolios of evidence                          Awarding body requirements;                               Scrutiny of learners‟ work
                              Interviews with learners about their                      Learners‟ files, portfolios, written                      Examination/assessment results
                               achievements                                               assignments and practical work                            Destinations of learners
                              Interviews with employers about the                       Observation of teaching and training                      Internal and external verifiers‟ reports
                               standard of learners‟ work                                 sessions
                              Learners‟ initial assessment records                      Meetings with learners, teachers, other
                               and individual learning plans                              staff and managers.




                                     Awarding bodies‟ external verifier reports can be used as evidence when evaluating learner
                                     achievement.
                           Source: (a) ”INTERPRETING THE COMMON INSPECTION FRAMEWORK: GUIDANCE FOR PROVIDERS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING”, ALI; (b) “Guidance on the Inspection of Further
                           Education Providers”, Estyn, 09/2005; (c) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”,
                                             ETI, 2003.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 80
               To evaluate quality of provision, inspectorates look at teaching, training and
               assessment, staff qualifications, centre policies and learner views
                                                Examples of evidence used to evaluate quality of provision
                           ALI for inspecting work-based                                     Estyn for inspecting FE
                                 learning providers a                                               provisionb                                    ETI for inspecting FE provisionc
                         2. How effective are teaching, training and                 2. How effective are teaching, training                     2. What is the quality of learning?
                            learning?                                                   and assessment?                                          With regard to ethos
                          Observations of training and                               Assessment policies and procedures                         Observation and experience of the
                            assessment                                                External and internal verifier reports                      atmosphere, environment and
                          Interviews with learners, trainers,                        Learners‟ portfolios and assessed written                   relationships
                            assessors and internal verifiers                            work                                                      Observation of learning sessions
                          Records of assessment and internal                         CVs of those involved in teaching and                      Discussions with staff and learners
                            and external verification                                   assessment                                               With regard to curriculum
                          Staff qualifications                                       Observation of assessment                   Development plan and action plans
                                                                                                                                   Approval documents from awarding
Quality of provision




                         3. How well do programmes and activities 3.                     How well do learning experiences meet        bodies
                            meet the needs and interests of                              the needs and interests of learners and   Views of staff, students, and employers
                                                                                                                                  With regard to quality of teaching and
                            learners?                                                    the wider community?                     training; quality of learning; assessment
                          Interviews with learners, employers,                         Self-assessment reports and action        Schemes of work and lesson plans
                            workplace supervisors and providers‟ staff                   plans                                     Assessment plans and materials
                          Providers‟ strategic and development                         The provider‟s curriculum documentation,  Records of assessment
                            plans                                                        plans, schemes of work and timetables     Internal and external verifiers‟ reports
                                                                                        Discussions with teachers, learners and  Records and reports of staff development
                                                                                         stakeholders such as employers           With regard to learning support
                                                                                                                                   Publicity material
                         4. How well are learners guided and           4.                How well are learners guided and          Admissions policy
                            supported?                                                   supported?                                Access arrangements and available
                          Interviews with learners about the quality                   Mission statement, charters, publicity,      support for special learning needs
                            of care, guidance, advice and support that                   recruitment and marketing materials      With regard to staffing and physical resources
                            they receive                                                Equal opportunity, child protection and   Provision of support for those with
                          Advice and guidance materials                                 race equality policies and procedures        special needs
                                                                                        Health and safety policies and            Health and safety policies and
                                                                                         procedures                                   procedures
                                                                                        Disability statements                     Policies for upgrading resources

                       Source: (a) ” INTERPRETING THE COMMON INSPECTION FRAMEWORK: GUIDANCE FOR PROVIDERS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING”, ALI; (b) “Guidance o n the Inspection of Further
                       Education Providers”, Estyn, 09/2005; (c) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”,
                                          ETI, 2003; (d) Meeting with Ann Keane of Estyn, 08/08/2006.
                                          Note: „Assessment‟ used by inspectorates may not always refer to awarding body assessments. For example, an inspectorate may consider how effectively assessment is
                                          being used to incentives the learner.                                                                                                                                 81
                           To evaluate quality of leadership and management inspectorates look at the
                           provider‟s policies, plans and quality assurance processes
                                             Examples of evidence used to evaluate quality of leadership and management
                                             ALI for inspecting work-based                                  Estyn for inspecting FE
                                                   learning providers a                                            provisionb                                   ETI for inspecting FE provisionc
                                         5. How effective are leadership and             5. How effective are leadership and                                   3. What is the quality of the leadership
                                            management in raising achievement               strategic management?                                                 and management?
Quality of leadership and management




                                            and supporting all learners?                 6. How well do leaders and managers                                   With regard to leadership, quality assurance,
                                                                                            evaluate and improve quality and                                   management of resources, external links, and
                                            Interviews with staff and managers             standards?                                                         equality of opportunity
                                             about their own development and their       7. How efficient are leaders and managers
                                             understanding of the organisation‟s quality    in using resources?                                                   Organisational development plan
                                             improvement procedures and promotion of                                                                              Job descriptions
                                             equality of opportunity                      Strategic and operational plans, staff                                 Minutes of meetings
                                            Interviews with partners, employers,           handbook, quality manual, previous                                    Quality assurance documentation
                                             learners, trainers, assessors, and             inspection reports, the provider‟s self-                              Documentation on staff development
                                             internal verifiers                             assessment report                                                     Discussions with staff, senior
                                            Policy and operating statements              Governors‟ papers, agendas and                                          management and learners
                                            Business plans                                 minutes of governors and management                                   Observation of lessons
                                            Staff development plans and activities,        committees (including sub-committees)                                 Policy statements of budgeting and
                                             including those for equality of opportunity  Staffing policy, the staffing structure and                             resource management
                                            Quality improvement procedures and             job descriptions                                                      Motivation of staff and shared
                                             arrangements                                 Plans for continuing professional                                       aspirations and values
                                            Self-assessment reports                        development                                                           Inspectorate reports
                                            Complaints and appeals procedures and  Observation of the provider in operation,                                    Senior management response to
                                             associated records                             including attendance at meetings                                       course/programme reviews
                                            Staff qualifications and staff training      Discussions with governing body,
                                             and development records                        principal, programme leaders, teaching
                                                                                            staff and learners.



                                         Self-assessment documents are also a key source of evidence that inspectors use when making
                                         judgments about providers and all inspectorates promote and support self-assessment approaches.
                                       Source: (a) ” INTERPRETING THE COMMON INSPECTION FRAMEWORK: GUIDANCE FOR PROVIDERS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING”, ALI; (b) “Guidance o n the
                                       Inspection of Further Education Providers”, Estyn, 09/2005; (c) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern
                                                           Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            82
       When inspecting, inspectorates usually assign grades across the centre and
       also to programme areas, although grades are not always published
                                                        Grading systems and inspection outcomes
                            Ofsted and ALIa,b                                                  Estync,d                                                      ETIe,f
              Grade 1: Outstanding                                       Grade 1: Good with outstanding                              Grade 1: Significant strengths
                                                                                  features
              Grade 2: Good                                              Grade 2: Good features and no                               Grade 2: Strengths outweigh areas
                                                                                  important shortcomings                                      for improvement
  Grading




              Grade 3: Satisfactory                                      Grade 3: Good features outweigh                             Grade 3: Areas for improvement
                                                                                  shortcomings                                                outweigh strengths
              Grade 4: Inadequate                                        Grade 4: Some good features, but                            Grade 4: Significant areas for
                                                                                  shortcomings in important                                   improvement
                                                                                  areas
                                                                         Grade 5: Many important shortcomings


               Separate grades are normally given for:                  Grades are published in three ways:                          ETI does not publish grades
                • Each area of learning                                   Across the provider, one grade is                          The conclusion to the written report and
                • Leadership and management overall                        assigned for each of the seven key                          to each curriculum area report within it,
Outcomes of
inspections




                • Equality of opportunity                                  questions                                                   will reflect the grade afforded
                • Quality improvement                                     For each of the three framework areas,                     Grades will be given to staff at the
                • Overall effectiveness                                    Estyn publishes the percentage of                           provider as part of the oral feedback on
               The equality of opportunity and quality                    results achieved at each grade                              the inspection of the programmes for
                improvement grades contribute to the                      For question one (achievements of                           which they have responsibility
                overall leadership and management                          learners) Estyn publishes the (single)                     Grades for all areas inspected,
                grade                                                      grade assigned to each programme                            including leadership and management,
               Areas of learning may also be given                        area that was inspected                                     will be provided to the management and
                grades for contributory learning areas                                                                                 management board/ Governing Body


                 In addition to any grades that are published, inspection reports contain commentary about the
                 centre‟s performance against the framework areas and often recommendations for improvement.
            Source: (a) ” INTERPRETING THE COMMON INSPECTION FRAMEWORK: GUIDANCE FOR PROVIDERS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING”, ALI; (b) “INSPECTION REPORT, 2C Ltd”, ALI,
            03/11/2005; (c) “Guidance on the Inspection of Further Education Providers”, Estyn, 09/2005; (d) “A REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF FURTHER EDUCATION AT COLEG GWENT“, Estyn,
                                23/11/04 – 03/12/04; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised
                                2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Training and Employment Progr ammes in Northern Ireland”, ETI.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 83
      The length and frequency of inspections differs by inspectorate as well as by
      type of provider
                                                                    Inspection frequency and length
                              ALI and Ofsted                                                       Estyn                                                         ETI
               ALI inspects all providers every four                       Estyn inspects each provider at least                      ETI commits to inspecting an organisation
                yearsa                                                       once every six yearsd                                       every seven years with the frequency
                • A Quality Monitoring Visit may take                                                                                    varying by type of providerf
Frequency




                   place about a year after inspection                                                                                   • In practice, visits or other types of
               There is a three year cycle for Ofsted‟s                                                                                   inspection activity are more frequent
                inspection of schoolsc                                                                                                   • For example, a training provider will
               For colleges, the inspection cycle is                                                                                      receive a focused inspection, on an
                four years and colleges will receive                                                                                       aspect of provision, normally every
                Annual Assessment Visits from an                                                                                           four yearsh
                Ofsted inspector which determine
                frequency and timings of inspections1
               ALI inspections take place over a                           Inspections take place over 8 working                      Inspection can take place over several
                maximum period of eight weeksa                               dayse                                                       weeks
                • The inspection may include interim                         • During the first five days, inspectors                   For a a two-part focused inspection in
                  inspection visits as well as the final                        seek evidence in order to make                           further educationg:
                  inspection visit                                              judgments on key question one for all                    • Week 1 vocational areas are
Length




                • Providers receive feedback at the end                         programme areas being inspected                             inspected
                  of each interim visit                                      • During the last three days, inspectors                    • Week 2 cross college aspects are
                                                                                seek evidence to make judgments                             inspected
               For schools, Ofsted aims to spend no                            about on key questions across the                        • Week 3 the report is prepared
                more than 2 days at the schoolb                                 centre                                                   • Week 4 written and oral reports are
                • Annual assessment visits of colleges                                                                                      presented to the college
                  usually last one day                                                                                                   • Week 5 the report is published




              The length of time between inspection visits ranges from three to seven years and inspection length
              from two days to eight weeks but some inspectors also visit annually to monitor progress.
            Source: (a) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (b) www.ali.gov.uk; (c) www.ofsted.org.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training in
            Wales”, Estyn; (e) Meeting with Ann Keane of Estyn, 08/08/2006; (f) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Tr aining Inspectorate”, ETI; (g) “IMPROVING QUALITY
                                :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (h) “IMPROVING QUALITY
                                :RAISING STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Training and Employment Programmes in Northern Ireland”, ETI.
                                Note: (1) Where appropriate a full-time ALI inspector will also visit the provider for the annual assessment visit                                                     84
Estyn has customised inspections of colleges and training providers based
on the „risk‟ presented and it runs either short, standard or full inspections
                                                   Estyn‟s risk based inspection approacha
                            Defining the „risk‟                                                           Impact on the inspection
  The criteria used to decide the risk presented has 2 levels                               The level of risk defined determines the type of inspection a
    and providers are classified as low, medium or high risk                                  provider receives:
 First level
  This uses the grades from the most recent inspection                                      High risk – full inspection
  Estyn uses the following criteria:                                                         • A provider is evaluated across all seven key questions of
    • The average grade for learner achievement awarded to                                      the Common Inspection Framework
        the provider from all of its programme areas; and                                        This includes all programme areas at all levels within
    • The percentage of grades 3, 4 and 5 for learner                                              the provider for key question 1
        achievement awarded to the programme areas
 Second level                                                                                Medium risk – standard inspection
  Nearer to the planned inspection, Estyn verifies and, if                                   • A provider is evaluated across all seven key questions of
    necessary amends the level of risk identified at level 1                                    the Common Inspection Framework, but fewer
    • It does this by analysing the most recent benchmarked                                     programme areas are inspected
        performance data from ELWa (the funding body, now                                        Typically inspectors evaluate and report on 50% of the
        part of DELLS)                                                                             programme areas for key question 1
  Performance indicators are used as criteria to define risk
    • Performance indicator data on the proportion of learners                               Low risk – short inspection
        who complete courses and attain goals is analysed                                     • A provider is evaluated across all seven key questions of
    • If half or more of the indicators are greater than ten                                    the Common Inspection Framework, but even fewer
        percentage points below the National Comparators then                                   programme areas are inspected
        the risk attached to the provider increases from low to                                  Typically inspectors evaluate and report on 25% of the
        medium or from medium to high                                                              programme areas for key question 1


   Estyn inspections continue to run on a six year cycle, but the number of programme areas inspected
   (and therefore the number of inspectors that visit) is reduced according to the risk defined.
 Source: (a) “Risk-based inspection in further education and work-based learning”, Estyn.



