The document summarizes the key aspects of the 2013-14 AoC Beacon Awards assessment process. It received 169 applications across 16 award categories from 106 colleges in the UK. The standard of submissions was generally good, though some lacked evidence and structure. All shortlisted colleges received assessment visits which confirmed the applications. Feedback from colleges was positive about the process overall. Some areas for improvement in future submissions and assessments were identified.

1. 1
AoC Beacon Awards 2013-14
Chief Assessor’s Annual Report
1. Introduction:
This report provides a summary of the key features of applications for the
awards identifying areas for improvement in submissions written by colleges,
and an overview of the assessment of awards and the arrangements for
quality assurance.
2. Overview:
There were 16 awards offered in 2013, which attracted 169 applications from
106 Colleges: including colleges in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and
Wales. This included: 147 applications from 89 General FE Colleges: 12
applications from 10 Sixth Form Colleges; 1 application from a Land based
College; 7 applications from 4 Specialist Colleges.
Assessors commented on the high quality of the projects/initiatives shortlisted
for the awards. The wide range of projects indicates the diversity of initiatives
across the sector and the innovative approaches colleges are taking to better
meet the needs of their learners.
Details of the assessment procedures can be found in the “Handbook for
Assessment”. The assessment arrangements continue to be effective;
shortlisted colleges responded positively to the assessment visits and find
them helpful. Visits confirmed and substantiated the statements in the
colleges’ submissions and provided further evidence and information in
support of their applications. All shortlisted colleges presented strong cases
for the award, providing evidence of the provision of exemplary practice that
would enhance the quality of FE if adopted by other colleges. The wider
sector will benefit as a result of celebrating the achievements.
As in previous years, the applications included many imaginative and
innovative initiatives adopted by colleges to respond to the needs of their
students, communities and local businesses. The dedication by the colleges,
especially those shortlisted for the awards, to enable individuals to realise
their aims, through transforming their potential, is inspirational. In many
awards, the task of selecting the winning application was particularly difficult.
In determining the awards, assessors made clear reference to the extent to
which applications met both the Beacon and sponsor’s criteria, the impact on
the experience of learners, the success of learners in achieving their aims and
the transferability of the initiative to other colleges.
3. Quality of Applications:
The standard of the written submissions and their presentation was generally
good; the best examples described clearly how the initiative met both the
Beacon and the specific sponsor’s criteria. Nearly all submissions were
anonymous. It is clear colleges had taken care to remove identifying
Last updated 28 February 2014
Chief Assessor annual report for website 2013.doc

2. 2
information, but in a few submissions these were not removed from
appendices or testimonials. Submissions that are not anonymous may be
returned to the applicants. The best submissions provided explicit evidence of
significant improvement in the quality of provision directly impacting on
learners with clear indications of high levels of achievement.
A minority of submissions were poorly structured, did not follow the guidance
on how to apply, did not refer explicitly to significant criteria and were not
presented well. The weaker submissions failed to provide sufficient
information to identify features that went beyond common practice in FE.
Colleges should be aware that the quality of the presentation of the
application is sometimes an important indicator of the capability to
successfully promote and disseminate the initiative to other colleges.
Assessors commented on the failure of some colleges across all awards to
adequately evidence how the application met the Beacon criteria. The
proforma for detailing how the submission meets the Beacon criteria was not
well completed. Responses were sometimes too brief, mostly limited to one
sentence, to provide evidence to substantiate a claim; in many cases sections
of text were simply copied from the rest of the application which were simply a
statement of intent, rather than demonstrating how the criteria are met.
Very few of the submissions provided sufficient evidence of how projects
promote Equality and Diversity or how the initiative promoted exemplary
teaching and learning which delivers identifiable benefits to learners. Whilst
college quality assurance was often quoted as meeting the criteria most
submissions failed to explain how this has an impact on the initiative and
results in significant improvements in the project.
Most submissions were appropriately structured to explicitly address the
sponsor's criteria, however many non-shortlisted submissions did not provide
sufficient direct evidence to support claims in meeting criteria. Some
submissions provided many quotes from Ofsted reports, which referred to a
whole college judgment, but failed to provide evidence relevant to the specific
area of the submission corroborating the judgment.
The submissions were found to have the following general shortcomings:




