Legislation, Policies and Procedures from an External Quality Assurance Lens

All organisations regardless of industry have to comply with certain legislation and have in place the relevant policies and procedures to ensure compliance with legislation. In regards to centres and awarding organisations the following legislation apply:

• Health and Safety at work Act 1974 – HASAW
• Data Protection 1998 – already evaluated in assignment 8
• The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
• The Equality Act 2010

Examining first the Health and Safety at Work Act; this act is an umbrella for a number of other legislations and regulations including but not limited to:

1. Management of Health and Safety Regulations
2. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health – COSH
3. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences – RIDDOR
4. Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations

Overall the HASAW Act places responsibilities on employers, employees, and anyone associated with the organisation including contractors, delivery people etc… These responsibilities are enforceable by the Health and Safety Executive and their powers of enforcement are backed by criminal sanctions including imprisonment and unlimited fines.

The objective of the HASAW Act are to secure and protect the health, safety and welfare of all persons associated with the work place including any visitors.

The HASAW Act is relevant to external quality assurance in a number of ways. Firstly, the EQA has a responsibility to ensure they comply with the Health and Safety policies and procedures of the awarding organisation they are representing and those of the centre they are visiting to ensure that they do not cause harm to others or themselves including putting people at risk of harm. Obviously the centres and the awarding organisation have responsibilities, not least, including, making sure there are policies and procedures in place that can be easily accessed, carrying out any necessary risk assessments and putting appropriate systems in place to reduce risks to the minimal level possible and providing free training for staff to ensure they can comply with legislation and workplace policies and procedures.

Part of the role of an EQA is not only to be compliant with legislation, policies and procedures but to also ensure the centres they look after comply. When a centre first applies for approval, the EQA visits the centre and must do a thorough check that the centre are in compliance with the HASAW legislation. To do this they will check things such as:

1. Are the centre displaying Health and Safety poster (that has been correctly filled in and up-to-date)?
2. Are they displaying Public Liability insurance and is it current?
3. Do they have the necessary policies and procedures in place? Are they being reviewed regularly? Are they accessible to staff and others (e.g. learners, visitors etc…
4. Do they have risk assessments in place, including assessment of risks to learners? Are these being updated? Do they include individual risk assessments to welfare where a staff member is perhaps pregnant, or has an illness such as cancer etc…?
5. Have they records of staff training for health, safety and welfare at work?
6. Does learner induction include health and safety training and awareness?

The EQA can check these and other relevant areas by examining products, e.g. policies and procedures, training records, induction material etc…. and by talking to staff members and learners. Once approval has been given to a centre the EQA must continue to monitor and check the compliance of each centre they are looking after. A good indication that a centre might not be complying can be established within minutes of entering the centre. For instance has the EQA been asked to sign in? This is important in case there is a fire drill or bomb alert, especially if the centre is large. Are there fire extinguishers near to doors? Is the health and safety poster displayed in the reception area so it can been seen by everyone easily? These simple checks can be carried out visually and if not in place the EQA should certainly follow-up on it, but it should also prompt the EQA to carry out further checks.

Within their monitoring activities the EQA needs to be checking centre, delivery staff, assessor and internal assurance activities are not putting learners at risk of harm. For example when observing an assessment, does the assessor stop the assessment when they see the learner about to do something that will cause harm to themselves or another person?

The safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was brought in after the Bichard Inquiry of the Soham murders in 2004. The objective of the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act was to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, which included children, whether in paid work or voluntary, through a barring scheme.

In 2012 there were changes introduced following the Freedom of Information Act which included the sharing of information and increased safeguarding processes.

The changes were administered by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) It was a requirement for the ISA to replace the List 99, the current barred list at that time (Protection of Children Act 1999) with two lists of people who are barred from working in regulated activity with children and vulnerable groups; one list for those who work with children and one who work with vulnerable adults. It also places a responsibility for all those who work with children and/or vulnerable adults to register and undergo advanced vetting through the Disclosure and Barring Service who took over the criminal records checks previously carried out by the Criminal Records Bureau. The ISA also introduced safer selection and recruitment processes for employers.

