1
FINAL VERSION
Aimhigher Hants & Isle of Wight
‘Working with 14-19 Consortium ‘ Pilot Programme Report
(July 2009)
C O N T E N T S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYpage 3
INTRODUCTIONpage 6
SECTION A: Setting up the Pilot
SECTION B: Findings from the Interviews
SECTION C: Interviews with University Aimhigher Officers
SECTION D: CONCLUSIONS
Annex 1: List of Recommendations
Annex 2: Copy of the ‘Schools and Colleges Activity Agreement 2008/09’
Annex 3: Copy of the ‘First Report to 14-19 Consortia’ form
‘Working with the 14-19 Consortium Pilot Programme’: Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Following consultations with ‘ 14-19 Consortia ‘ in Hampshire and the Isle of White, the start of the Academic Year 2008/09 saw 5 one year Pilots projects agreed and underway. The aim of the Pilots was to explore and test the viability of Aimhigher /Consortia collaboration. Evidence of positive outcomes from the Pilots could also help shape strategies for embedding Aimhigher and securing its future sustainability.
The Report is based on desk research; on discussions with the Director and Deputy Director of the Hampshire & Isle of White Aimhigher Central Team; plus a series of semi -structured interviews undertaken with the 5 Consortia Managers and colleagues from the four local HEIs who organise Aimhigher ‘on-off site’ activities.
It should be noted that this report is based on Pilot developments over two terms only and concentrates on three aspects of the Pilot, namely, the financial arrangements; the administrative role and the establishment of a ‘bespoke’ programme/project for targeted learners in Consortia schools and colleges.
The Findings
General
The Consortia are dynamic organisations and mark a step change in the way that the education and training of the learner has been conceptualised and organised historically. Whatever the future may hold, at the present time they offer numerous actual and potential opportunities for joint working, particularly in terms of University/Consortium liaison. The comment that collaboration ‘’made perfect sense’’ sums up the very positive attitude of the Managers.
While the Consortium Managers were content with the way in which the negotiations for the Pilots had been conducted by Aimhigher , in retrospect they were all agreed that a short induction was an essential pre-condition for joining the pilot.
Recommendations
1. If the number of pilots is increased in 2009/10, a well-structured one day induction programme covering finance, administration, and the ‘bespoke’ programme should be organised for the new cadre of Consortia Managers; schools/College co-ordinators, and the University staff responsible for Aimhigher ‘on-off site’ activities.
2. The experience of staff engaged in the current Pilots should be fully utilised in order to ensure that‘best practice’ and ‘lessons learned’ are shared.
3. The induction session should take place, at the latest , by the end of October.
Consortium Managers welcomed the new opportunities provided by the Pilot and felt that it assisted them in the process of looking across a range of complementary activities for learners in a ‘’more holistic way’’ and to draw on them to the advantage of all students in local schools and colleges.
Finance
The funding arrangements were deemed clear and manageable, and the payments schedule was considered straightforward. In every case the £3k per institution allocation was distributed to individual schools/Colleges as Consortium Managers were reluctant to cause ‘’confusion and challenge’’ by reversing the existing allocation system. The Managers argued that, in any case, most of the money was needed to cover co-ordination costs within the schools/colleges.
There was a slight variation in the way the 3K was paid out to schools as one Manager felt that it was more cost effective to pay it out in one tranche rather than two.
There was greater concern over the 5k given to each of the Consortia. While part of this allocation is for co-ordination, no percentage is specified. Managers felt that additional guidance on how this money should be spent would be helpful , particularly if the expectation was that it should also cover ‘bespoke’ activities.
Recommendation
4. Aimhigher should determine what it considers a reasonable balance as between funding for administration and that to be used for ‘bespoke’ or other activities.
Managers were keen to obtain value for money for Consortia from the Aimhigher agreement. This included utilising unfilled Aimhigher places on events/activities for pupils from non-priority schools; using successful Aimhigher activities as a model for work with non-targeted students; mobilising Aimhigher school/college co-ordinators ‘ to think creatively and flexibly about what would benefit all students’. The desire to see the development of ‘benefits’ for all pupils was a recurrent theme.
Administration
Managers were divided about how much additional administration they had to handle for the Pilot. Most were of the view that it hadn’t made much difference and, in any case (in the words of one Manager ) ‘’it wasn’t rocket science...just straightforward administration’’ . Others, where the level of financial detail required was greater, considered that it had imposed a noticeably heavier workload. ( It was interesting to note that one Manager calls specific Aimhigher meetings to discuss progress).
One issue mentioned by Managers and HEI Aimhigher officers alike, is the not infrequent difficulties experienced in contacting Aimhigher school and college co-ordinators. Illness and other absences from school, responsibilities not covered following promotions or departures, all contribute to failures of communications leading to unexpected cancellation of activities and other problems.
