Guidance

Handbook for the inspection of education, skills and work activities in prisons and young offender institutions

Updated 26 February 2024

Applies to England

This handbook came into effect on 26 February 2024.

Introduction

1. This handbook describes the main activities that Ofsted’s further education (FE) and skills inspectors carry out when they inspect education, skills and work activities in prisons and young offender institutions (YOIs) in England, as part of joint inspections led by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP). It also sets out the judgements that inspectors will make and report on. These reports contribute to the section on ‘purposeful activity’ in the HMIP inspection reports.

2. HMIP’s ‘Men’s prisons Expectations’ applies to HMIP inspections of adult male prisons and YOIs holding young adults aged 18 to 21. This handbook takes into account the ‘Expectations’ with respect to Ofsted’s inspection of education, skills and work activities. The ‘Expectations’ state:

This [education, skills and work activities] section of the inspection is conducted by Ofsted in England and Estyn in Wales. To ensure that prisons are held accountable to the same standard of performance as further education colleges in the community, we have chosen to explicitly adopt each organisation’s inspection framework.

3. When inspecting adult male prisons and YOIs holding young adults aged 18 to 21, Ofsted inspectors will inspect education, skills and work activities:

• in accordance with the key judgements and evaluation criteria of the education inspection framework (EIF)

• taking into account HMIP’s ‘Expectations’

4. From 1 October 2022, Ofsted inspectors will report their key findings on the quality of education delivered by the prison education framework (PEF) provider or main education, skills and work contractor. Inspectors will not award a separate grade or a sub-judgement on the quality of education delivered by the PEF provider or main contractor. Inspectors will include a section in the report highlighting their findings and will name the PEF provider or main contractor in that section.

5. When inspecting women’s prisons, inspectors will continue to:

• take account of the existing relevant HMIP ‘Women’s prison Expectations’ for those prisons

• inspect in accordance with the key judgements and evaluation criteria of the EIF, as they did before with Ofsted’s common inspection framework (CIF) and as contained in Part 2 of this handbook

6. Ofsted normally inspects education, skills and work as part of HMIP’s inspections of prisons and YOIs. Ofsted may also carry out separate inspections or monitoring visits of prison education, skills and work as set out in this handbook. This might be when a prison’s education, skills and work have been graded requires improvement or inadequate at a previous inspection to ensure a timely follow-up full inspection. These separate standalone inspections or monitoring visits will result in a separate published report on Ofsted’s reports website.

7. Ofsted may also carry out monitoring visits to prisons, in certain circumstances. We will normally do these in parallel with HMIP’s independent reviews of progress (IRPs). They will involve feedback to the head of learning and skills, or equivalent, and the governor. Our findings and progress judgements will be included in the IRP report published by HMIP. We may also, in certain circumstances, carry out a separate, standalone monitoring visit of a prison’s education, skills and work.

8. This handbook has two parts:

• Part 1. How Ofsted will inspect prisons and YOIs. This contains information about the processes before, during and after an inspection.

• Part 2. The evaluation schedule. This contains the evaluation criteria that inspectors use to judge the quality and standards of education, skills and work activities in prisons and YOIs, and the main types of evidence used.

9. HMIP leads the inspection of prisons using its inspection framework, known as ‘Expectations’.^{[footnote 1]} The criteria in ‘Expectations’ that are relevant to the inspection of education, skills and work activities in prisons and YOIs are set out under the key judgements in Part 2.

10. This handbook is a guide for inspectors on how to inspect education, skills and work activities in prisons and YOIs. It is also available to prisons, YOIs and other organisations to inform them about inspection processes and procedures. This handbook:

• balances the need for consistent inspections with the need to respond to each prison’s and YOI’s individual circumstances

• is aligned with the education inspection framework^{[footnote 2]}

• applies to inspections of prisons and YOIs with effect from 1 October 2022

11. Inspectors will apply their professional judgement when they use this handbook.

Gathering personal information on inspection

12. Inspectors will gather any personal information necessary to assist them in inspecting an establishment. Our privacy policy sets out what personal information we collect, what we do with it, how long we keep it and individuals’ rights under data protection legislation.^{[footnote 3]}

13. Individuals and organisations are legally required to provide inspectors with access to information. Section 131 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives our inspectors powers of entry to any premises on which an establishment provides education or training, and any premises used in connection with its provision of education or training. Section 132 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives our inspectors the power to take copies of, or take away, any records and documents relating to the education and training being inspected. This power enables inspectors to look at computers and other devices that may hold information.

14. Inspectors gather evidence during the inspection and record this on Ofsted’s systems. They may also see evidence on site that contains personal information about staff and learners. Inspectors may, if necessary, take notes from, or copies of, evidence containing personal information. Any notes or copies will be stored as evidence securely and not retained by inspectors personally. Inspectors may take photographs of learners’ work. These photographs will be stored securely as evidence, but will not be retained by the inspector personally. In most providers, inspectors will gather evidence electronically using a range of devices, including laptops, mobile phones and tablets. Inspectors should transfer evidence securely in line with our security policies.

