1. National PRD Conference Influencing and Preparing for the Future 5 th June 2008

2. Introduction From the Chair Christopher Lambert Vice Principal (College Improvement) City College Norwich

3. Objectives of the day Celebrating providers contribution to improving the use of PRD identifying the further development of PRD within the context of the further education systems national policy drivers learning from the first year of the programme hearing from PRD groups and gaining from their unique insights.

4. Agenda IntroductionChris Lambert, Chair WelcomeSue Dutton, FEI The role of PRD in a self regulating sector Phil Cox, Self Regulation Implementation Group, representing Single Voice CIF, Self-assessment, capacity to improve and PRD Penny Silvester, Ofsted Tea and Coffee Workshops (a choice of 8) Framework for Excellence and PRD Verity Bullough, LSC Lunch Workshops (a choice of 8) Key messages from HOST evaluation of SfE PRD David Parsons, Host Next Steps for PRD Linda Wilson, QIA Close

5. Workshops WorkshopLocation PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvementCongress Suite 1-2 Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE CollegeMeeting Room 2 Integrating PRD into Work Based LearningInvision 2 Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case StudiesMeeting Room 3 Delivering feedback in a PRD environmentMain Hall Performance Management within a self regulating FE SystemInvision 1 The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providersMeeting Room 4 Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRDCongress Suite 3-4 12.00 and 14.00

6. Workshop Rooms 5 th Floor, Council Chamber Meeting room 4 Meeting room 3 Meeting room 2 Foyer Lifts Invision 2 Invision 1 Congres s Suite 1-2 Congre ss Suite 3-4 2 nd Floor Invision Suites Ground floor Congress Suites Ground floor Main Hall

7. Your feedback What works well about PRD? Lessons learnt from PRD Expectations and plans for year 2 Questions to be answered What worked well was… I learnt that…

8. Welcome Sue Dutton Acting CEO of FEI

9. Phil Cox Performance Management within a Self Regulating FE System

10. Phil Cox Senior Project Leader FE Self Regulation Project June 2008

11. Self Regulation – the Vision A further education sector comprising autonomous, demand-led, organisations acting individually and collectively within a self regulation system in delivering high quality, responsive provision for the benefit of learners, employers and communities and operating as a trusted partner of government.

12. Nine representative bodies - ALP, AoC, HOLEX, Landex, MEG, NATSPEC, NIACE, SFCF, 157 Group. Represents the sector in strategic dialogue with government on regulatory matters. Responsible for devising and maintaining the framework for self regulation and developing a rolling programme of activity for this purpose. Single Voice for Self Regulation

13. Performance Management A performance management system through which providers demonstrate, individually and collaboratively, their capacity for assuring minimum levels of performance and for continuously improving the quality and standards of provision for the benefit of learners, employers and local communities.

14. NATIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY EXTERNAL REGULATION – INSPECTION / FFE / INTERVENTION PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITIES COLLABORATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES SECTOR-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES Organisational Review & Development Peer Review & Development System Review and Development Codes of Conduct and Practice Managing Underperformance Benchmarking performance Validating self assessment Identifying improvement needs and opportunities Sharing / transferring practice Joint planning / action on underperformance Monitoring impact Identifying client needs Setting performance goals Managing performance risk Benchmarking performance Self assessing performance Validating self assessment Acting on underperformance Spreading good practice A self-improving culture Development Support Programmes Continuing professional development - accredited non-accredited Codes of professional conduct and practice For governors, clerks, managers, teachers and other practitioners INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES Professional Review and Development Single Quality Framework PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WITHIN A SELF-REGULATING FE SYSTEM Information and Guidance Standards

15. Critical Issues Defining the self in self regulation Aligning external regulation to the needs and capabilities of a self regulating system Relationship between the regulatory and improvement support elements of the system. Capacity building for performance management through the National Improvement Strategy

16. White Paper Raising Expectations The challenge now is to ensure the sector has the support it needs for the next steps of its improvement journey, in the increasingly demanding environment of self regulation, cross-sector partnership and customer responsiveness.Paragraph 11.4

