http://www.dfee.gov.uk/post16/publications/stndscons.shtml

Copies of this document can be obtained free of charge, by quoting reference P16RSC from:
DFEE Publications
PO Box 5050
Sherwood Park
Annesley
Nottingham NG15 0DJ
Tel: 0845 60 222 60

Response of The Library Association

1) The Library Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the quality assurance proposals for the post-16 sector. We believe that the proposals outlined in the consultation document constitute a good base on which to build a quality system. Our major reservations concern the lack of emphasis put on the importance of providing appropriate learning resources to enable an effective learning process to take place and the comparative lack of coverage of the informal end of the learning spectrum as represented by much provision in the voluntary sector or by public libraries. Partnership provision, as, for instance, exemplified by the Information, Advice and Guidance Networks or the provision of UfI learning centres is also not fully embedded within the proposals - the assumption, in most cases, seems to be that of a single supplier. We offer a few comments on individual aspects of the proposals below.

Equal Opportunities

2) The Library Association warmly endorses the emphasis given to the importance of equal opportunities in the consultation document. We agree that this should be a key component in the assessment of suppliers. It is not only important because of social justice, it is also crucial to the success of the widening participation programme and the creation of a learning society. It must also be part of putting the learner at the centre of the learning process and working towards the inclusive learning model as outlined in the Tomlinson report1.

Requirements of Suppliers

3) We acknowledge the logic of using the Common Inspection Framework as the basis for supplier self-assessment. However this makes it even more crucial to get that document right. In our response to the informal consultation on the Common Inspection Framework we recommended that it needed to be more hospitable to learning opportunities provided by partnerships rather than single providers, and more account needed to be taken of distributed forms of learning (such as E-learning). Emphasis needs also to be given to ensuring that appropriate learning resources are available to learners and that information handling skills are seen as an essential part of learning to learn or study skills. In many schools and further education colleges, libraries or learning resource centres, are seen as integral parts of teaching and learning and in the effective delivery of the curriculum. Therefore the effectiveness of library services needs to be part of the self-assessment exercise of suppliers as well as covered in inspections. At the more informal end of the learning spectrum (eg the voluntary sector or public libraries) greater consideration needs to be given as to how their contribution can be recognised and evaluated.

4) We welcome the proposal for a Statement of Learners Entitlements and Responsibilities as an important element in helping to manage expectations but at the same time emphasizing that the learning process should be student-centred. However we are concerned that in the example Statement in Appendix 2 there is no reference to an entitlement to receive access to the appropriate learning resources necessary to maximise benefits from the course or curriculum being followed - including materials in all types of media enabling a student to "read" around a subject. As well as knowledge and skills in specific subject areas, and support with literacy or numeracy needs, we believe that all learners should be "entitled" to practice and develop study or learning skills, including information handling skills. On the responsibility side there should be an expectation that students will make responsible use of library or learning resource facilities - this is more than taking care of equipment and buildings as it includes, for instance, honouring loan periods for items so that other students are not disadvantaged. 

Supplier Self-Assessment

5) We support the idea of supplier self-assessment and the requirement on suppliers to produce development plans. We especially welcome the idea of developing a common portfolio of evidence covering a range of regulatory requirements, although some differences are likely to remain given the wide diversity of learning environments that are to be covered. Many traditional educational suppliers will welcome this approach. It will also be important for newer providers as well. Public libraries, for instance, are new to inspection and comparatively new to other regulatory frameworks. Now however they are subject to a regulatory framework, which includes library standards and annual library plans, established by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport under the terms of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act; Best Value inspections in common with all other local government services; and, where they engage in learning support activities, potential inspection and regulation by the Adult Learning Inspectorate or bodies such as the Guidance Council. We would wish to have an opportunity to contribute ideas as to what should be included in such a portfolio and how such evidence could be rationalised across a number of regulatory bodies in regard to library provision. Nevertheless any common portfolio must cover the provision and access to learning resources available to learners and the opportunities for students to develop information handling skills. 

6) We would also want the opportunity to comment on any core information requirements (performance measurement or indicators) that might be required of suppliers. Such indicators have been developed for libraries and learning resource centres in a number of sectors. Of those areas suggested in the consultation document we would especially welcome measurement of learner satisfaction with the learning resources available to them and the support they received in their use. It is important that the total learning experience of students is covered in such information, as well as in the inspection process.

Conclusion

7) We would support all the proposals to promote the improvement of standards across the post-16 educational sector (paragraphs 34-40). However it should be recognised that a Post 16 Standards Fund would need to be larger and more complex than that currently provided for the further education sector. Similarly an extended remit for the Further Education Development Agency must be matched by an appropriate increase in funding. Such initiatives must take a holistic view of post-16 learning and not concentrate solely on the quality of teaching. In the new learning age other skills and disciplines will be required as well to deliver quality learning opportunities, including those of librarians and information specialists. If the ambitious learning goals of the Government are to be achieved then all these areas of expertise and knowledge should be focused on obtaining the desired learning outcomes.

July 2000 

Contact:
Guy Daines
Principal Policy Adviser
The Library Association
7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE
Tel: 020 7255 0632
E-mail: guy.daines@la-hq.org.uk

Reference

1. Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee [of] the Further Education Funding Council. Inclusive Learning. Further Education Funding Council, 1996. ISBN: 01203 863100