Safeguarding issues cover a broad continuum starting with ‘Promoting Welfare’ to ‘Protecting from Harm’. As well as the well-known types of abuse such as: physical, emotional, sexual, neglect, financial, discriminatory and institutional abuse, with the introduction of the worldwide web there now exists online abuse.

So what does this mean for external quality assurance? As with health and safety a centre seeking approval must demonstrate they are in compliance with safeguarding legislation and requirements including the awarding organisation requirements. Again, after the initial checks have been made the EQA looking after the centre is responsible for checking for ongoing compliance. This involves checking the centre:

• has the necessary safeguarding policies in place including recruitment processes followed
  • Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility
  • Demonstration of ownership of the safeguarding agenda
  • The maintaining of accurate records
  • The following of safe recruitment practices
  • The maintaining of safe premises and equipment
  • Staff awareness training
  • Reporting concerns promptly
  • Being alert to signs of symptoms of abuse
  • Provision of whistle blower policy
  • The need for cooperation with investigators
  • An open door policy
  • Support of protection plan
• Key messages to look for within the Safeguarding Policy are:
• that all staff working with learners have an advanced criminal record check
• that any new staff have criminal checks carried out before they are allowed contact with learners
• that all staff have received safeguarding training and that this is up-dated regularly
• that there is a named Safeguarding Officer in place and that all staff are aware who it is and how to contact
• that staff are aware of their own responsibilities and know what to do if they suspect a safeguarding issue or a disclosure is made
• that learners are aware of the centres safeguarding policies and procedures and know who to talk to if they have any safeguarding issues and what happens once they have disclosed issues

These checks are relatively easy to conduct as part of the quality assurance visit, for instance, when interviewing assessors/ internal quality assurers and learners, asking to look at training records and CPD records, asking to look at policies and procedures, asking to look at learner induction materials and even monitoring a learner induction as part of the planned quality assurance activities. When interviewing staff and learners it is important that the EQA not only checks that awareness training has been given but that for staff:

• They know what constitutes abuse
• They know the signs and symptoms of abuse
• They know how to respond to a leaner who has disclosed a safeguarding issue
• That they understand the boundaries and limits of their responsibilities
• They know how to make appropriate and accurate records of disclosure
• They know who to report safeguarding issues to and what to do if the named safeguarding Officer is not available.

For leaners the EQA needs to ensure:

• They have received an induction which includes safeguarding
• That they are aware of their rights and responsibilities
• That they know who to talk to if they have want to disclose a safeguarding issue
• That they know what might constitute a safeguarding issue
• That they know how their disclosure will be dealt with

(These lists are not exhaustive)

Of course, as well as checking the centres comply with Safeguarding legislation and awarding organisation requirements an EQA also needs to be aware of the awarding organisation safeguarding policies and procedures to ensure they themselves are compliant and know what to do if they need to report safeguarding issues.

Last but not least, 2010 the following Acts and regulations were brought together under the umbrella of The Equality Act 2010:

Equal Pay

Sex Discrimination

Race Relations

Disability Discrimination

Discrimination in Employment on the grounds of religion and belief, sexual orientation and age.

The Equality Act 2010 requires equal and fair treatment in relation to access to employment, education and other services regardless of:

• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Marriage
• Civil partnerships
• Race
• Religion and Belief
• Sexual orientation
• Sex
• Pregnancy and maternity/paternity

In addition, the Equality Act requires service providers to be pro-active and not reactive. Therefore, they must ensure they have done everything reasonably practicable to accommodate all disabilities and not wait until, in the case of a college or Training Provider, they have a learner with a disability already enrolled before making any attempt to make necessary adjustments.

In relation to external quality assurance the EQA needs to monitor centres to ensure they are providing learning and assessment opportunities that are fair and accessible to all, regardless of any of the above characteristics. As with Data Protection, Health & Safety and Safeguarding, any centre seeking approval must have the correct policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with legislation and awarding organisation requirements. In addition, as with other legislation discussed the EQA needs to continue to monitor compliance with equality legislation and the awarding organisation requirements. Very closely related to equality is diversity and whilst equality is about opportunity, diversity is about promoting differences.