Lack of examples to illustrate innovative or exemplary teaching and
learning
Insufficient evidence of how projects promote Equality and Diversity
Data on learner success and progression unclear or not presented
Insufficient evidence of how quality assurance has supported the
development of the project
The application form will be revised to help colleges to explicitly state how the
initiative satisfies the Beacon criteria in response to specific questions. The
new application form will include the requirement to state briefly how the
initiative meets each of the Beacon criteria: e.g. “How does the initiative
Last updated 28 February 2014
Chief Assessor annual report for website 2013.doc

3. 3
promote exemplary teaching and learning” with space for a direct answer and
a word limit of between 50 to 150 words.
The criteria and awards are reviewed annually to ensure they reflect current
developments of the curriculum in FE. Three awards, which attracted fewer
than five submissions (Health and community care; HE in FE; Development of
Numeracy and Literacy in Wales), will be reconsidered to ensure they are
relevant to current practice in Further Education.
4. Quality Assurance of Assessment of Awards:
The first stage of quality assurance of assessment aims to ensure
appropriate assessment of the applications has been completed; i.e. that the
evaluation is accurate and appropriately recorded on the selection analysis
forms ( SAFs) and that the shortlisted submissions represent those with the
greatest merit.
All the 16 awards were reviewed and the SAFs for each award scrutinised. A
sample of submissions for each award was reviewed to confirm the
assessors' evaluation. This sample was chosen in relation to the number of
submissions, the completeness of the SAFs, and the boundary between those
shortlisted and those that came close to being selected for a visit. All the
shortlisted submissions were considered.
Assessment of the submissions was carried out thoroughly. The SAFs
provided a sound basis for the first stage assessment and the identification of
applications to be shortlisted. The completed SAFs represent an accurate
evaluation and demonstrate a thorough analysis and assessment of the
submissions. In awards with a small number of applications assessors
ensured that the standard of the shortlisted applications is commensurate with
other more popular awards.
The second stage of moderation and quality assurance concentrates on
reviewing the reports of the visits and assessors' recommendations. It aims to
ensure assessment is consistent across awards, that visit reports provide a
clear evaluation supported by an appropriate record of the evidence, and that
the assessors' recommendations for awards are consistent with the aims of
the award and the evaluation.
Colleges reported that the visits were well organised and provided suitable
opportunity for them to present key features of their application. In a few
cases assessors reported that the visits were over dominated by college
senior management and provided too little opportunity for assessors to meet
with learners. The most successful colleges recognise that learners are their
best advocates.
The visits supported the preparation of assessors’ final reports enabling a
clear analysis and evaluation of the short-listed projects; and a summary of
Last updated 28 February 2014
Chief Assessor annual report for website 2013.doc

4. 4
the reasons for the recommendation for the award, identifying the key
weaknesses that resulted in the decision to disqualify the other applications.
The shortlisted applications for many categories of award were considered to
be of very high quality and worthy of an award. The winning colleges provided
more substantial and explicit evidence of how the application met both the
Beacon and sponsor’s criteria, especially in clearly demonstrating how the
initiative promoted and enabled innovative or exemplary teaching and learning
resulting in high levels of students’ achievement. In some awards the
shortlisted colleges did not provide sufficient or clear evidence of the impact
on learners, including accurate and clear data on achievement. Some
applications which did not achieve the award were judged to be at too early a
stage of development. Shortlisted colleges not winning the award are to be
congratulated on reaching this round of the assessment process and
encouraged to resubmit a revised application following further development of
the initiative.
5. Evaluation of assessment by short-listed colleges
Colleges are asked to complete an evaluation of assessment which covers
the whole of the assessment process but with emphasis on the interaction
with assessors during the visit. Of the 33 colleges that were shortlisted in
2013, 23 completed an evaluation form. The responses show that Colleges
found the experience a valuable and positive one: 16 (of 23) identified more
gains from the process in helping them improve; 6 responses indicated a
balance. Evaluation forms completed for the last three years show a
consistently positive response with 85% reporting the visit was helpful in
supporting development of the project/initiative and no colleges reporting an
overall negative experience. Sixth Form colleges and specialist colleges
report a higher level, with over 90% responding positively to the assessment
arrangements. Nearly all colleges comment on the clarity of the arrangements
for the visits and the effective and professional management by assessors.
Comments made by colleges are used to support further training of assessors
and improvement in the assessment of awards. The evaluations indicate that
further guidance is needed to some assessors on managing the visit to the
college to ensure clarity of purpose, effective use of time and providing
suitable feedback following the assessment visits.
JR Marriott
Chief Assessor AoC Beacon Awards
January 2014
Last updated 28 February 2014
Chief Assessor annual report for website 2013.doc