                                                                                                                                                              85
ALI operates a „Right Touch‟ inspection approach, with the extent of
inspection being adjusted based on the needs of the provider1
                        ALI risk based inspection approach – „Right Touch‟ inspectiona,b
             Defining the extent of inspection                                                                          Impact on the inspection
  The extent of a provider‟s inspection and its focus is                                             ALI is conducting a first cycle of regular inspections in order
   determined through a thorough pre-inspection analysis                                               to gather baseline data
                                                                                                      Cycle 2 inspections will be „Right Touch‟
  The pre-inspection analysis draws on a range of information                                         • Resources will be allocated to meet the needs of the
   to assess the resources required for the inspection:                                                    provider
                                                                                                            Providers with a successful record will have a less
    •   Previous inspection report, re-inspection report and/or                                                intensive inspection
        quality monitoring report, or annual assessment                                                • These inspections will provide efficiency savings of 25%
        report                                                                                             in terms of inspection days compared with Cycle 1
                                                                                                      In reduced intensity inspections, a sample of learning areas
    •   Retention and achievement data and other                                                       will be inspected, as opposed to all significant areas in a
        performance information.                                                                       full intensity inspection
                                                                                                      If the quality of some aspect of provision is found to be
    •   Self-assessment grades                                                                         unsatisfactory in reduced intensity inspections, ALI may
                                                                                                       allocate further days to the inspection
    •   Information from the LSC and Jobcentre Plus                                                   As part of the inspection, ALI seeks to validate the provider‟s
                                                                                                       self-assessment process and report to determine the
    •   Information on the provider from the LSC                                                       provider‟s capacity for self-improvement
                                                                                                      ALI conducts a Quality Monitoring Visit about a year after
                                                                                                       inspection
                                                                                                       • Providers that perform well at inspection are exempt from
                                                                                                           this visit


    This approach is in response to government pressure and, as well as driving value for money, puts
    more emphasis on a centre‟s self-assessment process and its capacity for self-improvement.
Source: (a) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (b) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005.
Note: (1) Ofsted also uses risk assessment to determine the length and frequency of inspections.


                                                                                                                                                                         86
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates – summary
• Funding and planning bodies
• Quality marks
Inspectorates aim to raise quality and standards in education, whereas
awarding bodies aim to ensure quality and standards in their qualifications
                            Awarding body monitoring versus inspectorate inspections
                                               Awarding bodies                                   Inspectorates
                                   Maintain quality and standards in the          Raise quality and standards of education
                                    qualifications                                  and training by identifying and promoting
                                   Ensure that they are able to satisfy the        good practice
  Purpose of                        regulators                                     Provide an independent evaluation of the
  monitoring /                     Assure their own reputation                     quality and standards achieved by a particular
                                   Provide support for programme leaders           centre to inform the government and the
  inspections
                                   Ensure opportunities for learners               public
                                                                                                A centre may be providing education and
                                                                                             training to a low standard, but be maintaining
                                                                                                   the correct level of standards in the
                                                                                                      assessment of qualifications

                                   Moderation of internally assessed work         Observing learning
                                   Visits during examination periods              Interviewing learners, staff and other
                                   Analysis of examination outcomes                stakeholders
                                   Verification of internal assessment and
                                                                                   Examining learners' work and documents
  Evidence                          verification through sampling and speaking
                                                                                    relating to training, assessment, verification
                                    with staff and learners
  gathered                         Systems audit to check appropriateness of a     and qualifications
                                    centre‟s quality assurance processes           Reviewing self-assessment reports, quality
                                    • This may include conversations with staff     assurance processes, and strategic and
                                       and learners                                 operational plans



   The appropriateness of internal assessment decisions against qualification standards and conduct
   of examinations is monitored by awarding bodies only, but systems checks are carried out by both.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                              88
Centres often receive visits from awarding bodies on an annual basis if not
more, whereas inspectorates may have years between inspections
                            Awarding body monitoring versus inspectorate inspections
                                               Awarding bodies                                 Inspectorates
                                   Length: ranges from a few hours to a full    Length: ranges from two days to eight
                                    day                                           weeks
 Length and                        Frequency: some centres will receive no      Frequency: ranges from three to seven
                                    monitoring contact, others will receive       years for inspections
 frequency                          multiple visits from many awarding bodies     • However, some inspectorates conduct more
 monitoring /                       per year                                        frequent visits – for example Ofsted visits
 inspections                                                                        colleges to conduct a quality monitoring
                                                                                    visit every year



                                   Awarding bodies are concerned primarily      Inspectorates are concerned with provision
                                    with the programme areas delivering their     across an entire centre
                                    qualifications                                • Inspectorates may only sample a number of
 Scope of                           • This may include a quality assurance
                                                                                    programme areas in order to make a
                                       check at the programme level
 monitoring /                      However, some awarding bodies check             judgement on the quality and standards of
                                    quality assurance systems across the            education and training in a centre
 inspections
                                    centre
                                                                                  A centre that has received an inspection result of
                                                                                 „satisfactory‟ may have shortcomings or areas for
                                                                                  improvement in the one programme area that an
                                                                                          awarding body is concerned with.


       The long period of time between inspection visits invites the questions that, for awarding body
       systems audits, what is it that means awarding bodies must monitor annually, if at all?
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                       89
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates
• Funding and planning bodies
• Quality marks
LSC, DELLS and DEL are the bodies responsible for funding and planning
post 16 education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
                                                            Funding and planning bodies
                    Learning and Skills Council                                   DELLS Planning and                               Department for Employment
                         (LSC) (England)a                                          Funding (Wales)b,1                               and Learning (DEL) (NI)c,d,e
                   To raise participation and                             To guarantee, on behalf of the                         To enhance the provision of
                    attainment through high-quality                         Welsh Assembly, that the education                      learning and skills, including
                    education and training which puts                       and training that it funds is of                        entrepreneurship, enterprise,
                    learners first                                          excellent quality and able to meet                      management and leadership
                                                                            the needs of learners
    Aim                                                                     • Secures both value for money
                                                                              and high quality provision for
                                                                              learners



                   Responsible for funding and                            Planning and funding education for                     Planning and funding post 16
                    planning education and training for                     post-16 learners                                        education, including higher
                    over 16-year-olds in England                           This includes providers of:                             education
                   This includes providers of:                             • Further education,
                    • Further education                                     • Work-based learning
  Scope             • Work-based training                                   • Community learning
                    • School sixth forms
                    • Workforce development
                    • Adult and community learning
                    • Education business links




         These bodies aim to ensure that the provision they fund is meeting the demands of learners,
         employers and local communities for learning and skills and that it is of a high quality.
Source: (a) www.lsc.gov.uk; (b) www.elwa.ac.uk; (c) www.delni.gov.uk; (d) www.deni.gov.uk; (e) www.hefce.ac.uk.
Note: (1) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding body was previously ELWa, but this has merged with DELLs.


                                                                                                                                                                     91
          In order to assure themselves that the provision they fund is of a suitable
          standard, funding bodies review provider performance, often annually
                   Review process conducted by funding bodies to assure quality and value for money
                                                                                    DELLS Planning and Funding
                                  LSC (England)a,1                                          (Wales)b,2                                                DEL (Northern Ireland)c,d,3
                    LSC reviews providers at least                               DELLS reviews providers at least                             DEL conducts inspections and
                     annually                                                      annually                                                      surveys through ETI, the inspectorate
                    Providers agree a three-year                                 Annually, providers submit their self-
                     development plan with their local LSC                         assessment reports and quality                               In 1999, the Department of Education
                     • This sets out how they will contribute                      development plans by an agreed date                           (DE) conferred powers of inspection to
                        to meeting the local needs of                             DELLS uses these and other documents                          both DEL and Department of Culture, Arts
                        employers, widening participation,                         to conduct a formal desk-based Provider                       and Leisure (DCAL)
                                                                                                                                                In the interests of economy, efficiency
Review process




                        and their commitment to improve                            Performance Review
                        learners‟ success                                          • Providers are reviewed against four                         and effectiveness, DEL and DCAL
                    Annually, during an Annual Planning                               areas:                                                    elected to use ETI, the inspectorate,
                     Review, local LSCs review with                                    Participation and responsiveness                         for the delivery of inspection and
                     providers the implementation of their                             Learner experiences and                                  survey services based on an agreed
                     three-year development plans and                                     achievements                                           annual work programme and
                     progress towards achieving the headline                           Planning and management                                  assumptions about levels of resources
                     performance measures                                              Finance and compliance                                  A memorandum of understanding exists
                                                                                  The provider receives written feedback                        between ETI, DE, DEL and DCAL
                    Additionally, the LSC conducts Provider                       on its review                                                ETI develops its annual work
                     Financial Assurance reviews that                             A focused interim review may take place                       programme as part of its Service Level
                     coincide with inspections wherever                            sixth months later which focuses on                           Agreements (SLAs) with DE, DCAL and
                     possible                                                      areas where concerns were identified                          DEL
                     • The inspection cycle is every four                          in the main review
                        years



                    The Learning and Skills Act 2000 indicated that the LSC and ELWa (as was) would investigate the
                    quality of provision they fund on their own behalves whereas DEL reviews via the inspectorate, ETI.
                 Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Memorandum of Understanding between ETI, DE, DCAL and DEL”, ETI,
                 06/2006; (d) Conversation with Connor Brady of the DEL‟s FE policy team, 25/08/2006.
                                     Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding body was previously ELWa, but this has
                                     merged with DELLs; (3) DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           92
           In order to assess performance, funding bodies review a provider‟s own self
           assessment report and development plan as well as external documents
                                 Evidence used by funding bodies to assure quality and value for money
                                                                                     DELLS Planning and Funding
                                   LSC (England)a,1                                          (Wales)b,2                                                 DEL (Northern Ireland)c,3
                     The provider‟s self-assessment                               The provider‟s self-assessment                               Evidence gathered by ETI (see
                      report                                                        report                                                        previous section on inspectorates)

                     The provider‟s quality improvement                           The provider‟s quality development
                      plan                                                          plans

                     Individualised learner record (ILR)                          Inspection reports
Evidence sought




                      data that the provider sends to the
                      LSC                                                          GAELWa audits (the ELWa audit
                                                                                    service, now DELLS)
                     Performance against national,
                      regional and local benchmarks for                            Data from the Lifelong Learning
                      learner success rates                                         Wales Record

                     The findings of inspection and                               Strategic plans
                      information about the annual
                      assessment visit from the                                    Information from health and safety
                      inspectorate                                                  monitoring, and financial data




