This section deals with Key Area 4 of the evaluation framework.
5.1 Quality assurance of the programme
At provider level
5.1.1 It was a requirement of all providers from the earliest stages that they should build clear systems for quality assurance into their training plans. Both providers themselves and the HMIE quality assurance activities have reviewed the systems adopted, leading to a process of ongoing improvement.
5.1.2 Providers have also had to respond to emerging issues as they implemented their plans. The focus of quality assurance is developing and moving through three distinct stages which cover:
5.1.3 Those providers who have focused effectively on the quality of implementation have adopted approaches such as:
5.1.4 At the start of the initiative, the majority of providers placed most emphasis in their plans on the longer-term success and impact of the training. They made insufficient use in the early stages of "short-loop" quality assurance, which involved asking participants direct questions to ascertain their views. This approach is now much more prevalent.
5.1.5 Providers have had only fair success in assessing the quality of achievement of the Expected Outcomes and the impact of the training on professional practice. Providers should turn their attention from the coverage of units of work to the quality of that coverage and should focus more consistently on sampling the achievement of the Expected Outcomes. They should seek to demonstrate this through examining changes in thinking and professional practice brought about by the training.
At EA level
5.1.6 The involvement of an EA in the overall management of the programme has proved to be essential to its success. As with any other staff development initiative, and particularly one of this national significance, the EA's involvement should include an appropriate emphasis on quality assurance. This is becoming the norm. Effective monitoring by EAs has included:
At school level
5.1.7 The success of the training depends to a great extent on the commitment of headteachers and senior managers to the initiative. This involvement should include an appropriate focus on quality assurance.
5.1.8 Most training providers encourage the use of co-ordinators at school level to manage the training and act as a channel of communication with the EA and provider. The role of these co-ordinators has also proved to be pivotal to the success of the training. Their close working with tutors, individuals and groups places them in a strong position to monitor progress and identify concerns. Such a model often works well, particularly in the primary sector. In the secondary school, numbers are larger and there may be a main co-ordinator and a number of tutors or mentors. This situation is more difficult, but not impossible, to manage consistently.
5.1.9 To date, most principal teachers have played a very limited role in managing and monitoring this initiative at departmental level in secondary schools. In reality, the ICT expert in a department may not be the principal teacher. Nonetheless, principal teachers, as middle management, have an important role to play in managing and monitoring the staff development of their staff. They also have a responsibility to maximise the benefit of such staff development to improve the quality of learning and teaching within the department.
5.1.10 The most natural context for monitoring the success and impact of the NOF training on individuals is through the process of professional review and development. Currently, this is evident in only a few schools, but is becoming more the norm.
5.2 Operational management of the programme
At provider level
5.2.1 The training has been most successful where the provider has:
At EA level
5.2.2 The training has been most successful where the EA has:
At school level
5.2.3 It has become increasingly clear that the success of the training is highly dependent on management at school level. It has been most successful where: