ADULT & COMMUNITY LEARNING SERVICE

Transcription

1 ADULT & COMMUNITY LEARNING SERVICE QUALITY FRAMEWORK For Community Learning Programme Delivery

2

3 CONTENTS Page Introduction 4 Quality and Compliance Monitoring Process 5 Process of grading 5 Risk management 6 Quality Framework Summary 7 Appendix A Schema for Quality Strategy and Self Assessment Process 14 B Schema for Intervention strategy 16 3

4 INTRODUCTION The ACL Quality Framework provides the guidelines for quality improvement for the Direct Delivery Unit and the sub contracted provision and is part of the Skills and Employability Quality Strategy. It supports a culture that motivates all staff and providers to provide a high quality learning experience for all our learners. The County self assesses the provision to be good against the Common Inspection Framework for Further Education and Skills 2015, and Community Learning aspires to be Outstanding by September The Quality Framework, together with the robust annual self-assessment process and the resulting Quality Improvement Development Plan drives improvement. The framework is based on four building blocks which links to the Common Inspection Framework (CIF). The new CIF (June 2015) category of Personal Development, Behaviour and Welfare is evaluated within Outcomes for Learners and Quality of Teaching Learning and Assessment via evidence collected through observations, class visits, case studies, learner feedback, progression interviews, and provider performance reports. The framework includes a continuous programme of quality assurance and quality improvement activities carried out throughout the year with providers and the Direct Delivery Unit. Clear performance targets are set for delivery across the provision, which are reviewed at regular intervals. All providers are contractually responsible for maintaining quality and high standards in teaching, learning and assessment of their delivery. To achieve quality improvement for each contract we will: Set targets for quality standards and share them with all Providers Monitor performance against these targets and risk rate against the quality indicators Monitor the progress of quality improvement actions identified at Contract Monitoring visits Produce an Annual Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Quality Improvement and Development Plan (QIDP) and share it with all Providers Regularly monitor progress towards actions identified in the Quality Improvement and Development Plan Identify and share good practice Report regularly to County Council Senior Managers on the progress of providers against contracts and their quality of teaching learning and assessment in order that they can support and challenge the performance. 4

5 QUALITY AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCESS The key document which outlines the process for monitoring is the Provider Guidance 2015/16 Handbook. Performance against contract and quality indicators is reviewed during contract monitoring meetings. Indicators under the following four quality building blocks will be used to inform the quality rating (RAG) and will contribute to the Self Assessment judgements against the Common Inspection Framework criteria: Performance against contractual targets and delivery profiles Outcomes for learners Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Effectiveness of leadership and management / Compliance Compliance is tracked and RAG rated as per the payment schedule in the contract with financial penalties, as appropriate and is also reviewed at the contract meetings. Following the termly meetings contract monitoring reports are completed which record the RAG ratings for each quality indicator. An appropriate action plan will be discussed and agreed which will be monitored in accordance with the specified timescales. PROCESS OF GRADING Prior to and during contract monitoring meetings, Provider Relationship Managers (PRMs) and Provider Quality Managers (PQMs) will review the documentation and evidence provided against each of the quality indicators and RAG rate appropriately according to the standards set in the quality framework. Some of the quality indicators are term specific and may not be monitored at each contract monitoring meeting. Consequently the provider will be given a RAG rating against each of the 4 quality building blocks and set an action plan. 5

6 RISK MANAGEMENT AND INTERVENTION The risk management falls within various stages of action and intervention depending upon the quality indicator or contract compliance criteria. It will be assessed in accordance with evidence provided either prior to or during contract monitoring meetings. The following tables list all the contract compliance and quality indicators under the four headings above, show how the RAG ratings are awarded and the associated risk management actions. WHITE RAG RATING KEY indicates serious issues with performance against contract, quality or compliance indicates some issues with performance against contract, quality or compliance indicates performance against contract, full compliance and no quality issues no evidence yet available and no concerns RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Providers failing to address issues within timescales put/contract at risk and /or 10% penalty can be applied To be reviewed with PRM and addressed within given timescales See Intervention Schema in Appendix B Performance against contract targets and quality requirements Stage 1 Providers who have not met the performance and/or quality requirements targets as set out in in the contract must provide a revised forecast showing how the targets will be met within two weeks of the meeting and/or quality issues addressed. Performance will be monitored closely for the following month. Stage 2 Failure to address poor performance and/or quality targets will result in a stage 2 alert letter from the PRM which will identify the difference in performance against targets and quality issues. It will also include the likely amount of claw back if performance targets are not met within the given timescale. Stage 3 Continued failure to address poor performance and/or quality issues targets will result in a stage 3 warning letter from the Commissioning Manager. This will state the claw back to be taken and/or other action to be implemented and warning that the contract is at risk of being varied to reflect the underperformance or may not be renewed in the next academic year. 6

