National PRD Conference
Influencing and Preparing for the Future
5th June 2008
Introduction
From the Chair Christopher Lambert
Vice Principal (College Improvement) City College Norwich
Objectives of the day
• Celebrating providers’ contribution to improving the use of PRD
• identifying the further development of PRD within the context of the further education system’s national policy drivers
• learning from the first year of the programme
• hearing from PRD groups and gaining from their unique insights.
Agenda• Introduction Chris Lambert, Chair
• Welcome Sue Dutton, FEI
• The role of PRD in a self regulating sector Phil Cox, Self Regulation Implementation
Group, representing Single Voice
• CIF, Self-assessment, capacity to improve and PRD Penny Silvester, Ofsted
• Tea and Coffee
• Workshops (a choice of 8)
• Framework for Excellence and PRD Verity Bullough, LSC
• Lunch
• Workshops (a choice of 8)
• Key messages from HOST evaluation of SfE PRD David Parsons, Host
• Next Steps for PRD Linda Wilson, QIA
• Close
WorkshopsWorkshop Location
PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvement Congress Suite 1-2
Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE College Meeting Room 2
Integrating PRD into Work Based Learning Invision 2
Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case Studies Meeting Room 3
Delivering feedback in a PRD environment Main Hall
Performance Management within a self regulating FE System Invision 1
The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providers Meeting Room 4
Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRD Congress Suite 3-4
12.00 and 14.00
Your feedback
• What works well about PRD?• Lessons learnt from PRD• Expectations and plans for year 2• Questions to be answered
What worked well
was…
I learnt that…
Welcome
Sue Dutton
Acting CEO of FEI
Phil Cox
Performance Management within a Self Regulating FE System
Performance Management within a Self Regulating FE System
Phil Cox Senior Project LeaderFE Self Regulation Project
June 2008
Self Regulation – the Vision
A further education sector comprisingautonomous, demand-led, organisationsacting individually and collectively withina self regulation system in deliveringhigh quality, responsive provision for thebenefit of learners, employers andcommunities and operating as a trustedpartner of government.
• Nine representative bodies - ALP, AoC, HOLEX, Landex, MEG, NATSPEC, NIACE, SFCF, 157 Group.
• Represents the sector in strategic dialogue with government on regulatory matters.
• Responsible for devising and maintaining the framework for self regulation and developing a rolling programme of activity for this purpose.
Single Voice for Self Regulation
Performance Management
A performance management system through
which providers demonstrate, individually
and collaboratively, their capacity for
assuring minimum levels of performance and
for continuously improving the quality and
standards of provision for the benefit of
learners, employers and local communities.
NATIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
EXTERNAL REGULATION – INSPECTION / FFE / INTERVENTION
PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITIES
COLLABORATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
SECTOR-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES
Organisational Review & Development
Peer Review & Development
System Review and Development
Codes of Conduct and Practice
Managing Underperformance
• Benchmarking performance
• Validating self assessment
• Identifying improvement needs and opportunities
• Sharing / transferring practice
• Joint planning / action on underperformance
• Monitoring impact
• Identifying client needs
• Setting performance goals
• Managing performance risk
• Benchmarking performance
• Self assessing performance
• Validating self assessment
• Acting on underperformance
• Spreading good practice
• A self-improving culture
Development Support Programmes
Continuing professionaldevelopment - accredited non-accredited
Codes of professionalconduct and practice
For governors, clerks,managers, teachers and other practitioners
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Professional Review and Development
Single Quality Framework
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WITHIN A SELF-REGULATING FE SYSTEM
Information and Guidance Standards
Critical Issues
• Defining the ‘self’ in self regulation• Aligning external regulation to the needs and
capabilities of a self regulating system• Relationship between the regulatory and
improvement support elements of the system.• Capacity building for performance management
through the National Improvement Strategy
White Paper ‘Raising Expectations’
‘The challenge now is to ensure the sector has
the support it needs for the next steps of its
improvement journey, in the increasingly
demanding environment of self regulation,
cross-sector partnership and customer
responsiveness.’ Paragraph 11.4
Realising Self Regulationfind out more...
www.feselfregulation.org.uk
Penny Silvester
CIF, self-assessment, capacity to improve and PRD
5th June 2008
Peer review and development
Peer review and development
Penny Silvester
Divisional Manager Learning and skills
Self assessment
Ofsted judgement about capacity to improve
Revisions to the inspection framework from September 2009
Areas to be covered
Role of self assessment in PRD
Validating self assessment is a crucial aspect of peer review
Acting as a critical friend
Benchmarking performance
Review of the whole organisation systems of quality assurance and planning processes
Review of peer’s quality improvement approaches
Role of self assessment
Support the provider's own quality improvement strategies
Should self assess against key external performance measures – CIF and FfE
Should draw on external performance measures
Mission driven approach responsive to external standards but driven by provider’s own strategic goals and development needs
Internal and external validation
Should target underperformance and performance that is satisfactory not improving
Role of self assessment in inspection
Helps us to risk assess and plan inspection
No prescribed format but should answer the 5 key questions of the CIF
Should be an integral part of an institutions’ performance management
Key drivers for accelerated change
Clarity of vision and mission based on raising learners’ skills and achievement
Rigorous self critical self assessment process which leads to clear action for improvement
Performance at all levels constantly monitored
Ambitious yet realistic targets for success rates, attendance and retention
Clear and sustained focus on teaching and learning through robust and accurate lesson observations
Judgement about the potential to
progress from the current position of the provider to a much more successful position or one where very high standards are maintained
Includes effectiveness of steps taken to promote improvement since the last inspection
Capacity to Improve
Capacity to improve
Leaders and managers use self assessment and other aspects of the QA system to diagnose strengths and areas for improvement, focus on improvement and raise standards and bring about improvement
Accuracy of SAR, full and candid evaluation
Leadership has aspirational but realistic views of what is possible and well thought out plans
Governors use their expertise well to challenge
Capacity to improve
As a result of actions achievements are made
Provider’s finances are robust and can support plans for further development
Provider is responding well to national priorities
Promotion of improvement since the last inspection
Not simply comparison of grades
Leadership and management have continued to drive the provider forward
The rate of increase in success rates
Learner’s achievements have improved
Progress in addressing issues since the last inspection and strengths have been maintained
Measures taken to improve learners’ experience
Revision to CIF
Risk assessment
Variable time between inspections for providers – good and outstanding up to six years, satisfactory up to four years
Health check sometime in the 6 years
Early thinking on changes to inspection methodology in the future
Early thinking on inspection
Continued strong focus on self assessment and continued engagement of a nominee
Users’ and employers’ views will have greater emphasis. Enhance the learner’s voice
Focus on teaching and learning
Focus on the performance of different user groups
Revisions to CIF
Overall effectiveness Capacity to improve Recommendations
Meeting the needs of service users
Leadership and management
Quality of provision
Outcomes for service users
Questions?
Tea and Coffee
11.40 -12.00
Workshop session 1Workshop Location
PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvement Congress Suite 1-2
Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE College Meeting Room 2
Integrating PRD into Work Based Learning Invision 2
Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case Studies Meeting Room 3
Delivering feedback in a PRD environment Main Hall
Performance Management within a self regulating FE System Invision 1
The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providers Meeting Room 4
Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRD Congress Suite 3-4
12.00
Verity Bullough
Framework for Excellence and PRD
QIA Support for Excellence
Framework for Excellence
Verity BulloughNational Director of Funding, Planning &
Performance
Overview of the Framework Origin Purpose and principles Vision for the Framework for Excellence Benefits of the Framework Structure Questions
Local Government
Education & Training
NHS
Fire Service
Police Service
Public Sector Frameworks
The Framework is the Government’s National Assessment Framework for Education and Training
Origins
• agenda for change: Quality and Business Excellence themes - identifying, celebrating and rewarding success
• The White Paper: The LSC’s response and preferred way forward: a standard set of performance indicators
• Builds on the Measures of Success, Common Inspection Framework and LSC’s financial audit requirements
Vision for the Framework
The VisionSimplify performance
assessment across the FE system
Inform learner and employer choice
The foundation for the self-regulation of
the system
Inform purchasing decisions
Drive providers’ quality improvement
Review of FfE Principles• Increase the quality and responsiveness of
provision in the FE system for all learners and employers
• Open and transparent comprehensive performance assessment supported by published data
• Provide an independent, quantitative assessment of sector performance
