How Colleges Improve – (from ‘LSIS Supporting Improvement 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 colleges  2 land-based colleges  2 sixth form colleges  2 independent specialist colleges  2 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 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 shared some 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 shared some 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 shared some 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 the following 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 the following 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 the following 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 the following 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