1. Trefniadau Arolygu Addysg Bellach Further Education Inspection Arrangements

2. Newidiadau
It has become necessary for various reasons to adapt inspection practices in almost all sectors. For example, underlying conditions in the sector may have changed, as with further education and careers, or a new sector has been established, as with regional consortia. The need for adaptations in the school sectors arises mainly from changes to legislation and regulations by Welsh Government. As a result, we have decided to establish a number of work-streams to design or adapt inspection arrangements for implementation during  

3. maintained schools; - independent schools; - further education; - local authorities/regional consortia; and - careers.

4. Addysg Bellach Further Education
Objectives:
Plan a new inspection cycle; and
Establish new arrangements for link inspectors and an annual review of performance of Further Education Institutions
Deliverables
Review and revise guidance for application of CIF;
Train and prepare Peer Inspectors and Learning Area programme Peer Inspectors;
Prepare and implement guidance for link inspectors and the annual review of performance;
Pilot inspection;
Set up an external reference group; and
Develop relevant and appropriate performance measurement datasets and guidance.

5. Maint Troed Arolygu Inspection Footprint Currently considering:
an inspection footprint that provides for the inspection of curriculum areas and leadership and management;
how we work with and involve the Colegau Cymru (CC)networks in the inspection process and build on their arrangements for self-regulation; and
how we secure a three way agreement about the interpretation and analysis of performance data between ourselves, WG and CC

6. Grŵp Ymgynghorol Advisory Group External Reference Group:
We are setting up an advisory group to help Estyn develop an inspection framework for the inspection of further education institutions (FEI), using a joint advisory forum consisting of relevant stakeholder. The objectives of the group are:
to help develop an inspection framework for the inspection of further education institutions;
respond flexibily as the structures and arrangements for further education develop in response to the Welsh Government policy and guidance on learning area programme and the mergers, governance and funding of FEI;
identify how the inspection of learning areas programmes will feed into the inspection of institutions;
consider how best to use data and learner outcomes as evidence to support inspection judgments;
consider the logistics of inspecting across multiple sites;
work on the identification and use of leadership peer inspectors and specialist peer inspectors;
factor Colegau Cymru’s self-regulation processes into Estyn’s inspection framework; and
identify and liaise over training for Estyn inspectors, peer inspectors and the sector.
The group met for the first time on March 14th
Ian Dickson (Deputy Principal, Curriculum, Quality & Learner Experience)
Dafydd Evans (Principal, Coleg Menai, Grwp Llandrillo Menai)
Jim Bennett (Principal, Coleg Gwent, Chair of ColegauCymru Improving Quality Group)
Mark Roberts (Vice Principal, Cardiff and the Vale College, Resources, Efficiency and Financial Planning)
Judith Evans
DfES representative
Katy Burns
Fran Hopwood

7. Gweithgareddau Gwelliant
Improvement Activity
The role of FEILIs
Key duties
monitoring and evaluation of standards, provision and the quality of leadership and management at their respective FEIs;
monitor how well an FEI is managing its range of education provision;
producing an annual review of performance overall performance of a FEI with recommendations;
monitoring the resulting action plan produced by the FEI;

8. Adolygiad Perfformiad Blynyddol Annual Performance Review
Adolygiad Perfformiad Blynyddol
Annual Performance Review
The review of performance visit will focus on:
outcomes of the most recent inspection;
current standards, supported by an analysis of performance data;
skills;
quality of teaching and learning (including any initiatives to improve teaching within the institution);
curriculum;
quality of leadership and management;
impact of mergers; (see aide memoire in the annex)
use made by the institution of the outcomes of the Learner Voice survey;
any issues arising from quality of reports provided to Estyn before inspections; and
any specific issues that the FEILI has become aware of through information from colleagues or from complaints from outside Estyn.

10. Modelau Arolygu Inspection Models Considerations
Multiple and Distributed Sites
Groupings of FEI’s
Inspection of LAP’s
Inspection of L&M
It is a given that the CIF stands as it is. It is the application of the CIF we should review

11. Inspection of Learning Areas
Executive RI
Learning Area Team leaders
Inspect LAs on each site
Daily LA team meeting on each site
Pull judgments together for 1.1,1.2 and 2.2
Provide supporting evidence for other KQs and Qis
Inspection of Leadership and Management
Overall performance
PFI
KQ 1,2,3
10 QI’s
Could we borrow ideas from the local authority inspection process?
How good are outcomes?
How good is provision?
How good are leadership and management?
The focus of this would be how well do leaders and managers make sure that all learners get a high standard of education and training regardless of the level or area of study that they choose.

12. Inspection reports
Leadership and management
Current performance
PfI
Overall judgments at institutional level for KQ1, KQ2 and KQ3 and all QI’s
Learning Areas
LAPs- KQ1 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 – or for all QI’s?

13. Data Perfformiad Performance Data
National comparators for many Subject Sector Areas (SSA) are now above 80%, with providers achieving success rates in some SSAs of over 90%.
If the criteria are strictly applied, the highest performing providers (> 85% success rate) are unable to achieve Excellent judgments; and
The model makes no allowance for the spread of results around the NC.

14. Overall Success Rates 2011/2012

15. New Model 2015 onwards
Data group convened – 1st meeting 10th June to consider a new model.
The model would be more closely aligned to how we interpret data in other sectors:
Local authorities; and
Schools.
the model would:
be based on the relative (ranked) performance of providers;
make a stronger use of trends of performance; and
use narrative descriptors to describe the characteristics of Excellent, Good, Adequate and Unsatisfactory providers.
the analysis would consider attainment, completion and success rates, with the focus on success;
providers would be ranked for their overall success rate and also for success rates for each SSA;
each provider’s rank position would also be stated in terms of quartiles to make evaluations about trends in performance;
the provider would be evaluated both in relation to the NC and also in relation to its ranked position (as per Ffynnon and the new DFES model); and
judgments would be made using a best-fit approach from a set of narrative descriptors which would describe characteristics of Excellent, Good, Adequate and Unsatisfactory providers.
The wording of the narrative descriptors will be critical. We would model judgements using historical performance data with a range of different statements in the narrative descriptors;
The range of data to be considered in making judgements is still to be determined. There are a number of influencing factors about the range of data to be considered;
This could include, for example, performance of males and females, learners with disabilities, measures of deprivation, measures of distance travelled from learners’ starting points; and
we will need to prepare guidance for inspectors about interpretation of data.

16. Questions to consider:
Should we inspect learning areas separately from leadership and management?
What would be the benefits/disadvantages of this?
Using the CIF What do you think should be the priority considerations for the inspection of learning areas? E.g. Standards, Teaching, curriculum, care, support and guidance, planning for improvement?
What should we factor into the new data model? E.g. how could we measure distance travelled? How do account for deprivation?