NATSPEC Annual Conference
Raising Aspirations –Transforming Lives
Gill Reay SHMI
Birmingham
May 2013
Common Inspection Framework for
Further Education and Skills 2012
The Common Inspection Framework 2012:

focuses on the aspects of a provider’s work that have most
impact on learners

places an increased emphasis on teaching, learning and
assessment


reduces the number of judgements and grades
focuses on the impact of leadership on the learner
experience.
A good education for all:
“I believe that all providers must be at least good and this must
be viewed as the minimum expected standard.”
Sir Michael Wilshaw HMCI (2012)
Key differences in CIF 2012







Short notice – 2 days.
Focus on teaching, learning & assessment (in & out of lessons).
Quality students’ work and progress in lessons and over time.
Development English, mathematics and employability skills
Progress and destination
Equality and diversity across all aspects.
Leadership focus on learners’ experience and outcomes.
Support and Challenge activity
- how will it look?





Improvement visits by HMI to ‘get to good’
Conferences, seminars, workshops on key themes
Learning events in tandem with other sector organisations
Regional links
Ofsted will keep its improvement activities under review to ensure
that it provides the most appropriate challenge and support to
providers requiring improvement.
Support and Challenge activity
- how will it look?

RI providers contacted 10 to 30 days post publication report and
allocated a link HMI

National Conferences
Focus on teaching, learning & assessment
– Colleges 20 Feb, ILPs 5 March, CLS providers 8 May, ISC 15
May
 Cross remit conferences on improvement through better selfassessment

- North - Manchester Thursday 27 June
- Midlands – Birmingham Wednesday 12 June
- South – London Tuesday 18 June
Regional Seminars and workshops - follow up from national
conference on improving teaching, learning & assessment
Chart 2: Overall effectiveness of learning and skills providers inspected at 31 December
2012, percentage 1 2 3
Overall effectiveness of learning and skills providers inspected (percentage)
22
All college (381)³
General further education
college/tertiary college (236)
46
17
47
37
Sixth form college (92)
29
3
32
3
38
22
3
Independent specialist college (53)
13
53
30
4
Independent learning provider (427)
12
53
31
3
Community learning and skills (253)
6
65
Outstanding
Good
27
Satisfactory / Requires improvement
Inadequate
2
Important questions for further education providers for
post 16 learners




How well are learners prepared for their likely next step?

How does the provider ensure targets are based on high
expectations?

How well are assessment, target setting and the evaluation of
progress towards longer term goals rigorously moderated?

Do all learners have targets for literacy/communication and
numeracy/mathematics?
Are learners’ targets and programmes really individualised?
How well are learners involved in their target setting?
Is prior attainment (baseline) information used thoroughly
and effectively to set targets?

Is learning developed in a range of settings, not just in the
classroom, workshop or workplace?

Do learners become more independent?



Is there a reduction in support required (where
appropriate)?
 How effectively is technology used to overcome barriers to
learning?
 How successful is the development of everyday living
skills, including social interactions?
How frequently is achievement towards a target monitored?
Are there rigorous reviews of the continued appropriateness
of targets?
How often have monitoring and review resulted in changes of
targets?

How does the provider know if good progress is made? Do
they know would need to improve for achievement to become
outstanding? How would they recognise if achievement was
deteriorating?

Does achievement information show how well learners have
made progress across all aspects of their programme? Does
information about achievement include more than data about
passing qualifications? Does qualification success represent
progress?

Are there any differences in the achievement by different
groups of learners?

How thoroughly are targets used in session planning, and in
teaching and learning?

How effectively does information from learners,
parents/carers and other stakeholders contribute to quality
assurance? Is information gathered after a learner has left
college? Has such information led to change?

How does the provider ensure that slowness towards
achieving targets is not the result of weakness in the
provision? Has learners’ slowness/failure to make progress
resulted in changes to the provision? Has such change been
effective?

How effectively are governors/trustees informed of learners’
achievement? Do they know how progress would need to
improve for it to become outstanding? Do they know what
inadequate progress would look like?

Is improving learners’ outcomes central to performance
management? Is success to achieving ambitious targets
considered rigorously?

How effectively has information about learners’ progress and
the quality of their provision been analysed and informed selfassessment and improvement planning?

Is the effectiveness of quality assurance and self-assessment
monitored by its impact on improving outcomes?

Do teaching and learning observations focus on the learners
rather than the teacher?

How effective is the link between session observations,
performance management and professional development and
improved learner progress?