The key objectives of the strategy to improve quality in further and adult education were set out in Improving quality: raising standards. Further education and work-based learning (2015/16). These are to:

• develop and embed a culture of self-improvement that will ensure all providers of further education and work-based learning are responsive fully to the needs of learners;
• ensure that employers and the wider community commit to, and achieve, continuous self-improvement and excellence;
• develop strong and innovative leadership and management at all levels of the further education and work-based learning system.

The quality assurance system which has developed is risk-based and gives increasing importance to self-assessment, combined with proportionate external inspection and support arrangements.

Responsible bodies

Northern Ireland’s six further education colleges are executive non-departmental public bodies. Each has a governing body, appointed by and accountable to the Minister for the Economy for the college’s performance. The Minister is, in turn, accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Department for the Economy (DfE) advises the Minister on an appropriate framework of objectives for each college, and on how well the college is achieving its objectives and whether it is delivering value for money.

The responsibilities for further education colleges form part of the Minister’s and DfE’s wider remit for policy, strategic development and financing of further education and employment and skills programmes, including apprenticeships.

In addition, there are a number of private training providers in Northern Ireland who deliver government-funded programmes, such as Training for Success and ApprenticeshipsNI.

The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), part of the Department of Education (DE), provides inspection services for further education and work-based learning, including apprenticeships up to and including Level 3. These inspection services are provided under contract to the Department for the Economy (DfE).

Approaches and methods for quality assurance

Self-assessment

For Northern Ireland’s six further education colleges, the Management Statement and Financial Memorandum sets out the framework for ensuring that the funds provided by the Department for the Economy (DfE) are used effectively and efficiently, and only for the purpose for which they have been allocated.

The responsibility for ensuring that an individual college complies with the Management Statement and Financial Memorandum rests with the governing body of the college.

The principles by which the governing body undertakes its responsibilities are set out in the 2016 Further Education Code of Governance. The Code states that the governing body must agree policies and strategies within the Government’s priorities, and ensure that it has objective and effective means of monitoring progress towards their achievement. According to the Guide for Governors of Further Education Colleges (2017), this involves ‘ongoing analysis and, where appropriate, critical assessment of individual and collective performance’ (page 13).

Colleges are also guided in their self-assessment by the Inspection and Self-Evaluation Framework (ISEF) and the associated phase-specific guidance, Effective Practice and Self-Evaluation Questions for Further Education, Work-based Learning and European Social Fund.

External monitoring

In addition to colleges’ own performance monitoring, the Department for the Economy (DfE) has in place a number of measures to monitor the performance of colleges and work-based learning providers.

For each further education college, the DfE issues a regular ‘health check’ report. This provides the college with information on its financial, academic and efficiency performance. The report uses information from the college and other external sources to provide an objective summary of the college’s performance. The provision of benchmarking information is intended to allow the governing body to make cross-sector comparisons about the performance of the college and inform decisions about its future strategic direction.

Each further education college is required to submit an annual College Development Plan (CDP) to the DfE. This includes information on the number of students attending the college and on the courses provided, and reports on the college’s financial performance. CDPs are intended to enable college governing bodies to make informed strategic decisions and manage their resources in accordance with their strategic priorities. They also provide the DfE with information on each college’s strategic objectives and targets and provide a key mechanism for the implementation of DfE policies.

The DfE also requires all colleges and training providers to submit annual documentation which includes:

• a statement of assurance that the organisation has appropriate arrangements in place to sustain improvement in the quality of its provision;
• a whole-organisation quality improvement plan, informed effectively by self- evaluation, that prioritises appropriate actions to address the identified key areas for improvement;
• a review of the organisation’s previously submitted quality improvement plan including evidence of the impact of the actions taken to improve/sustain quality and outcomes.

All documentation is shared with the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), which scrutinises it to inform a written judgement from DfE. The possible outcomes from the scrutiny process are as follows.

1. There is sufficient evidence that the organisation is planning effectively to sustain improvement. As a result, it may be included in the year’s sample of quality improvement inspections undertaken by the ETI on the DfE’s behalf.
2. There is insufficient evidence that the organisation is planning effectively to sustain improvement. As a result, it is requested to submit additional information within four weeks for further scrutiny. Outcome (a) or (c) will then apply.
3. There is still insufficient evidence that the organisation is planning effectively to sustain improvement. As a result, it will be included in the year’s sample of quality improvement inspections, or will undergo a full inspection (see ‘External inspection’ below). A further full resubmission of the quality improvement plan will be required.
4. The organisation is undergoing a follow-up inspection or has been scheduled for a full inspection. Its annual submission will be scrutinised as part of the evaluation of the organisation’s capacity to sustain improvement during the inspection process. Outcome (a) or (b) will then apply.

Further information is available in Arrangements for evaluating the effectiveness of quality improvement planning in Further Education, Work-based Learning and European Social Fund Projects (ETI, 2018).

