Spot check report Organisation name Accord Manchester Inspection date 18 November 2014 BACKGROUND Organisation profile Inspection history Dates/details First inspection May 2010 Last full inspection May 2014 Subsequent spot check (if applicable) Subsequent supplementary check (if applicable) Subsequent interim visit (if applicable) Other related schools / centres /affiliates Other related non-accredited activities (in brief) at this centre Current accreditation status and reason for spot check Current accredited status Accreditation under review Reason for spot check Signalled: end a period of review Accord ISS Eastbourne Translation company (Active Languages Ltd) Premises profile Address of main site Details of any additional sites in use at the time of the inspection Details of any additional sites not in use at the time of the inspection Sites inspected Brook House, Suite 3d, 64-72 Spring Gardens, Manchester M2 2BQ The school is located in a third floor suite of rooms in a commercial building in the centre of Manchester. The suite consists of three classrooms of varying sizes, an open plan office where the reception desk and four desks for staff are located, a student area with computer and Internet access, and a staff room which is used as a meeting room and an occasional classroom. Student and staff profile At inspection In peak week (please give month) Total ELT/ESOL student numbers (FT + PT) 7 15 (August) Minimum age (including closed group or vacation) 18 18 Typical age range 19-40 19-25 Typical length of stay 1 week-3 months 1-4 weeks Predominant nationalities Japanese Italian, Spanish Total number of teachers on eligible ELT courses 3 4 Total number of administrative/ancillary staff 2 INTRODUCTION Background The school was founded in 2008 and first accredited in May 2010 as Active English Academy (AEA). The current director was one of the founders of AEA. In November 2011 the school was sold to Forum Accord International (FAI), a French company wishing to expand into the UK market. FAI moved its operation to the UK in July 2013 and Report expires 31 March 2019
became Accord Language Schools Ltd (ALS). The school has been re-branded as Accord Manchester. The director remains an 11 percent shareholder in the company. ALS owns Accord Manchester, Accord ISS Eastbourne (separate accreditation), and Accord Paris (which teaches French). The school offers courses in general English and business English for 15, 20 or 25 hours per week to students aged 18 and over mainly from Europe, Japan or South America. Classes are generally small, rarely reaching the stated maximum of twelve for general English and six for business English. An accommodation service is offered, providing homestay (via an agency) and residential options. An interim visit took place in September 2013 which confirmed the new ownership and management structure, including the fact that the school no longer employed a Director of Studies (DoS) but instead functioned with one part-time academic manager, who is still in post. This was in response to continuing low student numbers. Following a full inspection in May 2014, the school was placed under review because of weaknesses in relating to the qualifications profile of the academic manager. At the time of the spot check, all students were doing courses of either 15 or 20 hours. There were two small general English groups at lower intermediate and upper intermediate level; one student was also doing a general English afternoon workshop and another an afternoon business English workshop. Two students were in homestay and none in residential accommodation. The core academic team consists of a part-time freelance academic manager who works two or three days a week and a pool of approximately eight freelance teachers. The academic manager is appropriately experienced but TEFLI only, although she is studying for the Trinity/English UK DELTM which she is on target to complete in November 2014. She does not have a first degree. A rationale for her employment was submitted with the last report. Since the last inspection, the former DoS, who is TEFLQ, has been engaged as a consultant to carry out observations on an occasional basis and provide additional support as needed. Preparation The inspectors received copies of the previous report and related correspondence, together with 2014 publicity leaflets. They also looked at the school s website. Programme and persons present The inspectors arrived at 10.30 and left at 13.30. They spoke to the marketing manager, who also deals with accommodation, and the academic manager. The school director was overseas, but contact was made by telephone. Documents inspected included teacher qualifications, teacher observation records, teacher handbook, a course syllabus, a weekly plan for an individual student, minutes of meetings, student feedback and record of action on this, and the 2015 publicity leaflet. FINDINGS The school has attended conscientiously to almost all of the points to be addressed raised by the last report, including those relating to teaching and learning. There have been no major changes in premises and facilities since the full inspection six months ago and the school does not accept under 18s. POINTS TO BE ADDRESSED Points to be addressed from the previous inspection report with comments (in bold) to indicate how far these have been addressed. Points which must be addressed before continued accreditation can be recommended T4 The academic manager is not TEFLQ and does not have a degree. Technically this is still the case, but see T5. T5 The inspectors felt that the rationale could not yet be accepted, but that this decision could be reviewed once the DELTM was successfully completed, the five hours of systematic observation had taken place, and the proposed reappointment of the former DoS in a limited capacity to assist with lesson observation had been confirmed. Steps have been taken to address this issue along the lines noted in the previous report. The former DoS, who is TEFLQ, has been engaged to conduct observations and provide consultancy services on an occasional basis, and although the academic manager has not yet completed the English UK/Trinity
Diploma in ELT Management (DELTM) the final assignment is to be submitted by the end of November and the results will not be available until January/February 2015 her performance on the course so far indicates that she will complete successfully. Evidence was also seen that three hours of systematic observation of her teaching have been carried out by the TEFLQ consultant, and two further hours of observation had been scheduled for the week following the spot check. A first degree is an admission requirement for the DELTM, but this appears to have been waived, a decision apparently justified by the academic manager s performance on the course. Since certain academic management functions are currently being carried out by the consultant and the academic manager is on the point of achieving the required professional qualification, it was felt that this criterion can be considered met. T11 This is not met because the observation of teachers is carried out by the non-teflq academic manager. This point has been addressed. Since the last inspection all observations of teaching have been carried out by the TEFLQ consultant, and evidence of these was seen. Points to be addressed within six months M22 There are a number of inaccuracies in the publicity which could give rise to unrealistic expectations. This includes claims that are inaccurate or incapable of being substantiated, such as: We have built a reputation in providing some of the best business English courses in the UK ; We are one of very few schools in England specializing in intensive English courses for executives, professionals and students about to begin a career in international business. Pictures used in publicity are not captioned. The three printed leaflets used in 2014 have been replaced by a single leaflet for 2015 from which the earlier claims have been removed. The website presents a realistic picture of the school. However, video clip testimonials from former students refer to AEA, the previous name of the school. M26 It is not made clear that homestay accommodation is provided through an external agency. An accommodation agency is still used to arrange homestays. The 2015 printed brochure does not make this clear. The website refers to the Accommodation Agency Organiser, but a clearer statement of the fact that an agency is used is necessary. M28 Teachers are described as being experienced and fully qualified when this is not always the case. The website now describes teachers as qualified and experienced in teaching General English and Business English. This may give the impression that all teachers are experienced in teaching business English and qualified to do so. This would not be an accurate description of all teachers in the teaching team. W28 A generic risk assessment has been produced but no specific risk assessments have been carried out for the occasional educational visits to the local art gallery and other amenities by students accompanied by their teachers. Other points to be addressed Management M9 There is no formal policy for the professional development of non-teaching staff. The only non-teaching staff are the school director and the marketing manager. Action on this point was not checked. However, inspectors were told that professional development opportunities for teachers (such as attending conferences) would be available. M13 The relationship of the emergency contact to the students and their level of English is not noted. Local contact details are not maintained or checked. This point was not checked. M18 Action taken on student feedback is not systematically recorded. M19 There are no formal mechanisms in place for recording staff feedback and action taken is only incidentally recorded in meeting minutes. Formal, minuted teacher meetings take place approximately once a month and actions to be taken are noted, but there is no record of action taken as a result. T12 There is no indication or mapping of materials and resources to the items in the syllabus/scheme of work. T14 Written course outlines, for example indicating the work to be covered in a particular week, are not made available to students.
This point has been addressed. One-to-one students are given a weekly outline, and for groups details of the plan for the week are displayed in each classroom. T16 The advertised visits to local businesses and networking events no longer take place. The inspectors were told that these can be arranged if requested. T23 Apart from vocabulary there was little attention paid to direct language components, such as structure and function. There was no evidence of phonological awareness, and no clear modelling and repetition of target language. T26 Some activities were allowed to go on a little too long. T27 Words and sentences were written on the whiteboard but with no notation to assist learning. T28 Some effective correction techniques were seen, but generally this aspect of teaching and learning was not in evidence. No observation of teaching took place, but inspectors were told that these points had been discussed in teachers meetings. W8 Students are not informed about their rights regarding dental treatment through the NHS. A notice is posted in the student corner of the reception/lounge area which gives helpfully detailed information. W24 Students have not been given any information in relation to this criterion. A notice is posted in the student corner of the reception/lounge area which encourages students to ask for advice should they need it and lists a number of informative websites. CONCLUSIONS The focus of the spot check was on academic management. Significant steps have been taken to address all the major issues signalled and this no longer represents an area of concern. RECOMMENDATION The period of review may now be ended; the next inspection falls due in 2018. PUBLISHABLE STATEMENT Changes to publishable statement The publishable statement was withdrawn. A new publishable statement can now be issued. Publishable statement The British Council inspected and accredited Accord Manchester in May and November 2014. The Accreditation Scheme assesses the standards of management, resources and premises, teaching, welfare and care of under 18s and accredits organisations which meet the overall standard in each area inspected (see www.britishcouncil.org/education/accreditation for details). This small private language school offers courses in general and professional English for adults (18+). The inspection report stated that the organisation met the standards of the Scheme. Points to be addressed outstanding from the previous inspection(s) or arising from this visit Management M9 There is no formal policy for the professional development of non-teaching staff. M13 The relationship of the emergency contact to the students and their level of English is not noted. Local contact
details are not maintained or checked. M19 There is no record of action taken on staff feedback. M22 Videoclip testimonials from former students refer to the school as AEA. M26 An accommodation agency is still used to arrange homestays. The 2015 printed brochure does not make this clear. The website refers to the Accommodation Agency Organiser, but a clearer statement of the fact that an agency is used is necessary. M28 The website describes teachers as qualified and experienced in teaching General English and Business English. This may give the impression that all teachers are experienced in teaching business English and qualified to do so. This would not be an accurate description of all teachers in the teaching team. T23 Apart from vocabulary there was little attention paid to direct language components, such as structure and function. There was no evidence of phonological awareness, and no clear modelling and repetition of target language. T26 Some activities were allowed to go on a little too long. T27 Words and sentences were written on the whiteboard but with no notation to assist learning. T28 Some effective correction techniques were seen, but generally this aspect of teaching and learning was not in evidence. W25 This point is not met. The 2015 printed brochure indicates that the school can arrange hotels and serviced apartments. The practice is that potential students who express interest in these options are sent a list of possibilities based on their budget. The school does not monitor the hotels/apartments suggested.