Edwards, Judith Assuring Quality in Collaborative Provision

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 415 422 CE 075 652

AUTHOR Bocock, Jean; Edwards, JudithTITLE Assuring Quality in Collaborative Provision.INSTITUTION Further Education Development Agency, London (England).ISSN ISSN-1364-6869PUB DATE 1998-00-00NOTE 17p.

AVAILABLE FROM Further Education Development Agency, Publications Dept.,Mendip Centre, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RG, United Kingdom(3.50 pounds).

PUB TYPE Reports General (140)JOURNAL CIT FEDA Bulletin; v2 n2 1998EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Accountability; Case Studies; Community Involvement;

*Cooperative Programs; *Educational Assessment; *EducationalQuality; Foreign Countries; Lifelong Learning; *Partnershipsin Education; Postsecondary Education; *Quality Control;*School Business Relationship; School CommunityRelationship; Technical Institutes

IDENTIFIERS Great Britain

ABSTRACTThis bulletin is intended to help British further education

colleges clarify their rationale for entering into collaborative programs,assess prospective partners, define and implement good practice at all stagesof provision, and establish rigorous quality assurance procedures. Followingan introduction, Further Education Funding Council requirements are outlined.A section on rationale discusses these purposes: fulfilling the collegemission and helping to meet growth targets, increase revenue, and improve thefinancial viability of the college. Next, management models are described.The next section lists questions that need to be considered when selectingcollaborative partners. Steps for setting up the partnership are then listed.A section on quality assurance suggests contents of a quality manual and thenoutlines activities to ensure that quality is rigorously monitored at allstages of a program: on entry (initial guidance and assessment, enrollment,learning agreement); on- program (auditing college compliance with thecontract, monitoring students' experiences of learning); on exit; andachievement. These suggestions are made for use of the information collected:self-assessment, contract review, and further improvement of quality. Twocase studies offer insights into how colleges and their partners have managedcollaborative provision and how they and their students have benefits. One isindustry based, the other--community based. Contains 16 references. (YLB)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

I

ISSN 1364 6869 Copyright © FEDA 1998

1 . -

Assuring quality incollaborative provision

Jean Bocock and Judith Edwards

February 1998 £3.50

Contents

Introduction 1

FEFC requirements 2

Rationale 3

Management issues 4

Assessing prospective partners 5

Setting up the partnership 6

Quality assurance 7

Quality manual 7

On entry 8

On-programme 9

On exit

Achievement 12

Reviewing the provision 12

Case studies 13

Industry-based collaborative provision 13

Community-based collaborative provision 13

Conclusion 14

References and bibliography 15

AcknowledgementsPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

C."- HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

d-s

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

II

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffic of Educational Research and Improvement

E E CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

Introduction

Collaborative provision (or franchised provision, as it iscommonly known) has increased considerably in recentyears. The number of colleges making collaborativeprovision has increased from 149 in 1994-95 to 256 in1996-97. The 20 largest providers account for 58% ofprovision measured in student numbers (FEFC CouncilNews no 37, March 1997). Collaborative provision wasresponsible for 72% of the growth in student numbersfunded by the FEFC in 1995-96. This represents 8%of the total full-time equivalent numbers in that year.Despite adverse publicity surrounding a few cases, itcontinues to form a significant proportion of the workof many colleges, helping them to meet activity targets,even though unrestricted growth has ended with thedemise of demand-led element (DLE) funding.

In his evidence to the Secretary of State forEducation, set out in Learning for the twenty-firstcentury, Professor Bob Fryer has emphasised theimportance of partnerships between colleges andemployers, the voluntary and community sectors, ifthe goals of lifelong learning are to be achieved.Collaborative provision offers colleges the opportunityto widen participation through collaborative arrange-ments with partners who are better able to reach out tounder-represented groups and to establish relationshipswith employers.

This Bulletin will help colleges to:clarify their rationale for entering intocollaborative provisionassess prospective partnersdefine and implement good practice at allstages of provisionestablish rigorous quality assurance procedures.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE4

c

It will assist college managers at all levels fromsenior managers who plan overall strategy, to curricu-lum managers with responsibility for overseeing collab-orative provision. It will also help collaborativepartners understand what is expected of them and theimportance of documentation and quality monitoring.

The bulletin does not cover overseas provision orprovision in Scotland or Northern Ireland, wheredifferent funding and control systems are in operation.It covers outward not inward collaborative provi-sion. Initial ideas for this bulletin were presented at adevelopment seminar, attended by a small number ofsenior staff with varied managerial responsibilities forcollaborative provision, from a range of colleges. FEDAis grateful for their assistance in the preparation of thispublished version. Quotations and case studies in thebulletin were derived from the development seminarand interviews with colleges.

FEFC requirements

In April 1996 the FEFC in England issued Circular96/06 which provided comprehensive guidance onarrangements for off-site collaborative provision. Thiscircular sets out rigorous procedures. It also suggestscontrol criteria and a model contract. Colleges areurged to use this or seek legal advice if amendmentsare considered essential. Further supplementaryguidance has since been issued. Circulars 96/08 and97/02 explain the FEFC's audit requirements forcollaborative provision. Circular 96/32 provides`supplementary guidance on collaborative provision',answering several queries about which colleges soughtfurther clarification after the publication of 96/06.