17. Realising Self Regulation find out more... www.feselfregulation.org.uk

18. Penny Silvester CIF, self-assessment, capacity to improve and PRD

19. 5 th June 2008 Peer review and development Penny Silvester Divisional Manager Learning and skills

20. Self assessment Ofsted judgement about capacity to improve Revisions to the inspection framework from September 2009 Areas to be covered

21. Role of self assessment in PRD Validating self assessment is a crucial aspect of peer review Acting as a critical friend Benchmarking performance Review of the whole organisation systems of quality assurance and planning processes Review of peers quality improvement approaches

22. Role of self assessment Support the provider's own quality improvement strategies Should self assess against key external performance measures – CIF and FfE Should draw on external performance measures Mission driven approach responsive to external standards but driven by providers own strategic goals and development needs Internal and external validation Should target underperformance and performance that is satisfactory not improving

23. Role of self assessment in inspection Helps us to risk assess and plan inspection No prescribed format but should answer the 5 key questions of the CIF Should be an integral part of an institutions performance management

24. Key drivers for accelerated change Clarity of vision and mission based on raising learners skills and achievement Rigorous self critical self assessment process which leads to clear action for improvement Performance at all levels constantly monitored Ambitious yet realistic targets for success rates, attendance and retention Clear and sustained focus on teaching and learning through robust and accurate lesson observations

25. Judgement about the potential to progress from the current position of the provider to a much more successful position or one where very high standards are maintained Includes effectiveness of steps taken to promote improvement since the last inspection Capacity to Improve

26. Capacity to improve Leaders and managers use self assessment and other aspects of the QA system to diagnose strengths and areas for improvement, focus on improvement and raise standards and bring about improvement Accuracy of SAR, full and candid evaluation Leadership has aspirational but realistic views of what is possible and well thought out plans Governors use their expertise well to challenge

27. Capacity to improve As a result of actions achievements are made Providers finances are robust and can support plans for further development Provider is responding well to national priorities

28. Promotion of improvement since the last inspection Not simply comparison of grades Leadership and management have continued to drive the provider forward The rate of increase in success rates Learners achievements have improved Progress in addressing issues since the last inspection and strengths have been maintained Measures taken to improve learners experience

29. Revision to CIF Risk assessment Variable time between inspections for providers – good and outstanding up to six years, satisfactory up to four years Health check sometime in the 6 years Early thinking on changes to inspection methodology in the future

30. Early thinking on inspection Continued strong focus on self assessment and continued engagement of a nominee Users and employers views will have greater emphasis. Enhance the learners voice Focus on teaching and learning Focus on the performance of different user groups

31. Revisions to CIF Overall effectiveness Capacity to improve Recommendations Meeting the needs of service users Leadership and management Quality of provision Outcomes for service users

32. Questions?

33. Tea and Coffee 11.40 -12.00

34. Workshop session 1 WorkshopLocation PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvementCongress Suite 1-2 Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE CollegeMeeting Room 2 Integrating PRD into Work Based LearningInvision 2 Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case StudiesMeeting Room 3 Delivering feedback in a PRD environmentMain Hall Performance Management within a self regulating FE SystemInvision 1 The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providersMeeting Room 4 Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRDCongress Suite 3-4 12.00

35. Workshop Rooms 5 th Floor, Council Chamber Meeting room 4 Meeting room 3 Meeting room 2 Foyer Lifts Invision 2 Invision 1 Congres s Suite 1-2 Congre ss Suite 3-4 2 nd Floor Invision Suites Ground floor Congress Suites Ground floor Main Hall

36. Verity Bullough Framework for Excellence and PRD

37. QIA Support for Excellence Framework for Excellence Verity Bullough National Director of Funding, Planning & Performance

38. Overview of the Framework Origin Purpose and principles Vision for the Framework for Excellence Benefits of the Framework Structure Questions

