Basqi brochure artv2

15

BSQI 2000-2003: End of project report

14

BSQI 2000-2003: End of project report

3

2

Stage 1: Initial review – establishing the big picture

Participants were asked to bring their most recent self-assessment report and notes

on the areas they had identified with colleagues as being the priority for

development. At all times during the events they were asked to look at not only

discrete provision of literacy, numeracy and, in the later stages of the project, ESOL,

but also at all the situations where literacy and numeracy teaching occurred,

including where it was part of the provision in other curriculum areas. This review

of ‘the big picture’ frequently raised questions that providers had not previously

considered. The most common of these related to looking at the management and

quality of their provision across the whole organisation. 

Stage 2: Analysing the outcomes of review

Strong emphasis was placed on analysing the outcomes of review as an important

stage in the planning process. If it was not completed well it was unlikely that the

action plan would be effective in raising quality. Providers were asked to look

critically at the picture they now had of their numeracy, literacy and ESOL provision

and to identify and prioritise areas for improvement. There was a tendency for

participants to state weaknesses in general terms, such as ‘poor initial assessment’.

They were encouraged to look closely at their weaknesses so that they were then

able to identify precisely what it was they were trying to achieve and what targets

for improvement should be set. The analysis of the outcomes of review frequently

raised questions about how to ensure consistency of quality across an organisation,

the links between different sections of the organisation such as key skills, basic skills

and learning support, and links with the teaching of literacy and numeracy in all

curriculum areas. How well providers were able to complete stages one and two of

the six stage process depended on the composition of their team. Teams which had

representation of senior and middle management level stated in their evaluation 

how useful this had been. 

Stage 3: Target setting (linked to stage 4)

A strong message of the events was the importance of writing SMART targets which

had as a measurable outcome improvement in provision for the learner. Providers

had great difficulty with this. A common tendency was to write actions as targets.

Several participants saw writing a policy as a target in itself. Tutors worked with the

organisational teams to help them to identify what they were trying to achieve for

the learner instead of writing a series of actions which they would be able to tick off

as having taken place but would not be able to state what impact this would have

had on the learner’s experience. An additional stage in the process was introduced 

to help participants to be clear about what they were trying to achieve. After

identifying a weakness participants were asked to state the aim of anything they

proposed to do in terms of the experience of the learner. This encouraged discussion

of why any action was proposed and what measurable outcome was hoped for

before a SMART target was set. 

1

Group work

Another feature of the training model was the use of two different groupings of

participants. The first was ‘home groups’, consisting of 10 to 12 participants, in which

teams of staff from an organisation were placed with teams from other similar

organisations. Sixth form colleges, FE colleges, ACL providers and WBL providers

were as far as possible grouped to reflect their own settings and contexts. At many

events, it was possible to maximise networking opportunities by arranging for

regional or sub-regional groupings. 

The model was based on the need for participants to move into different types of

groups during the residential events. In the earlier events, the home groups were

supplemented by ‘focus’ groups, in which participants worked on a common priority

for development. In the later events, these focus groups became local LSC area

groups, mixing together different types of providers funded by the same LSC. 

This allowed discussion of local issues and of progress towards targets in local

delivery plans. 

Action planning

In the residential events providers were led through a structured review process,

leading to the writing or revision of their BSQI action plan. The stages of this process

were set out as the ‘six stage process for quality improvement’. The six stages were:

1.

Initial review

2.

Analysing the outcomes of review

3.

Target-setting

4.

Action planning 

5.

Reviewing progress

6.

Evaluation

Each of the stages was presented in a plenary session and was then worked on in

home groups. The format of the event allowed time to be given to ensuring that

participants understood all the stages, and that in particular the four stages leading

up to writing the action plan were worked through in detail. Action planning was a

key element of the training model. Many participants reported that it was the first

time that they had been helped to write an action plan. They welcomed the

opportunity to work on a document that they could take away from the event and

start to use straight away in their organisations. 

Throughout all of the events, the mixture of short presentations followed by longer

group sessions to explore issues and strategies in detail was welcomed by providers.

---