The FEFCW has issued similar guidance for thisprovision (referred to as 'third party provision') inWales. Bulletin B96/12 and its supplement set out theFEFCW's guidance.

In his annual report for 1996-97, the FEFC's chiefinspector commented that:

. . . there are no inherent weaknesses infranchising. All types of provision can besuccessfully managed and quality controlledif there is a strong commitment to standards,the allocation of sufficient resources, androbust monitoring arrangements are in place.

He noted that the best practice includes:strategic commitment to franchised provisionclear lines of communication with collabora-tive partnersidentification of staff responsible for regular moni-toring and reporting on the quality of teachingthoroughly documented procedures for qualityassuranceteaching and learning materials customised tothe needs of the client.

The chief inspector cautioned that:

Much work remains to be done to ensurethat the quality assurance procedures are asrigorously applied to franchised provisionas to that offered on the college's premises.Colleges . . . need to pay more attention toevaluating the teaching and learning onfranchised courses and ensure that individualstudents on franchised courses receive thesupport they need.

The central message in all the FEFC's and FEFCW'sguidance is a simple one. Off-site collaborative pro-vision allows colleges to deliver their curriculum inother, more appropriate, locations. Colleges are fullyresponsible for management, delivery and qualityassurance and should maintain normal proceduresfor these, with suitable adaptations where necessary.

ssunng qua i y in co a .ora we provision

Bulletin Volume 2 Number 2

Rationale

Colleges should have clear reasons for involvement incollaborative provision. Clarity of purpose is essential ifthey are to realise the benefits of well-managed schemesfor themselves and, more importantly, their students.Purposes might include fulfilling the college mission andhelping to meet growth targets, increase revenue andimprove the college's financial viability.

Fulfilling the college missionColleges that wish to widen participation may do somore successfully in partnership with other organisa-tions that already work well with under-represented orunder-achieving groups. Ideal partners include:

community and voluntary organisationslocal education authorities and external institutionsyouth work programmesproviders of services for students with disabil-ities or learning difficulties, or programmesfor adults with mental health difficultiesemployers.

Colleges, moreover, can learn from their partners. Thisenables them to adopt practices which can move thisprovision from the margins to the mainstream a goalof both the Kennedy Committee's Widening Participa-tion and Tomlinson's Inclusive Learning reports.

Most colleges are committed to working withemployers, both public and private. Such partnershipsenable colleges to contribute to National Targets forTraining and Education (NTETs). Some industries canprovide more appropriate equipment and more cost-effective training methods than colleges are able tooffer. The collaborative partner's expertise is oftencritical to the programme's success, and can benefit thecollege in the longer term. Joint curriculum and staffdevelopment affords college staff the opportunity forprofessional updating. The assistance of experiencedcollege lecturers in curriculum development and qualitymonitoring helps employers deliver high qualitytraining, benefiting employer and employee alike.The importance of this work is likely to grow with theimplementation of the government's Welfare to Workproposals. Colleges serving a rural community mayequally benefit from geographically dispersedcollaborative partnerships.

Helping to meet growth targets, increase revenueand improve the financial viability of the college

The college, because of its isolated situationwith little competition and a finite number of16 to 18-year-olds in the area, needed to lookbeyond the catchment area and in the adultmarket if it was to achieve growth targets.Collaborative work also enables us to increaseaccess to training and education through thecommunity college network.

3

Although the imperative to increase growth targetshas ceased for many colleges since changes to DLEfunding, collaborative provision remains an attractiveoption because it is normally less expensive.

While enhancing income may be a major andlegitimate imperative for colleges, they should not seecollaborative partnerships as a quick fix. Given themany changes to funding methodology, it would beunwise to base the development of provision whollyon increasing college revenue. Partnerships requireinstitutional investment, as is evident from the qualityprocedures identified in this bulletin. There are also`hidden' costs. Partners' staff may need training tounderstand the FE culture and FEFC monitoring andinspection requirements.

Colleges must be aware of the true cost of theiractivities and undertake a full business risk analysisbefore entering into agreements. They need to considerpossible cash flow problems, and recognise that failureto meet FEFC's control criteria will result in non-payment by the FEFC. If collaborative provision bringsin only marginal revenues, it may cost the college moreto provide than any revenue it generates. Moreover, thecommitment is often implicitly ongoing, since removalof funding in subsequent years is likely to tarnishrelationships.

Colleges may wish to consider specific types orcategories of collaborative provision in relation totheir mission. They may choose to limit the proportionof such provision, and identify one-off, short-term orlonger-term partnerships. Some colleges deliberatelydistinguish between commercial and communitypartnerships, with a different rationale for each.

Commercial and community franchising inthe college are separately managed, though aclose working relationship exists. Communityfranchising offers educational provision togroups who have not traditionally accessed it,e.g. women from ethnic minority groups. Itassists community development by increasingthe skills of those involved in delivery. Com-mercial franchising involves working withemployers (public and private) and providersto increase access and lift standards of edu-cational training by implementing qualityprocedures, accrediting training to genericqualifications, and contributing to NTETs.

