1 / 23

Integration into Self-Assessment and other College Systems

Integration into Self-Assessment and other College Systems. Chris Payne, Castle College Christine Doubtfire, Castle College Tony Cooper, Central Area Team. Source Data. “Balanced Score card”. Self-Assessment. Framework for Excellence Based. Common Inspection Framework Based.

vin
Télécharger la présentation

Integration into Self-Assessment and other College Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integration into Self-Assessment and other College Systems Chris Payne, Castle College Christine Doubtfire, Castle College Tony Cooper, Central Area Team

  2. Source Data “Balanced Score card” Self-Assessment Framework for Excellence Based Common Inspection Framework Based Mixed Framework for Excellence / Common Inspection Framework Business and Strategic Planning Performance Monitoring Peer Review and Development

  3. Introduction • Framework for Excellence – the basics • Castle college involvement to date • Integration into SAR and other systems • The future….

  4. Introducing Framework for Excellence The basics….

  5. Framework for Excellence (FfE) - Aims Increase quality and responsiveness of provision in the FE system for all learners and employers Open and transparent performance assessment supported by published data Provide an independent, quantitative assessment of sector performance Help all users access clear information to make informed choices

  6. Framework for Excellence - Background FfE to be rolled out to all colleges from Summer 2008 Some measures still under active development (Version 2,3) Results published to providers and used by LSC - March 2009 Whole FE System included from summer 2009 Results published to public - March 2010

  7. Overall Rating Responsiveness Effectiveness Finance Responsiveness to Employers Responsiveness to Learners Quality of Outcomes Quality of Provision Financial Health Financial Control Use of Resources

  8. What do providers have to do? Responsiveness New annual survey of learners using standard methodology/questions Administer employer views survey using standard methodology/questions Achieve New standard for Employer Responsiveness? Effectiveness Nothing required – based on existing data collection Finance Submit timely Financial Statements for 2007-08 by March 2009 Submit Financial Management and Governance Review for 2007-08 by March 2009

  9. Introducing Framework for Excellence The stealth process….

  10. Castle College - in the beginning • Merger discussions started Nov 2005 Formed in June 2006 • Very fast process to introduce structure/systems • Early decision to operate a highly devolved model of accountability • Financial management/Staffing/Resources • Curriculum development • Quality Improvement • Need for rigorous internal review mechanism to drive excellence and financial stability

  11. The SAR Process – Phase 1 – post merger • SAR maintained 2 processes, models and formats • Little ownership due to large changes in structure • Initial SAR pulled together painfully primarily using top level data – inconsistencies with team SARs • Would it stand up to external scrutiny?

  12. Introducing FfE • Chosen as a pilot college on basis of recent merger experience • Set up cross-college project team covering all main areas • Strong support from Senior Management/Executive • Chose to take ‘stealth’ rather than ‘Big bang’ approach • Opted for very active involvement in FfE development groups

  13. The SAR Process – Phase 2 - 2007 • Needed to develop single process that would stand up to rigorous external scrutiny • Drive and mission to move to Outstanding • Decision to base SAR on FfE dimensions • High risk approach – would FfE be another transient initiative? • At this point little was published on FfE indicators

  14. The SAR Process – Phase 2 – Team Level • Common process for Curriculum and support areas • Responsiveness • Employers • Learners • National and Local Priorities • Effectiveness • CIF Key Questions 1-5 • Including ECM and E&D • Financial Efficiency • Have recruitment targets been achieved? • Does the division operate from a secure financial base? • Supported by high quality online data reports

  15. Internal Moderation - the Business Review Cycle • Introduced as key internal review mechanism to drive quality improvement and Financial Health • Quarterly assessment of all areas – curriculum and support • Responsiveness and Effectiveness Review • Financial Review • Feedback to Executive External Moderation • Peer review process • External Panel

  16. Responsiveness and Effectiveness Review Q1 Review • Internal Moderation of SAR • Early recruitment (Curriculum Areas) • Service Standards (Support Areas) Q2 Review • SAR Action Plan • Learner Responsiveness • MLP – Notices to improve (Curriculum) • E&D Measures (Curriculum) • Detailed Service Standards (Support) Q3 Review • In Year Retention - especially NTI (Curriculum) • Employer Responsiveness • Teaching Observation Profiles • Service Standard evaluation (Support)

  17. The SAR Process – Phase 3 - 2008 • Undertook two reviews of process • Independent Peer Review (Notts/Leics Partnership) • Whole college evaluation led by Learning and Standards Forum • FfE detail becoming clearer • No longer a high risk approach

  18. Peer Review identified areas for development • Ownership within teams • Rigour of review process • Benchmarking against high percentiles Whole college evaluation • Better incorporation of non-FE activity (WBL, HE, TtG etc.) • More detail behind data – ability to drill down • Involve learners in process

  19. The SAR Process – Phase 3 - Changes • Extended Financial section in line with FfE KPIs • Streamlined, user-friendly templates • Responsiveness to Community and External Partners • HE SAR linked to IQER incorporated into process • Learner, employers and external partners involved in process

  20. Further Embedding of FfE • Restructuring of Quality team • Responsiveness Specialist • Effectiveness Specialist • Raising Awareness with Governors • Reorganisation of Key Performance Indicators • Grouped around FfE Measures with additional measures introduced • Briefings on FfE

  21. Further Embedding of FfE • Work with Senior Managers/Executive on Overall Performance Ratings (OPRs) • Measurements of employer engagement • Looking at Fees and Volumes work as internal measure for Directorates • Main Franchise Partner – Confetti adopting FfE into internal systems • Considering using OPRs at Division/Faculty Level

  22. The Final Results

  23. In the Beginning….. • The next merger - Possibly the shortest lived college in history!! • Opportunities to use FfE to mould the new systems and processes? A final Message….. • Don’t underestimate the importance of FfE • The actions you are taking now will influence your rating in March 2009

More Related