26 September 2024
Ofsted has been in the spotlight since the devastating news of Ruth Perry last year, and with new leadership at Ofsted and a new government, a deeper review and greater reform is now taking place with changes already happening. However, with much of the leadership of Ofsted linked to schools and the messaging so far from Ofsted and the government, it would be easy to forget that Colleges are also a key part of the system, and that Ofsted must not ignore FE. We ask four FE leaders on the ground what they think.
Paul Aristides, Partner and lead in our further education and skills practice, spoke directly to leaders within FE institutions to get their insights and views on what needs to change. In this article, Paul speaks to Liz Bromley, CEO at NCG, Simon Cook, Principal & CEO of MidKent College, Julie Kapsalis, Principal & CEO at North East Surrey College of Technology (NESCOT), and Bushra Iqbal, Vice Principal (Curriculum and Quality) at Morley College London.
In its recent guise, do you think that Ofsted was carrying out inspections fairly and with an understanding of FE?
Julie: Yes, although there are always areas that can be improved or enhanced. In our most recent inspection in 2023, our team of inspectors had an in-depth knowledge of FE and were robust and fair. Their feedback was thorough, accurate and valuable to our ongoing development. The Lead inspector and his deputy created an environment based on mutual respect and acted with integrity. This set the tone for the whole inspection and was something that I valued personally.
Simon: Not entirely, in particular FE Colleges that are incredibly diverse and wide ranging institutions, where Ofsted inspects only one very specific aspect of activity in a very specific time period.
Liz: My experience is limited as I have only had one Ofsted inspection in 2021 but at that time my experience was that a team of 30 inspectors were well briefed, and all had a good understanding of FE.
Bushra: The changes that came with the Education Inspection Framework were well received within the sector generally and it was felt the EIF allowed for a more accurate picture to emerge of a college. The focus on ‘quality of education’ was a logical step and allowed for a closer look at learner progress to ensure that learners were receiving a high-quality education overall. Since the EIF, having looked at inspection reports and knowing individuals in the sector, the judgements felt like an accurate representation of what was happening inside and outside the classroom, I was rarely if ever surprised at overall judgements.
What did you see the benefits and downsides of having a one-word descriptor backed up by the breakdown and report?
Julie: The one-word descriptors (whatever you think of them) have become recognised and enable colleges to benchmark and focus on improvement. In isolation, however, they can be overly stark and misleading – especially when an inspection is covering a large college group with multiple campuses. Based on the limited information available to date, I think the score card approach may also be able to achieve this, but change takes time to bed in. Training and support for inspectors, schools and colleges will be key to ensure no one is disadvantaged by the changes.
Simon: One-word judgements do not reflect the diversity of work undertaken and provision included. In some cases, it is easy to do so, in others very complex. Specialist providers tend to be better reflected that FE College that are widely diverse organisations. Another downside is that single word judgements unfairly compare all types of education provision which is simply not true. A GOOD grade for a school vs a college is simply not the same thing, but this adversely affects areas such as student and staff recruitment.
Liz: I see no benefits from a single word judgement for colleges, and they are particularly irrelevant for a large college group such as NCG. With seven colleges, located in London, the midlands, the northwest and the northeast, a single word judgement makes no sense and has no relevance to learners and parents in a particular location where the college may in fact be outstanding – or borderline good – but where the detail that matters is hidden behind one word.
As I understand it, schools have benefitted from the removal of the one-word judgement following the death of Ms Perry, who suffered from extreme stress and anxiety following an adverse judgement. Colleges were however exempt from this change for another year – are we meant to infer that college leaders, and college leaders who have to ‘hit the bullseye’ seven times over for one word, do not feel the stresses or anxiety associated with inspection?
Bushra: The benefits of one-word descriptors made it easier for students and their stakeholders (such as parents, carers, local authorities) to make decisions as to whether a college was the right fit for their young person particularly if they had support needs. For parents and carers not familiar with the post 16 landscape it would provide reassurance that their young person’s needs would be met. The downside is that very rarely would people read the full report to find the nuance, this meant that both areas of excellent practice and poorer practice could be easily missed.
What areas would you identify as requires improvement?
Julie: I really value the sub-judgement around meeting the Skills Need – especially in the context of LSIPs and the importance of having strong relationships with employers and the local community. But I think the volume of work/resource that can go into this area with a dedicated Skills Nominee is disproportionate given it is a sub-judgement. I would also like the wording changed on how this is assessed. I think the middle judgement of ‘reasonable’ is apathetic on either side of ‘limited’ or ‘strong’.