For collaborative provision to work, there needsto be a balance between funding issues and strategicobjectives. It must also contribute to fulfillment ofthe college's mission. Clarifying the rationale assistscolleges to set out clearly the criteria which will beused to assess prospective partners.

4

ssuring qua i y in co a iora we provision

4

Management issues

The role of the corporation board in strategic decision-making and in accepting ultimate responsibility for thequality of collaborative provision needs to be clearly setout and understood by all. Colleges need to consider care-fully the managerial requirements of off-site collabora-tive provision. They must establish clear lines of controland responsibility. There are many models for this.

Options considered by FEDA project colleges include:

a senior 'franchise manager' or specialist unitDedicated administrative/clerical support isconsidered essential, but provision is often inade-quate. This arrangement strengthens planning, co-ordination and monitoring of the college strategy.It particularly supports compliance with the college'squality assurance and control arrangements bystandardising documentation, recording and othermonitoring procedures (described later in thisBulletin).

separate management of community and commercialcollaborative provisionA close working relationship is, however, essential.

devolution of responsibility for quality monitoring to adesignated college quality assurance managerThis has the advantage of ensuring that arrange-ments for monitoring the quality of collaborativeprovision are identical to (or closely aligned with)college arrangements. There is a serious risk,however, that college curriculum teams (and evenfranchise managers) may lose any sense of owner-ship or responsibility for quality assurance.

devolution of responsibility to departmental or facultyleaders or curriculum managersThis enables curriculum managers and their teamsto work closely with off-site providers in curriculumdevelopment and aspects of delivery, such as assess-ment. This can lead to close integration of off-siteprovision into the college's work. However, withoutclear lines of management and control, it can lead toa fragmented, ad hoc approach, particularly in thearea of quality assurance.


Management at all levels needs to be planned.A senior manager, who is a member of thesenior management team, was appointed tomanage collaborative provision. The managermeets all collaborative partners in a regularmeeting either individually or in groups tomanage contracts and develop new ones. Atmiddle management level a quality managermonitors provision through a set of controlmeasures. The quality manager is also amember of the Quality Strategy Committeeand the Curriculum Review Committee toensure co-ordination. At course level variouspeople take on liaison/co-ordination roles.

Whatever management arrangements are selected,successful collaborative provision requires full inte-gration of off-site delivery into the college's systems,structures and procedures. Everyone needs to be clearwhere decision-making is located. Reports on thequality of provision need to be made at appropriatemanagerial levels including to the corporation board.A quality policy and procedures document coveringcollaborative provision will help smooth devolutionof responsibility to appropriate levels and remove therisk of potentially costly or embarrassing mistakes.

I II. I I . i.n


Assessing prospectivepartners

Care must be exercised in selecting collaborativepartners. The college's reputation and finance and thestudents' well-being are at stake. If things go wrong, itis the college's responsibility. The following questionsneed to be considered:

Does this partnership accord with the college'smission and strategic priorities?

Would the employer have funded the programmeindependently?

Is the organisation financially sound?

Has the partner costed its provision?

Will courses lead to a recognised qualification?

Do the premises in which provision will be deliveredmeet health and safety requirements?

Are the premises accessible to students withdisabilities?

Are all tutors/trainers appropriately qualified andexperienced? Curriculum vitae of all staff shouldbe supplied and include details of qualifications,assessor/verifier awards, teaching and trainingexperience, industrial experience, training inguidance and initial assessment.

Do partners understand the importance of notifyingcollege staff of any staff changes made during thedelivery of the programme?

Can any deficiencies in the skills of programmedeliverers be remedied by further training? If not,will college staff be used to supplement areas of thedelivery or assessment?

Does the collaborator have policies and procedures for:equal opportunitieshealth and safetystaff inductionstaff developmentappraisalstudent appealsinternal verificationquality assurance?

5

Do such policies and procedures meet the college'srequirements? Wherever possible collaborativepartners should be encouraged to use the college'spolicies and procedures. Care must be taken toensure that all delivery staff understand and canimplement these policies. Documentation andrecords provided by partners are a frequent causeof problems.

Is the partner's insurance adequate and renewed tocover the duration of the agreement?

Has the partner a good track record, particularly inother collaborative work with this or any othercollege?

Is the partner simultaneously recruiting studentsfrom other institutions or funders? If so, what stepsare taken to guarantee the service should fundingproblems arise with other institutions or funders?What is done to ensure that students know theyhave enrolled with the college and are entitled toaccess all the college's services?

Will marketing and publicity clearly indicate thecollege's role in the partnership?

Does the contract clarify what steps will be taken bythe college and its partner to resolve any difficulties?

Many colleges with well-managed off-site collabor-ative provision create a customer contact form andaccompanying checklist. This facilitates checking andrecording of the criteria listed above. If responsibilityfor assessing prospective partners is devolved tocurriculum managers, a senior manager should haveresponsibility for ensuring that the assessment has beenconducted according to the college's criteria.

Drawing up the contract is a rigorous proce-dure. A gap analysis is carried out betweenthe college and the organisation concerned.Quality benchmarks within the college arecompared with those of the organisation andan action plan is drawn up to fill any gaps.

