1 / 26

Peer evaluation in further education colleges : shaping the quality agenda from within….

Peer evaluation in further education colleges : shaping the quality agenda from within…. Steve Cropper, Senior Librarian, Wirral Metropolitan College. What this session is about:. I am not here to sell you anything!

becky
Download Presentation

Peer evaluation in further education colleges : shaping the quality agenda from within….

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Peer evaluation in further education colleges : shaping the quality agenda from within…. Steve Cropper, Senior Librarian, Wirral Metropolitan College

  2. What this session is about: • I am not here to sell you anything! • This is about an initiative which started in a very small way and has now grown beyond our expectations • I want to show you how it works at a practical level • The learning objective is that you go away from here sufficiently interested in peer evaluation to want to try it for yourselves

  3. The Circle of Merseyside College Librarians: • Founded 27 years ago • Members from 6 major FE providers on Merseyside and two 6th form colleges • Strong links with North Wales and Cheshire • Lively, well-attended meetings each term • Annual benchmarking on key performance indicators

  4. The Peer Evaluation Scheme • Has carried out 24 evaluations to date • In Lancashire: Blackpool and the Fylde College and Runshaw College • In Cheshire: Widnes 6th Form College and West Cheshire College • In North Wales: Denbigh and Rhyl Community Colleges and Coleg Llandrillo • Lancashire and North Wales have provided Evaluators for the scheme

  5. The benefits of reciprocity: a broader perspective on quality • A knowledge of the Scottish FEFC standards and how they are applied. • Knowledge of the SLIC toolkit as used in Scotland. • Knowledge of the ESTYN standards as applied in Wales, and the fforwm toolkit.

  6. How we began: A brief introduction to how peer evaluation began on Merseyside and why

  7. The climate that gave rise to peer evaluation: • Many libraries struggling with inadequate resources and management indifference • An inspection regime for which we had high hopes delivered very little • Unqualified inspectors passing judgement on libraries • Inspection process too easy to subvert • The arrival of the dreaded SAR!

  8. That was then, this is now: • The summer of 1999, “meltdown” arrives… • More businesslike, but how much has the underlying culture really changed? • Inspections in England and Scotland now consider libraries only in the context of the curriculum area inspections. • We are still being inspected by the unqualified. • Inspection process is still being stage-managed to death.

  9. How do we respond and what we want to achieve? • To put libraries back on the inspection agenda, as central to the learning process • To counterbalance ill-informed judgements with qualified, professional assessment • To present inspectors and managers with thorough, detailed reports from well-qualified independent inspectors that are hard to dispute

  10. Central to our thinking is: • That the professional knowledge and experience required to evaluate college libraries effectively, rests with those who are managing those services every day. • That keeping the process transparent gives it added legitimacy. • That keeping it free places it outside the realm of “consultancy” and available to all. • That it is not a resource-bidding exercise.

  11. How we began to develop the scheme in practice: • Small working group set up consisting of representation from 4 member FE colleges and one 6th form college • Draft framework prepared • Emphasis on practical, real-world approach • Written up for CoFHE Bulletin • Moved forward quickly to first peer evaluation

  12. The nitty gritty bit….. So much for the theory, how does peer evaluation actually work?

  13. First: select your evaluators • Evaluations are initiated by a formal request to a Circle Meeting • Two volunteers are then requested who have no connection with the college to be inspected. • First-timers are always paired with an experienced evaluator • We also call upon colleagues from outside the area, with whom we have reciprocal links

  14. Preparation for the visit: • Request advance documentation eg. SAR, Business plan • Make notes/draft questions arising out of the advance documentation • Set a realistic timetable for the day • Arrive at a division of labour • Make necessary travel arrangements

  15. On the day: • Ensure we speak to a range of staff and to students • Strike a balance between interviews and legwork. Go and see for ourselves and be very hands-on • Stick to our own part of the brief and ask the right questions

  16. Writing Up: • This is more time-consuming than you may think. Need to allow adequate time for drafting and re-drafting • Be prepared to re-check points of fact • Be helpful to the Librarian, but always tell the truth • Link to local and national standards

  17. Peer evaluation and benchmarking : towards a synthesis • University sector has always had reliable benchmarks against which to assess services • FE sector until recently had only dated/over-ambitious guidelines • Three years ago, as a response to this CMCL began its own annual benchmarking round • Now augmented by realistic new CoFHE national guidelines

  18. Example of Benchmarking Statistics On entering the library the overall impression on the ground floor is of a pleasant but rather Cramped space, dominated by a large counter area. The low ceiling height and requirement To keep access routes clear to fire exits reinforces this impression, and there is a need to Review the ration of staff to customer space, given that the library has, by the standard of Most colleges, generous back-of-house work space.

  19. FEEDBACK: • Completed draft to the Librarian • Opportunity to correct matters of fact

  20. Final Report: • Remember, it will be read by a wider audience • Remember to include an executive summary • Copies to: Librarian, Quality Manager, Principal, Circle archive

  21. What those who have been through the process think: • “The peer evaluation provides an assessment of your service by fellow professionals greater in scope than other reviews or inspections, providing a substantial report useful for QA, external validations and service reviews” (Patrick Cox, Learning Resources Manager, Liverpool Community College) • “ A valuable and encouraging experience, with confidence that the assessors and the process are informed and supportive” (Catriona Martin, Librarian, West Cheshire College) • “The library has been inspected by those qualified to pass judgement and I welcomed the valuable report which has led to improvements” (Cathy Bennett, Librarian, St Helens College) • The Peer Evaluation report is a quality document produced by fellow professionals whose judgment I respect (Sue Haydock, Librarian, Southport College)

  22. In conclusion, the peer evaluation process is: • A response to an inadequate inspection regime that did little to drive up quality • Appropriately rigorous, but also evaluative and supportive • Seeks to re-assert the knowledge and experience of library professionals in the inspection process • An achievable and practical means of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of college library services

  23. What have we gained from all this? • We now have reliable, robust quality procedures that are standard across all Merseyside Colleges • Our activities in this area have given a focus to thinking about quality issues and raised our profile internally and externally • We have benefited from the process and we now know what standards we should aspire to.

  24. Ten Years on, where next? • Evaluation framework continually revised to reflect changes in inspection regime • Evaluation is a continual quadrennial cycle, to show distance travelled • Towards a toolkit for English colleges?

  25. email: steve.cropper@wmc.ac.ukFurther reading/References • Peer Evaluation : the Merseyside Experience. CoFHE Bulletin, Issue 99, Spring 2003 • Resources and Services Supporting Learning : a Service Quality Development Toolkit. SFEFC, November 2003, text available at: http://www.slainte.org.uk/Files/pdf/FEnet/toolkit03.pdf • EYNON, Andrew (ed.) Guidelines for Colleges : Recommendations for Learning Resources. London: Facet, 2005 • fforwm. Services Supporting Learning in Wales. fforwm, 2005.

More Related