 

Part 1. How Ofsted will inspect prisons and young offender institutions

Before the inspection

How prisons and YOIs are selected for inspection

15. HMIP has responsibility for identifying the annual schedule of joint inspections. HMIP consults with Ofsted and other inspectorates on its schedule of inspections. Ofsted may also carry out a standalone inspection of a prison’s education, skills and work.

Types of inspection

Full inspections

16. All inspections of prisons and YOIs are full inspections. In addition to making judgements as set out in the evaluation schedule, inspectors will follow up progress against the recommendations made in the previous inspection report. The focus of inspection is on the provider and how all of the individuals within the provider work together to make sure learners receive the highest quality of education and training. The focus is not on inspecting the specific individuals who work in the provider. Ofsted normally carries out its inspection of education, skills and work as part of HMIP’s inspections of prisons and YOIs.

17. From January 2020, Ofsted may also carry out separate inspections of prison education, skills and work as set out in this handbook. This might be when a prison’s education, skills and work has been graded requires improvement or inadequate at a previous inspection to ensure a timely follow-up full inspection or monitoring visit. These separate standalone inspections and monitoring visits will result in a separate published report on the Ofsted reports website. Prisons will normally receive 10 working days’ notice of these sorts of inspections.

18. Inspectors will also take account of the outcomes of any Ofsted monitoring visit, such as:

• those carried out in parallel with an IRP and recorded in the IRP reports

• any progress monitoring visit

Monitoring visits

19. Ofsted may carry out monitoring visits to prisons and YOIs in certain circumstances to look at their education, skills and work.

20. Monitoring visits are an interim form of inspection that explores one or more specific themes. Their purpose is to monitor progress against these themes to encourage improvement and assess risk.

21. During a monitoring visit, we will make progress judgements against the selected themes. This will normally be one of the following judgements:

• insufficient progress: progress has been either slow or insubstantial or both, and the demonstrable impact on prisoners has been negligible

• reasonable progress: the establishment’s actions are already having a beneficial impact on prisoners and improvements are sustainable and are based on the establishment’s thorough quality assurance processes

• significant progress: progress has been rapid and is already having a considerable impact on prisoners

22. The selected themes will normally be related to the areas for improvement set out in the last full inspection report, although they may also relate to matters that have arisen since the previous full inspection.

23. Ofsted will normally carry out monitoring visits in parallel with HMIP’s IRPs. Our inspectors will give feedback to the governor during monitoring visits. Our findings and progress judgements against the selected themes will be included in the IRP report. When HMIP announces an IRP, the notification letter will set out our involvement in the IRP and the themes that we will cover.

24. We may also carry out a separate, standalone monitoring visit of a prison’s education, skills and work. This will normally result in a published report that sets out the findings and progress judgements. The process for publication will be the same as the process for separate Ofsted inspections (see paragraphs 103 to 109).

Pilots

25. From time to time, we may pilot different approaches to inspection. We will provide details of this on a case-by-case basis, and inform HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) and HMIP accordingly.

Research and survey visits

26. Research and survey visits may take place at a selected number of prisons and YOIs each year, in consultation with HMIP, to explore a specific aspect of a prison’s work as part of a programme of research based on topics linked to national priorities.

Scope of inspection

27. All provision of education, skills and work activities that a prison or YOI is responsible for falls within the scope of the inspection. This includes any PEF or dynamic purchasing system provision run for or on behalf of the prison, and any provision run under a subcontract.

28. As part of the inspection, we may inspect any education, training or work carried out on behalf of the prison, YOI or its providers through contractual arrangements (including by subcontract or partnership arrangements).

What inspections will cover

29. During a full inspection, inspectors will make an overall effectiveness judgement and key judgements on:

• the quality of education, skills and work, including the contribution made by the PEF provider or the main education, skills and work contractor

• behaviour and attitudes

• personal development

• leadership and management

Before the inspection

30. The lead inspector’s planning will focus primarily on how inspectors will gather evidence of prisoners’ experiences in order to evaluate the provision against the 4 key judgements of the EIF.

31. Inspectors’ evidence-gathering will be primarily made up of focused curriculum reviews or ‘deep dives’, including:

• lesson/session visits and observations

• scrutinising prisoners’ work/training and assessment

• discussions with prisoners and teachers/trainers/instructors

Inspectors may carry out some inspection activities jointly with members of the establishment staff.

32. Inspectors may plan to visit prisoners at voluntary or employer work placements and carry out inspection activities. These visits give inspectors the opportunity to speak with prisoners and employers, to discuss learning and to look at prisoners’ work. Inspectors may carry out interviews/discussions with employers and staff by telephone or other means of remote communication.