Assuring quality in co a iorative provision

6

Setting up the partnership

When the college and partner have concluded that aviable programme can be offered, the following stepsare recommended:

Visit the delivery site(s) and conduct an audit toascertain that all criteria listed above have been/canbe met. If possible, arrange to talk to the deliveryteam to check that they, too, understand andrecognise the importance of meeting requirements.Complete a written report and copy to thecollaborative partner.

Negotiate remedial action if required.

Agree recording procedures, including registers andrecords of assessments, internal verification,achievement and destinations.

Clarify and agree the guided learning hours (numberand definition). This requires particular attention, asdoes the system for assessment and recording of on-the-job training.

Clarify and agree the possible use of accreditationof prior learning (APL). This poses at least as manydifficulties for collaborative partners as it does formany colleges.

Plan a timetable of regular visits by the college andmeetings between college and partner's staff. Allmeetings need to be minuted. Additional spot checksduring the programme delivery period are an essen-tial part of quality monitoring arrangements.

Arrange other visits, for example, to observe initialguidance and induction (especially for lengthy pro-grammes), or to involve college staff in trainingprovided by the partners for their staff.

Invite partners to relevant college meetings or events(such as staff meetings or open days).

Where distance prohibits frequent visits, arrangesuitable alternative mechanisms for quality monitor-ing, such as telephone surveys or arrangements withan institution closer to the provision which maycarry out visits on behalf of the college.

Set up MIS (management information) systemswhich meet the external auditors' requirementsto monitor and control collaborative work.


Validate the provision through the college's pro-cedures for validation of new courses. In somecolleges, validation takes place within the portfolioof relevant curriculum and programme areas (forinstance, Business Studies or Construction). Thispractice often leads to increased ownership byrelevant staff and greater involvement in andresponsibility for the quality of the programmedelivered off-site.

Agree the contract, spending as long as necessary togo through each clause to ensure understanding ofthe agreement.

These processes are time consuming, but will reducethe risk of subsequent misunderstanding and problems.They should, therefore, be viewed as a worthwhileinvestment of time. Moreover, they will clearly establishthe college's ownership of the programme, even whencollege procedures are considerably modified by mutualagreement.

The importance of good record keeping within thecollege cannot be overstated. Many colleges set up afile for each collaborative partnership in which theykeep copies of all documentation including, forexample, contracts, staff CVs, programme details,minutes of meetings, records of monitoring visits, allreturns made by the partner, and records of payments.These files provide the starting point for the college'sinternal quality auditing procedures and for FEFCinspection of collaborative provision.

Assuring quality in co a orative provision


Quality assurance

The college is responsible for ensuring that appropriatequality assurance arrangements are in place. They mustagree these with collaborative partners and identifyresponsibilities within the college. Whatever arrange-ments are agreed, it is recommended that a namedmanager should be specified for each collaborativepartnership with clearly established responsibilities,including quality monitoring. Each collaborativepartner should also have a named individual respon-sible for overseeing the provision. This not only ensuresproblems are dealt with promptly, but also helps tounderpin longer-term collaboration where appropriate.

There are many models for quality management.These usually reflect agreed management structuresfor such provision. There is a growing consensus thatmonitoring and audit should be closely integrated intothe college's systems and within the particular pro-gramme and curriculum area. For example, if class-room observation is planned for the college construc-tion courses, a sample of collaborative provision inconstruction will be included in both the observationand ensuing report.

It may be useful for quality assessment reports ofcollaborative provision to be identified separatelywithin a programme or curriculum area report. Thisaids aggregation and benchmarking. It also assists thedevelopment and dissemination of good practice.

Quality manual

Some colleges issue a quality manual to all collabora-tive partners. It may include:

the college quality policyvalidation requirementsprocedures for advice and guidance, enrol-ment, induction, delivery of the programmeand recording of achievementsamples of documentation that the collegerequires the partner to complete (enrolmentforms, learning agreements, withdrawalforms)summary of returns: pre-course; one weekafter enrolment; weekly returns for specialcircumstances such as premature withdrawal;cancelled sessions; complaints; end of pro-gramme (completed register, APL documents)and awarding body listings of achievements,as soon as these are availablecollege policies which must be followed, suchas health and safetyprogramme of required monitoring and auditactivities which may be conducted by collegestaff or collaborative partners and accom-panying documentation. A 'course log' canbe particularly helpful. An example in theCollege Business Managers' Association'sFranchising: Good Practice Pack (1996) isuseful.

The quality manual's contents may need to be adaptedin the light of institutional quality assurance and moni-toring procedures and the nature of the collaborativeprovision. Much of the documentation will, however,be required to establish a clear audit trail for collegeand FEFC auditors.

To ensure consistency and control the collegeproduces a 'Quality Assurance and Collab-orative Provision Manual'. The centre whichmanages the collaborative provision has beenaccredited with IS09002. The manual out-lines procedures and practices which bothmeet the ISO standards and are consistentwith the college quality assurance policy. Allcollaborators receive a copy and training inhow it works. Designating the monitoring ofcollaborative provision to a single qualitymanager with administrative support is thekey here.

