Memorandum submitted by Shirley Arayan,
Principal, Norton Radstock College
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The evidence we wish to submit concerns the
processes which this college has been involved in culminating
in the submission of self-assessment forms by the local authority:
Bath and North East Somerset. We have listed the main factors
which we feel have affected the process.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The college has had links with schools in its
locality for more than 20 years and, more recently, been involved
in Increased Flexibility Partnership work with schools delivering
vocational programmes to Years 10-13 students both on the college
site and within school premises. The college is currently part
of two consortia who have submitted self-assessments to the DfES
covering the first five Diplomas to be introduced in 2008.
FACTUAL INFORMATION
(i) The self-assessment process (and the
writing of the form) was carried out in individual institutions
(some working in long-established partnerships) led by the local
authority and the LSC. The forms were worked on over a seven to
eight week period in a series of meetings being approved at various
stages by the Secondary School Head Teachers and College Principals.
(ii) The leadership offered by the local
authority was questionable. There was a lack of coherence in the
process and an apparent unawareness of where roles and responsibilities
lay.
(iii) The requirements of the Specialised
Diplomas were often misunderstood by the head teachers of the
secondary schools who lacked information and were not aware that
this could change the vocational curriculum already on offer nor
that they would need to take part in the offer. This resulted
in tensions developing in the process which were not resolved.
(iv) Opportunities to take advantage of
the lessons learned in the schools and colleges' existing partnership
work and work with employers were frequently overlooked.
(v) The capital bid opportunities within
the Gateway process were seen by some as a way to access funding
for special projects rather than to enhance delivery to young
people of credible, sector relevant applied learning with real
opportunities to practice their skills.
(vi) The delay in the Dyson Centre caused
some head teachers' commitment to the Engineering Diploma self
assessment process to be withdrawn.
(vii) A view point expressed was that working
in engineering could be appropriate for students with lower attainment.
This view seemed common to all vocational Diplomas for some head
teachers.
(viii) Little account seemed to be taken
of the need for employer links.
(ix) School heads were not prepared to acknowledge
existing resources, in particular colleges having new capital
bids with the potential to enhance Diploma delivery.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
— Protocols for the conduct of Consortia
would benefit the self assessment process and subsequent working.
— Protocols related particularly to
the role of the local authority would support the process.
— Wider dissemination of information
regarding the Specialised Diplomas could ensure that all those
taking part in the process understand their requirements and structure.
January 2007
| 