                              These reviews, or at least part of them, are often desk-based with the provider submitting
                              documentation for the funding and planning body to analyse.
                  Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Memorandum of Understanding between ETI, DE, DCAL and DEL”, ETI,
                  06/2006.
                                      Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding body was previously ELWa, but this has
                                      merged with DELLS; (3) DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            93
                       The outcomes of reviews determine the subsequent interaction between the
                       funding body and the provider and also inform funding allocations
                                                                                            Results of funding body reviews
                                                                                                     DELLS Planning and Funding
                                                   LSC (England)a,1                                          (Wales)b,2                                                 DEL (Northern Ireland)c,3
                                     Providers that demonstrate through self-                     Providers that fail to meet a satisfactory  ETI has the responsibility to publish
                                      assessment effective management of                            standard overall will be required to         inspection reports and other reports
                                      the risks to outstanding or good                              develop action plans to address the
                                                                                                                                                DEL may take actions as a result of the
Results of funding body reviews




                                      quality receive less intensive Annual                         shortcomings identified
                                      Planning Reviews from the LSC                                 • They may be eligible for quality           outcomes of an ETI inspection or review
                                                                                                       improvement funding or other means
                                     If the review identifies poor quality                            of support
                                      provision or lack of progress towards                         • These provider will be subject to a
                                      the achievement of headline performance                          follow-up review after six months to
                                      measures, the LSC will discuss with                              determine whether sufficient progress
                                      providers options for support and                                is being made
                                      intervention                                                 The outcomes of reviews will inform
                                     If the LSC considers the self-                                funding allocations, for example
                                      assessment lacks rigour it will work with                     • Restricted growth where quality and
                                      the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA)                             standards in individual subject areas
                                      to support the provider in the revision of                       are below the quality threshold
                                      its self-assessment                                           • Rewards for providers with
                                                                                                       outstanding quality and
                                     The LSC will no longer fund                                      performance
                                      persistently poor quality provision that                      • Withdrawal of funding from providers
                                      does not meet its needs and priorities and                       which are seriously and consistently
                                      which delivers poor outcomes for learners                        underperforming



                                    Funding and planning bodies offer providers options for support to improve quality, but these bodies
                                    also clearly state that they will not continue to fund persistently poor quality provision.
                                  Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Memorandum of Understanding between ETI, DE, DCAL and DEL”, ETI,
                                  06/2006;
                                                      Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding body was previously ELWa, but this has
                                                      merged with DELLs; (3) DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            94
             Funding bodies state that the primary responsibility for quality rests with
             providers and expect providers to operate quality management systems
                                Promoting quality management and improvement through self-assessment
                                                                                        DELLS Planning and Funding                                        ETI (reviewing on behalf of
                                      LSC (England)a,1                                          (Wales)b,2                                                DEL) (Northern Ireland)c,3
                                                                                       “Providers have prime responsibility for the                    “The greatest likelihood for improvement,
                                       “Primary responsibility for                    quality of their provision, and DELLS aims to                    particularly improvement to be sustained
                                                                                         ensure that providers take ownership of                          over time, occurs when a school has
Expectations




                                   improving the quality of provision
                                     rests with the provider”, LSCa                   quality and demonstrate their commitment to                          established a positive culture and
                                                                                               continuous improvement.”b                                 commitment to professional growth.” c

                         “The Government looks to all providers to                     “We expect providers to develop their own                      “Through rigorous self-evaluation a school
                          adopt strategies for securing continuous                    quality management systems... At the centre                    can recognise its strengths and put in place
                          improvement as many already do. These                           of these systems will be regular self-                         processes to ensure that those areas
                            strategies should be based on self-                          assessment to evaluate quality … and                         identified as strengths continue to flourish,
                        assessment and action planning.”, „Learning                     quality development planning to build on                     while other areas in need of improvement are
                             to Succeed‟ White Paper, 06/1999a                            strengths and address weaknesses” b                                  prioritised and developed.” c

                        The LSC has published documents                              DELLS has produced self-assessment                            To support self-evaluation, ETI has
Additional support




                         outlining its expectations of self-                           guidance                                                       published a series of documents including
                         assessment                                                   Further support is provided through Dysg                       „Quality Assurance in the Youth Sector‟
                        The Quality Improvement Agency,                               (QIA equivalent)                                               and „Improving Quality: Raising
                         established in April 2006, aims to enable                    In spring 2005, DELLS commissioned                             Standards‟ in Further Education and
                         providers to learn from others                                Dysg to undertake a programme of self-                         Training
                         disseminate good practice and innovation                      assessment support , comprising:                              It has also produced guidance in a
                        It will build capacity for self-improvement                   • Training on effective self-assessment                        document called „Together Towards
                         through commissioning support materials                          and action planning; and                                    Improvement‟ for the principal and staff
                         (toolkits) and offering expert advice                         • Production of a practical guide                              in all schools that enables them to
                         services to support self-assessment                              (published in February 2006)                                develop the process in a systematic way


                       The self-assessment guidance of the funding bodies, inspectorates and quality improvement bodies
                       was published in the last year and it will take time for all providers to achieve the expected standard.
                     Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Together towards improvement”, ETI.
                     Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding bo dy was previously ELWa, but this has merged with DELLs; (3)
                                         DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   95
Although they conduct provider reviews themselves, LSC and DELLS also
work closely with their respective inspectorates (as does DEL in NI)
                                               Working with the inspectorates
         LSC working with Ofsted and ALIa,b                                                    DELLS working with Estyn c
  A memorandum of understanding exists between the LSC,                          DELLS and Estyn have a Partnership Agreement
   Jobcentre Plus (that funds some learning such as New                           It establishes relationships for consultation and co-operation
   Deal), Ofsted, ALI and UFI                                                      between DELLS and Estyn, based on a common
  This documents sets out the information that these                              understanding of each organisation‟s business and an aim
   organisations will share                                                        jointly to make best use of finite resources for mutual benefit
   • For example, information from the Annual Planning                            Within this, they set out specific areas for „collaborative
      Review conducted by LSC and the Annual Assessment                            arrangements‟, including:
      Visits conducted by Ofsted or the Quality Monitoring                         • That DELLS will use evidence of inspection reports to
      Visits conducted by ALI                                                          inform decisions on continuing the funding of
  The document also states the organisations‟ commitment to                           organisations or provision
   reducing bureaucracy:                                                           • Estyn and DELLS will continue to promote self-
   • “The five organisations will work together to reduce                              assessment and action planning as key strategies in
      bureaucracy, giving particular consideration to co-                              quality assurance and improvement
      ordinating administrative and planning systems,                              • DELLS will provide Estyn with information on the
      minimising the data requirement burden for all and                               outcomes of Provider Performance Reviews as
      establishing single visits for institutions as far as                            appropriate
      possible.”                                                                   • DELLS officers will be invited to attend as observers at
  The funding bodies provide the inspectorates with financial                         inspection feedback sessions
   information and advice to inform inspections on the basis of
   risk and materiality
   • LSC visits for financial assurance coincide with inspection
      wherever possible


  By working together, the planning and funding bodies and the inspectorates are able to conduct risk
  assessments, based on an evaluation of the provider‟s capacity to maintain and improve qualitya.
Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS FOR POST-16 PROVISION
BETWEEN THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL, JOBCENTREPLUS, Ufi Ltd, OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION AND THE ADULT LEARNING INS PECTORATE”, 05/2005; (c)
                    “PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR WALES AND ESTYN, HER MAJESTY‟S INSPECTORAT E
                    FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN WALES”, 2005.
                                                                                                                                                         96
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates
• Funding and planning bodies – summary
• Quality marks
By monitoring, funding bodies ensure that provision meets demands and is
high quality whereas awarding bodies maintain quality in their qualifications
                  Awarding body monitoring versus that of funding and planning bodies
                                                        Awarding bodies                                                 Funding and planning bodies
                                     Maintain quality and standards in the            Ensure that the provision they fund is
                                      qualifications                                    meeting the demands of learners,
  Purpose of                         Ensure that they are able to satisfy the          employers and local communities for
                                      regulators                                        learning and skills
  monitoring /                       Assure their own reputation                      Ensure that the provision they fund is of a
  provider                           Provide support for programme leaders             high quality
  reviews                            Ensure opportunities for learners                Ensure that providers take ownership of
                               Awarding body monitoring is defined as, “The review of, quality and demonstrate their commitment
                                  and reporting on, the centre‟s quality assurance      to continuous improvement
                                           arrangements by the awarding bodies” a
                                     Moderation of internally assessed work                                     The provider‟s self-assessment report and
                                     Visits during examination periods                                           quality development/ improvement plans
                                     Analysis of examination outcomes                                           Inspection reports or reports from other visits
                                     Verification of internal assessment and
                                                                                                                  by the inspectors
  Evidence                            verification through sampling and speaking
                                                                                                                 Strategic plans
                                      with staff and learners
  gathered                           Systems audit to check appropriateness of a                                Information from health and safety
                                      centre‟s quality assurance processes                                        monitoring, and financial data
                                      • This may include conversations with staff                                Performance against national, regional and
                                         and learners                                                             local benchmarks for learner success rates



       Funding bodies assess providers, in part, on learner achievement, so awarding bodies need to
       monitor internal assessment decisions and exam conduct independently to maintain standards.
Source: (a) “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre Recognition Project, 11/2005; (b) Capgemini analysis,
summer 2006.


                                                                                                                                                                                           98
Funding and planning bodies, as with awarding bodies, often conduct
monitoring activity on a annual basis, if not more often
                 Awarding body monitoring versus that of funding and planning bodies
                                               Awarding bodies                        Funding and planning bodies
                                   Length: ranges from a few hours to a full    Length: often conducted remotely. Length of
                                    day                                           visits vary
 Length and                        Frequency: some centres will receive no      Frequency: often annually; more for
 frequency                          monitoring contact, others will receive       providers with failings either in the quality of
                                    multiple visits from many awarding bodies     their provision, or the rigour of their own
 monitoring /
                                    per year                                      internal quality management systems
 provider
 reviews


                                   Awarding bodies are concerned primarily      Funding bodies are concerned with provision
                                    with the programme areas delivering their     across an entire centre
                                    qualifications                                • Providers that have demonstrated that
 Scope of                           • This may include a quality assurance
                                                                                    adequate quality management systems are
 monitoring /                          check at the programme level
                                                                                    in place, may receive a very light touch
                                   However, some awarding bodies check
 provider                           quality assurance systems across the            funding body review
 reviews                            centre




      The funding bodies aim for all providers to have adequate quality management systems in place
      which, once established, may make awarding body checks on QA systems (audits) redundant.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006.



                                                                                                                                     99
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Inspectorates
• Funding and planning bodies – summary
• Quality marks
Some centres use external quality frameworks in their self-assessment and
can receive awards in recognition of achieving a certain standard
                                                  External quality frameworks or awards
     Framework /
      standard                                                                                     Description
                                     This model is a self-assessment tool
   EFQM1 Excellence
                                     However, an organisation can request an external assessment in order to achieve a Quality Award
       Model

                                     PQASSO is a practical quality assurance system for small organisations, or for projects within larger bodies
          PQASSO                     It enables an organisation to work out what it is doing well and what could be improved

                                     The Investors in People Standard is a business improvement tool designed to help organisations to improve
  Investors in People
                                      performance and realise objectives through the management and development of their people
       Standard
                                     It does this through a plan-do-review framework
                                     The Charter Mark scheme is a customer service standard and an award promoted by the government
       Charter Mark                  Charter Marks are given to organisations by a panel of independent judges on the recommendations of a team
                                      of assessors.
                                     An internally recognised standard for quality management systems
     ISO2 9001:2000

                                     Provides a framework for the continuous improvement of the basic skills of people over 16 years of age
   The Basic Skills
                                     Any organisation working with people over the age of 16 can apply for the Quality Mark on behalf of any basic
 Agency Quality Mark
                                      skills programme
      Kitemarks –        Some sector skills councils offer centres the opportunity to be awarded a kitemark for particular programmes it
   recognition from       offers
 Sector Skills Councils


    Different types of centres often use different external frameworks – for example it is very common
    for employers to hold the ISO 9001 standard.
Source: (a) “Quality Frameworks and Standards”, Dysg, 02/2006. (b) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholders, summer 2006.
Note: (1) EFQM – European Foundation for Quality Management; (2) ISO – Internal Organisation for Standardisation