Some colleges issue induction packs to all deliverystaff in off-site provision. The packs summarise theirobligations in a simplified form, and direct them to thequality manual for further detail.

rovision

8

On entry

Initial guidance and assessmentCollege staff should either undertake initial guidanceand assessment themselves or satisfy themselves thatpartners have the knowledge and skills to meet collegerequirements. Training of partners' staff may be neces-sary. The college may seek greater involvement in theseprocesses if, for example, it wishes to enhance its ownunderstanding of the needs of under-representedgroups.

In the long term, this may result in increasedenrolment of individuals from such groups intomainstream college courses. Active involvement in theguidance offered to the employees of industrial partnersmay enhance their progression into the college.

Initial assessment should be carried out in accor-dance with normal college procedures to identify anyadditional learning support needs. Arrangements foridentifying the need for and provision of learningsupport are often inadequate in collaborative provision.

Adaptations to the college's normal procedures maybe advisable. However, this needs to be limited toensure that prospective students have the sameentitlement to impartial guidance and suitableassessment as all other college students.

Guidance should normally include information on:primary learning objective/qualification aimsubsequent progression routes (illustrated ifpossible by information about previousstudents' destinations)entry requirementsexemptions from parts of a programme byvirtue of qualifications already heldarrangements for the accreditation of priorlearningfees and other costs (materials, equipment, etc)Students need to be aware of total maximumcosts before enrolment, as unexpectedexpenses sometimes cause them to leave.financial support available, and equipmentand materials providedcourse content and delivery methods,including: induction arrangements, workplacements, tutorial provision and so forthassessment arrangements (includingassessment methods, frequency and appealsprocedures) and recording of progressavailability of further educational, career andpersonal guidance or support.

Although this list is lengthy, the processes do notnecessarily require much time. A good checklist canspeed up the process. Students with complex require-ments may be referred to a college's central admissionsservice. Guidance can be given or supplemented invarious ways, such as course literature, by telephoneor in group sessions.


EnrolmentMost students will enrol off-site, and the procedureswill be carried out by collaborative partners. Selectionand rejection are at the discretion of the college withrights of appeal as set out in the college charter. Thecollege needs to take precautions to check that collegeenrolment forms are used. Students should be awarethat they are on a college course (which is deliveredoff-site), and that they are entitled to all the servicesand facilities of the college and must fulfil theirresponsibilities as students of the college.

The simplest way to do this is to:

Supply college handbooks including charter andcomplaints procedures.

Brief the staff who will carry out the enrolment.Although the collaborative project manager under-stands the college's systems and documents, theteachers, trainers or administrative staff involvedin enrolment may be ignorant of them.

Observe and monitor the enrolment process. Thiscould be part of the college's internal audit ofguidance, enrolment and induction an elementof a college's self-assessment process.

Send a welcome letter to all students on off-siteprogrammes when their enrolment forms have beenprocessed, reinforcing the message that they haveenrolled with the college.

College managers run training sessions ininitial guidance and assessment procedureswith all collaborators. They also join someenrolment sessions to offer support andensure compliance. The contract outlinesthe procedures to be followed on entry andspecifies the absolute right of the college tocontrol the admission of students. Enrolmentforms include a declaration signed by staffand students that initial guidance andassessment has taken place.

Assuring quality in collaborative provision


An important part of the audit process at enrolmentis checking that students exist. Fraudulent claims,though rare, must be guarded against. Checks mayinclude:

telephone samplingchecking a sample of names against theelectoral registerchecking registersspot-check visits.

If partners are told in advance that such checks areapplied from time to time, this will often be enough todeter fraud.

Learning agreementThe learning agreement must satisfy FEFC require-ments. Colleges need to guide collaborative partnerson the adequacy of guided learning hours. They mustestablish systems which monitor the agreed hours andmethods of delivery and ensure they are adhered to.Guided learning hours must be recorded and audited.Difficulties usually arise when the collaborative part-ners' delivery staff are not adequately briefed or trainedin how to fulfil the requirements of the learning agree-ment. It is well worth the effort to prevent problems,for instance by issuing a simple guidance note orarranging a briefing session.

1 0

9

On-programme

The learning programme and its mode of deliverymay be developed entirely by the college, jointly bythe college and its partner, or predominantly by thepartner. This relationship may change as partners getto know each other. The extent of their collaborationwill affect how the college deals with aspects of qualityassurance and control. At first, the college's concernwill necessarily centre predominantly on whether thepartner can deliver the specified outcomes to agreedstandards.

In the case of joint developments, greater scrutinyis needed to validate both the learning programme andthe proposed means of delivery. Close links betweenprogramme deliverers in the college and those of thecollaborative partners increase the opportunity formutual learning.

Once the programme has begun, the college needsto implement rigorous quality assurance mechanismsto satisfy itself that:

the quality of the experience for the students,and the standard of achievement required foran award, should match that of the parentinstitution.

This excerpt from paragraph 10.74 of Dearing'sreport into Higher Education in the Learning Society(July 1997) demonstrates the universality of thisrequirement for collaborative provision.

Suggestions below will assist colleges to collect andmonitor returns, monitor the quality of delivery andjudge students' (and other stakeholders') satisfactionwith the provision.

Activities to monitor qualityThere are many ways in which to monitor quality:

auditing delivery of contractual agreementsmonitoring the quality of the students'learning experienceconducting regular reviews.

Any of these can be incorporated into the college's self-assessment procedures and its annual self-assessmentreport, accompanied by supporting evidence.

