3. Using Practice, Progress and Value

The Guide Practice, Progress and Value was produced before the advent of learning partnerships and, of course, before the proposed reorganisation of structures for Post 16 education and training in England and Wales. In the light of the development of these partnerships and the very real effects they will have on the context in the Learning Communities operate, it has become clear that any revision to the Guide in its present form would be of limited use. A total rewriting of the Guide in terms that took account of the new structures would be required. This is beyond the scope of the current project and would be impossible at the present time when it is not clear what the new arrangements will look like on the ground.

That guidance and help is needed is demonstrated by the willingness of projects to engage with the use of the toolkit in its current form despite the challenges presented by the changes outlined above.

Background

In the construction of Practice, Progress and Value consideration was given to the possibility of producing a structured guide to developing the structure of a Learning Community. Instead, it was decided that local variations where such that this would be inappropriate. The Guide was intended to provide a loose structure within which initiatives could construct their locally distinctive form of Learning Community. However, it would seem from much of the feedback that this form of guide was not useful to projects.

A range of projects wanted a much more structured "how to do it" guide for the development of initiatives. There is a consistent strand running through the projects regretting the absence in the Guide of checklists, structured series of questions, flowcharts, prompts and sets of evaluation exercises. One project states the need for a structured work pack for initiatives.

Among the projects that found the Guide useful some of the more structured elements were particularly appreciated. The matrices were seen by one project as offering a structured approach to work and the idea of aiming for structure was seen as a key advantage given by using the Guide by a number of projects.

Many projects found the Guide too complex and multi-layered to use. The project in Blackburn and Darwen found using a facilitator enabled them to be more effective and to use the Guide with a group. Other projects found the use of project consultants helpful in working through the steps in Practice, Progress and Value and using the Guide in a locally appropriate way.

For some projects the Guide did not give enough scope to local players. Although structured checklists were requested, there was hope that these would be adaptable to local circumstances and many projects drew up locally appropriate checklists to fill this perceived gap.

There were a number of criticisms of the Guide as a tool for working at field level and with partnerships that were more operational than strategic. In Derby the kind of arrangements, protocols and forms of partnership described seemed completely irrelevant to partnership activities with a community association in a deprived ward of the city, and there were similar problems mentioned in relation to the project in Swansea and Southampton. All these projects were geared towards specific community groups rather that the strategic partnership initiatives the Guide sets out to address in its partnership strand.

Further difficulties were experienced in the use of the Guide for evaluation. Although projects found the three levels a useful focus for evaluation, they found the Guide did not take forward the processes to be used in nearly enough detail. There was no guidance as to the types or sources of data that would best be used as a foundation for identifying or setting targets. Again projects stressed the need for examples, of baseline data, possible evaluation exercises and case studies for modelling activity. Specific suggestions for action in this area were sought by more than one project.

The final section of the section on Practice, Progress and Value was felt to be complex and over-sophisticated by some projects and for others the concept of Value added remained unresolved. It was clear from reactions at the Conference of projects held in the summer of 1999 that this section was difficult to use in practical exercises, not only because of its complexity but because some outputs were medium and long-term, whereas the projects had been relatively short-lived.

With these criticisms strongly voiced by the projects, what lessons might be drawn for Learning partnerships and those hoping to provide guidance for them? In essence five strong messages seem to emerge:

• evaluation of partnership initiative remains an area whence there is a need for guidance on good practice;
• it seems likely that material to support Partnership projects would be most appreciated if it were produced as a structured work pack with series of exercises that can be adapted to local circumstances;
• there may be two different kinds of material needed. One for strategic activity and another needed for field centred partnerships;
• the issue of baseline data and choice of baseline data is one where Learning communities could benefit form particular guidance; and
• any guidance should make full use of examples and case studies.

There is a need for better guidance for learning partnership projects and for many, Practice, Progress and Value provided some part of what was needed. As a background document and as a means of introducing structure into the evaluation of partnership activity, projects found it useful. For many it provided a stimulus and a reference tool. For one project it provided a tool to "Analyse progress, decide priorities and provide practical pragmatic strategies when partnerships got bogged down".

However, in essence the Guide should be seen as a step in the right direction to be improved by a more practical approach it is to be of real use to initiatives.