Simon: In addition to what I said in my previous answer – the quality, consistency and credibility of inspection teams across England and within regions. The transparency of the inspection process and how judgements are formed. The specific judgement assessment is not sufficiently backed up by a culture of self-improvement and support by Ofsted.
Liz: Campus based inspections for college groups, and more detail than a single word judgement with a more nuanced explanation of any judgement.
Bushra: Rather than requires improvement I would say that areas requiring further examination would be ensuring that information is conveyed in a way that is easily accessible for a wide cross-section of individuals and organisations. The term ‘report card’ has been mentioned and this seems like a logical solution, providing people with the information they need that describes provision types, behaviours and attitudes, personal development and skills, allowing them to form their own judgements with the information provided.
What do you feel Ofsted need to take into account when considering FE and the differences with schools?
Julie: That we are different. The range of provision and variety of learners in FE is vast and complex. Government and Ofsted need to stop having FE as an ‘after thought’ and put us front and central in the skills ecosystem.
Simon: Schools are generally very similar institutions delivering to broadly the same curriculum to the same age groups of the same proportions. FE is much more diverse and complex. Ofsted treats schools and FE structurally differently, this means school inspectors are usually school experts and vice versa.
Liz: Given that I have been associated with both school inspections and NCG’s inspection, I see very little difference in the effect it has on the staff and the organisation. From the Ofsted side I would suggest that FE inspectors need a much broader understanding of the breadth of provision offered not only by the FE sector, but also by individual colleges: the agricultural college is vastly different from the London college; the London college is vastly different from the rural college; significant adult provision is different from predominantly 16-18 provision and so on. So, inspectors need to have a rounded understanding of the very different contexts and challenges, and must be prepared to learn from the inspection, as well as to judge.
Bushra: It would be a positive first step for Ofsted to articulate more fully the views of the FE sector gathered through the ‘Big Listen’. There is already some nuance in reports as post-16 providers receive skills judgements and primary schools receive a separate judgment for Early years for instance, this shows that differentiation is possible. Perhaps a continuation or extension of this approach which highlights centres of excellence, expertise or the challenges the sector faces.
Are there any suggestions or ideas, you would put forward to Ofsted?
Julie: Review how inspections happen in large college Groups versus single sites. Review the role of the Principal/CEO alongside the nominee. I think the Principal/CEO should have a more prominent role especially in feedback meetings – this would share the pressure and load with the nominees who are expected to listen, respond and take notes in a very highly pressured environment at the end of busy days.
Simon: Decouple safeguarding from inspection. Using local authorities who already have statutory responsibilities for young people to undertake annual audits will make this better. Remove single word judgements entirely to simply just feedback and reports.
Liz: I would suggest that Ofsted listens to college leaders and quality leaders about the experience of inspection, how they could enhance the inspection experience and findings by learning from colleges themselves, and by treating inspection as a positive quality assurance activity and not a way to catch anxious teaching staff out.
Bushra: see above
From what you understand so far, are you happy with the review process and the changes that are being announced?
Julie: I welcome the review and timings for change. It is too early to comment much further until more details are shared. It is frustrating that the announcement led with schools and ‘colleges to follow’. As I said earlier, all too often it feels like FE colleges are an afterthought rather than an invaluable pillar in the education system. I do welcome the recognition of the enormous pressure and stresses of an inspection and the importance of support for those involved whatever the outcome.
Simon: Whilst I understand the complexities, simply making changes to schools and not Colleges is simply read as – the mental health of school leaders and staff is more important than the wellbeing and mental health of college leaders and staff.
Liz: I am not sure what changes have been announced in relation to FE; in relation to schools the removal of the one-word judgement is positive. Risk-based assessment is a good basis for inspection and longer preparation periods can help remove some of the anxieties associated.
Bushra: Ofsted have demonstrated that they are willing to hear what organisations have to say and have made changes already, I am looking forward to seeing what is next and hope that this can be an ongoing collaborative process, even once a reporting system is settled on. The door should remain open for further dialogue.
Ensuring that Schools and Colleges are inspected with the aim of improving the outcomes for learners, is now universally accepted. How this is done is now under review and again the timing and essence of the review has been widely welcomed. Changes to Ofsted can have a positive impact on not only performance but the wellbeing of the sector. It can also have other positive impacts such as on recruitment and retention, particular challenge for FE.
Changing Ofsted though isn’t the silver bullet, but it is an important step. There is much FE needs, but so far, this new government has yet to demonstrate a commitment. Having worked with the FE sector for over sixteen years, Paul is keen to provide support to Principals in the sector, and is happy to mentor or offer informal career support.
You can contact Paul at paul.aristides@andersonquigley.com.
