Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Colleges (AoC)
BACKGROUND
AoC (the Association of Colleges) is the representative
body for colleges of further education, including general FE colleges,
sixth form colleges and specialist colleges in England, Wales
(through our association with fforwm) and Northern Ireland (through
our association with ANIC). AoC was established in 1996 by the
colleges themselves to provide a voice for further education at
national and regional levels. Some 98% of the 400-plus general
FE colleges, sixth form colleges and specialist colleges in the
three countries are in membership. These colleges are the largest
providers of post-16 general and vocational education and training
in the UK. They serve over 4 million of the 6 million learners
participating in post-statutory education and training, offering
lifelong learning opportunities for school leavers and adults
over a vast range of academic and vocational qualifications. Levels
of study range from the basic skills needed to remedy disadvantage,
through to professional qualifications and higher education degrees.
The key role played by the sector and its 250,000
staff in raising the level of skills and competitiveness of the
nation's workforce makes colleges central to the Government's
national and regional agenda for economic prosperity and social
inclusion. AoC works in close partnership with the government
and all other key national and regional agencies to assist policy
development, continuously to improve quality and to secure the
best possible provision for post-16 education and training.
THE WORK
OF OFSTED—CONTEXT
This submission addresses the work of Ofsted
in the context of recent major developments.
NEW ARRANGEMENTS
FOR INSPECTION
INTRODUCED IN
2005-06
— The publication of the new draft
LSC quality assurance framework for colleges.
— Framework for Excellence and the
draft QIA quality improvement strategy Pursuing Excellence.
— The forthcoming merger of Ofsted
with the Adult Learning Inspectorate.
SUMMARY
Quality of Ofsted's work
Recent changes to the inspection arrangements
are recognised as valuable by colleges.
Lighter touch
AoC welcomes lighter touch, proportionate inspection,
which acknowledges the improvements in the sector and its capacity
to self improve, and supports colleges' goal of self-regulation.
Ofsted's professional judgement
Colleges value the contribution that Ofsted
has made to college demonstrable self improvement. Over the last
two cycles, colleges have become confident with the decisions
that Inspectors make. Their professional judgements are for the
most part recognised as being fair and accurate.
Self assessment
Ofsted has a vital role in the validating of
college self assessment under the current inspection arrangements,
and this external role in quality assurance should be retained
and strengthened as colleges move towards self-regulation.
Framework for Excellence
AoC urges a single quality framework based on
the CIF, rather than a proliferation of new standards. The framework
should include school sixth forms.
ALI/Ofsted Merger
The combined service is welcomed, but it is
important that the FE sector is not lost or subsumed in the enlarged
service.
Partners in Quality improvement
AoC would like to be confident that the distinction
between the quality assurance role of Ofsted and the quality improvement
role of the QIA is safeguarded, and that other agencies do not
step onto Ofsted's territory
QUALITY OF
OFSTED'S
WORK
1. The Annual Assessment Visit is a new
development that colleges see as a useful management tool, more
useful than the four year visit.
2. The new short notice of an announcement
of an inspection is also welcomed as the previous arrangements
had led to months of college distraction as they prepared for
the inspection. The long lead-in was also increasingly unnecessary
as colleges now build a cycle of internal audit into their own
quality assurance systems.
LIGHTER TOUCH
3. The new inspection arrangements are risk-based:
the lower performing colleges receive the most intensive inspection.
Some colleges will now be exempt from inspection, and we welcome
this incremental and proportionate approach that Ofsted is taking,
which is appropriate for a more mature sector.
4. Risk-based assessment means that colleges
that have proved themselves are enabled to get on with minimal
inspection to ensure inspection resources are devolved where they
are most needed. This is consistent with colleges' goal of self-regulation.
THE VALUE
OF OFSTED'S
PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
5. While welcoming these proportionate developments,
AoC would also wish to see the continuation of the annual visit
from Ofsted, as even outstanding colleges value the professional
judgement that they have to come to expect of Ofsted.
6. AoC would like to emphasise that over
the last two cycles colleges have become confident with the decisions
that Inspectors make. Their professional judgements are for the
most part recognised as being fair and accurate. AoC does not
wish to see the expertise and vast body of experience which is
the basis for sound professional judgement being lost with the
introduction of Framework for Excellence.
