7 February 2007

This is a Strategy that has eleven core partners around a quality high table but with one empty chair causing a stir. That chair belongs to Leitch.

He may not be there in person but Leitch’s vision of a demand led system serviced by a highly responsive and high quality sector has everyone talking. “Our recommendations will have a significant impact on FE colleges and providers” Leitch warned in chapter 4 of his Report and the evidence is here in this Strategy. ‘Eradicating failure’ may have been the political headline last year but it’s Leitch this year and the more serious business of developing a quality profile to be able to compete long term in an open market. Wrapping a National Improvement Strategy around a sector that is rarely static will be no easy feat. Like the many headed hydra, the sector is conditioned to operate in many different directions at once.

This Improvement Strategy is made up of three aims, five principles, twelve priority actions, some refined roles and that trusty old measure – the balanced scorecard. “It is” as this explanatory Paper from the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) spells out “part of a much bigger policy package, covering the new relationship for the further education system.” The ‘new relationship’ sought by many of the 138 respondents to last year’s consultation on a draft Strategy is one that’s simpler, more coherent, able to spread good practice and focused on colleges and providers taking responsibility for their own improvement. The Strategy sets out to meet such aspirations where it can but this is a collective effort and some things will take time to come together. It will be 2010, for instance, before the LSC’s Framework for Excellence aligns with the Common Inspection Framework to provide a single performance assessment framework.

It’s important to note as a starting point that the sector is already performing pretty well. Politicians may talk tough about closing down failing institutions and headlines may roar about ‘coasting colleges’ but as this Paper indicates, this is not a sector in crisis. Learners are generally satisfied or very satisfied, success rates are improving and have exceeded two years early the 72% target set under Success for All, more staff than ever are qualified, many providers are working successfully with schools at one end and universities at the other and most have realigned their missions to meet the demand led culture that is gradually shaping their existence. But, as politicians are wont to say, there are still plenty more challenges to meet. “If we are to achieve Leitch’s ambitions the system will need to increase capacity at the same time as becoming funded through demand led mechanisms.”

The three aims of the Strategy reflect these challenges. Firstly that learners have ready access to high quality provision; secondly that such provision meets the needs of employers and thirdly that the system continues its upward spiral towards achieving full excellence, even though that has yet to be fully defined.

The aims are high level but the twelve priority actions listed to help achieve each aim will perhaps be of most interest to those on the ground.

Two priority actions sit under the first aim. The first is to embed personalisation and increase the learner voice. The ‘tailoring’ of learning is already under way, reflected in the current DfES consultation on ‘Personalising FE’ and picked up in part here with its focus on the concept of the expert learner. The emphasis is on supporting the learner. The Centre for Excellence in Leadership, for example, is working on programmes to enable learners to become stronger advocates and student governors but there are of course responsibilities on both sides and the Strategy calls for an evaluation of teaching and learning programmes so as to “embed personalisation.” The timescale for this is from April 2008.

The second priority action under this aim is more complex and is to “develop programmes to address the gaps in success rates between learners from different backgrounds.” More complex because the freedom to develop such programmes is not always in the lecturer’s let alone the provider’s gift. Some of this, however, is an essential response to the Little Review last year on providing for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities and the Paper indicates that it intends to award the first Centre of Excellence status for provision in this area by December 2008. Such provision apart, the Government remains troubled by disparities between providers on success rates and the Paper indicates more research in this area.

The priority action under the second aim is to improve provider responsiveness to employers. This is an area that has been hotly contested for some time with the CBI claiming that few employers turn to their local college for skills training and the colleges claiming, it has to be said with evidence from both Ofsted and the LSC National Employer Skills Survey, that many do. Such arguments will become spurious as demand led becomes a fact of life over the next few years. To this end, QIA, SSCs, the LSC and others have been working on a set of standards that can define best practice in employer engagement which this Paper confirms will be rolled out shortly.

The remaining priority actions come under the third general aim of ensuring the further education system continuously improves. Self improvement, sharing good practice, developing leaders for the future and supporting major learning initiatives such as Skills for Life, Train to Gain and 14 – 19 Diplomas are all on the agenda here. The context was set by Alan Johnson’s speech to the AoC last November in which he challenged the sector “to develop a proposal for self regulation by spring 2007.” Much of this is being led by QIA, CEL, LLUK and others and the fruits in the form of for instance the Excellence Gateway, the Principalship or ‘Qualifying Programme for Leaders’ and the teacher training or QTLS programme will be evident during the coming months. Likewise the training and coaching packs to support new learning either 14 – 19 or under Train to Gain.

Two aspects less clear at present but worth watching are the proposed intervention strategy for when provision is at risk and the incorporation of the Excalibur intelligence gathered over many years by ALI. The former is being debated in parliament at present under the FE and Training Act, the latter subject to the transition under Ofsted this April.

No wonder most eyes remain fixed on the empty chair.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2007. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk