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: info@hostpolicyresearch.com

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