• Help all users access clear information to make informed choices
Informing/ Enhancing ChoiceBenefits to Learners
– More information available to careers/guidance advisors– Ability to compare provision – including at course level– Judgements on responsiveness and quality
Benefits to Employers– purchasing power– decisions regarding sectors/courses/levels– measure of responsiveness– ability to benchmark education and training
Benefits for ProvidersAnnual assessment of key business indicatorsAccurate data on which to base self-assessmentIncreased contracting/funding opportunities,
marketing opportunities, competitor analysisIncreased security of successful contracting/funding
Framework Structure
Key performance areas:i) Responsiveness to
learnersii) Responsiveness to
employers
Key performance areas:i) Financial healthii) Financial controliii) Use of resources
Overall performance rating
Financedimension
Responsivenessdimension
Effectivenessdimension
Performance indicators
Performance measures & assessment criteria
Key performance areas:
i) Quality of outcomesii) Quality of provision
Performance indicators
Performance measures & assessment criteria
Performance indicators
Performance measures & assessment criteria
FfE & Peer Review Development Informs self-assessment Outcomes used to target specific areas for PRD Opportunity for continued whole organisational approach Part of the self-regulation agenda Informs external intervention
Questions
Lunch
13.15 -14.00
Workshop Session 2Workshop Location
PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvement Congress Suite 1-2
Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE College Meeting Room 2
Integrating PRD into Work Based Learning Invision 2
Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case Studies Meeting Room 3
Delivering feedback in a PRD environment Main Hall
Performance Management within a self regulating FE System Invision 1
The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providers Meeting Room 4
Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRD Congress Suite 3-4
14.00
David Parsons
Key messages from the HOST evaluation of Support for Excellence PRD
NATIONAL EVALUATION OF NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPORT FOR EXCELLENCE (SfE) EXCELLENCE (SfE)
PROGRAMMEPROGRAMME
HOST Policy Research, PO Box 144, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1YS
Telephone: 01403 211440; e-mail: [email protected]
Early findings and success factorsEarly findings and success factors
Presentation from HOST Policy ResearchPresentation from HOST Policy ResearchProfessor David J ParsonsProfessor David J Parsons
Early findings and success Early findings and success factorsfactors
What is it looking at?What is it looking at?
Where is the programme at? A state Where is the programme at? A state of play reviewof play review
Where are PRD Groups now (self-Where are PRD Groups now (self-assessed maturity)?assessed maturity)?
What helps PRD Groups to work well?What helps PRD Groups to work well?
What is the evaluation What is the evaluation looking at?looking at?
PRD is new, challenging and (for some) radical … it needs a constructively critical PRD is new, challenging and (for some) radical … it needs a constructively critical review of the lessons emerging to guide better practice through:review of the lessons emerging to guide better practice through:
Reviewing the peer review process, including for:Reviewing the peer review process, including for:
– Use as a quality improvement toolUse as a quality improvement tool– Critical success factorsCritical success factors– Effectiveness in validating self-assessmentEffectiveness in validating self-assessment– Integrating FFE into self-assessmentIntegrating FFE into self-assessment
Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves towards self-regulation towards self-regulation
Assess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD GroupsAssess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD Groups
Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year
Establishing areas for improvement in programme structure and deliveryEstablishing areas for improvement in programme structure and delivery
Where is the programme at? Where is the programme at? I: What’s worked well?I: What’s worked well?
Just what is the current state of play of the programme – and what has the first year of funding Just what is the current state of play of the programme – and what has the first year of funding and group formation achieved?and group formation achieved?
Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups)Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups)
Cross-sector participation mix:Cross-sector participation mix:
– 45% as FE groups (including VI Form College)45% as FE groups (including VI Form College)– 20% as AL groups20% as AL groups– 18% as private and voluntary sector18% as private and voluntary sector
Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%)Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%)
Tapping ‘new’ provider demand (590 providers) via brokerageTapping ‘new’ provider demand (590 providers) via brokerage
Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool
Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers)Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers)
Significant ongoing investments by providersSignificant ongoing investments by providers
‘‘Capacity’ building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective)Capacity’ building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective)
Where is the programme at? Where is the programme at? II: What’s worked less well?II: What’s worked less well?