While college procedures need to be followedclosely, adaptations are sometimes required, particularlywhen off-site provision takes place a considerabledistance from the college. In such cases it is imperativethat the collaborative partner establishes rigorousquality assurance procedures and that the collegeapproves them. These procedures must be verified byoccasional visits and supplemented by practices suchas telephone surveys to gauge student satisfaction.

10

The FEFC Circular Validating Self Assessment(97/12) provides a useful model. Partners can be askedto produce an annual self-assessment report. Collegeaudit/inspection teams can visit, check evidence andobserve teaching and learning. They can interviewstudents, staff and any other stakeholders. Most partnerswill require staff training in preparing a self-assessmentreport, with clear guidance about how to gather andpresent appropriate evidence. Staff from partnerorganisations could be invited to attend trainingsessions in the college to economise on time.

As both college and collaborative partners will carryout a range of monitoring activities, it is important tospecify in the Quality Manual precisely what isexpected of the partners, when they should do it, andhow these procedures link into the college's activities.Reporting requirements (format, content, circulation,and so forth) should also be specified.

Auditing college compliance with the contractAs well as checking that all required forms are com-pleted and returns submitted by due dates, from timeto time colleges need to audit their own procedures. Isdata entered, collated and reported according to anagreed timetable? Are payments made to partners bydue dates?

Monitoring students' experience of learningVisits provide the best opportunity to check documentsand talk to students and staff. If visits are carefullyplanned and recorded they do not need to be frequentas long as each visit is comprehensive. Visits by collegestaff from the same programme or curriculum areaoffer the opportunity to share ideas and expertise(a two-way process) and consider possible curriculumdevelopments. The chief inspector noted in his annualreport that:

the monitoring visits that colleges maketo franchise partners as yet rarely includeclassroom observation by subject specialists.

If the prime purpose of monitoring checkingstudents' progress is to be accomplished, colleges needto set targets for frequency of visits and specify whatshould be covered during the visits.

During visits colleges may:

Observe the processes for enrolment and induction,and check that:

forms are correctly completedstudents have received impartial guidanceand advicestudents have been assessed for theirsuitability for the programme and anyadditional support requirementsstudents have received an induction packwhich includes the college charter andcomplaints procedures.


Colleges should also check whether students knowto whom they should complain within the collab-orative partnership and whom to approach in thecollege if they are not happy with the outcome.Delivery staff must know the procedure for dealingwith and recording the outcomes of any complaint.

Check that the tutor or trainer delivering each aspectof the programme has been approved by the collegeand has the necessary qualifications both to delivertraining and to assess achievement. Care must betaken to note whether any staff changes have beenmade since the initial agreement of the partnership,that these have been notified to the college, and thatreplacement staff are suitably qualified.

Observe teaching and learning. This is an essentialpart of quality monitoring. While it should conformto the college's agreed observation procedures(including checking schemes of work and otherevidence of planning), additional attention needsto be paid to issues such as quality of equipmentand materials and observation of health and safetyprocedures.

Monitor students' progress and achievement bychecking records of achievement, the quality ofwork in portfolios, and the quality of the feedbackstudents receive. It can be useful to observe feedbackand action planning during tutorials.

Monitor student attendance, reasons for absence orwithdrawal and actions taken to resolve problems.

Follow up any issues identified in external verifierreports. Has the college made arrangements toreceive these directly from external verifiers orwithin agreed timescales if they are sent directlyto the partner?

11



Monitor, where applicable, internal verification pro-cedures, reports and follow-up of identified issues.

Observe or conduct student review meetings to ex-plore students' satisfaction; and check that actionhas been taken following earlier student reviewmeetings.

Meet student representatives. (Student representativesystems are, however, surprisingly rare in collabora-tive provision.)

Meet staff, perhaps by attending a staff meeting, andcheck minutes of staff meetings (including followingup any agreed actions).

Check the complaints recording procedures. Followup a few items to ensure a satisfactory outcome hasbeen achieved.

Check the arrangements for giving advice onprogression opportunities (and ascertain students'satisfaction with this).

As well as following a pre-planned programme ofvisits, spot checks are an indispensable element ofquality assurance. Other mechanisms are valuable, too:questionnaires to ascertain satisfaction and receivesuggestions for development from students, staff andother stakeholders (such as employers offering workplacements); and telephone surveys of any of the above.

11

On exit

Colleges should ensure that students are made awareof progression opportunities and the availability ofcareers guidance and counselling. Realistically, theextent and importance of this will vary according tothe programme. Nonetheless, it is important that thisis not ignored in work-based programmes.

Two contrasting experiences:

The greatest benefit of the collaborative agree-ment (using the Community Education Service)is that local residents have guaranteed pro-gression into the college system in premisesthat are easily accessible.

Progression is not always possible. Anorganisation might want all employees toundertake an NVQ2 but have limited require-ments at NVQ3. Nonetheless our end ofcourse follow-up form asks students whetherthey have considered further training with theiremployer, with us or with another local college.