Recommendation
5. That ways are sought to keep Consortium Managers and HE colleagues better informed about any personnel changes involving Aimhigher school and College co-ordinators
The Central Aimhigher Team and Consortium Managers all agreed that the ‘outcomes’ page of the agreement needed revision. In retrospect the Managers felt that the targets were ‘’over- prescriptive’’ and ‘’ unrealistic ’’ and could act as a powerful disincentive for those co-ordinators whose help they might wish to enlist both now and in the future. The Consortium Managers see their role very much as ‘enablers’ and ‘drivers’ of change and didn’t wish to see this compromised in any way. (The Central Team are already in the process of undertaking revisions to this and other Pilot documents).
Recommendation
6. That the ‘Outcomes’ page of the ‘Agreement’ be revised by removing the existing targets which, in retrospect, were felt to be both unrealistic and overly bureaucratic.
There were minor differences of opinion amongst Consortium Managers about the relevance of all parts of the 8 page ‘Report’ document. While Managers were willing to help by urging schools/ colleges to return required information , the task of collecting it was considered the responsibility of the Aimhigher Central team. (1) All expressed concern about reporting on the ‘bespoke’ activities (see below).
Recommendation
7. That a revised and shorter version of the Report Document is discussed and agreed with the Consortium Managers and implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.
Most Managers expressed concern regarding the requirement for ‘bespoke’ activities as these had not featured in the original Agreement. The Central Team agreed that a clearer specification was needed in order to make this happen.
Recommendation
8. That the Central Team takes prompt action to clarify with Consortia Managers what might reasonably be expected in terms of ‘bespoke’ activities.
There was qualified support for the suggestion that it might be possible for Aimhigher to provide an additional resource for Consortia in the form of a fractional post to help (perhaps for one or two days a week) with a specific ‘bespoke’ project . The downside for Managers was the imposition of an additional burden on themselves, or a colleague, at a time when they were already carrying heavy management and leadership responsibilities. However, it was not ruled out and. to quote one Manager, it ‘’would be helpful as he often felt squeezed... (the) organisation of events takes up a lot of time and some help would ensure that good ideas are converted into action’’.
Recommendation
9. While the idea of providing some additional support has potential, more detailed discussion is required to clarify both the job description and management responsibility for such a person.
This summary report has signalled the more urgent actions that need to be taken by Aimhigher if the existing one year Pilot is to continue and expand successfully next year. After two terms the evidence suggests that it is taking root, but more needs to be done if the maximum value from the investment of time, energy and money on the part of all those involved is to be fully realised. To conclude on a very positive note: the interviews demonstrated that there is a great deal of goodwill, trust and respect amongst the various partners involved in the Pilot which, together, constitute the fundamental ingredients for success both now and in the future.
(1) Please note that a revised ‘Agreement’ is currently being produced by the Central Team and the Report format will be revised in line with this.
Aimhigher Hants & Isle of Wight
14-19 Consortium Pilot Programme Evaluation
INTRODUCTION
Following a series of consultations with partners (including schools, colleges, the LSC and local Authority representatives) the Aimhigher Hants & Isle of Wight Steering Group, in conjunction with five of the nine14-19 Consortia in the area, agreed to set up a one year pilot (2008/9) to explore ways of working together more closely in the future. Members of the Aimhigher Partnership (many of whom are also members of Consortia) had noted that an increasing number of funded programmes are now co-ordinated by the Consortia, alongside those collaborative functions required to deliver the new Diplomas. Given the developing role of Consortia, a Pilot could provide both a test bed for trialling effective ways of working with Consortia, as well as a possible means of replacing elements of the existing model where Aimhigher worked with individual schools and Colleges.
The five ‘Pilot’ Consortia represent a significant proportion of the total number of Aimhigher target schools and colleges in the area (15 out of 32 schools; 11 out of 22. Colleges). Within these Consortia there are different numbers and mixes of schools and colleges, while they also reflects the rural, coastal, inner/outer city, new town geography of the area.
The Aimhigher Partnership recognises that the shift towards a more collaborative learning model, at least potentially, has important implications for the role Consortia might play in any future embedding process. While the willingness of the five Consortia to participate in the Pilot itself demonstrates a change in the ways that institutions (both schools and colleges) view the environment in which they are now operating.
This report offers a very early piece of evaluation on progress to date. In doing so it focuses on the effectiveness of three management areas within the Pilot: the financial arrangements; the administrative role and the establishment of a ‘bespoke’ programme for the targeted learners in schools and colleges. The report will look at each of these areas in turn to try and tease out:
(a) what those involved in the Pilot perceive as the mutual benefits of working together, and,
(b) what the practical challenges and ways forward for Aimhigher and the 14-19 consortia might be.