THE CENTRAL
ROLE OF
OFSTED IN
VALIDATING COLLEGES'
SELF ASSESSMENT
7. The college Self Assessment Report (SAR)
is the centre of the current inspection arrangements. Ofsted is
essentially making judgments about the accuracy of this report.
In particular, the new and critical judgement, "capacity
to improve", is largely made on the basis of how well a college
is able to self-assess its own performance and implement effective
action plans to improve.
8. We would like to emphasise that AoC sees
Ofsted's role as the external assessor of colleges' performance
as essential and critical. This is something that AoC would wish
to remain even within a self-regulating system. The credibility
and rigour would be important to retain, especially when colleges
are working with peers to regulate themselves.
9. The self-assessment reports in the sector
have received greater importance in inspection than ever before,
as this is the main plank along which the self regulation agenda
is built into the Framework for Excellence.
FRAMEWORK FOR
EXCELLENCE
10. It is important that the quality standards
and systems that are being developed by LSC map across to the
Common Inspection Framework, rather than impose new standards
and criteria for self assessment to substitute or add to these
existing standards
11. We would like to see the Inspectorate
developing their existing framework in collaboration with the
LSC and other agencies.
12. AoC would like to go further in having
greater simplicity in terms of quality assurance, which would
align all standards within a single quality framework, so that
one set of judgements could be used many times.
13. We have major concerns about the proliferation
of different organisations, including the Sector Skills Councils,
making judgements about colleges. This is unhelpful in that it
diverts their efforts away from what should be their priority—providing
quality education and training for learners.
14. There is already a rigorous and independent
set of standards embodied in the Common Inspection Framework,
and AoC believes that this should be the basis for Ofsted, the
LSC, SSCs and other agencies to form a single quality framework.
15. Furthermore AoC would like to reiterate
its repeatedly stated view that the same quality assurance processes
are used in both schools and colleges (even though this is slightly
outside the brief of the submission). It is a matter for considerable
regret that the Framework for Excellence excludes schools. There
needs to be a level playing field between schools and colleges,
so that the performance of institutions can be fairly compared
and contrasted. We are aware that Ofsted is collecting data that
should make it possible to include the schools in the Framework
for Excellence.
MERGER OF
OFSTED WITH
THE ADULT
LEARNING INSPECTORATE
AND ENCOMPASSING
CHILDREN'S
SERVICES
16. We supported the enlarged Ofsted remit
to encompass "cradle to grave" inspection because we
agree that there needs to be a much greater synergy between schools
and colleges. We therefore acknowledge that a combined service
makes sense.
17. However, we have emphasised previously
in our previous submissions to the Committee in October 2005 and
March 2006 the necessity for each division to retain the specialist
expertise that it needs to inspect different parts of the sector.
It will be particularly critical that the new larger Ofsted retains
the expertise of ALI inspectors.
18. We have in previous Select Committee
submissions indicated that it is very important that the FE sector
is not lost or subsumed as part of Ofsted's wider remit. FE needs
to be properly represented at Board level and the distinctiveness
of what we do given proportionate attention, focus and resource.
PARTNERS IN
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
19. We welcome continuation of the ALI/
EXCALIBUR service. We believe it is an appropriate decision to
place this support service with the Quality Improvement Agency.
20. AoC is firm in the view that Ofsted's
remit of quality assurance should not be subsumed by other agencies.
We should not confuse the need for rigorous inspection with the
quality improvement remit of the QIA. It is important that these
respective roles of the partners in the Quality Improvement Strategy
are clearly defined.
21. We have some concerns about whether
or not the QIA may be tending to stray into the territory of the
Inspectorate, for example recent discussions about the definition
of "excellent", which we feel is within the standards
remit of Ofsted.
22. In our view, the role of the QIA is
to be reactive, rather than proactive, so that it supports colleges
where either the Inspectorate or the LSC has found inadequacies.
23. We think it is important in terms of
the strategic partnership, that there isn't the tendency, following
the lighter touch and proportionate approach taken by Ofsted,
for any other agencies to come in and take on quasi-Ofsted roles.
We feel that this would be unhelpful and unnecessary.
December 2006
| 