39. Public Sector Frameworks Police Service Fire Service NHS Education & Training Local Government The Framework is the Governments National Assessment Framework for Education and Training

40. Origins agenda for change: Quality and Business Excellence themes - identifying, celebrating and rewarding success The White Paper: The LSCs response and preferred way forward: a standard set of performance indicators Builds on the Measures of Success, Common Inspection Framework and LSCs financial audit requirements

41. Vision for the Framework The Vision Simplify performance assessment across the FE system Inform learner and employer choice The foundation for the self-regulation of the system Inform purchasing decisions Drive providers quality improvement

42. Review of FfE Principles Increase the quality and responsiveness of provision in the FE system for all learners and employers Open and transparent comprehensive performance assessment supported by published data Provide an independent, quantitative assessment of sector performance Help all users access clear information to make informed choices

43. Informing/ Enhancing Choice Benefits to Learners –More information available to careers/guidance advisors –Ability to compare provision – including at course level –Judgements on responsiveness and quality Benefits to Employers –purchasing power –decisions regarding sectors/courses/levels –measure of responsiveness –ability to benchmark education and training

44. Benefits for Providers Annual assessment of key business indicators Accurate data on which to base self-assessment Increased contracting/funding opportunities, marketing opportunities, competitor analysis Increased security of successful contracting/funding

45. Framework Structure Key performance areas: i) Responsiveness to learners ii) Responsiveness to employers Key performance areas: i) Financial health ii) Financial control iii) Use of resources Overall performance rating Finance dimension Responsiveness dimension Effectiveness dimension Performance indicators Performance measures & assessment criteria Key performance areas: i) Quality of outcomes ii) Quality of provision Performance indicators Performance measures & assessment criteria Performance indicators Performance measures & assessment criteria

46. FfE & Peer Review Development Informs self-assessment Outcomes used to target specific areas for PRD Opportunity for continued whole organisational approach Part of the self-regulation agenda Informs external intervention

47. Questions

48. Lunch 13.15 -14.00

49. Workshop Session 2 WorkshopLocation PRD group self evaluation – Embedding continuous improvementCongress Suite 1-2 Integrating the LSC framework for excellence into GFE CollegeMeeting Room 2 Integrating PRD into Work Based LearningInvision 2 Peer Review and Development – Action Research Case StudiesMeeting Room 3 Delivering feedback in a PRD environmentMain Hall Performance Management within a self regulating FE SystemInvision 1 The Impact of PRD on the FE sector and providersMeeting Room 4 Achieving a whole organisation approach to PRDCongress Suite 3-4 14.00

50. Workshop Rooms 5 th Floor, Council Chamber Meeting room 4 Meeting room 3 Meeting room 2 Foyer Lifts Invision 2 Invision 1 Congres s Suite 1-2 Congre ss Suite 3-4 2 nd Floor Invision Suites Ground floor Congress Suites Ground floor Main Hall

51. David Parsons Key messages from the HOST evaluation of Support for Excellence PRD

52. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT FOR EXCELLENCE (SfE) PROGRAMME HOST Policy Research, PO Box 144, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1YS Telephone: 01403 211440; e-mail: info@hostpolicyresearch.com Early findings and success factors Presentation from HOST Policy Research Professor David J Parsons

53. Early findings and success factors What is it looking at? What is it looking at? Where is the programme at? A state of play review Where is the programme at? A state of play review Where are PRD Groups now (self- assessed maturity)? Where are PRD Groups now (self- assessed maturity)? What helps PRD Groups to work well? What helps PRD Groups to work well?