SECTION A: Setting up the Pilot
The rationale for testing a change to the current practice
Amongst the reasons advanced for trying out changes through the Pilot are:
- in the medium term (post 2010/11) if Aimhigher funding is substantially reduced or even ended,the Consortium structure might provide a means of delivering essential elements of the Aimhigher programme (e.g. targeting students, devising activities, reporting on progress);
- it might also ensure that staff with a professional responsibility for widening participation activities in schools, colleges and local HEIs, have a forum in which to discuss developments, together with colleagues from other disciplines and areas of the curriculum;
- as recognised by the Steering Group, such a change appears consistent with the current practice of bringing a number of funding streams together under the aegis of the 14-19 Consortium. In this sense it can be viewed as a part of the process by which groups of schools and colleges are rationalising the management of administration, funding and learner activities, thereby achieving greater efficiency and better value for money.
The changes set out in the pilot programme
The essential changes which are proposed under the pilot can be categorised under three headings: administration (including management of funding), devising and running bespoke activities and reporting on these both to Aimhigher and the Consortium.
Funding- background
Each Consortium receives a minimum of £15,000 from Aimhigher as a contribution to their administration costs. (This replaces the previous individual contribution to target schools and colleges of £3,000 p.a.). In addition Consortia receive an additional £5,000 contribution to their administration costs. A further £1,000 is available to those Consortia willing to reimburse schools/colleges directly for teacher-release days and travel expenses.
All activity costs, including transport, are met by Aimhigher.
Management
The Consortium Director (Business Manager) has responsibility for:
- managing the Aimhigher funds (above)
- overseeing the co-ordination and management of any Aimhigher activity as set out in the Pilot document.
- producing brief twice yearly reports on progress within the consortium - in order to facilitate effective planning of events and associated timetabling ensuring that each school/college appoints an Aimhigher co-ordinator. ( Considered essential if sound communications are to be maintained with University Aimhigher Officers and other staff involved in the delivery of activities).
3. Devising ‘Bespoke’ Activities
One of the expectations of the pilot programme is that lodging part of the Aimhigher structure and funding within the Consortium, will encourage all those involved to think about the local needs of its target group and to seek links with other groups to devise suitable activities. For example, given the importance of the Diploma, to discuss ways in which existing vocational courses and Diploma lines could be enhanced by Aimhigher inputs/experiences.
Monitoring to date
During November, December and early January the Deputy Director held meetings with Consortium Directors/Managers and a comprehensive ‘First report’ six part pro-forma (see Annex 3) was sent out in December 2008 requesting information on the areas listed above by 31st January 2009.
The meetings and reporting process proceeded to some extent in parallel.
The Deputy Director has produced a combined analysis of both the discussions and the Reports the main elements of which are condensed into the following bullet points:
- if the pilot is developed further there needs to be an induction programme for participating Consortium staff to cover operational issues such learner targeting; activity agreements and funding allocations to schools and colleges;
- In particular the uses of the £5k ‘administrative contribution’ to be made clearer, possibly by breaking it down into two budget lines covering ’ administrative and ‘bespoke activities’;
- this year the Consortia played a ‘significant’ role in helping priority schools/colleges to return ‘activity agreements’ and ‘data for learner targeting’ on time;
(This success, nevertheless, has the potential to alter the current ‘balance’ in the relationship’ between HEI’s, Aimhigher and Consortia and the schools and colleges)
- Consortia are using different systems to pay schools/colleges. The lack of consistency is noted and needs to be reviewed in order to decide whether further guidance is necessary;
- also noted is the desire of Consortia to receive up to date information on the engagement of their schools and Colleges in Aimhigher activities. At present he timescale for monitoring/reporting such data is in May/July, so how this might be achieved requires further consideration.
- even at an early stage it is apparent that there are imbalances in the way that Consortia are spending time as between administrative and bespoke activity development which needs addressing.
SECTION B: Findings from the Interviews
Evaluation Methodology
This has consisted of desk research into relevant and available documentation (including Steering group minutes, internal memos, terms of reference, monitoring reports, finance documents). This was supplemented with semi-structured, face to face interviews on an agreed basis with the Deputy Director of the Aimhigher Central Team, the Managers of the five Consortia ,together with Aimhigher representatives from the four University Widening Participation teams serving the Consortia. Additionally, a telephone interview was held with a Local Authority 14-19 Officer not involved in the Pilots.
Background: the Consortia Managers and Structures
Representatives from all five Consortia were interviewed. In four cases those interviewed were the 14-19 Consortium Managers and , in the fifth, the Acting Consortium manager had nominated the Aimhigher Lead for the Consortium. Of the Consortium managers one was appointed independently by the Consortium and the remaining three by their respective Local Authority.
In order to manage the breadth of operational and strategic requirements of 14 -19 learners in the schools, Colleges and private training provision, very sophisticated Consortium structures are now in place. These draw together groups and networks of representatives from education, the private training sector and external agencies , including Aimhigher and, in some cases, the local HEIs. Although the Consortium structures vary in the way they are organised they all cover similar concerns and, besides executive and strategic functions, include the Diploma and its assessment, the Foundation Learning tier, IAG/ Connexions, Curriculum Learning and Development, exam officer networks, CPD groups and in one case an Aimhigher group.