1. Add presentation title to master slide | 1 New inspection methodology from September 2009 NATSPEC conference Lorna Fitzjohn May 2009

2. Add presentation title to master slide | 2  Inspection cycle ends August 2009  New inspection arrangements September 2009  New Common Inspection Framework September 2009  Consultation on proposal November 2008 to January 2009  Pilot inspections Background

3. Add presentation title to master slide | 3 1. Consultation

4. Add presentation title to master slide | 4 Consultation responses  200 online and 175 face to face responses  formal meetings, conferences, seminars, discussion and focus groups – NLP, AoC, ALP  12 out of 17 questions received favourably with 55% to 90% respondents registering support  5 questions received less than 50% support – limiting grades, sector subject area grading, notice periods  no questions received a clear majority of negative responses

5. Add presentation title to master slide | 5 Respondents

6. Add presentation title to master slide | 6 Positive responses  range of indicators to select colleges for inspection (incl.FfE)  4/6 year inspection gap for satisfactory/high performing colleges  published health checks  focus on different groups of learners  range of activities to gather views of learners  range of activities used to inspect colleges approach to user engagement  increased focus on capacity to improve  single inspection events  recommendations  summary report for learners and employers

7. Add presentation title to master slide | 7 2. Pilot inspections

8. Add presentation title to master slide | 8 Pilot inspections  12 pilot inspections November to January  a local authority, 2 independent learning providers, an employer based provider, 3 GFE colleges, a sixth form college, 2 independent specialist colleges, 2 nextstep contractors  focused monitoring visits and full inspections  confidential to team and provider  ADM, HMI and Additional Inspector teams  evaluation –visits, questionnaires, evaluation conference  six further pilot inspections

9. Add presentation title to master slide | 9 What went well  positive feedback from colleges and providers  more observations/drop-ins in teaching and learning sessions  the collection of learner views  three week notice period for work based learning and nextstep  more opportunity for inspectors to plan and adjust schedule  new Common Inspection Framework

10. Add presentation title to master slide | 10 Could work better  adjusting to less preparation by the college/ provider  colleges adjusting to inspectors planning own time  some key meetings need to be in place early in inspection  collecting employers views  one week notice for colleges with employer based provision

11. Add presentation title to master slide | 11 3. What next?

12. Add presentation title to master slide | 12 Current practices that will continue  the use of the same four-point grading scale  a strong focus on self-assessment and the engagement of a nominee in the inspection process  high priority being given to achievement and standards  those providers judged to be inadequate being subject to a full or partial reinspection and monitoring visit  preinspection planning  preinspection briefing

13. Add presentation title to master slide | 13 Types of inspection  health check  full inspection  focused monitoring visit  reinspection monitoring visit  full reinspection  partial reinspection  survey report visit

14. Add presentation title to master slide | 14 New Common Inspection Framework 2009  a strengthened approach to judging capacity to improve, in recognition of the drive for self regulation  a greater focus on how colleges and providers meet users' needs  a greater focus on learning through teaching, training and assessment  grades for equality and diversity, safeguarding and value for money that will contribute to the judgement on leadership and management  more emphasis on Every Child Matters as outcomes, where appropriate  an increased focus on the progress made by different groups of learners  the introduction of limiting judgements that will affect the maximum grade which can be achieved for some aspects – safeguarding, equality and diversity and capacity to improve

15. Structure of grades Overall effectiveness Quality of provision Outcomes for learners Leadership and management Partnerships Care, guidance and support Enjoy and achieve Achieve economic and social well-being Stay safe Make a positive contribution Ambition and prioritisation User engagement Self-assessment Equality and diversity* Safeguarding* Value for money Main grades Contributory grades denoted by a grade descriptor in the report and a grade on the RMF Meeting needs and interests of users Capacity to improve* * These grades may limit the overall effectiveness grade Be healthy Teaching, learning and assessment

16. Add presentation title to master slide | 16 Proposed changes in brief – before inspection  annual selection of providers for inspection including:  success rates for a range of qualifications and frameworks  outcomes from the Framework for Excellence,  progress data  trend data over the last three years  how long the provider has been established  any significant changes to the type of provision and learner numbers  satisfactory colleges inspection at least every four years.  high-performing providers may have up to six years between inspections.  published health check within three years after an inspection for high performing providers

17. Add presentation title to master slide | 17 Proposed changes in brief - before inspection  minimal provision of documentation for inspectors  two to three weeks notice of inspection  possibility of unannounced inspections  detailed handbook and guidance on the new methodology.  a requirement for providers to inform all their users of the inspection.  either a telephone call or a visit to plan the inspection.

18. Add presentation title to master slide | 18 Proposed changes in brief – during inspection  significant increase in the involvement of learners and other users in inspections.  a greater focus on evaluating the quality of teaching, learning and assessment across the full range of a college’s provision.  interviews with key managers.  sector subject area grades on all full inspections  common set of judgements, evaluative statements and descriptors across the post 16 sector  differentiating judgements across funding streams  single inspection events, where appropriate

19. Add presentation title to master slide | 19 After inspection  a revised report structure that is common to all reports on FE and skills system providers and includes recommendations.  report for learners and employers  report publication on our website within 25 working days after the inspection

20. Add presentation title to master slide | 20  consultation evaluation report May 2009  final pilot inspections April/May2009  new handbook June 2009  booklet explaining changes  articles in Talisman, Ofsted news  HMI and AI training June/July2009  new methodology launch September 2009 Looking forward