                                                                                                                                                      101
Introducing other bodies that monitor or inspect
centres / providers
• Summary
Centres are monitored, inspected or reviewed by awarding bodies,
inspectorates and funding and planning bodies each for different purposes
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Maintain quality and standards  Raise quality and standards                                            Ensure that the provision they
                               in the qualifications            of education and training by                                            fund is meeting the demands
                              Ensure that they are able to     identifying and promoting                                               of learners, employers and
Purpose of                     satisfy the regulators           good practice                                                           local communities for
monitoring /                  Assure their own reputation     Provide an independent                                                  learning and skills
                              Provide support for programme    evaluation of the quality and                                          Ensure that the provision they
inspections
                               leaders                          standards achieved by a                                                 fund is of a high quality and
                              Ensure opportunities for         particular centre to inform the                                         represents value for money
                               learners                         government and the public                                              Also, they ensure that
                                                                                                                                        providers take ownership of
                      Need assurance that:                                         Need assurance that:                                 quality and demonstrate their
                  Learners achieve awards that                                 Learners‟ achievement levels                             commitment to continuous
                   are representative of their                                  are high and education and                              improvement
                          competence                                              training quality is high

                                                                                                                                           Need assurance that:
                                                                                                                                      Provision meets the needs of the
                                       A centre may be providing education and                                                        community, it is high quality and
                                    training to a low standard, but be maintaining                                                      represents value for money
                                          the correct level of standards in the
                                             assessment of qualifications


    To promote self-assessment and increase capacity for self-improvement, some centres also choose
    to adhere to certain external quality frameworks.
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           103
Awarding bodies are the only monitors to check the appropriateness of
assessment decisions or examination conduct
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Moderation of internally                            Observing learning                                 The provider‟s self-assessment
                               assessed work                                       Interviewing learners, staff                        report and quality
                              Visits during examination                            and other stakeholders                              development/ improvement
                               periods to ensure adherence to                      Examining learners' work                            plans
Evidence                       instructions
                                                                                    and documents relating to                          Inspection reports or reports
                              Analysis of examination
gathered                       outcomes                                             training, assessment,                               from other visits by the inspectors
                              Verification of internal                             verification and                                   Strategic plans
                               assessment and verification                          qualifications                                     Information from health and
                               through sampling and speaking                       Reviewing self-assessment                           safety monitoring, and financial
                               with staff and learners                              reports, quality assurance                          data
                              Systems audit to check                               processes, and strategic and                       Performance against national,
                               appropriateness of a centre‟s                        operational plans                                   regional and local benchmarks
                               quality assurance processes
                                                                                                                                        for learner success rates
                               • This may include
                                  conversations with staff and
                                  learners




                   However, all monitors appear to do a quality assurance / systems audit type check.

 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           104
Most monitors, even some inspectorates, monitor or review centres on a
annual basis with any visits lasting anything from a few hours to weeks
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Length: ranges from a few                           Length: ranges from two days                       Length: often conducted
                               hours to a full day                                  to eight weeks                                      remotely. Length of visits
Length and                    Frequency: some centres will                        Frequency: ranges from three                        vary
frequency                      receive no monitoring                                to seven years for inspections                     Frequency: often annually;
                               contact, others will receive                         • However, some                                     more for providers with
monitoring /                   multiple visits from many                               inspectorates conduct more                       failings either in the quality
provider                       awarding bodies per year                                frequent visits – for example                    of their provision, or the
reviews                                                                                Ofsted visits colleges to                        rigour of their own internal
                                                                                       conduct a quality monitoring                     quality management
                                                                                       visit every year                                 systems




     Inspectorates and funding and planning bodies and a number of awarding bodies also use risk
     assessments (sometimes informally) to determine the level of contact a centre / provider requires.
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           105
The monitoring scope varies between awarding bodies and other monitors
with inspectorates and funding bodies looking at total provision
                                                              Bodies that monitor centres
                                       Awarding bodies                                        Inspectorates                          Funding and planning bodies
                              Awarding bodies are                                 Inspectorates are concerned                        Funding bodies are
                               concerned primarily with the                         with provision across an                            concerned with provision
                               programme areas delivering
Scope of                                                                            entire centre                                       across an entire centre
                               their qualifications
                                                                                    • Inspectorates may only                            • Providers that have
monitoring /                   • This may include a quality
                                                                                       sample a number of                                 demonstrated that
                                 assurance check at the
provider                         programme level                                       programme areas in order                           adequate quality
reviews                       However, some awarding                                  to make a judgement on the                         management systems
                               bodies check quality                                    quality and standards of                           are in place, may receive
                               assurance systems across the                            education and training in a                        a very light touch funding
                               centre                                                  centre                                             body review

                                                                A centre that has received an inspection result of
                                                               „satisfactory‟ may have shortcomings or areas for
                                                                improvement in the one programme area that an
                                                                        awarding body is concerned with.




     Note that a small number of centres may not be inspected or reviewed by inspectorates or funding
     and planning bodies meaning awarding bodies may be the only monitors looking at that centre
 Source: (a) www.ali.gov.uk; (b) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI; (c) www.ofsted.gov.uk; (d) “The Common Inspection Framework for
 Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn; (d) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (e) “IMPROVING QUALITY :RAISING
                    STANDARDS, Arrangements for the Inspection of Further Education Programmes in Northern Ireland Revised 2003”, ETI, 2003; (f) Capgemini analysis, summer 2006; (g)
                    www.lsc.gov.uk; (h) www.elwa.ac.uk; (i) www.delni.gov.uk; (j) www.deni.gov.uk; (k) www.hefce.ac.uk.
                                                                                                                                                                                           106
Inspectorates and funding and planning bodies use risk based approaches
to reduce burden on providers
                       Simplify monitoring                                                                            Integrate monitoring
       Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                       interaction                                                                                      Standardise monitoring
  Risk based monitoring approaches                                                                     Providers are usually monitored by one inspectorate and one
   • The extent of the review is determined based on the                                                 funding and planning body
     previous review and more recent data and reports                                                   Therefore, unlike in the awarding body environment where
      The inspectorates and funding bodies have                                                         centres are monitored by many of the same type of bodies,
         agreements in place to share data                                                               there is little scope for standardisation here
  Self-assessment is used to review providers                                                          The exception is in England where some providers are
  Desk-based reviews occur rather than visits in person                                                 monitored by both ALI and Ofsted and LSC and another
                                                                                                         funding bodies (e.g. Jobcentre Plus)
                                                                                                         • In these cases, the organisations are working together to
                                                                                                            standardise their approach

         Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                                                           Join up monitoring across awarding bodies
  Risk based monitoring approaches                                                                     Some bodies inspect or review on behalf of others
   • Some reviews are removed for providers that perform                                                 • ETI conducts all inspections or surveys on behalf of DEL,
     well, for example:                                                                                    the funding body in NI
      ALI conducts quality monitoring visits about a year                                              Co-ordinated visits to providers
         after inspections, but providers that perform well at                                           • Where possible LSC conducts Provider Financial
         inspection are not visited                                                                        Assurance visits in line with inspectorates
      LSC conducts an interim review six months after the
         annual review, but providers that perform well are not
         reviewed again



    Inspectorates visiting on behalf of other bodies (as occurs in NI with DEL and ETI) and coordinated
    visits also reduce the inspection and review burden on providers.
Note: (1) Providers in NI are reviewed by ETI, the inspectorate, only and ETI informs the funding body of outcomes.



                                                                                                                                                                       107
Identifying what makes a „good‟ centre


• Defining „good‟
• Measuring „good‟ and the impact on monitoring
If a centre can be identified as being „good‟ then the monitoring activity it is
subjected to could be reduced
                 Identifying good and the potential impact on monitoring

   In order to understand whether monitoring activity could be reduced per monitor (by
    seeking less evidence per monitoring interaction or reducing the frequency of monitoring),
    two questions need to be asked:

       • What makes a centre „good‟?

       • How can a „good‟ centre be identified?




   What „good‟ looks like for each different centre monitor will be explored in turn followed by how
   „good‟ is measured to reduce monitoring activity.



                                                                                                       109
Identifying what makes a „good‟ centre


• Defining „good‟
• Measuring „good‟ and the impact on monitoring
When asked what a „good‟ centre looks like, awarding bodies tended to
comment on the efficiency of the centre and its quality assurance processes
                                                      „Good‟ centres for awarding bodies

    A good centre…

             • …is one that returns all examination documentation on time and completed correctly

             • …has standard admin processes across the centre

             • …feels good when you walk through the door – you can smell it

             • …has excellent quality management processes in place

             • …sounds good. Our experience means we just know

             • …has good internal verifier processes so that not all verification is end-loaded

             • …has a balance of experienced staff versus new staff and these new staff have training
                opportunities available to them


According to awarding body commentary, identifying „good‟ tends to be a qualitative measure identified
as a result of the experience of the awarding body staff or contractors conducting the monitoring.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholders, summer 2006.



                                                                                                         111
For inspectorates, „good‟ centres are places where learners achieve high
standards, quality of provision is high and management is effective and efficient
                         „Good‟ providers for inspectorates
 The elements of „good‟ for inspectorates centre around the three elements of the common inspection
   framework:
  1. Achievements of learners
  2. Quality of provision
  3. Quality of leadership and management

 Quality of leadership and management underpins the achievement of learners and quality of provision,
   for example:
  • One of Estyn‟s key questions in part 3 of the framework is b:
      How well do leaders and managers evaluate and improve quality and standards?
  • Moreover, when grading, Estyn provides guidance to its inspectors that, if learner achievement and quality
     of teaching has been graded poorly, management and leadership cannot be rated highly d

  •    One of ETI‟s questions in part three of the framework is c:
        How well do leaders and managers set a clear direction leading to high quality education and training?

  •    ALI and Ofsted‟s key question in part 3 of the framework is a:
        How effective are leadership and management in raising achievement and supporting all learners?



      For the inspectorates, effectiveness of management underpins learner achievement and teaching
      quality and for Estyn, low grades for the latter two mean a low grade must be given for management.
 Source: (a) ”The Common Inspection Framework for Education and Training from 2005”, Ofsted and ALI. (b) “The Common Inspecti on Framework for Education and Training in Wales”, Estyn;
 (c) “COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTION for The Education and Training Inspectorate”, ETI; (d) Meeting with Ann Keane of Estyn, 08/08/2006.
                    Note: Ofsted and ALI publish one inspection framework

                                                                                                                                                                                          112
For funding and planning bodies, „good‟ centres have strong self-
assessment and development processes that enable them to self-improve
                                        „Good‟ providers for funding and planning bodies

                                                                   DELLS Planning and Funding                                    ETI (reviewing on behalf of DEL)
               LSC (England)a,1                                            (Wales)b,2                                                   (Northern Ireland)c,3

                                                                 “Providers have prime responsibility                                   “The greatest likelihood for
                                                                 for the quality of their provision, and                                 improvement, particularly
             “Primary responsibility for                         DELLS aims to ensure that providers                                improvement to be sustained over
              improving the quality of                               take ownership of quality and                                   time, occurs when a school has
              provision rests with the                                                                                              established a positive culture and
                                                                   demonstrate their commitment to
                  provider”, LSC a                                                                                                     commitment to professional
                                                                       continuous improvement.”b
                                                                                                                                                growth.”c


     “The Government looks to all                                   “We expect providers to develop
                                                                     their own quality management                                 “Through rigorous self-evaluation a
   providers to adopt strategies for                                                                                              school can recognise its strengths
 securing continuous improvement as                                 systems... At the centre of these
                                                                       systems will be regular self-                             and put in place processes to ensure
  many already do. These strategies                                                                                                  that those areas identified as
 should be based on self-assessment                                assessment to evaluate quality …
                                                                  and quality development planning to                            strengths continue to flourish, while
  and action planning.”, „Learning to                                                                                             other areas in need of improvement
    Succeed‟ White Paper, 06/1999 a                                  build on strengths and address
                                                                              weaknesses”b                                          are prioritised and developed.”c




 The quality improvement agencies, funding and planning bodies and inspectorates support providers
 “in developing their capacity for self-assessment, self-improvement and ultimately self-regulation.”d
Source: (a) “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 05/2005; (b) “Quality handbook”, ELWa, 06/2006; (c) “Together towards improvement”, ETI; (d) “Reducing Burdens in Colleges of
Further Education”, Cabinet Office, 2005.
                    Note: (1) LSC – Learning and Skills Council; (2) DELLS – Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. The funding body was previously ELWa, but this has
                    merged with DELLs; (3) DEL – Department for Employment and Learning.
                                                                                                                                                                                            113
Identifying what makes a „good‟ centre


