Our relationship with QA isn’t always a comfortable one. That’s worth exploring both as a sector and within each organisation to get the most from our investment in time and energy. At its best, a feature of governance; informing strategic decision-making, underpinning quality improvement, and building capacity.I’ve thought a lot about why quality assurance in education seems to set itself apart from the equivalent discipline and profession in other sectors.In some ways, it’s understandable. Assuring the quality of teaching and training is fundamentally different from assuring the quality of a manufactured product. There are fewer differences when compared with service-based sectors, and even less so for public services. Whilst context matters, there is transferability between them. Being overly insular risks missing the potential to be more innovative in our approach. I’m curious about the lessons we can learn from a company like Lego, with such watertight processes, I doubt my children before I doubt them when I hear ‘Mum, there’s a piece missing!’ I am equally keen to unpick the similarities between observations of practice in health and education settings to see how we can do things differently.QA can be transformational if we let it Further education’s relationship with QA isn’t always a comfortable one. That’s worth exploring both as a sector and within each organisation to get the most from our investment in time and energy. At its best, a feature of governance; informing strategic decision-making, underpinning quality improvement, and building capacity. At its worst, an irritant, perceived to inappropriately challenge the autonomy of our teams, breeding a culture of policing above support.I’ve observed the reasons for both scenarios up close many times over. Whilst it is overly simplistic to boil down to one thing, when we see QA as little more than an extension of a regulator, it limits our thinking. The idea that it is more transformational to fall short of an ambitious goal than it is motivational to flop over the line of an externally set (average) standard, is a balance of risk that can only be struck when there’s trust at all layers of the system.Without any doubt, I am confident that when QA is done well, the return on investment is significant. We see it and assist the creation of it, many times over. Existing QA practice is the first place we look when we are working with providers to help identify and resolve problems impacting outcomes. It underpins our ‘no surprises’ mantra when it comes to external regulations such as Ofsted inspections. Ultimately, effective QA informs and encourages sustainable change beyond sticking plasters.Problems to solve are four areas I think we can work collaboratively on to improve QA practice,The focus is often exclusively on teaching and learning, missing a holistic approach to quality improvement. Quality (like sales) is everyone’s job.There’s not enough focus on structured process improvement, where a relentless approach to taking a mallet to non-value-added steps, saves time and money when cashflow is high on everyone’s priority list.The model for continuous professional development and professional accreditation for QA employees exists but is too limited and limiting.QA leaders don’t always have a seat at the senior table, or report findings and recommendations to boards of governors or non-executives.Ideas to solve them with that in mind, here are seven ideas to consider that may help to supercharge your own approach:Ensure there’s a consistent understanding of the standards you’re aiming to reach. The nature of a regulated sector means there is a tendency to draw a direct line from the regulator(s) to QA activities. This misses out on the key step of interpreting externally set standards in the context of your own KPIs. Doing so gives depth to your QA activities and reduces the risk of taking a foot off the peddle unless you’re in an Ofsted window.Effective QA is intrins...

Ver todos los episodios