Monitoring the compliance with equality and diversity legislation and requirements can be carried out as part of a planned visit through the following activities:

• Checking policies and procedures regularly and checking they have been updated
• Interviewing staff to check they understand the meaning of equality and diversity. It is often misunderstood with people thinking equality is about treating everybody the same. If you treat everybody the same you will very soon be discriminating whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently and this is unlawful.
• Interviewing learners to check equality and diversity awareness was covered during induction; that they know what to do and who to report to if they feel they are being discriminated against; that they are aware of their own organisation’s equality and diversity policy and procedures
• Examining induction materials to ensure equality and diversity is promoted and sufficiently covered
• Checking the centre monitors and measure the diversity in the recruitment of learners to ensure it is representative of the community and so the centre can promote underrepresented groups
• Examining resources used and created by the centre to ensure for instance they:

• Promote diversity – for instance checking that resources used for the female dominated industry of childcare include reference to males to help promote it as a job equally accessible to men and not just women
• Are accessible for all – for instance if resources are on a computer making sure there are accessibility tools available, ensuring learners are providing with the training where necessary to be able to use computers and learning platforms etc…
• Ensuring resources are available in a range of formats
• Ensuring resources are available in different languages e.g. in Welsh for Welsh-speaking learners

In addition to the above activities the EQA needs to monitor the assessment decisions and internal quality assurance procedures to ensure learners have not been unfairly treated or disadvantaged. All assessment processes should be transparent and consistent across the centre to ensure learners are not be treated unfairly, being disadvantaged, or being asked to produce work in excess of what is required. EQA’s need to check centres are not insisting on bureaucratic procedures to meet their own purposes when it is not a legislative or awarding organisation requirement. A good indication that equality and diversity is not being complied with is if learners’ portfolios all look similar by producing similar outcomes because learners are all different and no two leaners work and learn in the same way. Assessment decisions need to demonstrate assessors are being objective and not representing their own opinion. The same principles apply with the quality assurance practices for instance: EQA’s should monitor the training given to centres, is training given to meet the individual needs of assessors? Have all assessors got a development plan? Is the support and guidance given to assessors from internal quality assurance activity consistent and meeting assessors’ needs? Are all assessors given equal access to development opportunities?

However, the EQA role is not just to ensure the centre complies with equality and diversity requirements but to also comply within their own practice. This requires EQA’s to ensure when they are planning visits they are not asking centres to ‘jump through hoops’ by planning over the top monitoring activities that are not necessary, or making requests that are not a regulatory requirement for instance insisting learners, assessors and IQA’s sign and date all evidence. The EQA must treat all centre staff with respect, when giving feedback ensure it is relevant to the standards and regulatory requirements and not what the EQA personally thinks. It is also a requirement that EQA’s provide the same standard of support and guidance to all the centres it looks after and therefore not giving one centre more support and guidance because the staff are friendlier, than another where staff are not so friendly. This is flawed within itself because what one EQA considers friendly another may not and this then leads to inconsistency across the awarding organisation’s external quality assurance practice. The awarding organisation has a responsibility to ensure all their EQA’s are complying with equality requirements and promoting diversity. This includes making arrangements for reports and other documents to be available in a different language where there is a bilingualism need.

Clearly there exists some overlapping within the legislation and centres not complying with one area of legislation will likely be in breach of another piece of legislation. It is essential EQA’s are aware of legislative requirements and their awarding organisations policies and procedures that sets out how to meet these requirements. Compliance with legislation and requirements should be monitored throughout all the EQA’s monitoring activities and just checking the centres have the correct policies and procedures is not sufficient, they need to be seen working to these policies and procedures. It can be seen quite clearly that the legislation and requirements exist to protect all those associated with the provider, including learners, staff and visitors. In addition by complying with legislation and requirements centres, EQA’s and awarding organisations can be sure they are providing a good level of service that is not only lawful but which promotes best practice.