• Defining „good‟
• Measuring „good‟ and the impact on monitoring
In order to reduce monitoring activity, a monitor must conduct one cycle of
„standard‟ monitoring or a pre-monitoring analysis in order to assess „good‟
                  Examples of activity to baseline in order to reduce monitoring activity
              Awarding bodiesa                                                Inspectorates b,c                                 Funding and planning bodies c
     Awarding body A using „standard‟                              ALI using one cycle of standard
                                                                                                                                   LSC using a pre-review analysis to
     monitoring to determine monitoring                          monitoring and pre-inspection analysis                               determine monitoring level
                    level                                            to determine monitoring level
  Awarding body A conducts annual                              ALI is conducting one cycle of standard   Prior to annual planning reviews,
   monitoring visits (systems audits) to                         monitoring to gather baseline data         providers submit self assessment reports
   check that the required quality                              After this, the extent of a provider‟s
   assurance processes are in place                              inspection is determined by a pre-        Providers that demonstrate, through
                                                                 inspection analysis                        self-assessment, effective management
  Centres are graded on a scale of 1-5                         This analysis draws on a range of          of the risks to outstanding or good
   with 1 being the top grade                                    information including:                     quality receive less intensive Annual
                                                                 • Previous inspection report or quality    Planning Reviews from the LSC
  The grade impacts the level of monitoring                        monitoring report
   centres receive the following year                            • Retention and achievement data and  If the review identifies poor quality
   • Centres scoring 1 or 2 are offered the                         other performance information           provision or lack of progress towards
     opportunity to self-assess the                             ALI conducts a Quality Monitoring Visit    the achievement of headline performance
     following year                                              about a year after inspection              measures, the LSC will discuss with
                                                                 • Providers that perform well at           providers options for support and
                                                                    inspection are exempt from this visit   intervention
                                                                                                           If the LSC considers the self-
                                                                                                            assessment to lack rigour it will work
                                                                                                            with the Quality Improvement Agency
                                                                                                            (QIA) to support the provider in the
                                                                                                            revision of its self-assessment


     Whilst monitoring activity may reduce for those centres that are identified as being good, it will
     increase for struggling centres as the monitor provides them with additional support and contact.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholder, summer 2006; (b) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (c) “Quality improvement and self-
assessment”, LSC, 05/2005.
                  Note: ALI – Adult Learning Inspectorate (England), LSC – Learning and Skills Council (England)

                                                                                                                                                                                          115
Even once a centre has been identified as being „good‟ its performance is
still often reviewed frequently to check that performance has not dropped
                                               The risk associated with risk assessments
              Awarding bodiesa                                                 Inspectorates b,c                                Funding and planning bodies c
     Awarding body A using „standard‟                              ALI using one cycle of standard                                 LSC using a pre-review analysis to
     monitoring to determine monitoring                          monitoring and pre-inspection analysis                               determine monitoring level
                    level                                            to determine monitoring level
  Annual monitoring occurs for all                             ALI conducts a pre-inspection analysis to                    The LSC reviews all providers annually
   centres                                                       determine the extent of an inspection
                                                                                                                              Prior to annual planning reviews, provider
  „Good‟ centres self-assess, all others                       If the quality of some aspect of provision                    submit self assessment reports that are
   are visited                                                   is found to be unsatisfactory in reduced                      used to determine the extent of the
                                                                 intensity inspections, ALI may allocate                       Annual Planning Review
  If standards are suspected of slipping                        further days to the inspection
   in a „good‟ centre as a result of the self-
   assessment, a visit is triggered

  Investigations are also triggered if the
   awarding body identifies any potential
   malpractice through its analysis of exam
   outcomes or the exam documentation
   submitted by the centre




 Awarding bodies, inspectorates and funding bodies mitigate against the risk of risk -based monitoring
 by frequently reviewing performance and having triggers in place that prompt monitoring action.
Source: (a) Capgemini analysis based on interviews with stakeholder, summer 2006; (b) “Changes in inspection, What they mean for you”, ALI, 04/2005; (c) “Quality improvement and self-
assessment”, LSC, 05/2005.
                  Note: ALI – Adult Learning Inspectorate (England), LSC – Learning and Skills Council (England)

                                                                                                                                                                                          116
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
• In other sectors
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
• In other sectors
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
   • Regulatory bodies

   • SQA awarding body
   • Higher education monitoring
The regulatory bodies monitor awarding bodies to ensure that they remain fit
to award accredited qualifications
                Post-approval (or ongoing) monitoring of awarding bodies by regulators


                                 Post accreditation monitoring of awarding bodies is defined as:
 DEFINITIONa                       “A process used by [the regulatory bodies] to measure if awarding bodies are
                                     delivering qualifications according to the accreditation criteria, including the
                                       common code of practice and qualification–specific codes of practice.”a

                                  The purpose of regulators‟ monitoring of centres is to ensure that they:
                                   Deliver high quality qualifications
 PURPOSEb                          Provide a high standard of customer service
                                   Comply with the regulatory criteria




 Source: (a) “Monitoring of vocational qualifications (2004)”, QCA, ACCAC, CCEA, 06/2005. (b) www.qca.org.uk.


                                                                                                                        120
The regulatory bodies monitor awarding bodies‟ systems and quality assurance
processes, often remotely via self-assessment reports and desk research
                     Regulators monitoring awarding bodies
                                  Approach                                                                              Evidence used
  The monitoring of awarding bodies and qualifications is                                           Self-assessment reports
   carried out in a variety of ways, including:                                                      Desk research to check the information published by
   • Audits of systems and procedures                                                                 awarding bodies
   • Evaluation of quality assurance and quality control                                             Fieldwork involving interviews, visits, telephone calls,
      arrangements                                                                                    questionnaires and surveys
   • Scrutiny activities focusing on particular issues                                                • Visits to awarding bodies and their centres are used to
   • Comparability studies focusing on the delivery of                                                   test how an awarding body‟s systems and procedures are
      particular qualifications across a range of awarding                                               used in practice
      bodies.
  Following each activity, the awarding body receives a
   report highlighting areas of compliance and non-compliance
   with the regulatory criteria
  Where non-compliance is identified, the regulators require
   awarding bodies to take action as a 'condition of
   accreditation'
  Awarding bodies must develop action plans to address any
   examples of non-compliance within an agreed timescale
   • Failure to do so may result in sanctions being applied
  The monitoring programme is based on risk




   The regulatory bodies state that awarding bodies are responsible for the quality of the qualifications
   they award and are placing more emphasis on awarding bodies‟ quality assurance arrangements.

 Source: (a) “Monitoring of vocational qualifications (2004)”, QCA, ACCAC, CCEA, 06/2005. (b) www.qca.org.uk.


                                                                                                                                                                  121
In Northern Ireland the CCEA is both a regulator and an awarding body,
meaning it undertakes monitoring of its own activity
                              The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
                      Roles and Responsibilities                                           Monitoring Activity

  Advising government                                                   In order to assess its own compliance to the regulators
   • As a regulator the CCEA liaises with the                             Code of Practice the CCEA undertakes an internal self
     government in setting education policy and                           assessment, rating its activity on a scale of 1-4, with 1
     curriculums                                                          meeting criteria and 4 not meeting criteria

  Awarding Qualifications                                               The CCEA also undertakes ongoing monitoring of its
   • The CCEA operate as an awarding body offering                        activities using external quality frameworks and
     GCSE and GCE A and AS level regulated                                standards, for example:
     qualifications in Northern Ireland                                   • The European Foundation for Quality Management
   • It monitors centres offering their accredited                          (EFQM) Excellence Model for assessing enablers
     qualifications to ensure standards are being                           and results across the business, from leadership to
     maintained                                                             customers
                                                                          • Investors in People a business improvement tool
  Monitoring standards of awarding bodies                                  designed to help organisations to improve
   • The CCEA monitors and regulates the standards of                       performance and realise objectives through the
     qualifications and examinations being offered by                       management and development of their people
     other awarding bodies in Northern Ireland                            • Charter Mark a customer service standard




  CCEA self-assesses itself to monitor performance and also uses some external quality frameworks to
  review and improve performance.
Source: (a) www.ccea.org.uk; (b) “Self assessment Report”, CCEA, 2003



                                                                                                                                      122
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
   • Regulatory bodies

   • SQA awarding body
   • Higher education monitoring
The SQA awarding body has developed a risk based monitoring approach
for its systems audit that determines the frequency of centre visits
                           Scottish Qualifications Authority (awarding body) monitoring
                           SQA monitoring                                                              Risk based approach for systems audits
 Overview                                                                                         From January 2006, SQA has introduced a risk based
  SQA has a dual role as both the regulatory body in Scotland                                     system for system audit visits
   and also an awarding body                                                                      As part of a systems verification / audit visit, the systems
  It is the only awarding body in Scotland that is able to offer                                  verifier completes a risk rating grid
   National and Higher National Qualifications – Scotland‟s                                       The grid contains a series of weighted criteria that a centre
   General Qualifications                                                                          either meets or does not
  SQA also awards Scottish Vocational Qualifications (an                                          • For example, if a centre has received complaints, an X is
   NVQ equivalent)                                                                                    marked next to the criteria and this criteria has a
 Monitoring of centres                                                                                weighting of 25
  Subject specialists visit SQA centres to monitor assessment                                    Once all criteria have been assessed, the total is calculated
   and verification of qualifications                                                              and the centre achieves either a green, amber or red
   • Monitoring related to assessment is also about providing                                      rating
        support to programme leaders                                                               • Green is 0-10, amber is 10.1-24.9, red is 25+
  In addition to monitoring relating to assessment, SQA                                          This rating determines the maximum time until the next
   conducts separate systems audits on it centres                                                  systems audit – for example, 6 months for a red centre
  In order to be able to provide greater support to struggling                                    • The maximum time between two audits is 4 years
   centres, SQA has chosen to adopt a risk based monitoring                                       Annually, SQA reviews the centre remotely using
   approach                                                                                        information held on record as well as the outcomes of the
   • This will enable it to use the same level of resources and                                    audit visit to check whether or not the next audit date
        target support                                                                             needs to change
  Risk based monitoring has been rolled out for systems                                          At present, SQA is collecting the baseline data for the
   audits and will apply to subject specialist visits in the future                                system, so all centres need to go through the cycle once
                                                                                                   before any reduced, (or increased,) monitoring occurs

   The risk based monitoring is based on a system of weighted criteria that produce a risk rating for a
   centre that is reviewed by SQA remotely on an annual basis.
Source: (a) Based on interviews with Jim Ballantyne and Martin Chisolm of SQA; (b) “SQA‟s Quality Framework: a guide for cent res”, SQA, 03/2006; (c) “ETP CENTRE RISK RATING GRED –
APPROVAL”, SQA; (d) “SYSTEMS VERFIFICATION REPORT”, SQA, 06/2006; (e) “HN external verification report”, SQA, 07/2006; (f) “SVQ external verification report”, SQA, 07/2006;


                                                                                                                                                                                       124
The SQA awarding body also gives centres the opportunity to apply for
devolved authority to approve themselves to offer certain SQA qualifications
                    Scottish Qualifications Authority (awarding body) devolved authority
                      SQA devolved authority                                                                                             Results
  Centres can apply for devolved authority to approve                                                 Devolved authority means that centres must be
   themselves to offer specific SQA qualifications                                                      responsible for certain quality checks that were
  In order to achieve this, the centre needs to demonstrate                                            previously carried out by SQA
   that it has its own quality assurance systems in place
  Centres with devolved authority for approval must:                                                  Once a centre has demonstrated sufficient quality
   • Have and operate an approval process which has                                                     assurance processes are in place, it is not visited by SQA
      procedures to ensure that all approval proposals are                                              for the approval of individual qualifications
      appraised against the approval criteria
   • Have documentation describing all approvals which                                                 In the past, the quality audit for devolved authority centres
      have been carried out, including the results of the                                               was a paper based process conducted every 15 months
      appraisal against each of the criteria
   • Ensure that the outcomes of approvals are promptly                                                However, SQA is trying to reduce burden by reducing the
      reported to SQA                                                                                   frequency of visits and visiting in person
  50 of SQA‟s centres currently have this type of devolved                                             • The process is becoming risk based as described on the
   authority – 45 of which are colleges, 3 universities and 2                                              previous slide
   schools
  Centres can also apply for devolved authority to validate
   some SQA qualifications
   • Centres can develop Group Awards and validate them
      against the SQA‟s design criteria
   • They can then become part of SQA‟s suite of
      qualifications
  22 centres have this type of devolved authority

        This systems was introduced in 1993 and was used by some centres as a means of introducing
        quality management systems into their organisations.
 Source: (a) Based on interviews with Jim Ballantyne and Martin Chisolm of SQA; (b) “SQA‟s Quality Framework: a guide for cent res”, SQA, 03/2006.



