How Colleges Improve – (from ‘LSIS SupportingImprovement Conference’ 19 September 2012)

Session outline

•Survey background

•Successful and improving’

•‘Decline or not improving’

Natspec Conference October 2012

A review of effective practice: what makes an impact and why

commissioned by LSIS, part funded by Ofsted; to promote and accelerate improvement in the college sector

survey examines the key factors that contribute to sustained high performance or improvement in colleges

it also considers the factors which impede improvement in colleges judged to be satisfactory but not improving or declining.

A review of effective practice: what makes an impact and why

this review complements and updates the Ofsted survey, ‘How colleges improve’, published in September 2008

during May and June 2012 inspectors visited:

10 general further education colleges2 land-based colleges2 sixth form colleges2 independent specialist colleges2 specially designated colleges.

A review of effective practice: what makes an impact and why

further evidence was derived from an analysis of the published inspection reports of 55 colleges inspected between September 2009 and May 2012.

Note: The information and data in the report relate to the Common Inspection Framework, revised September 2009.

A review of effective practice: what makes an impact and why

Overriding message:

Importance and impact of outstanding leadership and management cannot be underestimated in how colleges improve. All the elements identified in the report are inextricably linked to the actions and behaviours demonstrated by leaders and managers.

Successful and improving colleges sharedsome of the following characteristics

Some key findings:

senior management teams were forward-looking, with a clear vision and direction for the college, and had a genuinely collaborative approach

governance and accountability were strong, governors were skilled in asking discerning questions

leadership and management were seen to be very decisive, prompt and effective in taking action

genuine engagement with staff led to sustainable changes rather than short-term quick fixes which had been imposed

Successful and improving colleges sharedsome of the following characteristics.

Some key findings:

good continuing professional development (CPD) was linked to effective performance management

the whole process of self-assessment was integral to the work of the college; the SAR was accurate, evidence-based, and brought about improvements

the links between self-assessment and good access to management information were well-established

there was a strong focus on ensuring that teaching and learning improved outcomes for learners at all levels of the college

Successful and improving colleges sharedsome of the following characteristics.

Some key findings:

classroom teachers, both part-time and full time as well as support staff understood the value of objectively assessing their own performance

an ‘open classroom’ culture where sharing of best practice across departments and areas was not the exception but expected

the views of learners and employers were used effectively to improve teaching and learning

Colleges where performance declined or was not improving shared some of thefollowing characteristics.Some key findings:

complacency, a lack of ambition and direction or vision from the top

governors who did not set clear institutional targets, or monitor performance well enough

defensive and inward looking approaches to management

leaders and managers too focussed on finance and/or buildings to the detriment of promoting good teaching and learning or developing the curriculum

Colleges where performance declined or was not improving shared some of thefollowing characteristics.

Some key findings:

management teams that were unsettled by frequent changes in personnel or were too reliant on external consultants working in key roles on an extended basis

poorly managed staff changes leading to a loss of expertise, often accompanied by a plethora of management initiatives not properly explained to staff

inadequate quality assurance systems that extended to poor monitoring of subcontracted work

Colleges where performance declined or was not improving shared some of thefollowing characteristics.

Some key findings:

weak self-assessment coupled to poor use of management information

self-assessment reports that were over-optimistic and lacked critical insight

poor communication with a tendency for staff at different levels not to take ownership or responsibility for actions, resulting in a blame culture

Colleges where performance declined or was not improving shared some of thefollowing characteristics.

Some key findings:

improvement actions arising from previous inspection/s were not carried out, and in a few cases there was a refusal to even recognise the findings of the last inspection report

observation systems for evaluating the quality of teaching, learning and assessment lacked rigour and did not provide a robust basis for improvement

sharing of good teaching amongst staff was not systematic