I I . ..o onsion

12

Achievement

Prompt collection of achievement statistics is vital.To achieve it, colleges need to specify in their contractor quality manual how and by when this informationwill be delivered. Some programmes for example,some adult basic education programmes with com-munity partners as yet have no accredited outcomes.Here the college is often the awarding body. Elsewherecolleges are helping to develop accreditation withinexisting collaborative arrangements, for instance viaNVQ. In such cases the college is usually the accredited/approved centre. This may also involve offeringfurther training for staff; for example, where linemanagers are to become assessors. Some programmesare run in conjunction with national organisationswhich validate specialist vocational qualifications.Most lead to accredited outcomes but a variety ofroutes to achieve this is reflected in collaborativearrangements.

Our initial meetings and the monitoringprocess all emphasise the importance ofachievement. On the whole, franchisedprovision has a lower drop-out rate thancollege-based provision.

/3


Reviewing the provision

The activities outlined in the preceding sections willensure that quality is rigorously monitored at allstages of a programme. To what use should all thisinformation be put?

Self-assessment

If the procedures used to monitor quality are similarto those of the parent institution, it will be easy to feedthe information into annual self-assessment reports.(Usually such data can be included as part of a curricu-lum or programme area self-assessment report.) Somecolleges ask each collaborative partner to produce aself-assessment report by a suitable date (often aroundApril or May).

The FEFC's new inspection framework, ValidatingSelf-Assessment (Circular 97/12), and the FEFCW'sBulletin Future Arrangements for Quality Assessment inWales (B97/09) provide appropriate models which canbe followed by colleges and their partners. In thesemodels, collaborative partners carry out their ownquality monitoring and self-assessment, and collegesadopt a similar role to that of the FEFC and FEFCW inverifying the accuracy of their partners' self-assessment.

Contract review

Some colleges review the contract every three months,involving the provider and students in the review.Others carry out an annual review of all collaborativecontracts, in which issues such as cost-effectiveness aretaken into account. Few, however, carry out a detailedannual review in which all issues are taken intoaccount. The college should review the achievementsof its collaborative provision against its strategic planand rationale. Action planning for the next academicyear will complete the cycle.

Further improvement of quality

The goal of all quality assurance procedures mustbe continuous improvement of quality. The FEFC'sand FEFCW's inspection frameworks place self-assessment centre stage for sector colleges. Collegeswill be judged not only on the accuracy of their self-assessment, but also on the extent to which theirprocesses lead to improvement of their students'learning experiences. Quality assurance proceduresmust, therefore, be an integral part of strategic andoperational planning. This applies equally to college-based and to collaborative provision.


Bulletin Volume z Number 2

Case studies

The following two case studies offer insights into howcolleges and their partners have managed collaborativeprovision, and how they and their students have benefited.

Industry-based collaborative provision

The college became involved in an industrial trainingprogramme which, at the outset, seemed to have limitedscope for college involvement. A company was seekingaccess to training materials on food hygiene to be usedin its induction training programme for meat packers.An initial meeting with the training officer revealed thatshe had both a background in training and develop-ment and a thorough knowledge of the food hygieneregulations. It was suggested that she might train onbehalf of the college and deliver the CIEH Basic FoodHygiene Certificate. Employees would benefit by beingtrained to a national standard and receiving a transfer-able qualification. This was done under a collaborativeagreement and generated income into the company'straining budget. A risk analysis was carried out, andthe employees working in the cooked meats divisionwere put through an Intermediate Food HygieneCourse run at the college.

The meat training council has recently developed anNVQ dealing with the handling and packaging ofmeats. The training officer wanted to run this NVQ inboth factory sites. The college trained six line managersat each site in Vocational Assessor Awards (D32/33)and the training officer to Internal Verifier (D34). Thecollege then developed the learning materials to fulfilthe underpinning knowledge requirements of thequalification. The company is providing the skillstraining element, and 25 students on each site are nowon programme. The college will be involved throughoutwith student support and portfolio development.

Benefits to the companyraises workforce skillsimproves levels and standards of trainingimproves workers' self-image and performancesupports company business aims.

Benefits to the employeeindividual needs assessed and independentadvice made availableaccess to transferable vocational qualificationsrather than company-specific training.

Benefits to the collegehelps meet FEFC targets and fulfil missionincreases incomepositions the college in the community andincreases customer base.

13

Community -based collaborativeprovision

An established charitable project provided adult basiceducation through IT for students with disabilities orlearning difficulties. Delivery took place in a numberof daycare centres. Loss of its European funding threat-ened the future of the project. An approach was madeto the college, whose aims enable it to support trainingwhich meets the following criteria:

training which otherwise would not be availabletraining which corresponds to existing collegestrengthstraining which is within reasonable travellingdistance.

The charity submitted detailed proposals to a standardformat which itemised resources, audited accounts,programme details and proposed delivery. The collegeset up a validation panel to approve programmes andlecturers. This resulted in a three-year franchisingcontract, with an emphasis on partnership to providefinancial stability.

The new programme uses existing open collegenetwork units and new customised units to meet thespecific needs of students. Every effort has been madeto foster curriculum links between the college and theproject. Staff development sessions have taken placelocally and at the college. Standard college proceduresand policies on student guidance and support, enrol-ment, the student charter and handbook, registrationand data collection are used. Students can access allcollege facilities.

