Level 2: Towards a Shared Understanding - External Comparison

When internal targets, action plans and methods of assessment are in place or in development, learning cities want to measure themselves against what is happening in other places. This is to learn from the practice of others and to begin to make sure that they are performing better as a result of the learning city work than those in similar situations who have not engaged in the same kinds of partnerships and participative strategies.

This task requires learning cities to use quantitative data and to move beyond this to an understanding of the qualitative processes within and between organisations, services and communities. One of the key ways for establishing such comparisons is benchmarking.

Another means of developing external perspectives on activity is through measurement against national targets, league tables and other appropriate data. This involves defining relevant and useful priorities. Data on learning may be a useful starting point. A third method which initiatives in Britain have found particularly useful as they start work is networking with other places in a formally constituted network. In this instance this is the Learning City Network itself.

Ideas for Action

Benchmarking - benchmarking a whole city is not likely to be appropriate or possible. The first task should be to identify areas where this approach would be useful and where it would help the initiative to achieve in a priority area.

Having identified the area, choose a partner area which you feel is better that you. Their situation should be close enough to your own to make what you learn meaningful.

Be sure that you are clear about the data needed and its availability.

Choose comparable indicators.

Evaluate the comparison by identifying the gaps in performance and which processes are useful to your organisation, then implementing change and re-evaluating.

Using national data on learning involves using only data which is collected nationally in a uniform way, and which follows the data collected in relation to locally determined priorities. Possible sources will include:

• School league tables at all stages to GCSE
• National Targets at Foundation Level: Lifetime Targets are also possible but data on them may be less uniformly collected
• Labour Force Survey data
• National Adult Learning Survey published by DfEE
• Labour Market and Skills Trends published annually by DfEE
• Audit Commission Performance Indicator information which covers a wide range of services but few qualitative measures: these are being developed in a number of areas
• FEFC and HEFC statistics and, perhaps, the data which FE and HE institutions must prepare for their funding body
• Crime statistics are collected locally and nationally. There are undoubtedly other databases which might be explored outside the sphere of education and training. Initiatives in Britain have not, in general, tackled the data sets in relation to learning. Other data may need to be considered for a later phase of development.

Networks - belonging to a network in relation to all or part of the learning city activities can bring fresh ideas, good practice and possibilities for benchmarking activity. There are networks for many purposes: for learning city work the most prominent ones are:

• the Learning City Network
• the European Lifelong Learning Initiative which produces information, newsletters and has supported specific initiatives
• European networks such as the Network of Educating Cities: their role in connection with British initiatives is not yet highly developed.

When joining a network it is vital to ensure that the information flow from it is shared with the initiative as a whole.

Networks involve time, resources and commitment. This needs to be resourced.

Pitfalls and Perils

National comparisons have been identified as problematic. Simple positions within league tables are likely to be counterproductive and demoralising, especially in places engaged in efforts to regenerate. All targets should be about improvement from a baseline and the baseline should be defined.

For successful communications, network members should represent the group as a whole. They should not represent one sector within it, or an individual interest.

Essential

There is a need to encourage and work for urgent decisions on which National Targets would form a useful core for all communities to measure, and to encourage, and perhaps seek funding for, sharing and benchmarking among initiatives.

Assessing Progress in Level Two

Has the initiative any contact with other similarly focused communities through a network or other means?

Have specific areas been identified which would be appropriate starting points for benchmarking?

Have decisions been taken on what data might support national comparisons in key areas?

Are targets in relation to nationally collected data in place and available to partners?

Are targets and proven progress publicised with communities and in the media?