External inspection

External inspection of adult and further education and work-based learning is carried out by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) on behalf of the Department for the Economy (DfE). The programme of external inspection is determined by the DfE, which uses the process of risk assessment described under the subheading ‘External monitoring’ above to inform its decisions. An external inspection may cover the whole organisation across the broad spectrum of its activities, or it may cover one aspect of provision.

Education and Training (ETI) inspectors

The number and type of inspectors on an ETI inspection team varies depending on the nature of the inspection activity and the size of the organisation being inspected. Teams usually include the following roles.

1. The district inspector (DI) has responsibility for a group of organisations within a geographical area. The DI is normally a member of the team of any scheduled inspection for these organisations, although he/she is not normally the Reporting Inspector. Outside of the scheduled inspection programme, the DI visits the organisations in his/her area as often as possible, providing challenge and contributing to capacity building to enable the organisation to effect improvement.
2. The reporting inspector (RI) manages the inspection team undertaking a particular inspection. The RI is often supported by a deputy reporting inspector (DRI).
3. The associate assessor (AA) is a current practitioner holding a position of responsibility within an educational organisation. He/she has expertise and experience in a particular educational area and is appointed by public advertisement and interview. AAs are released by their organisation to join an inspection team, typically three times per year, and receive training in order to support the inspection process.
4. The inspection associate (IA) is a recognised effective practitioner who supports the work of inspection. He/she is seconded from their organisation to work with the ETI for a specific period of time. A professional associate (PA) is a practitioner in a specialist area of industry or business, who joins an inspection team and provides insights on the current needs of employers and on the relevance of the education and training practice offered by the provider being inspected.

Further information on the roles and responsibilities of inspectors is available on the ETI website.

Framework for inspection

The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) introduced a new inspection framework in January 2017. The Inspection and Self-Evaluation Framework (ISEF) is common to all phases of education and training inspected by the ETI. It provides a holistic overview of the key aspects of the system at all stages from the early years through to further education and work-based learning.

The ISEF is supported by phase-specific guidance - Effective Practice and Self-Evaluation Questions for Further Education, Work-based Learning and European Social Fund.

The ISEF covers three key areas:

• outcomes for learners
• quality of provision
• leadership and management.

Each area contains three aspects and is judged against the following scale:

• outstanding
• very good
• good
• important areas for improvement
• requires significant improvement
• requires urgent improvement.

Inspections also evaluate:

• care and welfare;
• arrangements for safeguarding learners.

Judgements are combined to provide a judgement on overall effectiveness, expressed on the following scale:

1. the organisation has a high level of capacity for sustained improvement, in the interest of all the learners;
2. the organisation demonstrates the capacity to identify and bring about improvement, in the interest of all the learners;
3. the organisation needs to address (an) important area(s) for improvement, in the interest of all the learners;
4. the organisation needs to address urgently the significant areas for improvement identified, in the interest of all the learners.

The 2017 framework updates and replaces the previous (2015) framework for the inspection and quality assurance of further education and work-based learning, Improving Quality: Raising Standards. It also complements the 2007 strategy for quality improvement, Success through Excellence, which aimed to embed rigorous self-evaluation and improvement planning within the further education and training system.

Inspection outcomes

At the end of an inspection, the Reporting Inspector (RI) and members of the inspection team provide detailed but provisional oral feedback to the organisation’s senior management and, in the case of further education colleges, representative(s) from the governing body. They also provide the organisation with a short written summary of the main findings. Following this, the organisation is expected to begin work on any identified area(s) for improvement.

The inspection report, along with the overall effectiveness outcome for the provider, is then published on the ETI website.

The required response and associated follow-up activity to the overall effectiveness outcome vary as follows.

1. If the organisation is found to have a high level of capacity for sustained improvement in the interest of all learners, the ETI will monitor how it sustains improvement.
2. If the organisation demonstrates the capacity to identify and bring about improvement in the interest of all learners, the ETI will again monitor how the it sustains improvement. In cases where important areas for improvement have been identified, the provider is required to submit an improvement plan, and will subsequently undergo a and follow-up inspection within 12-18 months of the initial inspection.
3. If the overall effectiveness outcome is that the organisation need to address (an) important area(s) for improvement in the interest of all learners, the ETI will monitor and report on its progress in addressing the areas for improvement. The provider is required to submit an improvement plan and a formal follow-up inspection will be carried out within 12-18 months of the initial inspection.
4. If the inspection outcome is that the organisation needs to urgently address the significant areas for improvement identified, in the interest of all learners, the ETI will monitor and report on its progress in addressing the areas for improvement. The provider is required to submit an improvement plan and a formal follow-up inspection will be carried out within 12 months of the initial inspection.

In addition, if unsatisfactory arrangements for safeguarding are identified, the ETI will return within six working weeks to monitor the provider’s progress in addressing the issues.

Full details of the post-inspection process are available in What Happens After an Inspection? Further Education, Work-based Learning and European Social Fund Programmes.

Article last reviewed April 2021.