7 QUALITY FRAMEWORK SUMMARY 2015/16 Community Learning RAG Rating Performance against Contract (monitored by PRM) Performance Indicator RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Performance against funding earned by Targets met within 6% of the expected profile Targets met within 10% of the expected profile and actions in place to address shortfall Concern that a number of targets will not be met Delivery against funding guidance and specification Meets all requirements Some requirements need addressing Does not meet the requirements KPI - % of new learners (40%) % of new learners are within 5% of the KPI % of new learners is between 5 and 10% of the KPI % of new learners is not within 10 % of the KPI Courses within district allocation All courses within agreed scope Some courses not within agreed scope Most courses not within agreed scope 7

8 Outcomes for Learners ( monitored by PRM) Performance Indicator Achievement Retention Attendance RARPA Audit Results Term 2 Achievement gaps between different groups of learners Term 3 Learner Feedback Terms 1 & 3 RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Evidence that achievement is being measured as at least 80% of the learning outcomes and the achievement rate is 94% or above Evidence that achievement is being measured as at least 80% of the learning outcomes and the rate is between 90%-94% Insufficient evidence that achievement is being measured as at 80% of learning outcomes and/or achievement rate is below 90% Clear evidence that withdrawals are processed efficiently and the retention rate is above 93% Clear evidence that withdrawals are processed efficiently and retention rate is between % Insufficient evidence that withdrawals are processed efficiently and/or retention rate is below 88% Clear evidence that absences are processed efficiently and attendance rate is above 85% Clear evidence that absences are processed efficiently and/or attendance rate is between 82% and 85% Insufficient evidence that absences are processed efficiently and /or attendance rate is below 82% All RARPA stages are fully met 4 RARPA stages are fully met Less than 4 RARPA stages are fully met Equality & Diversity data analysed and no significant differences found or appropriate actions are in place to address Equality & Diversity data analysed and some significant differences found but only few actions in place to address Equality & Diversity data not analysed and/or significant differences not addressed General learner satisfaction rate is above 94% with no safeguarding or other significant concerns General learner satisfaction rate is between 88%-94%, no safeguarding and/or few other concerns General learner satisfaction rate is below 88% and/or some significant concerns 8

9 Quality of Teaching, Learning and Assessment (monitored by PQM) Performance Indicator Class visits RAG Rating No issues identified Some minor issues identified Judgement Criteria Significant issues identified Observation of Learning and Teaching grade profile 85% grade 2 or above 75-85% grade 2 or above Less than 75% grade 2 or above Joint Lesson Observations JLO indicates full agreement of observation standards JLO indicates some disagreement of observation standards JLO indicates continued disagreement following 2 nd observation RARPA Audit Actions Terms 2 & 3 All actions have been completed within the agreed timescales and lead to the required improvements Some actions either not effective or not yet completed Actions not effective or not completed Performance management of OLTs graded 3 & 4s and action plan T2 and T3 Tutor database or Provider records show all grade 3 & 4 OLT actions have been completed or are on schedule and/or has a re-observation taken place Insufficient evidence that grade 3&4 OLT actions have been completed or are on schedule Information and Advice Term 1,2 & 3 Evidence from class visits, observations, and RARPA audits indicate that IAG is good, course information leaflets contain all the required information and IAG is planned in the scheme of work and next steps included in ILPs Evidence indicates some RARPA requirements are not met Evidence indicates that most RARPA requirements are not met 9

10 Leadership and Management- monitored by PRM/PQM Performance Indicators RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Venue Risk Assessments Term 1, 2 & 3 PQM Provides evidence that all risk assessments are completed accurately and reporting is compliant to H&S requirements, including checks for signing in and access to venues as seen by class visits or observations Not all risk assessments completed and/or compliant as seen by class visits or observations Approval of QIDP to address areas for improvement (where appropriate) Term 1 PQM All actions agreed as effective in addressing the areas for improvement Some actions need reviewing as not effective in addressing the areas for improvement Most actions need reviewing as not effective in addressing the areas for improvement Quality Improvement and Development Plan (QIDP) progress Term 1, 2, & 3 PQM All quality actions identified are on schedule to be completed within the agreed timescales and effective in addressing the area for improvement Most quality actions identified are on schedule, to be completed within the agreed timescales and are effective in addressing the area for improvement Few quality actions identified are on schedule to be completed within the agreed timescales and/ or are not effective Contract Monitoring Action Plan Terms 1, 2, & 3 PRM All actions identified are satisfactorily completed within the agreed timescales Most actions identified are satisfactorily completed within the agreed timescales Few actions identified are satisfactorily completely within the agreed timescales 10

11 Failure to comply with contractual obligations will result in the application of the following penalties or actions taken as below: Compliance with financial penalties (monitored by PRM) Performance Indicator RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Risk Management Actions Course details for SCC website All course details fully completed and submitted within contractual timescales Course details not fully completed and/or submitted within contractual timescales Online course details form Online course details fully completed and submitted 2 weeks prior to course start date or as agreed with the PRM Online course details not fully completed and/or submitted within contractual timescales Tutor Database Fully completed and submitted within contractual timescale Not fully completed and/or not submitted within contractual timescale Safeguarding training 100 % staff safeguarding trained within last two years, including e-safety Less than 100% staff have had safeguarding training with e-safety within last two years Letter issued to inform Provider to withdraw tutor from ACL delivery Prevent Duty All tutors have had training in The Prevent Duty by January 2016 or before delivery (if later) Not all tutors have had training in The Prevent Duty by January 2016 or before delivery (if later) Letter issued to inform Provider to withdraw tutor from ACL delivery 11