Bibliography

Equality and Diversity: https://www.gov.uk/…/about/equality-and-diversity Assessed 19/02/15

Gravells. A, (2012) Achieving your Assessment & Quality Assurance Units (TAQA). 2nd ed. London. Learning Matters SAGE.

Health and Safety Executive: www.hse.gov.uk Assessed 17/02/15

NVQ Code of Practice (2006) Great Briton, QCA

Ollin, R. and Tucker, J. (2012) The Vocational Handbook: Including a guide to the QCF units for assessment and internal quality assurance (IQA) 5^th ed. London. Kogan Page.

The Freedom of Information Act (2004) https://gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/if-your-request-is-turned-down  Assessed 18/02/15

The Soham Murders: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/11/11/child-protection-scheme-recommended-by-soham-murders-inquiry-ruled-unlawful/ Accessed 19/02/15

Critique of Brookfield’s Four Lens Model of Critical Reflection

In preparation for this blog I am unable to find any critical sources for Brookfield’s model and shall rely on Brookfield’s own self-critique and my own observations.

Brookfield appears to recognise in part how his four-lens model for critical reflection may be seen as slightly simplistic and perhaps misleading. To this end, he has perhaps felt the need to identify apparent risks: Firstly being publicised as an imposter due in part to the fact that, among teachers, “there is a general lack of confidence, a pervasive feeling of vulnerability, a fear of being ‘found out’” (Lieberman & Miller). Secondly, a risk of being placed on the periphery and seen as a “troublemaker”. Thirdly, having to undergo the downfall of any sense of conviction and lastly, a feeling of “being left in limbo” (Brookfield, 1995).

These are quite fear-provoking risks for any teacher and perhaps a little too alarmist. In addition, it could be argued Brookfield’s model is as much a tool for protecting practitioners from their own negativity and depression – which Brookfield all but suggests teaching brings about – as it is for improving teaching practices. Just as Schön’s model is critiqued for not looking to the future, perhaps Brookfield’s four lens model is equally at risk of this. For example, the autobiographical lens is very experiential with teachers reflecting back on some aspect of their own teaching or learning. Some may argue reflection through the lens of students’ ‘eyes’ can only ever be positioned in the past. I would suggest however, the experience has to have occurred in order to share or articulate it. There is also a question about being able to see through the lens of the students’ eyes, that it is perhaps to some extent our own interpretation, and we really stand outside our immediate self?

Brookfield’s four lens model lacks the explicit link of reflection for future action which Wilson commented upon about Schön’s Model (2008, p. 177). Neither model appears to take into account the situatedness of the practitioner nor how this may influence what or how the practitioner reflects. Brookfield appears to see all teaching and learning taking place in the classroom and does not consider the more informal settings for teaching and learning.

Brookfield’s Four Lens Model of Critical Reflection

Stephen Brookfield has brought to the world of education a wealth of literature from his research in adult learning, teaching and critical thinking. Brookfield believes teachers do what they do to “change the world” (1995, p. 1). Brookfield suggests, through their own practice, teachers model respect, democracy and justice in the hope students will learn to treat each other and the environment with kindness, acceptance and equality. Brookfield goes on to suggest this is a somewhat innocent view of teaching and warns:

One of the hardest things teachers have to learn is that sincerity of their intentions does not guarantee the purity of their practice (1995, p. 1)

Brookfield believes that to teach in such an “innocent” manner is to ignore the intricacies of “cultural, psychological and political” influences on the learning process. Brookfield believes these complexities together with the fragile dynamics of “power” leads to the potential for oppression, which means teaching can never be innocent (1995, p. 1).

Central to Brookfield’s model is the exposure of assumptions which he believes all teachers have, and suggests teachers can never have complete consciousness of their reasoning and motivation or accurate perception of how students see and interpret their practice (1995, p. 1). Brookfield suggests this lack of complete consciousness can lead to teachers into a state of what he terms “demoralization” and “ self-laceration” when intent does not go according to plan and leads to a cycle of blame and feelings of failure; even when according to Brookfield “… it is not of our own making” (1995, p. 2).

