NATSPEC Annual Conference Raising Aspirations –Transforming Lives. Gill Reay SHMI Birmingham May 2013. Common Inspection Framework for Further Education and Skills 2012. The Common Inspection Framework 2012: focuses on the aspects of a provider’s work that have most impact on learners
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Gill Reay SHMI
The Common Inspection Framework 2012:
A good education for all:
“I believe that all providers must be at least good and this must be viewed as the minimum expected standard.”
Sir Michael Wilshaw HMCI (2012)
– Colleges 20 Feb, ILPs 5 March, CLS providers 8 May, ISC 15 May
How well are learners prepared for their likely next step?
Are learners’ targets and programmes really individualised?
How well are learners involved in their target setting?
Is prior attainment (baseline) information used thoroughly and effectively to set targets?
How does the provider ensure targets are based on high expectations?
How well are assessment, target setting and the evaluation of progress towards longer term goals rigorously moderated?
Do all learners have targets for literacy/communication and numeracy/mathematics?
Is learning developed in a range of settings, not just in the classroom, workshop or workplace?
Do learners become more independent?
Is there a reduction in support required (where appropriate)?
How effectively is technology used to overcome barriers to learning?
How successful is the development of everyday living skills, including social interactions?
How frequently is achievement towards a target monitored? Are there rigorous reviews of the continued appropriateness of targets?
How often have monitoring and review resulted in changes of targets?
How does the provider know if good progress is made? Do they know would need to improve for achievement to become outstanding? How would they recognise if achievement was deteriorating?
Does achievement information show how well learners have made progress across all aspects of their programme? Does information about achievement include more than data about passing qualifications? Does qualification success represent progress?
Are there any differences in the achievement by different groups of learners?
How thoroughly are targets used in session planning, and in teaching and learning?
How effectively does information from learners, parents/carers and other stakeholders contribute to quality assurance? Is information gathered after a learner has left college? Has such information led to change?
How does the provider ensure that slowness towards achieving targets is not the result of weakness in the provision? Has learners’ slowness/failure to make progress resulted in changes to the provision? Has such change been effective?
How effectively are governors/trustees informed of learners’ achievement? Do they know how progress would need to improve for it to become outstanding? Do they know what inadequate progress would look like?
Is improving learners’ outcomes central to performance management? Is success to achieving ambitious targets considered rigorously?
How effectively has information about learners’ progress and the quality of their provision been analysed and informed self-assessment and improvement planning?
Is the effectiveness of quality assurance and self-assessment monitored by its impact on improving outcomes?
Do teaching and learning observations focus on the learners rather than the teacher?
How effective is the link between session observations, performance management and professional development and improved learner progress?