Introduction
Over the last few months, I’ve written quite a lot about Needs Attention and Urgent Improvement. Where are inspectors identifying weaknesses? What are the early warning signs? How quickly are leaders responding? And, increasingly, how do providers know whether the actions they have taken are actually working?
This week, I want to look at the other end of the spectrum. Within this week’s FE & Skills reports, there is plenty of Strong practice, and two areas judged Exceptional.
We see the first apprenticeship provider to get Exceptional for Inclusion, and another provider receiving Exceptional for Curriculum and Teaching.
Very different areas. Very different provision. But reading the reports alongside each other raised an interesting question, "What turns Strong into Exceptional?"
It sounds like a simple question. But under the new inspection toolkit, I think the distinction matters, because Exceptional isn’t simply a slightly better version of Strong, and it certainly isn't the new Outstanding.
Exceptional is deliberately a very high bar
One of the things providers need to remember about the renewed toolkit is that Expected Standard is exactly that - the standard providers are expected to meet.
Strong goes beyond that. Exceptional goes further again.
Exceptional is intended to identify practice at the highest level. Practice from which others can learn. So when I read an Exceptional judgement, I’m increasingly interested in the language surrounding it. What are inspectors seeing that takes the judgement beyond Strong?
This week gives us some useful clues.
Exceptional Inclusion starts with knowing the individual
In the provider judged Exceptional for Inclusion, inspectors describe inclusion as a defining feature of the organisation. This isn’t an additional intervention sitting alongside the curriculum. It is embedded within the way the organisation works.
Staff understand apprentices extremely well. They identify barriers, personalise support, review that support frequently and adapt it as apprentices develop. Importantly, support can also be reduced as apprentices become more confident and independent.
I think that is a particularly useful point because effective inclusion isn’t necessarily about providing more support. Sometimes the evidence that support has worked is that somebody eventually needs less of it.
The learner has developed confidence.
They have developed strategies.
They are becoming increasingly independent.
That takes us beyond describing provision and into something much more important.
Impact.
The word ‘transformational’ matters
There is another word in the Exceptional narrative that stood out.
Transformational.
Inspectors describe the impact for disadvantaged apprentices and those with learning difficulties and disabilities as sustained and transformational.
We use the word impact a lot in quality assurance - sometimes perhaps too easily!
Learners attended.
Learners enjoyed something.
Learners completed an activity.
Learners said they found it useful.
Those things can all contribute to the evidence picture, but transformational impact is something different. It means something has materially changed for that individual.
Their confidence.
Their independence.
Their aspirations.
Their ability to participate.
Their progression.
Their future opportunities.
And that appears to be one of the differences between effective practice and something inspectors consider genuinely Exceptional.
Exceptional practice has reach
There is another interesting feature within the Inclusion example. The organisation doesn’t simply use its inclusive approaches internally. Practice extends into its work with employers and other organisations.
That matters because Exceptional isn’t simply about something working extremely well for one group of learners. There is a sense that the practice is understood well enough to be shared and that its influence extends beyond the immediate intervention.
That leads to an important question for providers that believe they have significant strengths, Do we understand why this works well enough for somebody else to learn from it?
Because there is a difference between having excellent practice and being able to explain the conditions that make that practice successful.
Exceptional Curriculum and Teaching looks different
The other Exceptional judgement this week relates to Curriculum and Teaching within specialist aviation training. I found this particularly interesting because it demonstrates that there isn’t an Exceptional formula. Here, inspectors describe a curriculum that responds extremely quickly to changes within the industry.
Changes in regulation.
Global events.
Unusual weather conditions.
Developments that affect the roles apprentices are training for.
These things aren't simply left until the next annual curriculum review. They are incorporated into learning so apprentices understand their significance to their work. That tells us something important. An Exceptional curriculum isn’t static. It remains connected to the world in which learners will actually work.
It also takes learners beyond their immediate role
Another feature of the aviation example stood out. Apprentices aren't simply taught what they need to perform their current role. They gain exposure to different operations and wider aspects of their industry. That broadens their understanding beyond their immediate workplace.
Again, I think that's an interesting distinction as a strong curriculum might prepare somebody extremely well for their role. Exceptional practice appears to ask something more, What else could this person become capable of?
That moves the conversation beyond competence towards professional curiosity, adaptability and future potential.
So what turns Strong into Exceptional?
Last week’s reports also contain plenty of Strong practice and that's what makes the comparison useful. There are examples of strong leadership, effective curriculum design, employer engagement, personal development and leaders responding appropriately when concerns emerge.
