Working in Partnership for Quality Improvement

1. Working in Partnership for Quality Improvement John Gush and Chris Berry The findings so far

2. The project brief • The project is funded by LSIS • It should take account of 2007 study that identified the benefits to colleges and learners of partnership working • It should explore these benefits further, in particular the way in which they contribute to quality improvement

3. How we went about this exploration • The questionnaire • The follow up conversations • Interviewing the partners • The conference • The case studies

4. What is still to do? • Gather information from the conference workshops • Conclude the case studies • Take account of LSC data on the “improving choices” process on going in the East of England and other regions – not yet received

5. Results from the questionnaire • Who did we ask? • Natspec member colleges that are currently funded by the LSC • There are 70 member colleges all together • Of which 56 are funded by the LSC • There is one LSC funded ISC that is not in Natspec

6. How many responded? • Of the 56 colleges asked to respond • 51 responded • 92%

7. What did their responses tell us? There is a wide range of partnership working that takes place in ISCs • Partnerships with other providers for curriculum delivery • Partnerships for community engagement and work experience • Partnerships around training and CPD

8. What else did their responses tell us? • The value of professional partnerships aimed at quality improvement • The impact of partnership working on learners • The benefits and difficulties of operating partnerships • In particular the issue of quality assurance

9. How many ISCs use partnerships to support curriculum delivery? • 100% of respondents use partners to support curriculum delivery • The range of partnerships include: GFEs, ACL providers, work placements for experience or work shadowing, schools, sport, arts, crafts • 25% of respondents use partners to support curriculum delivery as a central and defining aspect of their curriculum delivery

10. Many ISCs work with more than one GFE partner

11. Health clubs Charities, schools CADS-SPORTS Young Enterprise, Adullam (drugs& alcohol) Virtual College Medway boat community Hevel Harriers Drama Co plaster work Nat Trust furniture-making Swindon Advocacy Movement Worshipful Co. Cooks Care Homes Sheepdog trainer Lighthouse Project (Halesowen) Future Skills Dudley Lunch On Run (Training) Remploy, Tower Croft Project Film Theatre & TV Cos Bnei Akavia RDA group Stockport Youth Action "Improving Choices" (LSC) OWL project café & recycling Ian Karten Centre Garden Centres A few of the many other partners

12. The % of ISC students engaged in partnership provision

13. The number of ISC students engaged in partnership provision

14. The number of partnerships that each ISC works with

16. Some of the benefits for students • individual students developing social and communication skills • Expands range of options for learners • 'real work' experience opportunities • We are able to offer a very wide range of courses unachievable without partnership with GFEs • positive feedback from learners, keen!!

17. Some of the difficulties in operating delivery partnerships • establishing a partnership with those not interested • lack of sufficient expertise in partner organisations • LLDD not always seen as important area • Overall costs are very high • no direct control of timetabling (inflexibility) changes • learning who to talk to

18. Do the students achieve better in partnership arrangements? This question produced a very mixed response, possibly the question was too loose to answer with clarity • 13 = not enough evidence to give a clear response • 12 = yes • 10 = no • 6 = not applicable • 5 = similar achievements from those in partnership to those who are not

19. No • Gut feel - sorry to say this but no. We work hard at the partnerships but I would say that generally there is no difference in achievements. There is however the enhancement and the experiences of attending other providers which can be invaluable • No - they just achieve a qualification that is appropriate to their individual needs

20. No difference • Similar. Pass rates at [GFE] within 2% either way of [ISC]. Non-accredited learning is less for [GFE] compared with [ISC] • Not better - just achieve in courses that we are not able to provide but which meet the needs of the particular student • Partnerships are formed around individually identified needs matched to identified opportunities. Success is measured by benefit to learner identified in ILP. • Students from [ISC] gain external qualifications which they would not be able to gain otherwise. Students from [GFE] gain real work practical experience which they could not gain at their own college.

21. Yes • In some instances the 'partnership course' is used as a means of induction to mainstream. This means that when students move to mainstream they are more likely to be ready to engage. In my experience students who engage in a 'partnership course' often go on to take a higher level course post [ISC] • bigger community scene = better chance of success • Yes but often in those softer areas of learning, confidence, self esteem, social skills, coping skills etc etc. The different learning arenas I believe provides increased motivation and increased likelihood of generalisation of learning

22. Yes • the strength of partnership delivery is the explicit "commissioning" of course elements which draws together programmes towards an identified student outcome sometimes more coherently. • Yes, though that is not BETTER as the external colleges just provide the courses not provided at [ISC] • OWL “improving choice” project attendees doing INCREDIBLY well. Café provides a real location.

23. Quality assurance in partner organisations Some problems were reported regularly • Some will not have us in so we ask for copies of their observation and data records. Not ideal. • not happy with the quality assurance arrangements at GFE • Teacher observation information not shared • No formalised OTL of THEIR provision. "Thank you, you can go now" atmosphere • QA has been very patchy and informal • The only option, if dissatisfied, is to withdraw the learners

24. Quality assurance in partner organisations (cont) But there is also some very good practice • combined observations, [ISC] observes its own support worker within GFE lesson, partner GFE observes learning support staff - findings shared • Paired OTL • joint formal observation and feedback • We have found that our grades are trusted by [GFE] staff

25. So - does partnership working enhance quality improvement? There were 48 responses to this question • 1 = no, but … • 1 = doubt it • 1 = numbers too small to comment • 2 = in some respects • 43 = yes

26. The professional partnerships that make it all possible • this is impossible without partnerships • Huge benefits and no downside to the partnerships • PRD activity has been most helpful • help to see wood for the trees • Good input into local disability agendas • Peer Review & Development is HUGELY beneficial • less isolation, networking, sharing of good practice

27. Professional partnerships (cont) • Improvement in adopted processes feeding into the continued quality improvement of the College • PRD - really good rigour! • strong desire to work together to share good practice • Positive-exposure - breaks the organisational bubble factor • The college has a more robust QI system • helped to identify areas of weakness • "not being alone"

28. How many colleges have partnership agreements? Too many said No 48 responded • 32 = yes • 14 = no • 2 = n/a

29. Two additional aspects of partnership

30. Training for partner staff • 25 out of the 51 respondents reported that they were engaged in staff training for their partner organisations

31. Some examples of training for partner staff • Specialist autism training for GFE teaching staff • Plymouth University - staff development • Great Ormond St + Uni students • VI training to partners • Sign language teaching • AAC training, dual-training • Police & Soc Wk trainee places

32. Partnerships with LA etc • 26 out of the 51 responded that they had developed partnerships with their LA

33. Partnership working with LAs is getting under way • 12 colleges reported involvement in the 14-19 partnerships • 6 colleges reported involvement in LDPBs • 3 colleges reported involvement with PCTs and health authority networks • A further 8 assorted partnerships were reported

34. But … • No to Local Authority - not 14-19 Board nor LDPB - CAN'T BREAK IN!! • NO MOVEMENT! • CHALLENGING! • REAL CONCERN!