                                                                                                                                                                        125
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
   • Regulatory bodies

   • SQA awarding body
   • Higher education monitoring
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is responsible for ensuring sound
standards and promoting better quality management in Higher Education
                                    Monitoring in higher education


                             Established in 1997, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
                              Education (QAA) provides an integrated quality assurance service
                              for UK higher education
BACKGROUND
                             It is an independent body funded by subscriptions from
                              universities and colleges of higher education, and through
                              contracts with the main higher education funding bodies
                             QAA‟s responsibilities are to:
                              Safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher
RESPONSIBILITIES               education qualifications, and
                              Encourage continuous improvement in the management of the
                               quality of higher education




         QAA is contracted by the funding bodies in the UK to ensure that to ensure that the teaching
         provision they fund with public money is of good quality.
Source: (a) www.qaa.ac.uk



                                                                                                        127
The QAA reviews standards and quality through a number of types of audits
and reviews that apply to different institutions in different countries
                                          Review and audit processes conducted by QAA
   Audit / Review                                                        Description                                                                           Scope
                                     Includes a preliminary visit, the submission of inf ormation by the institution, a                    Universities and colleges of higher
                                      brief ing visit, an audit visit (5 days), the production of a report and a mid -cycle                  education in England
  Institutional audit                 f ollow up that is paper-based.                                                                       Universities in Northern Ireland
                                     Run on a 5 year cycle
                                     Similar to the institutional audit, but used f or institutions where the provision is                 As above
     Collaborative                    too large or complex to be included in the institutional audit
    provision audit

                                     Includes a preparation period, the review itself and a reporting period                               Further education colleges that provide
                                     Preparation includes an analysis of the institution‟s self -evaluation                                 higher education programmes in England
   Academic review                   During the review, the QAA team gathers evidence, tests the self -evaluation                          Selected higher education colleges in
                                      and makes judgements about the institution                                                             Scotland
                                 
                                     Again, usually a three the institution is notif ied of outcomes
                                      At the reporting stage, stage process: prepare, conduct review and report                             NHS-f unded healthcare programmes in
      Healthcare                     During the review, the QAA team gathers evidence, tests the self -evaluation                           England
    education audit                   and makes judgements about the institution                                                            Universities and colleges that provide
                                     Reviews are spread over six weeks                                                                      osteopathic programmes of study
                                     The underlying ELIR inquiry is to ask the institution: 'how do you learn f rom                        University or college of higher education
  Enhancement led       your current and past activities in order to improve the learning experience of                                      in Scotland
 institutional review   your students?„
        (ELIR)         The process includes an annual ELIR discussion, preparation and submission
                                     of a process f ollows stages of preparation, submission of documentation, a
                                      The Ref lective Analysis and an ELIR visit and report                                                 All higher education in Wales including
       Institutional                  brief ing visit, a f ive day review visit, making judgements and reporting                             higher education programmes provided
         reviews                     These run on a six-year cycle                                                                          by f urther education colleges



   The QAA uses peer review processes where teams of academics conduct audits and reviews and
   check on internal quality assurance processes as well as TQI 1 information that has been published.
Source: (a) www.qaa.ac.uk; (b) “Handbook for institutional audit”, QAA, 2006; (c) “Collaborative provision audit: Supplement to the Handbook for institutional audit: England”, QAA, 12/2004; (d)
“Handbook for academic review: England”, QAA, 2004; (e) “Handbook for enhancement-led institutional review: Scotland”, QAA, 04/2003; (f) “Handbook for institutional review: Wales”, QAA.
                  Note: (1) TQI – teaching quality information – is information published by the institution about the academic standards of its awards and the quality of its educational
                  provision. It appears on the TQI website.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    128
The QAA defines clear standards that institutions need to adhere to in
documents such as the frameworks for HE and a code of practice

      Standards                                                             Description
                             Promote a clearer understanding of the achievements and attributes represented by the main qualification
   Frameworks for             titles, such as bachelor's degree with honours, or master's degree
   higher education          There are two frameworks: one for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and one for Scotland, which is part
     qualifications           of a wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.

                             Set out expectations about the standards of degrees in a range of subject areas
 Subject benchmark
    statements

                             Are the sets of information that each institution provides about its programmes
      Programme
     specifications

                             Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education
                             Is a guideline on good practice for universities and colleges, relating to the management of academic
   Code of practice           standards and quality


                             Help to make the outcomes, or results, of learning in higher education more explicit and more valuable
                             They include three elements: the transcript of achievement; personal and development planning; and the
     Progress files           students' own personal development records



 QAA places emphasis on self assessment and the code of practice contains “the matters that an
 institution could reasonably be expected to address through its own quality assurance arrangements”.
Source: (a) www.qaa.ac.uk



                                                                                                                                           129
HEFCE, HEFCW and DEL are the bodies responsible for funding Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
                                                                        HE funding bodies
                   Higher Education Funding    Higher Education Funding                                                Department for Employment
                                             a
                  Council for England (HEFCE) Council for Wales (HEFCW)b                                                and Learning (DEL) (NI)c,d
                    HEFCE promotes and funds high-                         HEFCW is responsible for funding           To promote learning and skills, to
                     quality, cost-effective teaching and                    higher education in Wales including         prepare people for work and to
    Aim              research, meeting the diverse needs                     initial teacher training                    support the economy.
                     of students, the economy and
                     society

                    Distributes money to universities                      Promotes learning and teaching             Enhancing the provision of learning
                     and colleges for higher education                       development, particularly the quality       and skills, including
                     teaching, research and related                          of the learning experience                  entrepreneurship, enterprise,
                     activities                                             Invests in a strong research base           management and leadership
                    Funds programmes to support the                         and developing research excellence         Increasing the level of research and
                     development of higher education                        Encourages activities in higher             development, creativity and
                    Monitors the financial and                              education that support business and         innovation in the Northern Ireland
 Scope /             managerial health of universities and                   the community                               economy
  Key                colleges                                               Widens access to higher education          Helping individuals to acquire jobs,
activities          Ensures the quality of teaching is                     Supports development of Welsh               including self employment, and
                     assessed                                                language higher education                   improving the linkages between
                    Provides money to further education                    Strengthens the sector –                    employment programmes and skills
                     colleges for their higher education                     • For example, encourages                   development
                     programmes                                                  reconfiguration and collaboration,     The development and maintenance
                    Provides guidance on good practice                          financial sustainability, effective     of the framework of employment
                                                                                 leadership and governance               rights and responsibilities


   These bodies aim to ensure that the provision they fund is high quality, cost effective and meets the
   needs of the economy and society.
Source: (a) www.lsc.gov.uk; (b) www.elwa.ac.uk; (c) www.delni.gov.uk; (d) www.deni.gov.uk.



                                                                                                                                                                130
          In order to assure themselves that the provision they fund is of a suitable
          standard, funding bodies review provider performance
                   Review process conducted by funding bodies to assure quality and value for money
                      Higher Education Funding                                       Higher Education Funding                       Department for Employment
                    Council for England (HEFCE)a,e                                  Council for Wales (HEFCW)b,e                       and Learning (NI)c,d,e,3
                    HEFCE has an Assurance Service                              HEFCW has a number of processes in               QAA assesses the quality of teaching in
                                                                                   place through which it ensures that the          HEIs in Northern Ireland
                    Its role is to review the systems of                          funds it allocates are used properly and
                     internal control, corporate governance                        that institutions‟ financial health is sound
                     and risk management in higher                              Financial Memorandum
                     education institutions, as well as within                   For each HEI, this sets out the terms and
                     HEFCE itself, and in HEFCE's related                          conditions for payment of HEFCW grant
Review process




                     bodies                                                     Annual Accounts
                                                                                 Each institution sends its audited
                    To achieve this, the Assurance Service                        accounts to HEFCW annually
                     undertakes a number of core activities,                    Financial Health Monitoring
                     some of which are carried out by QAA:                       HEFCW reviews via HEI‟s annual
                     • Institutional reviews                                       accounts and also five-year financial
                     • Data audit reviews of institutions                          forecasts of HEIs
                     • Desk based reviews                                        Mid-year accounts are also submitted
                     • Annual accountability assessments                        Financial Sustainability
                     • Financial monitoring                                      The Funding Councils are introducing
                     • Risk assessment and risk                                    new arrangements to monitor and
                       notification                                                evaluate the sustainability of the UK
                                                                                   research base




                    The QAA assesses the quality of teaching in higher education institutions on behalf of these bodies
                    in England, Wales and NI and it contracts separately with funding bodies in each country.
                 Source: (a) www.hefce.ac.uk; (b) hefcw.ac.uk; (c) www.delni.gov.uk; (d) www.deni.gov.uk; (e) www.QAA.ac.uk.



                                                                                                                                                                              131
For higher education institutions, Edexcel now conducts all monitoring
remotely with universities submitting documents for review
            Edexcel monitoring BTEC Higher Nationals in Higher Education Institutions
                                                                                                      Centres raised a number of concerns with the
                         Edexcel monitoring                                                                           new process
  In the past, Edexcel University Lead Examiners would visit                                          Some centres valued the contact with the University Lead
   and monitor Higher Education Institutions                                                            Examiner as a means of support and were disappointed that
  As from the start of academic session 2005/6 Edexcel                                                 these were going
   replaced these University Lead Examiners by a contracted                                            Some centres asked why Edexcel could not simply rely
   Chief Examiner                                                                                       on QAA reports for reassurance
  The responsibilities of the Chief Examiner include to:                                               • Edexcel felt that this was not feasible:
   • Receive and read the centres‟ annual reviews on                                                    • “The gap between reports is too long and the reports
      Higher National provision                                                                            themselves would not necessarily pick up issues
   • Respond to each centre within two weeks, indicating any                                               particular to Higher Nationals: in practice, QAA audit in
      issues and acknowledging good practice, and ensuring                                                 HEIs tends to focus on degree processes. Edexcel would
      that quality loops have been closed                                                                  feel at too much of a distance from the operation of the
   • Report to the Edexcel HE Manager                                                                      Higher Nationals.”
   • Write an Annual Overview Report on Higher Nationals in                                            Some centres also asked why Edexcel could not simply
      Licensed Centres, to be issued to centres                                                         use TQIs and other quality assurance information from
  Centres can choose to submit their report in one of two                                              the centres‟ websites
   ways:                                                                                                • Edexcel stated that “the information given by TQIs is
   • An annual report with a definite structure, either                                                    simply not adequate to provide the reassurance Edexcel
      specified or approved by Edexcel, or                                                                 requires in relation to the Higher National programmes”
   • Centres provide evidence under specified headings                                                  • “With regard to using other information from websites,
      using papers and data already available within the centre                                            centres vary so much in what is available that this could
  This monitoring activity is conducted annually                                                          not [be] done consistently”



     This self-assessment systems is lighter touch from an Edexcel point of view, but some centres felt
     that it was placing additional burden on them.
Source: (a) “Quality assurance for BTEC higher nationals run by Edexcel licensed centres”, Edexcel, May 2005



                                                                                                                                                                       132
Other monitoring approaches


• In the education sector
• In other sectors
Healthcare monitors are responding to pressure from the government to
reduce burden by signing a concordat to streamline monitoring activity
                                                                        Health Concordata,b,c

                                                Hospitals currently face the burden of inspection from 102 agencies
                                                 • Some hospitals are facing up to 70 inspections a year from different
BACKGROUND                                         agencies

                                                Regulators are responding to the burden of inspection being placed on
                                                 hospitals by agreeing to a concordat

                                                The Concordat is a voluntary agreement between organisations that regulate,
                                                 audit, inspect or review elements of health and healthcare in England

                                                It was launched in June 2004 by 10 organisations, led by the Healthcare
                                                 Commission.
                                                 • There are now 20 signatories working together to coordinate their activities
                                                    such as audits, reviews and inspections

                                                By streamlining their activities, these signatories are supporting the
                                                 improvement of health services for the public



    Whilst few centres will be monitored by as many as 70 organisations, the education sector is facing
    similar pressures and many of the Health Concordat initiatives could be transferable.