Brookfield classifies three categories of assumptions: Paradigmatic, prescriptive and casual. Paradigmatic assumptions, Brookfield suggests, are the most difficult to expose and may not be recognised as assumptions even when they have been pointed out, but are the conceptual adages teachers use to “order the world”. Brookfield describes prescriptive assumptions as reflective thoughts about what “ought to be happening” in a given context, whilst casual assumptions, Brookfield suggests are predictive and enable understanding of how word situations connect with teaching and learning. Casual assumptions Brookfield claims, are the easiest to expose (1995, p 2:3).

Reflective practice alone according to Brookfield is not enough to expose these assumptions – in particular, the paradigmatic and prescriptive assumptions that teachers often see as common sense assumptions. Although Brookfield acknowledges the value of reflective practice, critical reflection, he advocates, will almost certainly help expose “paradigmatic, structuring assumptions (1995, p. 8).

The latter type of assumptions Brookfield refers to as “hegemonic”. He goes on to suggest:

… teachers take pride in acting on the very assumptions that work to enslave them. In working diligently to implement these assumptions, teachers become willing prisoners who lock their own cell doors behind them (1995, p. 13).

Those teachers who reflect critically, according to Brookfield, “see the insanity of aspiring to ways of teaching that, in the end, seriously threaten their own well-being” (1995, p.28).

Brookfield believes that to be critically reflective and expose assumptions and hegemony, requires that teachers explore what they do from as many alternative perspectives as is possible. To do this Brookfield advocates a model of critical reflection whereby the teacher stands outside their immediate self and view what they do through four discrete lenses. Each lens reveals a different aspect of practice such as that when they are combined “they throw into sharp relief the contours of our assumptive clusters (1995, p. 28).

The first of the discrete lenses is the teacher’s own autobiography as both a teacher and learner, which Brookfield suggests, brings about an awareness of paradigmatic assumptions that frame how the teacher works. The teacher assessing their own practice through “student’s eyes” is the second of Brookfield’s four lenses which enables teachers to identify the power dynamics of their relationships as well as checking students’ perception of the teacher’s own intent. Brookfield refers to the third lens as “Our colleagues experiences” enabling teachers to gain a new perspective to their practice by inviting colleagues to become critical friends who watch   their practice and engage in critical dialogue. Brookfield’s final lens is that of “theoretical literature”. Through this lens Brookfield suggests the teacher can understand their own ideological experiences through multiple understandings (1995, p.p. 29:30). Although any one of these lens may prove beneficial as a tool for reflection, Brookfield’s intention is that they are used as a whole to give multiple perspectives.

Next time Brookfield’s critique of his own theory.

Critiques of Schön’s Reflection-in-Action/ Reflection-on-Action Model

Although Schön’s premise of ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ has been very influential, especially in education (Boud, 2010), it is the subject of considerable criticism. Eraut suggests ‘reflection-in-action’ is no more than the ability to make speedy responses when faced with challenging incidents. Others criticise Schön for his lack of consideration for what they term as ‘reflection-for-action’, suggesting Schön’s theory does not encourage the practitioner to contemplate future incidents. This looking to the future is according to Thompson &Thompson on (2008) is necessary for future planning.

This is supported by Wilson (2008) who states:

“…he would appear to have given less consideration to how humans reflect and contemplate on how things might be in the future and how these possibilities might be achieved”.

 

It is suggested we are perhaps ‘too close’ (Wilson, 2008) to the situation to fully appreciate the ‘hidden or submerged knowledge’. Wilson goes on to suggest the demands and increasing workloads of professionals leaves little time for reflection on past activity. As a consequence this lack of ‘reflection-for-action’ reduces the opportunity for learning and development of performance. Greenwood (1993) on the other hand, suggests Schön’s model is unsound because it does not recognise the thinking required before action. However, this ‘reflection-before-action’ may bring into question Schön’s premise about intuitive action.