These are significant strengths, but when I compare that language with the Exceptional narratives, I see several additional characteristics:
Depth
The practice isn't superficial or dependent upon one intervention. It is deeply embedded in the way the organisation works.
Precision
Decisions respond closely to learners, employers, industries and context.
Consistency
The practice is systematic rather than dependent upon one particularly effective member of staff or one successful cohort.
Responsiveness
Practice doesn't stand still. It changes when learners' needs, industry requirements or circumstances change.
Sustained impact
There is evidence that the practice works over time.
Transformation
The impact goes beyond participation, satisfaction or successful completion. Something meaningful changes.
Reach
The benefits can extend beyond an individual learner, programme or immediate setting.
An importantly;
Others can learn from it
Taken together, I think those characteristics begin to explain why Exceptional is different from simply doing something very well.
Should providers chase Exceptional?
This is probably the most important point. As more Exceptional judgements are published, there will inevitably be interest in what those providers are doing.
We absolutely should learn from excellent practice across the sector but there is a danger that we start asking:“What do we need to introduce to get Exceptional?”
I think that could be the wrong question. If one provider receives Exceptional because of a particular approach and everybody copies the intervention, that doesn't make everybody Exceptional.
Context matters.
Learners matter.
Employers matter.
Curriculum matters.
The quality of implementation matters.
And above all, impact matters.
So rather than asking:
“What are Exceptional providers doing?”
perhaps the better question is, “Why is what they're doing having such an impact?”
That's a much more useful quality improvement conversation.
Exceptional isn't a checklist
The two Exceptional judgements this week look very different. One is rooted in deeply personalised, responsive inclusion. The other is rooted in an exceptionally responsive specialist curriculum that extends apprentices' knowledge beyond their immediate roles.
There isn't one mode and I think that's exactly the point. Exceptional doesn't appear to be about doing a predetermined set of things. It is about practice that works extraordinarily well in that provider's context, produces demonstrable impact and offers something from which others can learn.
That's very different from a checklist.
There's a SAR conversation here too
We're still at the point in the year where many leadership teams are refining their Self-Assessment Reports and I think the Exceptional examples provide a useful challenge when discussing significant strengths.
Providers quite rightly identify things they believe they do well, but perhaps we can go further.
Instead of simply asking, “Is this a strength?”
Ask;
Do we do it consistently well?
Who benefits?
What difference does it make?
Is that impact sustained?
Can we explain how and why it works?
And, at the very highest level:
Is the impact genuinely transformational?
Is there something here that others could learn from?
Not every strength in a SAR needs to pass all of those tests. But asking the questions might help leadership teams distinguish between something they are proud of and something that is genuinely a significant strength.
It's a governance conversation
Governance conversations understandably spend considerable time on risk and underperformance.
What's going wrong?
Where are we behind target?
What needs attention?
What are leaders doing about it?
Those questions matter of course, but good governance should also understand excellence. If something is producing particularly strong outcomes, governors should be curious about that too.
Why is it working?
How do we know?
Is it happening consistently?
Could the principles be applied elsewhere?
How are we protecting it?
What can the rest of the organisation learn from it?
Improvement isn't only about fixing weaknesses. Sometimes it's about understanding excellence well enough to build on it.
Final thoughts
Last week's reports give us two very different examples of Exceptional practice under the new toolkit and that's perhaps the most useful lesson - there isn't a formula.
Exceptional Inclusion doesn't look the same as Exceptional Curriculum and Teaching and nor should it. But the judgements do appear to share something deeper.
Practice is embedded.
It is precise.
It responds to people and context.
Its impact is sustained.
And, at its best, it is transformational.
So I wouldn't encourage providers to ask, “What do we need to do to get Exceptional?”
I'd ask something much more interesting, “What do we do that creates genuinely transformational outcomes, and do we understand why it works?”
Because if we understand that, we don't just have something impressive to put in a SAR.
We have something worth protecting, developing and sharing.
How AiVII can help
This is where robust self-assessment becomes particularly valuable.
Through AiVII Consulting, we work with FE & Skills providers to independently challenge self-assessment, quality assurance, curriculum and leadership judgements. That isn't simply about identifying weaknesses. It is also about helping leadership teams understand their genuine strengths - what is working, why it is working, who benefits and whether the evidence supports the judgement being made.
The AiVII Platform provides the technology layer, helping leaders bring together the evidence needed to understand performance, learner experience, quality and impact.
Together, they support a deceptively simple question, What is actually making the difference?
Follow AiVII for weekly Ofsted insight briefings, toolkit interpretation and practical guidance for FE & Skills leaders.
