Continuous Quality Improvement Philosophy: Beyond

Continuous Quality Improvement Philosophy: Beyond Compliance

Purpose The aim is to support us to successfully lead the sustainable development of leadership at all levels, and therefore outcomes for pupils, by collaborative working with a diverse variety of partners; a partnership in which the participants’ leadership development has a lasting impact on their work, the work of others, work with the communities they serve, the outcomes for pupils and the wider system. Our philosophy puts outcomes at its heart, and has robust, honest and evidence-rich evaluation, with its subsequent practice sharing and improvement as its foundation. In this philosophy, basic compliance and complete fidelity to each of the DfE NPQ frameworks, their evidence (‘learn that…’) and practice (’learn how to’) statements, their associated evidence base in the reference sections, and the timelines around programme length and assessment submissions are anticipated. Continuous improvement takes us beyond mere compliance.

Rationale Validated by the principles of total quality management (TQM), five meta-questions support our vision and values whilst bringing together key performance indicators relating to the impact of the entirety of the participant experience. They also subsume the four DfE Key performance indicators (KPIs) (p2) and the two Ofsted judgement areas of quality of development and training (intent, implementation, impact) and leadership and management (p2). The principals of TQM necessitate a holistic, values-based approach where everyone involved is committed to continuous improvement and attaining the highest standards. It is a ‘bottom up’ appreciative enquiry model demanding extensive stakeholder involvement. To that end we expect and value accurate, evidence-based self-evaluation for improvement by Clusters first, and then by our Delivery Partners. Crucially, leadership at all levels must overtly support the culture and facilitate the process by asking questions and listening, rather than merely giving information and controlling discussions. TQM organisations possess crucial characteristics outlined by Baird et al (2011), Mosadeghrad (2014), Parsons (1994), Perry et al (2019) and West-Burnham (1992):

The Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Meta-questions The Kirkpatrick Model informs the enquiry about the participant learning journey and its impact. The levels of evaluation are reaction, learning, behaviour and results, including return on expectations and investment.

© LLSE 19/06/2021 - V6 (continually updated in response to ongoing DP discussions) Page of 1 4

Our CQI Meta-questions KPIs

1. To what extent do the participants have a positive and informative pre-programme experience?

1, 3, 4

2. To what extent is the curriculum content and structure relevant and engaging, and assessment appropriate, in developing leadership knowledge and behaviours?

2, 3, 4

3. To what extent does the facilitation, accessibility and delivery transform participants’ leadership development?

3, 4

4. To what extent does the challenge and support provided by coaches influence participants’ leadership development?

3, 4

5. To what extent do the participants’ critical, evidence-led reflections and evaluations impact on their leadership development?

3, 4

Our CQI Principles • Growth and continuous improvement • ‘Bottom up’ appreciative enquiry

• Trust and honesty • Respect and teamwork • Creativity, innovation and learning

• Outcome orientation • Celebration and recognition • Excitement

Our Vision and Values Every child and young person’s learning flourishes in schools where incredible leaders create rich learning opportunities.

Whilst adhering to the Nolan Principles, the distinctive values that drive our behaviours are: • A shared commitment to high

expectations • A culture of continuous

improvement • Professional respect, trust and

collaboration • Equity and inclusion


The DfE Key Performance Indicators


Our Contextualised Kirkpatrick Evaluation Levels

1 Reaction To what extent was the delivery relevant, engaging, accessible and well-facilitated?

2 LearningTo what extent has the learning equipped the participant to have the confidence and commitment to develop and improve their leadership knowledge, skills and behaviours?

3 BehaviourTo what extent has the learning successfully been applied to the participant’s professional role?

4 Results, including returns

on expectation and investment

To what extent have/are the intended impacts on pupil outcomes and the organisation’s improvement been/being achieved? Has the assessment been passed?

* Includes programme:• quality (structure,

content, facilitation, accessibility)

• appropriateness to CPD need

• expected commitment

Ofsted • Inspection of NPQs is under

development and informed by the current frameworks

• The (familiar) judgement areas are in the diagram below

• Delivery Partners will be contacted and visited so that a wide range of practice and stakeholders' views are included

• Delivery Partners will not be inspected separately or named in the report

• Monitoring inspections will start in spring 2022

• Full inspections are likely to start in spring 2023

• Our CQI philosophy and processes will incorporate all of the Ofsted inspection framework expectations

• Therefore there is no additional focus or workload to any fulfil Ofsted requirements

• Thus we will be able to make the best use of the process as a valuable triangulation exercise and discussion to further improve our collective practice


Example of CQI Information Gathering and Bottom-up Reporting Process


Stakeholder Information gathering activity Schedule Meta-questions KPIs

Participants

Survey - relates to all five meta-questions and all four Kirkpatrick levels. Involves some formative assessment, self- and coach-evaluation.

Twice every module and induction 1-5 1-4

In-school CoachesSurvey - relates to two meta-questions and all four Kirkpatrick levels, and involves some self-evaluation.