Consistency of programme co-ordination and communicationsConsistency of programme co-ordination and communications
Funder–provider communications on evolving nature of programmeFunder–provider communications on evolving nature of programme
Start-up programme bureaucracy and funding releaseStart-up programme bureaucracy and funding release
Resource demands of brokerage modelResource demands of brokerage model
Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas)Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas)
Unproven support model for meeting differentiated needsUnproven support model for meeting differentiated needs
Lack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD modelLack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD model
Lack of clarity on the ‘D’ agendaLack of clarity on the ‘D’ agenda
Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact
Where are PRD Groups at?: Where are PRD Groups at?: Achieved capacityAchieved capacity
SfE providers (% of responding providers) where the group self-assesses SfE providers (% of responding providers) where the group self-assesses what it has in place – mid April 2008what it has in place – mid April 2008
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Cross-provider PRDGroup co-ordination
Cross-group PRDroles and
responsibilities
Cross-groupresourcing
arrangements
Activity monitoring
Group and feedbackarrangements
Not answered
Where are PRD Groups at?: Where are PRD Groups at?: Part IIPart II
Providers participating in approved groups (% of responding providers) Providers participating in approved groups (% of responding providers) who see group as …who see group as …
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
PRD leadership iseffective
Provider co-ordination is working
well
All membersunderstand their
roles
All memberscontribute effectively
Necessary reviewskills are in place
Necessary feedbackskills are in place
What helps PRD Groups to What helps PRD Groups to work well? – Part Iwork well? – Part I
What are some of the key success factors for What are some of the key success factors for group formation and developmentgroup formation and development which help which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up)?PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up)?
Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them)Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them)
Tangible commitment of executive managers in all partnersTangible commitment of executive managers in all partners
Past positive track record of collaborative workingPast positive track record of collaborative working
Realising centrality of trusted/co-operative group workingRealising centrality of trusted/co-operative group working
Motivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levelsMotivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levels
Robust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadershipRobust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadership
Integrated action planning of all stages of the PRD processIntegrated action planning of all stages of the PRD process
Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures) Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures)
Willingness to evaluate and adapt existing processesWillingness to evaluate and adapt existing processes
What helps PRD Groups to What helps PRD Groups to work well? - Part IIwork well? - Part II
What are some of the key success factors for What are some of the key success factors for PRD implementation and operationPRD implementation and operation which help which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up?)PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up?)
Effective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewersEffective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewers
Recognising actual or perceived conflicts of interestRecognising actual or perceived conflicts of interest
Effective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teamsEffective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teams
Agreed protocols for operation of review and feedback processAgreed protocols for operation of review and feedback process
Effective, timely and practical training for reviewersEffective, timely and practical training for reviewers
Systematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomesSystematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomes
Clearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedbackClearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedback
Allocation of time and resources for review hostsAllocation of time and resources for review hosts
Clarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategyClarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategy
Linda Wilson
Support for Excellence
Next steps
Next Steps
• Support for 129 established groups• Recruitment of up to 36 new groups• Target under-represented groups• Support team• PRD Champions• SfE website: Resource Centre/Skills and Guidance• Case Studies• Sharing PRD practice• Events• Funding model for PRD groups
?£10k £10k £10k £10k
Setting up PRD Group
First review and reflective report
Sharing practice
Communicating benefits
Expanding group membership/ brokering new groups
PRD becomes business as usual within each member organisation’s business processes
Establishment Pioneering Embedding Sustainability
PRD Group Funding Model£10k payment to each PRD group on condition of deliverables in four stages reflecting their developing maturity
Team structureLinda Wilson
QIA Programme DirectorJulie Mercer
Programme Director
Manager Change and Communications
Operations Offender Learning
Shivani MaitraProgramme Manager
This team will deliver a two way communication
process
Offender Learning Working Group
Regional Operations and regional support on a
needs basis
Practitioner led
Champions + I&D
Senior/PioneerPractitioners
on a needs basis
Responsible for Senior Management Stakeholder Engagement
David Tickle, Liz WaltersQIA Programme
Development Managers
Support for Excellence and FfE roll-out
1. Open eventsAutumn 2008 for version one in-scope providerSpring 2008 for version two in-scope providers
2. Dialogue with Peer Review and Development groups129 groups in 2007/08 + 36 new groups in 2008 (Total of 165 groups representing 750 providers)
3. FfE within PRD related events and activities
4. Case studies
5. Excellence Gateway http://excellence.qia.org.uk
Contributing to the self-regulation agenda
• Validating self-assessment judgements• Improving self-assessment, including the use of FfE • Embedding self-assessment into business processes and the
organisational review and development cycle• Collaborative development• Effective transfer of good practice• Eliminating underperformance• Building capacity for self-improvement• Raising the reputation of the further education system
Close & prize draw!
By the Chair Christopher Lambert
Top Related