54. What is the evaluation looking at? PRD is new, challenging and (for some) radical … it needs a constructively critical review of the lessons emerging to guide better practice through: Reviewing the peer review process, including for: Reviewing the peer review process, including for: –Use as a quality improvement tool –Critical success factors –Effectiveness in validating self-assessment –Integrating FFE into self-assessment Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves towards self-regulation Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves towards self-regulation Assess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD Groups Assess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD Groups Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year Establishing areas for improvement in programme structure and delivery Establishing areas for improvement in programme structure and delivery

55. Where is the programme at? I: Whats worked well? Just what is the current state of play of the programme – and what has the first year of funding and group formation achieved? Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups) Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups) Cross-sector participation mix: Cross-sector participation mix: –45% as FE groups (including VI Form College) –20% as AL groups –18% as private and voluntary sector Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%) Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%) Tapping new provider demand (590 providers) via brokerage Tapping new provider demand (590 providers) via brokerage Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers) Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers) Significant ongoing investments by providers Significant ongoing investments by providers Capacity building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective) Capacity building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective)

56. Where is the programme at? II: Whats worked less well? Consistency of programme co-ordination and communications Consistency of programme co-ordination and communications Funder–provider communications on evolving nature of programme Funder–provider communications on evolving nature of programme Start-up programme bureaucracy and funding release Start-up programme bureaucracy and funding release Resource demands of brokerage model Resource demands of brokerage model Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas) Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas) Unproven support model for meeting differentiated needs Unproven support model for meeting differentiated needs Lack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD model Lack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD model Lack of clarity on the D agenda Lack of clarity on the D agenda Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact

57. Where are PRD Groups at?: Achieved capacity SfE providers (% of responding providers) where the group self-assesses what it has in place – mid April 2008

58. Where are PRD Groups at?: Part II Providers participating in approved groups (% of responding providers) who see group as …

59. What helps PRD Groups to work well? – Part I What are some of the key success factors for group formation and development which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up)? Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them) Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them) Tangible commitment of executive managers in all partners Tangible commitment of executive managers in all partners Past positive track record of collaborative working Past positive track record of collaborative working Realising centrality of trusted/co-operative group working Realising centrality of trusted/co-operative group working Motivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levels Motivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levels Robust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadership Robust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadership Integrated action planning of all stages of the PRD process Integrated action planning of all stages of the PRD process Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures) Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures) Willingness to evaluate and adapt existing processes Willingness to evaluate and adapt existing processes

60. What helps PRD Groups to work well? - Part II What are some of the key success factors for PRD implementation and operation which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up?) Effective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewers Effective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewers Recognising actual or perceived conflicts of interest Recognising actual or perceived conflicts of interest Effective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teams Effective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teams Agreed protocols for operation of review and feedback process Agreed protocols for operation of review and feedback process Effective, timely and practical training for reviewers Effective, timely and practical training for reviewers Systematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomes Systematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomes Clearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedback Clearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedback Allocation of time and resources for review hosts Allocation of time and resources for review hosts Clarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategy Clarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategy

61. Linda Wilson Support for Excellence Next steps

62. Next Steps Support for 129 established groups Recruitment of up to 36 new groups Target under-represented groups Support team PRD Champions SfE website: Resource Centre/Skills and Guidance Case Studies Sharing PRD practice Events Funding model for PRD groups

63. ? £10k Setting up PRD Group First review and reflective report Sharing practice Communicating benefits Expanding group membership/ brokering new groups PRD becomes business as usual within each member organisations business processes EstablishmentPioneering Embedding Sustainability PRD Group Funding Model £10k payment to each PRD group on condition of deliverables in four stages reflecting their developing maturity

64. Team structure

65. Support for Excellence and FfE roll-out 1.Open events Autumn 2008 for version one in-scope provider Spring 2008 for version two in-scope providers 2.Dialogue with Peer Review and Development groups 129 groups in 2007/08 + 36 new groups in 2008 (Total of 165 groups representing 750 providers) 3.FfE within PRD related events and activities 4.Case studies 5.Excellence Gateway http://excellence.qia.org.uk

66. Contributing to the self-regulation agenda Validating self-assessment judgements Improving self-assessment, including the use of FfE Embedding self-assessment into business processes and the organisational review and development cycle Collaborative development Effective transfer of good practice Eliminating underperformance Building capacity for self-improvement Raising the reputation of the further education system

67. Close & prize draw! By the Chair Christopher Lambert