Introduction
There have been relatively few new FE & Skills inspection reports published this past week. Of the reports I've reviewed, three include Needs Attention judgements, while one provider received Expected Standard across the areas evaluated. All met the safeguarding standards.
Rather than focusing on the grades themselves, there was something else in them that I noted.
In one report, inspectors found that leaders carried out a range of quality assurance activities but weren't checking whether apprentices could remember essential knowledge. As a result, leaders had an overly positive view of the quality of teaching on one apprenticeship programme.
In another, inspectors recognised that staff identified apprentices' additional learning needs and put support in place, but leaders weren't sufficiently confident that the effectiveness of that support was being reviewed consistently.
Elsewhere, inspectors recognised effective quality assurance arrangements that supported consistently good teaching, while identifying opportunities to improve how learner progress was reviewed.
Different findings, but they raise an interesting question.
Are we measuring the things that are easiest to record, or the things that tell us whether learners are actually learning?
We have plenty of quality assurance activity. But what is it telling us?
Most FE & Skills providers have established quality assurance arrangements. We observe teaching and training. We review learner files. We sample assessment decisions. We undertake learning walks, standardisation meetings and professional discussions. We monitor progress, attendance, achievement and learner feedback.
All of these activities have a place, but I think there is a question we should be asking more often.
What do these activities actually tell us about the quality of learning?
An observation might confirm that a trainer delivered a well-structured session. A progress review might demonstrate that planned activities have been completed. A learner survey might tell us that apprentices enjoy their training and feel supported.
But none of these, individually, necessarily demonstrates that learners have understood, remembered and can apply what they have been taught. That requires us to look beyond the activity itself.
It means examining what learners know now that they didn't know before, whether they can recall important concepts and whether they can use their learning effectively in their work or future studies. It also means ensuring that our quality assurance processes are designed to find that out.
When quality assurance gives us an overly positive picture
One of the clearest examples last week came from a provider where inspectors identified weaknesses in the quality of a level 5 apprenticeship programme. Leaders had a range of quality assurance activities in place. However, those activities did not sufficiently check whether apprentices could remember key knowledge. Consequently, leaders' evaluation of teaching quality was overly positive.
Inspectors found that apprentices on the programme often struggled to recall important theories and did not consistently produce written work of the required standard. Trainers were also not using assessment effectively enough to establish whether apprentices understood and remembered new learning.
This is particularly interesting because other apprenticeship programmes at the same provider were performing well. A very high proportion of apprentices on two other standards achieved their qualifications, and inspectors recognised effective teaching and assessment practices elsewhere.
So the problem wasn't necessarily the absence of quality assurance. It was whether quality assurance was identifying the right weaknesses in the right places. Providers can have extensive quality assurance schedules, completed observations and detailed reports, but if those processes don't identify that apprentices are struggling to remember essential knowledge, how effective are they?
And if leaders are receiving positive reports while learners are experiencing difficulties, what confidence can they have in their self-assessment?
Are we checking learning, or simply checking that teaching has happened?
This is something I've reflected on throughout my career. It's relatively straightforward to check whether a session took place, whether resources were available or whether an assessment was completed. It's more challenging to evaluate whether learning has been secured.
For example, a trainer might explain a concept clearly during a session. Apprentices might answer questions correctly immediately afterwards. But can they explain that concept several weeks later? Can they apply it in a different situation? Can they make connections between what they've learned previously and what they're learning now? Can they demonstrate that knowledge independently, without relying on prompts or support?
These are important questions, particularly in apprenticeships where learners need to transfer their knowledge and skills into the workplace.
Successful teaching isn't simply about what happens during the session. It's about what learners take away and can use afterwards.
This doesn't mean every quality assurance activity needs to become a formal assessment. It means being more thoughtful about the evidence we use.
Conversations with learners, reviews of their work, assessment outcomes, workplace discussions and observations of practice can all contribute to a better understanding of learning.
The important thing is that we're evaluating the quality of what learners know and can do, rather than simply recording that teaching and assessment activities have taken place.
What does effective assessment actually tell us?
Assessment is another area where last week's reports offer useful lessons. At one provider, inspectors recognised that trainers generally used targeted questioning and other assessment methods effectively. However, on a particular level 5 programme, assessment wasn't sufficiently effective in identifying gaps in apprentices' understanding and recall.
This is important because assessment should inform what happens next. If an apprentice hasn't understood a concept, does the trainer recognise that? Does the teaching approach change? Is additional support provided? Does someone check whether the apprentice has subsequently developed the required understanding?
If assessment simply produces a mark, a completed task or a recorded outcome, we're missing an important part of its purpose.
Assessment should help us understand learning, not just record performance.
The same applies to feedback. Feedback is most valuable when it helps learners understand what they need to improve and gives them opportunities to act on that information. It should also help trainers recognise where their teaching needs to be adapted.
This is why effective assessment and quality assurance need to work together. Quality assurance should examine not only whether assessment is taking place, but whether it is identifying gaps in learning and helping to close them.
Support plans are another example
One of the other reports last week raised a related issue. Inspectors recognised that staff identified apprentices' barriers to learning and generally developed individual support plans. However, the usefulness of those plans varied.
Leaders intended to review the effectiveness of academic support through progress reviews, but recognised that they did not yet have sufficient oversight of these arrangements.
Staff had received training to identify support needs and make appropriate teaching adjustments, but did not have sufficiently clear guidance on reviewing whether the support was working.
This connects with the inclusion themes we've explored in previous blogs, but I think it also illustrates a wider quality assurance issue.