 

Others have criticised Schön for his exclusive focus on the individual and excluding important factors such as wider social implications and the many political issues at play in the workplace and beyond. This is perhaps supported by Brookfield (1995) who states:

“Reflection in and of itself is not enough; it must always be linked to how the World can be changed”.

Next week we will explore Brookfield’s theory about critical thinking.

Critical Reflection

To what extent does reflective practice provide a sound foundation for teaching and learning?
In order for you to answer this question I will use this space to explore introductory aspects of just two of the many models of reflective practice available. The first being a model advocated by Schön, in particular his notion of ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’.
Schön’s theory of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action has been extremely influential in embedding reflective practice into professional discourse, in particular within the helping professions (Wilson, 2008; Hargreaves, 2010; Moon, 1999; & Hillier, 2005). Schön calls this an ‘epistemology of practice’ and fundamental to his premise is, how practitioners within the helping occupations deal with hesitant situations using tacit knowledge. Schön calls this skill ‘artistry’, where the practitioner is using intuitive strategies and knowledge as opposed to espoused theories and organisational processes which Schön refers to as ‘technical rationality’. Schön is therefore proposing an alternative to the traditionally and dominant held view that practice is grounded in professional knowledge learnt through education, training and the day-to-day routine work.

Schön suggests that not all problems can be resolved from that which is given e.g. a practitioner may face an exceptional situation that does not fall within the realms of text book theories. When such situations present, Schön claims:
“In order to convert a problematic situation to a problem, a practitioner must do a certain kind of work. He/ she must make sense of an uncertain situation that initially makes no sense.”

Schön suggests that when making sense of problems where there is no given answer, the practitioner uses their tacit knowledge or as expressed by Schön their “knowledge-in-use”. Schön suggests this knowledge-in-use often cannot be articulated, but suggests that this knowing is embodied in the actions of the practitioner. Even when the practitioner calls upon their technical rationality, Schön suggests:
“He [she] is dependent on tacit recognitions! Judgements and skills full performances”

According to Schön, many of our day-to-day practices is flooded with intuitive actions which also cannot be articulated. Is this to suggest that artistry is indescribable? Schön argues that artistry may be both describable and indescribable – not fully describable.
We could perhaps justify Schön’s belief in moving away from technical rationality if we consider what Hobley points out, working only with technical knowledge is all very well if all classes are the same. But in reality we are faced with many changing variables.
Not all variables will be unique or perplexing situations and therefore as Schön suggests, does not require any thought or “reflection-in-action”. In other words, action is intuitive with decisions based on one’s own theories rather than technical rationality. On other occasions, a period of thinking is required, which Schön claims takes place “in-action”

Schön advocates, because we cannot articulate this knowing-in-action, we need to find a way to reassign our learning from single loop to double loop, where we not only learn but understand how we got there. This occurs when we think back on what we have done to contemplate if or how our “knowing-in-action” contributed to an unexpected outcome. Schön suggests this is moving from ‘reflection-in-action’ to ‘reflection-on-action’.

In the next blog we will explore some of the critiques of Schön’s premise. In the interim share what your thoughts are on Schön’s theory.

Welcome to the Collabor8 Training & Consultancy Blog

Collabor8 Training & Consultancy offers a quality hybrid e Learning experience for aspiring and practising teachers/tutors/trainers and assessors. We offer a range of professional qualifications as well as short CPD courses which we can bespoke to your needs. What is special about Collabor8 Training & Consultancy I hear you ask! We pride ourselves on being a small provider where quality is central to everything we do. Our hybrid e Learning Model means you can learn anytime and anywhere you have access to the Internet but with one big difference. Whereas traditional e Learning is all self-directed with little if any contact with a tutor, our e Learning Model will give you all the benefits of traditional classroom learning by attending virtual real-time sessions where you can see and interact with your tutor and peers on the same course.

Our blog aims to support your learning through sharing and discussing relevant issues related to the FE and Skills industry as well as being of general interest to those not doing one of our courses but with an interest in adult education. If there is any particular topic you would like to see discussed then do please get in touch and let us know.