The college has a clear management structure forcollaborative provision. A single senior manager hasoverall strategic responsibility for off-site collaborativeprovision. This manager liaises with the project mana-ger and reports on this and other projects to the seniormanagement team at least once per term.

A nominated quality assurance manager oversees theapplication of the college quality assurance mechanismsfor each project. This involves overseeing course moni-toring and evaluation plans, classroom observations,quality file audits and other procedures at all thedelivery centres. The course team reports from eachcentre, and the college academic board receives theannual quality review reports in the same way as thosefrom internal college course teams.

14

r.-7jr;"'10ikk,Mt"'W'r-!T(!t14,0,1±roilw,o...1,

14

The co-ordinator for franchised provision carries outspot-check visits to centres to verify attendance andcompliance with health and safety provisions, and tocheck the student experience. The college is theapproved centre for awarding bodies. There is a unifiedapproach to external verification. The college engagesinternal verifiers, and its examinations officer co-ordinates student assessment/achievement recordsacross the project.

The charitable project now enjoys greater financialsecurity. College and project staff have benefited frommutual development sessions and students continue toreceive a high quality service.


Conclusion

Collaborative provision has much to offer in the yearsto come. If the goals of lifelong learning expressed inLearning for the twenty-first century (the report of theNational Advisory Group for Continuing Educationand Lifelong Learning) are to be achieved, the volun-tary and community sectors will play an increasing rolein providing high-quality learning opportunities. Muchof this work will be collaborative provision. In the samereport, there is a call for expansion of learning in theworkplace, particularly for low-skilled, unqualifiedemployees. Learning in the 21st century will involvemore partnerships and more learning outsideinstitutions.

To ensure the quality of that learning, the lessons ofthe FEFC Chief Inspector's annual report 1996-97 mustbe heeded. Rigorous quality assurance procedureswhich focus on students' learning experiences mustproduce reliable information for use by collegemanagers and governors. Governors will need toappreciate the significant role played by collaborativeprovision and take appropriate steps to monitor it. Thesector can then have confidence in the quality ofstudents' learning experiences, wherever they maylearn.



References andbibliography

College Business Managers' Association (1996)Franchising: Good Practice Pack. CBMA(The pack contains checklists, samples of documenta-tion particularly useful in quality control and completedmodel contract.)

Fryer, Professor RH (1997) Learning for the twenty-firstcentury. First report of the National Advisory Group forContinuing Education and Lifelong Learning. DfEE

Further Education Funding Council (1996) Audit of1995-96 funding unit claims and of the individualisedstudent record data. FEFC Circular 96/08

Further Education Funding Council (1996) Franchising.

FEFC Circular 96/06(This circular gives initial guidance on franchisedactivity and outlines the controls which must be inplace by the end of the 1996-97 academic year.)

Further Education Funding Council (1996) Supple-mentary guidance on collaborative provision. FEFCCircular 96/32

Further Education Funding Council (1997) Additionalinformation for institutions and external auditors for theaudit of 1995/96 funding unit claims and of the 1995/96institutional student record data. FEFC Circular 97/02

Further Education Funding Council (1997) Council News

no 37, March 1997

Further Education Funding Council (1997) How to applyfor funding 1997/98. FEFC(This gives, inter alia, specific guidance on funding forcollaborative provision. Circulars 96/08 and 97/02explain the details of the FEFC audit requirementsincluding that for collaborative provision.)

Further Education Funding Council (1997) Quality andstandards in further education in England 1996/97. FEFCChief Inspector's Annual Report

Further Education Funding Council (1997)Self-assessment and inspection. FEFC Circular 97/13

Further Education Funding Council (1997) Validatingself-assessment. FEFC Circular 97/12

Further Education Funding Council for Wales (1996)FE provision made by colleges with third party involvement('franchising'). FEFCW Bulletin B96/12

15

Further Education Funding Council for Wales (1996)FE provision made by colleges with third party involve-ment: framework for contracts between colleges and thirdparties. FEFCW Supplement to B96/12

Further Education Funding Council for Wales (1997)Future arrangements for quality assessment in the FEsector in Wales. FEFCW B97/09

Kennedy, H (1997) Learning works: wideningparticipation in further education. FEFC

Tomlinson, J (1996) Inclusive learning. Stationery Office

MEMAssuring quality in collaborative provision

Acknowledgements

FEDA would like to thank the representatives of thefollowing colleges who participated in a developmentseminar: Bishop Burton College, Dudley College ofTechnology, Newham College of FE, North DevonCollege, St Austell College and Tile Hill College of FE.Managers of Herefordshire College of Technology andSouthport College of FE offered helpful documents andideas, for which we are grateful.

Jean Bocock conducted the research and producedthe report upon which this publication is based. Herrole in this publication is gratefully acknowledged.

Editor Sara Clay Designer Dave Shaw Printers Blackmore Ltd, Shaftesbury, Dorset

Published by the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA), Dumbarton House, 68 Oxford Street, London W1N ODA

Tel: [0171] 436 0020 Fax: [01711 436 0349

Feedback and orders should be directed to FEDA Publications Department, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol Gs 4o7RG

Tel: 1017611 462 503 Fax: [01761] 463 104

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

Documents

Edwards, Judith Assuring Quality in Collaborative Provision