Source: (a) www.concordat.org.uk; (b) “How may inspectors does it take to check on how well a hospital is working?”, The Times, 07/10/04; (c) “Reforming heal thcare regulation”, Consumer
Policy Review, 01/011/05.


                                                                                                                                                                                             134
To ensure successful implementation of the Health Concordat, objectives
are underpinned by implementation tools
                                                            Health sector objectives and toolsa,b,c
                                  Objectives                                                                              Tools for implementation
  The healthcare inspection concordat is made up of 10                                                 All of the Concordat‟s objectives are underpinned by
   objectives that enable organisations to work together to                                              practices to focus developments and secure effective
   remove unnecessary burdens associated with inspection,                                                implementation
   audit or review
                                                                                                        The principal tools are:
 1. Inspections are coordinated with other reviews and                                                   • Baseline assessment, using gap analysis to map
    collections of data                                                                                    existing processes against recommended practice
                                                                                                         • Core standards mapping against the Healthcare
 2. Inspections of healthcare focus on the experience of
    patients, other service users and carers                                                               Commission‟s existing annual checks
                                                                                                         • Evaluating costs and benefits against a best practice
 3. Inspections support improvements in quality and                                                        report
    performance                                                                                          • Developing guidelines for information gathering and
 4. Inspecting bodies continuously improve their methods                                                   sharing
 5. Inspections are independent, consistent and fair                                                     • Guidelines for making recommendations to providers,
 6. Inspections are targeted and proportionate                                                             to allow co-ordination and prevent duplication
                                                                                                         • Information sharing protocol (ISP) frameworks
 7. Inspections are transparent and accountable
                                                                                                         • Memoranda of understanding to define expectations
 8. Inspecting bodies use coordinated and proportionate                                                    and terms and conditions
    methods of enforcement                                                                               • Regulatory impact assessments, following any major
 9. Inspectors are suitably qualified, trained and skilled                                                 change
 10.Inspecting bodies continuously monitor their practices in                                            • Website management protocol and website presentation
    line with the concordat                                                                                guide


      Clear objectives, supported by implementation processes, frameworks and documentation are
      allowing healthcare inspectors to co-ordinate their efforts and streamline the inspecting process.

Source: www.concordat.org.uk; (b) “How may inspectors does it take to check on how well a hospital is working?”, The Times, 07/10/04; (c) “Reforming heal thcare regulation”, Consumer Policy
Review, 01/011/05.


                                                                                                                                                                                                135
The Post Office applies a light touch approach to the management of its
franchises and reviews and supports via a dedicated sales account manager
                                                                  Post Office Franchise – Monitoring
           Recruitment                                            Training                 Product control                 Support activity
   By offering a 5 year                              Initial training for franchise    Product sales are reviewed    Inspection and monitoring is
    contract the Post Office                           holders is on a full-time,         by ongoing relationships       aided by the use of a single
    aims to reduce the need for                        paid basis                         with an allocated Sales        accounting and sales
    monitoring by attracting only                      • The level of training            Account Manger                 system by all franchises
    committed individuals                                required is decided on a         • Reviews occurs at least
                                                         risk basis                         on a monthly basis          Processes include:
   Before awarding a franchise                                                           • The account manager is       • Weekly cash statements
    the Post Office ensures a                         The standards which                  responsible for ensuring     • Sales reports
    consultation period which                          franchise owners will be             that all staff are fully     • A transaction platform
    lasts approximately three                          expected to keep are                 aware of and trained on
    months                                             identified and enforced              new products and            Each franchise is provided
    • The community has the                            throughout the process               processes                    with a safe and a centrally
      opportunity to voice                             • Following training the                                          maintained alarm system to
      concerns about the                                 expectations of the Post        Franchises must sell pre-      prevent theft
      potential franchisee                               Office and the franchisee        packaged post office
                                                         should be aligned                products, although other
   Franchises are awarded to                                                             products may also be sold
    existing retail outlets as well                   The Post Office provides           within the franchise
    as new businesses                                  ongoing training for all
                                                       staff




   Unlike centres, Post Office franchisees have only one organisation monitoring them, and the delivery
   of Post Office services is more straightforward than qualification assessment.
Source: (a) “A guide to franchising at the post office”, Post Office, 2005


                                                                                                                                                        136
Other monitoring approaches


• Summary
Other monitors in and outside of the education sector are illustrating a
number of methods that they are using to reduce monitoring burden
                Simplify monitoring                                             Integrate monitoring
     Reduce the monitoring activity per monitoring
                     interaction                                                  Standardise monitoring
  Risk based monitoring approaches                               The heath concordat is promoting standardisation through
   • The extent of the monitoring is determined based on the       the tools it has developed for implementation, for example:
     previous review and more recent data and reports              • Baseline assessment, using gap analysis to map
  Self-assessment is used to review organisations                    existing processes against recommended practice
   • Self-assessment reports are often used as part of reviews     • Evaluating costs and benefits against a best practice
   • SQA centres can be delegated more authority and are              report
     monitored only on their quality assurance processes           • Developing guidelines for information gathering and
  Conducting desk-based reviews                                      sharing
   • For example, Edexcel is no longer visiting HEIs but           • Guidelines for making recommendations to providers,
     reviewing information submitted electronically                   to allow co-ordination and prevent duplication

       Reduce the frequency of monitoring activity                     Join up monitoring across awarding bodies
  Risk based monitoring approaches                               Some bodies inspect or review on behalf of others
   • For example, SQA conducts systems audits according            • QAA assesses quality of teaching on behalf of all higher
     to a risk system that means poor centres are                    education funding bodies
     monitored more and good centres less                         Co-ordinated visits
                                                                   • For example, health concordat members are co-ordinating
                                                                     inspections with other reviews




  Risk based approaches, monitoring via self-assessment and conducting desk-based reviews (rather
  than visits) are all common.



                                                                                                                                 138
Appendix


A: Consulted organisations
B: Bibliography
C: Glossary
Appendix


A: Consulted organisations
B: Bibliography
C: Glossary
Meetings were held with the following organisations
                                         Awarding bodies

     ABC – Julie Lloyd                          ILM – Phil Harper
     ASET – Carol Handley                       PMI – Sarah Howlett
     ASET – Lindsay Forbes                      NCFE – Heather Dalkin
     BIIAB – Caroline Harvey                    NCFE – Christine Furminger
     BIIAB – Denise Thomson                     NCFE – Jac Ingram
     CCEA (awarding body) – Marion Wilcox       NCFE – Jane Irvine
     City and Guilds – Murray Butcher           NCFE – Hilary Whitaker
     CIPS – Kate Brown                          OCR – Jean Marshall
     EAL – Michael Davis                        OCR – John Plunkett
     EDI – Jennifer Moody                       PAA – Ann Randall
     EDI – Chris Thomson                        SQA (awarding body) – Jim Ballantyne
     Edexcel – Geoff Harvey                     SQA (awarding body) – Martin Chisholm




                                                                                          141
Meetings were held with the following organisations
         Centres, inspectorates, regulatory bodies and other stakeholders
   Centres                                      Regulatory bodies
    ALP & A4E – Steve Malone                    CCEA (regulator) – Roger McCune
    Highbury College – Zoe Martin               CCEA (regulator) – Terri McComiskey
    Ffowm – Mike Evans (consultant to ffowm)    DELLs – Sarah Harris
    Newcastle College – Bob Gafney              DELLs – Julie Spargo
    Newcastle College – Bev Robinson            QCA – Alan Long
    Sheffield College – Alison Warner
    St. Brendans College/ASCL – Derek Bodey


   Inspection bodies                            Others
    ALI – Lesley Davis                          NAA – Pauline Sparkes
    ETI - John Kennedy                          Standards Verification UK – Susan Edge
    Estyn – Ann Keane                           QIA – Alison Rowland
                                                 QAA – Gillian Hayes




                                                                                           142
Capgemini also attended a FAB group on 16 August

  Attendees
   Nigel Florence (Chair) – ABC Awards
   Chris Daniel – ASET
   Paul Ellis – FAB
   Jac Ingram - NCFE
   Julie Lloyd – ABC Awards
   Jean-Ann Marnoch – Central YMCA Qualifications
   Kate Shoesmith – FAB
   Denise Thomson – BIIAB




                                                     143
Appendix


A: Consulted organisations
B: Bibliography
C: Glossary
Bibliography - continued

Regulatory body documentation
 “Annual progress report 2005”, Bureaucracy reduction group, 2005
 “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ, AEA code of practice 2006/07”, QCA/DELLS/CCEA, 2006
 “Monitoring of vocational qualifications (2004)”, QCA/DELLS/CCEA, June 2005
 “NVQ Code of Practice”, QCA, 2005/06
 “Producing self assessment reports: Guide for awarding bodies”, QCA/DELLS/CCEA, 2003
 “Self assessment report”, CCEA, 2003
 “A study of the arrangements for the quality assurance of NVQs”, DELLS (ACCAC), June 2004
 “Reducing burden in colleges of further education”, Better regulation executive, 2005
 “Report on the performance of awarding bodies for general qualifications in 2004”, QCA/DELLS/CCEA, 2004
 “Regulatory Authorities‟ Risk Based Assessment and Management System for Awarding Bodies: Policy and Procedures”, QCA,
  January 2006
 “The statutory regulation of external qualifications”, QCA/DELLS/CCEA, 2004
 “Working with schools”, School workload advisory panel, Welsh Assembly, April 2006
 “Stakeholder consultation: Centre recognition and centre qualification approval, November 2005 – January 2006”, Centre
  Recognition Project, 11/2005
 “Proposed centre recognition requirements”, QCA, ACCAC (as was), CCEA, SQA, 2005




                                                                                                                           145
Bibliography

Awarding body documentation, in addition to monitoring forms received from awarding bodies
 “Maintaining GCSE A-Level standards”, Edexcel, 30/01/020
 “General regulations”, AQA, 2005-06
 “General Regulations”, WJEC, 2006
 “Verified Qualifications: An Administrative Guide”, OCR , 2005-06
 “Examinations administration handbook”, CCEA, 2005-06
 “Consortium arrangements for general qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004
 “Consortium arrangements for BTEC and Edexcel NVQ qualifications”, Edexcel, 2004
 “Instructions for conducting exams”, Joint Council for Qualifications, 2005-06
 “Eight pledges; Delivering better service with less bureaucracy: Update on progress”, JCQ, Autumn 2005
 “External Verification of Entry Level Vocational Certificates in Skills for working life and life skills centre guidance”, Ed excel,
  2004–2005
 “External Moderation visit planner”, ABC Awards
 “FAB guide on common procedures for centres”, Federation of Awarding Bodies, February 2005
 “The application of reasonable adjustments and special consideration in vocational qualifications”, Federation of Awarding
  Bodies
 “Good Practice Guide: Common procedures for centres on examination conduct and replacement certificates”, Federation of
  Awarding Bodies, 06/2006




                                                                                                                                         146
Bibliography
Inspecting body documentation
 “Annual report”, ALI, 2004-05
 “Area inspection guidance”, Estyn, January 2005
 “Changes in inspection”, ALI, April 2005
 “The common inspection framework for inspecting education and training”, Ofsted, 2005-06
 "Common framework for inspection”, Education and Training Inspectorate
 “The common inspection framework for education and training in Wales”, Estyn
 “The costs and benefits of ALI inspections”, ALI, June 2005
 “Estyn: Evaluation of inspection arrangements”, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, March 2006
 “Guidance on the inspection of further education”, Estyn, September, 2005
 “Handbook for inspecting colleges”, Ofsted, May 2006
 “Interpreting the common inspection framework: Guidance for providers of work based learning”, ALI, July 2006
 “Local authority education services in Wales: A framework for inspection”, Estyn, 2006
 “Memoranda of understanding between the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) and the Department of Education (DE);
  the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (DCAL); and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL)” , June 2006
 Memorandum of understanding on inspection arrangements for post-16 provision between the Learning and Skills Council,
  Jobcentreplus, Ufi ltd, Ofsted and the ALI”, May 2005
 “Ofsted to reduce inspection for top schools after strong support from the education sector”, Ofsted, 23/06/06
 “Proportionate inspecting”, Ofsted 2006
 “Risk based inspection in further education and work based learning”, Estyn, 2004
 “A single inspectorate for children and learners”, Department for Education and Skills, 2005