12 Performance Indicator RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Risk Management Actions Observation of Learning and Teaching schedule (if applicable) Schedule submitted within contractual timescale Schedule not submitted within contractual timescale Self- Assessment Report (SAR) and Quality Improvement and Development Plan (QIDP) Term 3 Fully completed and submitted within contractual timescale Not fully completed and/or not submitted within contractual timescale Data returns (if applicable) Up to date and accurate data return submitted within contractual timescales Up to date and/or accurate data return not submitted within contractual timescales Enrolment forms (if applicable) Fully completed and submitted within contractual timescale Not fully completed and /or not submitted within contractual timescales Course documentation (if applicable) Fully completed register and learner feedback forms submitted within 2 weeks of course end date Register and learner feedback forms not fully completed and/or not submitted within 2 weeks of course end date Learner Feedback returns Terms 1 & 3 At least 30% of learners feedback received on time Less than 30% of learners feedback received on time 12

13 Performance Indicator RAG Rating Judgement Criteria Risk Management Actions Focus Groups Focus group held and results submitted within contractual timescales Not fully completed and/or not submitted within contractual timescale Case Studies Fully completed and submitted within contractual timescales Not fully completed and/or not submitted within contractual timescale Attendance at Termly Network Meeting Attended/ suitably represented at network meetings within contractual requirements Did not attend suitably represented at required network meetings 13

14 BUILDING BLOCKS APPENDIX A ACL Schema for Quality Strategy & Self Assessment Process The ACL Quality Framework provides the guidelines by which sub-contractors are monitored, risk rated and quality improvement actions put in place to ensure that all of the provision is good or better. The framework aligns to the Common Inspection Framework for Further Education and Skills Quality, Performance and Compliance are monitored with RAG indicators under the following four building blocks:- Performance against contract Outcomes for learners Quality of teaching and learning Leadership & Management / Compliance Major evidence sources for risk ratings Delivery against profile Volume of contract Retention & Achievement, Progression compared to national benchmarks Observation grade profiles Responses to Actions from Contract Monitoring visits Differences between E & D groups Class visits Meeting contract requirements for returns Attendance Learner feedback Safeguarding concerns reported RARPA audits for non accredited courses Joint lesson Observations Accurate quality Data and documentation submitted on time On the basis of the evidence each indicator is RAG rated accordingly:- Indicates serious issues with quality, performance or compliance Indicates some issues with quality, performance or compliance Indicates full contractual & performance compliance and no quality issues 14

15 SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS Timeline Performance evidence collected against Quality Framework and Common Inspection Framework Evidence and data submitted, RAG rated via contract monitoring and used to inform provider final annual programme reviews Annual Programme Reviews by Provider PQMs validate Annual Programme Reviews and write overall Programme Area Self-Assessment Report Programme Area Self-Assessment Reports Quality Manager & Commissioners validate Programme Area Self-Assessment Reports. QM combines reports to produce overall ACL Self-Assessment Report Adult and Community Learning Self-Assessment Report Termly Contract Monitoring Visit and Quality Assurance Reviews OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 15

16 16APPENDIX B Intervention Schema RAG Rating Stage 1 Detailed Action plan put in place Monitoring of actions to increase learner numbers Increase number of visits/communications Stage 2 Alert for Contract variation Alert for SEMT for possible re-allocation of funding Alert for reconciliation/finance Stage 3 Warning for Contract holder Possibility of contract not being renewed Stage 1 Detailed Action plan put in place Close Monitoring of actions to improve Agree support for development Provide support sessions Provide mentoring for teaching & learning Increase number of class visits/drop ins Stage 2 Persistent poor teaching and learning performance, tutor removed from ACL class Financial penalties linked to poor quality or late return of documents Stage 3 Continued poor quality results in notification that contract renewal is under threat Stage 1 Detailed Action plan put in place Close Monitoring of actions to improve Stage 2 Financial penalties linked to late return of documents Stage 3 Tutor not trained cannot teach on ACL classes Failure to comply breach of contract safeguarding arrangements complying with awarding body complying with The Prevent Duty consistent failure to return auditable documents Action taken - notification for terminate contract Persistent S Actions agreed and put in place Progress against action monitored remotely in between visits Actions agreed and put in place Progress against action monitored remotely in between visits Lighter touch monitoring review paperwork and data reports only between visits Share good practice Reduce class visits/drop ins Reduce JLOs Share good practice Performance against contract Outcomes for learners Quality of teaching and learning Leadership & Management/ Compliance NOTES

17 17

18 NOTES 18

19

20 Adult and Community Learning Service Staffordshire County Council 2 Staffordshire Place Tipping Street Stafford ST16 2DH