How we are taking context into account in college inspections

Jonathan Childs is the Deputy Director of Post-16 Education, Training and Skills, Ofsted

It is now a year since Ofsted began inspecting under our renewed education inspection framework. So how are colleges faring?

We have published just over 400 report cards for post-16 providers. However, general further education (FE) colleges account for only 17 of these completed inspections. So, it is fair to say our view of the college sector under the renewed framework is still forming.

But despite the small sample size, there are some emerging trends. Half of the general FE colleges we have inspected achieved at least one ‘strong’ grade, most often for high needs provision, inclusion or contribution to meeting skills needs. Overall, around 80% of grades have been ‘expected standard’ or above. These are positive early signs.

Perhaps the most striking trend is in 16-19 provision. We are seeing more ‘needs attention’ grades for achievement and for participation and development in education programmes for young people than we are in adult, apprenticeships or high needs provision. We know the difficulties that colleges can face in engaging 16-19 learners in English and maths resits and in tackling poor attendance. And we recognise that often these patterns are established long before a learner arrives at college. At the same time, colleges will need to take on more such learners to help tackle the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

So, the question for Ofsted is: how can we appropriately recognise and reflect these contextual challenges in our inspections?

Since I started at Ofsted in March, I have consistently heard two concerns from colleges: how far do our inspections really take account of context? And given the profile of learners and diversity of provision in colleges, is it harder for them to gain ‘strong’ and ‘exceptional’ grades?

By context, we mean anything relevant about a provider – its learners, the communities and stakeholders it serves, the partners it works with, its mission and recent improvement journey – that will help inspectors better understand and interpret the evidence they gather.

You will know the elements of your context that are most important for us to understand. Exploring this is exactly the purpose of the planning calls ahead of inspection, and it helps us agree the right things to focus on during inspection.

Inspectors will always want to understand your learner and apprentice population and the barriers they face. This includes the nature and impact of disadvantage and the range of needs linked to SEND, looked after children and care leavers, and those new to English or without Level 2 in English or maths. 

Importantly, taking account of context does not mean expecting less – it is not a discount applied to the toolkit standards or about lower expectations for these learners or apprentices. Rather, it is the lens that allows us to apply those standards intelligently and fairly.

To weigh your context in our assessments, it is vital we understand the starting points of learners and apprentices and the distances they’ve travelled – both in terms of progress in attainment and attendance and engagement.

Centrally collected data only tells a partial story – something we are talking to the Department for Education (DfE) about improving – so data that colleges have obtained from schools, local authorities or have collected themselves during transition and induction are all relevant and helpful for inspectors to see.

But despite this, evaluating achievement is more than just looking at the data. It also involves triangulating learners’ outcomes, how well they develop knowledge and skills, and the standard of their work – all while taking account of context.

And it is absolutely right that context changes how we calibrate our grading decisions in different provider settings. What constitutes ‘consistency’ will look different in a small, specialist provider with a handful of learners than it will in a large college with thousands of learners and a wide range of courses.

Equally, seemingly modest attainment outcomes might represent truly impressive progress from starting points and in the face of significant barriers. If so, we won’t hesitate to grade the provision ‘strong’ or even ‘exceptional’.

And yes – I am aware that we haven’t yet awarded any ‘exceptional’ grades to general FE colleges. But I know there is exceptional provision in the college sector and I have no doubt we will find and recognise it.

Getting this right is crucial. Our renewed framework needs to treat all provider types fairly, recognising their different contexts. Inspection and accountability arrangements must never create disincentives for providers to do the right thing.

By the end of the autumn term we will have completed many more college inspections. By the end of the spring term we should have much clearer answers to those two questions posed by colleges.

Let’s keep talking about how well we are understanding and taking account of context, and how we can find ways to do this even better.