                                                                                                                            147
Bibliography - continued

Funding body documentation (excluding HE)
 “ELWa national planning and funding systems guide”, ELWa, January 2006
 “Partnership agreement between the national council for education and training for Wales (ELWa) and Estyn”, January 2005
 “Planning for success: a framework for planning and quality”, LSC, December 2005
 “Quality improvement and self-assessment”, LSC, 2006
 “Quality handbook: Provider performance”, ELWa, May 2005
 “Quality improvement guide”, ELWa
 “Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement in Non -accredited Learning”, LSC, July 2005
 “Self-assessment and development planning”, LSC, 2002
 “Self assessment guidance”, Dysg, January 2006




                                                                                                                             148
Bibliography
Market analysis
 “The market for qualifications”, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, April 2005
 “Research into the current centre recognition and centre qualification approval arrangements”, MORI, September 2005

Centre documentation
 “Forward thinking”, AoC, 2006
 “Colleges to tackle red tape” Ffowm, January 2006

Higher Education
 “Handbook for academic review”, QAA, 2006
 “Handbook for institutional audit”, QAA, 2006
 “HEFCE strategic plan”, HEFCE, June 2006
 “HEFCE audit service”, HEFCE, 2000
 “Quality assurance for BTEC higher nationals run by Edexcel centres”, Edexcel, May 2003

Outside the education sector
 “How may inspectors does it take to check on how well a hospital is working?”, The Times, 07/10/04
 “Reforming healthcare regulation”, Consumer Policy Review, 01/011/05
 “A guide to franchising at the post office”, Post office, 2005




                                                                                                                        149
Bibliography - continued
 Awarding bodies
  www.abcawards.co.uk                 Inspectors
  www.aset.ac.uk                       www.ali.gov.uk
  www.awarding.co.uk
  www.aqa.org.uk                       www.estyn.org.uk
  www.bcs.org                          www.deni.gov.uk/inspection_services
  www.bii.org
  www.cache.org.uk                     www.ofsted.gov.uk
  www.ccea.org.uk
  www.cityandguilds.com
  www.citb-constructionskills.co.uk
  www.eal.org.uk
  www.edexcel.org.uk
  www.ediplc.com
  www.i-l-m.com
  www.jcq.org.uk
  www.ocr.org.uk
  www.ncfe.org.uk
  www.paa.uk-uk.org
  www.sqa.org.uk
  www.wjec.org.uk




                                                                               150
Bibliography - continued


 Funding bodies
  www.delni.gov.uk
  www.lsc.gov.uk
  www.new.wales.gov.uk/about/departments/dells

 Regulators
  www.qca.org.
  www.ccea.org.uk
  www.new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills
  www.sqa.org.uk

 Higher education
  www.hefce.org.uk
  www.hefcw.ac.uk
  www.qaa.org.uk,
  www.tqi.ac.uk

 Outside the education sector
  www.concordat.org
  www.postoffice.co.uk




                                                    151
Appendix


A: Consulted organisations
B: Bibliography
C: Glossary
Glossary

Accreditation - The process through which the regulatory authorities conf irm that a qualif ication and the associated specif ication conform to the regulatory
criteria

Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) - responsible f or inspecting a wide range of learning activities ranging f rom work-based learning provided to people aged
16 to 18 and all adults to learning activities accessed through the University f or Industry. ALI inspects FE colleges in part nership with Of sted and conducts other
inspections of work based learning providers, local authorities and voluntary organisations which provide adult learning.

Assessment and Qualifications Association (AQA) - A unitary awarding body in the UK

Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) - The prof essional association f or leaders of secondary schools and colleges. Heads, principals, deputy
heads, vice-principals, assistant heads, assistant principals, bursars and other senior post holders are eligible f or ASCL membership

Association of Colleges (AoC) - Represents the interests of f urther education colleges in England and Wales

Association of Learning Providers (ALP) - The voice of independent learning providers throughout the United Kingdom

Awarding body - An organisation or consortium that awards qualif ications. To be eligible to award accredited qualif ications, awarding bodies must meet the
requirements of the regulatory authorities

Bureaucracy Reduction Group (BRG) - The Bureaucracy Reduction Group (BRG), f ormerly the Bureaucracy Review Group, is an independent body of seven
members that reports to the Secretary of State f or Education and Skills. The BRG acts as a gatekeeper f or the education and training sector, supporting the
Government's public sector ref orm agenda. It currently looks at f our areas of the learning and skills sector: accountability; f unding; scrutiny and management
inf ormation

Centre (or assessment centre) - An organisation or consortium accountable to an awarding body f or the assessment arrangements leading to a qualif ication
or units. A centre could, f or instance, be an educational institution, training provider or employer. It may operate across m ore than one organisation or site.
Also called a provider

Centre approval - A process through which a centre wishing to of f er particular qualif ications is conf irmed as being able to maintain the requir ed quality and
consistency of assessment and comply with other expectations of the awarding body

Centre registration - A process through which a centre wishing to of f er particular qualif ications is recorded as having committed itself to maintai n the required
quality and consistency of assessment and comply with other expectations of the awarding body



                                                                                                                                                                         153
Glossary

Common Inspection Framework – outlines the details of how the Of f ice f or Standards in Education (Of sted) and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) –
should inspect and evaluate non-higher education f or the over 16‟s in schools and colleges. The Framework asks inspectors to make judgments about how
ef f ective and ef ficient provision and related services are in meeting learners„ needs, and what steps need to be taken to imp rove the provision f urther.

Code of Practice - Principles and practices specif ied by the regulatory authorities against which awarding body processes and procedures f or the assessing
and awarding of particular qualif ication types are designed and evaluated

Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) – A non-departmental public body reporting to the Department of Education in
Northern Ireland. CCEA is a unique educational body in the UK, bringing together the three areas of curriculum, examinations and assessment

Department of Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DELLS) – In Wales this newly created department aims to improve children‟s services, education
and training provision in line with the Welsh Assembly‟s objectives

Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) - Responsible f or the central administration of all aspects of education and related services in Northern
Ireland - excepting the higher and f urther education sector

Department of Employment and Learning Northern Ireland (DELNI) – Promotes learning and skills in Northern Ireland through f urther and higher
education, including f unding

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) – UK government department with the aim of creating opportunity, releasing potential and achieving excellence
through education

Estyn - The body responsible f or raising standards and quality of education and training in Wales through inspection and advice, in s upport of the vision and
strategic direction set out by the Welsh Assembly Government

Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI)- The body that monitors, inspects and reports on the standard of education and training provided by schools,
colleges and other grant-aided organisations in Northern Ireland

External assessment - A f orm of independent assessment where assessment tasks are set, and candidates‟ work assessed, by the awarding body

External verifier- An individual appointed by the awarding body to ensure accurate and consistent standards of assessment, across centres and ov er time




                                                                                                                                                                  154
Glossary

Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB) - A membership body, representing organisations that award vocational qualif ications in the UK

Further Education (FE) – Post-16 education and training. Further education is provision f or people over compulsory school age which does not take plac e in a
  secondary school and which f alls within the scope of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Further Educati on may take place in sixth
  f orm colleges, f urther education colleges, local authority adult learning centres, higher education and in voluntary sector o rganisations

Higher education (HE) – The type of learning that generally takes place af ter the age of 18. It includes degree courses, postgraduate courses, and Hi gher
   National Diplomas. Higher education normally takes place in universities, higher education colleges, and in some f urther educ ation colleges

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) - Distributes public money f or teaching and research to universities and colleges in England

Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) - Distribute f unds to support education, research and related activities in Wales

Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) - Represents Awarding Bodies f rom across the UK. They are proactive in their policies and encourage members to
   work together

Management Information Across Partners (MIAP) – A programme was created to reduce the Management Inf ormation demands in the post -16 education
  and learning sector

National Assessment Agency (NAA) - Launched in April 2004 to develop and deliver high-quality national curriculum tests and supervise the delivery and
   modernisation of GCSE and A level examinations

Internal assessment - Assessment where assessment tasks are set, and candidates‟ work assessed, wholly within the candidate‟s centre, subject where
   appropriate to external moderation or verif ication

Internal verifier - An individual appointed by the centre to ensure accurate and consistent standards of assessment, both within a centre and bet ween centres
   of f ering the same award

Key skills – A range of essential competencies needed in education, employment, lif elong learning and personal development. These skills a re the ability to
  communicate, to understand and use basic mathematics, and to use inf ormation technology




                                                                                                                                                                 155
Glossary

Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) – Previously known as the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA). The LSDA of f ers services
and products through national and regional staf f , operating within key business areas

Learning and Skills Council (LSC) – The body responsible f or f unding and planning education and training f or over 16 year olds in England

Local authorities (LA) – Local authorities are responsible f or developing plans f or children and young people aged up to 19, including the planning, f unding
and monitoring of public sector schools in their area. Local authorities also provide or commission community based adult lea rning, most also including f urther
education f or adults

Monitoring - The review of , and reporting on, the awarding body‟s quality assurance arrangements by the regulatory authorities or the awarding body

Moderation - The process of checking that assessment standards have been applied correctly and consistently between assessors, between ce ntres and
over time, and making adjustments to results where required to compensate f or any dif f erences in standard that are encountere d

National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) - Qualif ications which are based on national occupational standards and are work-related. They ref lect the skills
and knowledge needed to do a job ef f ectively, and show that a candidate is competent in a particular area of work

National Qualifications Framework (NQF) - The f ramework used by the regulatory authorities to position qualif ications in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) – An of f icial body that regularly inspects all the schools in England that are mainly or wholly state f unded. Of sted
inspectors produce education reports which are meant to improve standards of achievement and quality of education, provide pu blic reporting and inf ormed
independent advice

Oxford, Cambridge and RSE examinations (OCR) – A unitary and vocational awarding body

Provider - Provider of education, training or learning to learners. Inspectorates and f unding and planning bodies ref er to providers, aw arding bodies ref er to
centres

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) - Working with higher education institutions to def ine academic standards and quality. The QAA publishes reviews against
these standards

Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) – A non-departmental public body, sponsored by DfES. QCA maintains and develops the national curriculum
and associated assessments, tests and examinations; and accredits and monitors qualif ications in colleges and at work

                                                                                                                                                                      156
Glossary

Quality Improvement Agency for Life Long Learning (QIA) - A new agency established in April 2006 as part of the Success f or All Strategy, it will aim to
  bring a clear and coherent f ocus to quality improvement in FE and training sector

Regulatory authorities (for qualifications) - Government-designated statutory organisations required to establish national standards f or qualif ications and
  secure consistent compliance with them. The regulatory authorities f or qualif ications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are respectively QCA, DELLS
  and CCEA

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) - The regulatory authority f or Scotland

Sector Skills Councils (SSC) - The Secretary of State licenses SSCs f or Education and Skills, in consultation with Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern
  Ireland, to address the skills and productivity needs of their sector throughout the UK

Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) - Responsible f or f unding, supporting and monitoring the network of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs)

Special arrangements/ reasonable adjustments - Arrangements which are approved in advance of an examination or assessment to allow attainment to be
  demonstrated by candidates with either a permanent or long -term disability or learning dif f iculty, or a temporary disability, illness or indisposition

Verification - A process of moderation that includes local checking of assessment processes and decisions

Vocationally Related Qualifications (VRQs) - Based on national occupational standards these qualif ications enable progression and prepare people by
  developing the skills and knowledge needed in the workplace

Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) - The Welsh unitary awarding body




                                                                                                                                                                157
                     Contact:
richard.kershaw@capgemini.com
            www.capgemini.com

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:4/23/2011
language:English
pages:158