End of module 1 and programme 4, 5 3, 4

Facilitators

Survey - relates to five meta-questions and all four Kirkpatrick levels, and involves some self-evaluation; facilitation enhancement sessions

Mid module 1 and at least termly 1-5 3

Curriculum Leads Self-evaluation and termly KiT meetings; practice shared; improvements planned.

At least three times a year; more frequently at the start (induction)

2, 3, 5 2, 3, 4

Cluster Strategic and Operational Leads

Self-evaluation process using the gathered information (above) and termly KiT meetings with DP Lead and representative from LLSE improvement team - relates to all five meta-questions.

At least three times a year; more frequently at the start and induction

1-5 1-4

Delivery Partner Strategic and Operational Leads

Self-evaluation using the gathered information (above) and termly KiT meetings - all five meta-questions.


1-5 1-4


Recruitment, engagement and retention report, with KiT meeting as necessary.

At least three times a year; more frequently at the start and induction

1-5 1, 3, 4


Self-evaluation, using the gathered information (above), with peer review and observations - with representative from LLSE improvement team.

Annually 1-5 1-4

Participants Assessment submission at 12/18 months Within one week of deadline 2, 3 2, 3

Assessment Lead(s) Emerging assessment moderation issues and practice for sharing.

During internal moderation 2 2

DfE QAA Emerging assessment moderation issues and practice for sharing. After QAA moderation 2 2

Assessment Lead(s) Assessment results 3 months after assessment deadline 2, 3 2

Participants Exit survey - relates to all five meta-questions and Kirkpatrick levels 3 and 4.

Up to 2 weeks after successful assessment result

1-5 2-4

QAA and Ofsted Self-assessment and judgements - KPIs, Ofsted framework and meta-questions. TBC 1-5 1-4

CQI Committee

All information collated by administration team, analysed for sharing of practice and action-planning for implementing improvements.


1-5 1-4

LLSE Board CQI review of the five meta-questions and four KPIs. Three times a year 1-5 1-4


Support for Our Commitment to High Expectations

Bibliography

Baird, K., Hu, K. and Reeve. R. (2011) ‘The relationships between organizational culture, total quality management practices and operational performance’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31 (7) pp.789-814. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111144850

Chapman, K. (2019) A study on teamwork and leadership skills exhibited by the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows. Available at: http://www.airheadjourno.com/a-study-on-teamwork-and-leadership-skills-exhibited-by-the-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows/

Kirkpatrick, D. and Kirkpatrick, J. (1994) Evaluating Training Programmes: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

Kirkpatrick, J. and Kirkpatrick, W. (2016) Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation. Alexandria: ATD Press

Mosadeghrad, A,M. (2014) ‘Essentials of total quality management: a meta-analysis, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 27 (6) pp.544-558, https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2013-0082

Owen, H. (1996) ‘Building Teams on a Display of Trust.’ People Management, 2 (6) pp.34-37

Parsons, C. (1994) ‘The Politics and Practice of Quality’, in Parsons, C., (ed), Quality Improvement in Education. London: Fulton

Perry, E., Boylan, M., Booth, J. (2019) Quality Assurance of Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development: Rapid Evidence Review. London: Wellcome Trust

Sallis, E. (1993) Total Quality Management in Education. London: Kogan

West-Burnham, J. (1992) Managing Quality in Schools. Harlow: Longman


Stakeholder Strategies/mechanisms for sharing high expectations in addition to the information-rich ‘bottom up’ CQI process and practice sharing

Meta-questions KPIs

Participant• High quality pre-course information about curriculum content,

structure, delivery, support, assessment and CQI • Induction to demonstrate the above

1 1, 3

Participant

• High quality learning experiences and materials throughout • High quality preparation and support for assessment, and the

expectation that when a participants engages fully with all aspects of the programme, they will pass

1-5 2-4

Participant • High quality, in-depth evaluation surveys that overtly lead to continuing improvement for the participant experience 1-5 3, 4

Facilitator

• High quality professional learning with facilitation competencies to support self-evaluation and continuing improvement

• High quality programme curriculum materials and guidance • Assessment results and feedback • Evaluation surveys that overtly lead to continuing improvement in

facilitation and the support for facilitators

2-5 3, 4

In-school Coach

• High quality guidance and materials for professional learning to support self-evaluation and continued improvement

• Assessment results and feedback • Evaluation surveys that overtly lead to continuing improvement in

coaching and the support for coaches

4, 5 3, 4

Assessment Team• Robust assessment function including clear, straightforward

assessment case studies, questions and rubric, training, standardisation, moderation and feedback.

2 2

Delivery Partner and Cluster Strategic Leads

• Induction, facilitator, coach and assessment professional learning • Assessment results and feedback • Evaluations, reviews and dialogue that overtly lead to continuing

improvement, support and challenge1-5 1-4

Delivery Partner and Cluster Operational Leads

• Induction • Assessment results and feedback • Evaluations, reviews and dialogue that overtly lead to continuing

improvement, support and challenge1-5 1-4

https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111144850

http://www.airheadjourno.com/a-study-on-teamwork-and-leadership-skills-exhibited-by-the-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows/



http://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2013-0082

Documents

Continuous Quality Improvement Philosophy: Beyond