Section 2 - Process Lessons
2.1 Strategy and Project Development
The overall objective of the schemes looked at within the study (and their learning programmes in particular) was to use the relatively modest resources available from the SRB as a catalyst to improve participation in, and outcomes from, learning for individuals, businesses, communities. To secure the maximum impact from comparatively limited resources requires a highly focused strategy.
As discussed later in this Section, evidence of impact is generally limited because the schemes and projects explored are often at a relatively early stage. However, preliminary indications suggest that those schemes deploying a piecemeal, project-based approach are unlikely to achieve the same kind of impact as schemes with a clear strategic focus.
Evidence
Where strategies were evident, the processes by which they were developed varied, although there were common features.
- Baselines were established to identify priority issues, drawing on:
- published data on performance including SAT scores and post-16 participation;
- progress towards National Learning Targets;
- exploring key socio-economic or demographic characteristics relevant to skills and qualifications (often referred to as 'contextual data'); and
- using resident and employer surveys to illustrate local skill levels in terms of availability and shortages.
- Key partners were consulted. Without doubt the most successful initiatives were those in which the design was based on the views both of the proposed deliverer and the target audience. Unfortunately, the latter group was often ignored.
- Priorities were identified which were consistent with mainstream priorities (for example, of college or school development plans), while simultaneously demonstrating clear additionality.
Weaknesses
Although much of the evidence presented in the study suggests that the mechanisms are working well, there are some aspects of the strategy-project development process that cause difficulties in the context of learning objectives.
- The relationship between proposed project activity and analysis of issues is not always clear. For example, many of the schemes reflect an analysis in which the absence of parental involvement is seen as a factor contributing towards low standards of attainment. Projects to encourage parental involvement are therefore developed (for example, higher profile parent evenings or a dedicated parents' room). But the question of what precisely it is about parents' lack of involvement that contributes to poor performance is not thought through - and neither therefore is the response.
- In a number of cases there is a marked mismatch between the objectives of a scheme and the activities by which they were to be pursued. This is illustrated by one of the school-industry link programmes. The project includes relatively standard school-industry activities (such as work placements, industry days, teacher placements). Outputs are being achieved and there is anecdotal evidence that those involved are satisfied. But it is not clear specifically how the project will meet a diverse and ambitious range of outcomes (including 'increased resources available for teaching and learning' or 'increased student motivation'). It is also unclear how anyone will be able to tell since the scheme only monitors a limited range of outputs.
- There are examples where the analysis and rationale are robust, the proposed project activities appropriate - but where the resources available fall (significantly) short of aims and ambitions.
- Finally, there is some confusion and inconsistency about the definitions of 'scheme', 'programme', and 'project' (and the relationship between them). This may just reflect differences in the use of language. But there were cases where the 'technology' and culture of the SRB, which requires activity to be parcelled up into discrete projects, may be a distraction from the promotion of effective programmes. For example, both in Sowerby Bridge and County Durham, there were cases where projects, previously put forward as separate strands of activity, were in practice so inter-linked that they were amalgamated.
Key Lessons
There is no shortage of good practice. This is discussed in Section 4 below, but a brief summary of the key points follows.
- Projects should ensure that their baseline research is sufficiently robust to confirm that their solution is tackling the right problem.
- The involvement of key actors at an early stage - particularly to ensure the commitment of the delivery agencies - is essential.
- Targets and performance indicators that go beyond SRB outputs should be devised, ensuring that they can be measured and genuinely relate to learning objectives (some examples are provided in 2.3 below).
- Customers should be asked about their needs - if they are not, it is not surprising to find that demand is low.
|