Knowing that support has been provided is not the same as knowing that it has helped someone learn.
A support plan might be detailed and regularly updated, but is the learner making better progress because of it? Are they becoming more independent? Can they demonstrate knowledge and skills that they previously struggled with?
If the support isn't having the intended effect, are we changing the approach?
Again, it's about moving from recording activity to evaluating its effectiveness.
What can we learn from the positive findings?
It's important that we don't focus only on Needs Attention judgements.
One provider in last week's reports received Expected Standard across the areas evaluated, with inspectors recognising effective quality assurance arrangements that supported consistently high standards of teaching and training. These included professional development, observations, group discussions and standardisation activities.
Inspectors also recognised positive learner outcomes. Almost all learners in its adult learning provision achieved their qualifications, including those facing disadvantage. Achievement on its level 2 and level 3 adult and childcare diplomas was particularly high.
In its apprenticeship provision, inspectors found that quality assurance informed staff development and improvements in teaching.
However, even here, there was an interesting area for development. Inspectors noted that progress review actions often focused too heavily on completing tasks rather than the specific knowledge, skills and behaviours apprentices needed to develop.
I think this is a useful observation.
A progress review can be completed on time.
Actions can be recorded.
Deadlines can be agreed.
But are those actions actually moving the learner's knowledge and skills forward?
There is a difference between:
“Complete the next assignment by Friday.”
And:
“Develop your understanding of safeguarding responsibilities so that you can explain how you would respond appropriately to a particular workplace situation.”
Both might be relevant, but the second tells us much more about the intended learning. It also provides a clearer basis for reviewing progress.
Achievement matters. But it doesn't tell us everything.
Another report provides a useful reminder about how we interpret performance data. Inspectors found that almost all apprentices who reached their final assessments passed, with just under half achieving distinction grades.
Those are positive outcomes for the apprentices who completed. However, too many apprentices were leaving their programmes before reaching that stage. Achievement therefore remained at Needs Attention.
This illustrates why we need to be careful about relying on individual performance measures. A high final-assessment pass rate tells us something important about apprentices who reach assessment. It doesn't tell us enough about those who withdraw beforehand.
Similarly, high attendance doesn't automatically demonstrate strong learning. Positive learner feedback doesn't necessarily mean that apprentices are developing the knowledge and skills they need. And a completed progress review doesn't establish that meaningful progress has taken place.
All of these measures matter, but each provides only part of the picture.
The challenge for leaders is to bring that information together and understand what it means for the quality of education learners are receiving.
Are we evaluating every curriculum area effectively?
Another important lesson from this past week's reports is the need to understand variation within provision. A provider might have strong overall outcomes while one programme or curriculum area is performing less effectively. This was evident in the report where apprentices on some standards achieved well, but those on a level 5 programme experienced significant difficulties.
If leaders focus primarily on organisation-wide performance measures, they risk missing these differences. That is why quality assurance needs to be sufficiently detailed to identify concerns at programme level.
Are apprentices developing the knowledge required by their particular standard? Are trainers using assessment effectively? Is the standard of learners' work appropriate for the level of study? Are employers seeing the expected development in workplace competence? Are learners able to recall and apply their learning over time?
These questions require curriculum expertise as well as performance information. A dashboard can identify a potential concern, but understanding why it is happening, and what needs to change, requires effective professional evaluation.
What does this mean for self-assessment?
I think this is where the findings become particularly relevant for leaders and quality teams. When we evaluate the quality of education, how much emphasis do we place on the processes we have in place?
We might describe our observation programme, standardisation activities, assessment arrangements and staff development. Are we sufficiently clear about what those activities have told us? Have they identified weaknesses in learners' understanding? Have they helped improve teaching? Are learners producing work of a better standard? Can they recall and apply their learning more effectively? Can we demonstrate that improvements are consistent across different programmes?
These are the questions that help turn quality assurance activity into meaningful self-evaluation.
A self-assessment that honestly identifies where learners are struggling to understand or remember important knowledge is much more effective than one that describes an extensive quality assurance programme without evaluating its effectiveness.
The purpose of quality assurance isn't to demonstrate how much checking we've done. It's to understand how good the learning actually is.
Final thoughts
This past week's Ofsted reports provide an important reminder that educational quality cannot be understood through performance data alone. We need to know whether learners are attending, progressing, completing and achieving, but we also need to understand what they are learning along the way.
Are they developing secure knowledge?
Can they remember and apply what they've been taught?
Are assessments identifying gaps in understanding?
Are our quality assurance arrangements giving leaders an accurate picture of what is happening across every curriculum area?
Our dashboards and performance reports provide valuable insight into performance and progress. But are we using those insights to ask the right questions about what learners actually know, understand and can do?
Effective quality assurance isn't simply about measuring performance. It's about using that information to understand learning and drive improvement.
How AiVII can support
Through AiVII Consulting, we support FE & Skills providers with quality assurance, curriculum evaluation, inspection readiness and leadership development.
This includes helping providers examine whether their quality assurance arrangements are identifying the strengths and weaknesses of teaching, assessment and learning, rather than simply recording that activities have taken place.
The AiVII Platform provides the technology layer, supporting the organisation and visibility of learner information, quality assurance evidence and improvement activity.
Together, the platform and consultancy help providers connect performance information with professional evaluation and meaningful improvement.
Understanding what learners achieve is important. Understanding what they have actually learned is just as important.
Follow AiVII for weekly Ofsted insight briefings, toolkit interpretation and practical guidance for FE & Skills leaders.