The role of the nominee in inspection

33. Each prison or YOI is invited to nominate a senior member of staff to act as their main link with the inspection team. The nominee should:

• have a detailed understanding of the prison or YOI’s education, skills and work activities and operations, including, where appropriate, those of contractors

• be sufficiently senior to ensure the cooperation of staff at all levels, including contractors and employers

• have authority to carry out the role with autonomy

34. The nominee’s responsibilities include:

• providing information for the lead inspector to support inspection planning

• liaising with the lead inspector and ensuring that documents are available, and that staff can attend meetings

• briefing staff at the prison or YOI and their PEF or other providers about inspection arrangements

• informing prisoners (and employers, if relevant) about the inspection

• attending all team meetings, in particular the final grading/judgement team meeting

• providing the lead inspector with timely updates on any relevant security and health and safety issues in the establishment

• coordinating feedback arrangements, in particular at the end of the inspection

Notification of inspection

35. HMIP will notify the prison or YOI of the inspection dates in the case of joint HMIP/Ofsted inspections. The lead inspector will contact the senior person responsible for education, skills and work activities in the prison or YOI after HMIP inspectors have made initial contact. This will usually be by Thursday of the week before the inspection. The lead inspector should:

• establish good communications and effective working relationships

• confirm the arrangements for the inspection

36. For a separate, standalone Ofsted inspection of education, skills and work, we will normally contact the governor, by email, 10 working days before the inspection starts, to notify them of the inspection. The governor will establish for the lead inspector who they want to act as the inspection nominee, whether they will have a shadow nominee and whether the governor or a senior leader will attend the planning call. The lead inspector will then contact the nominee, normally by email, as soon as possible and by the following morning at the latest. The lead inspector will then normally work with the nominee/senior person responsible for education, skills and work activities in the prison to take forward the planning of the inspection.

37. For a joint HMIP full inspection or IRP, the Ofsted lead inspector notifies HMPPS after the planning call has been held. For a separate standalone Ofsted monitoring visit or inspection, we notify HMPPS a week before we notify the establishment’s leaders.

Planning for the inspection

38. The lead inspector’s planning will focus primarily on how inspectors will gather first-hand evidence of prisoners’ experiences to evaluate them against HMIP’s ‘Expectations’ and the 4 key judgements of the EIF.

39. As soon as HMIP has notified the prison or YOI, staff should draw together the information in the lists below that is readily available. These should be working documents and not prepared specifically for the inspection. Inspectors will keep the review of documentation to a minimum.

40. While it is important that we carry out our inspections as planned wherever possible, sometimes there may be a reason why an inspection may not go ahead. Leaders at the establishment may request a deferral of their separate standalone monitoring visit or full inspection. We will decide whether this should be granted in accordance with our deferral policy. The lead inspector will liaise with the establishment to ensure that, wherever possible, the inspection or monitoring visit can go ahead.

41. Inspectors should be mindful that the prison or YOI will need to accommodate the inspection while still managing its day-to-day operations.

42. To ensure that the lead inspector has a clear understanding of the scope and range of provision, the nominee will send the following information, as applicable and as soon as possible:

• completed Ofsted information annex, which they can get through HMIP’s inspection coordinator (on a standalone inspection, Ofsted will request a similar set of information directly)

• population statistics, including age, ethnicity, length of sentence and length of stay

• timetables for lessons/sessions/workshops or other learning activities during the week

Planning the inspection with the prison or YOI

43. To ensure that the prison or YOI understands the inspection process, the lead inspector will hold a telephone planning meeting with the nominee. The senior leader, nominee and shadow nominee (or other senior managers) may also attend. The nominee(s) and senior leader will be able to share information with each other and provide mutual support throughout the inspection. Inspectors should take account of the well-being of leaders and staff and adjust their approach or activity as appropriate in the best interest of learners. Where appropriate, inspectors will consider suitable adjustments to allow the staff member to continue. Where appropriate, inspectors will inform those responsible for the person’s well-being.

44. The agenda for the meeting should include:

• introductions and purpose of meeting

• confirmation of the use of this handbook

• an update on the prison or YOI’s recent developments

• inspection team members and their responsibilities

• the role and responsibilities of the nominee

• the scope of the inspection

• arrangements to collect the views of prisoners and external partners, as necessary, during the inspection through:

  • including prisoners’ views, as referenced by HMIP’s survey

  • informal meetings or individual interviews with prisoners arranged by inspectors during the inspection

• arrangements for the lead inspector to have schedules/timetables of all learning activities, including those delivered by contractors, where applicable, and any remote learning taking place

• arrangements for observing teaching, learning and assessments, and reviewing prisoners’ work

• setting up meetings for inspectors with key members of staff/management

• documents to be made available during the inspection

• times of, and venues for, team meetings

• domestic arrangements

• health, safety and security of inspectors

• final feedback, evaluation and reporting arrangements

• arrangements, where applicable, for any additional visitors/observers during the inspection

45. This discussion will also explore whether the establishment has any elements of remote education in place at the time of inspection.

46. In this conversation, the nominee and lead inspector will agree safety protocols that the inspection team will follow to ensure that the inspection is completed in a COVID-19 secure way.

47. Prisons and YOIs may have a shadow nominee as well as their nominee for staff developmental purposes. The shadow nominee will act as an observer and support for the establishment and the nominee. They will not normally contribute to discussions with inspectors. This does not affect the role of the nominee as set out above or how inspection team meetings are managed.

48. The lead inspector will discuss with the nominee the inspectors’ schedule and the activities that inspectors will carry out face to face and those they plan to carry out remotely, such as by telephone.

49. Meetings with prisoners and key staff and any visits to prisoners at work or external sites should be agreed as quickly as possible. Where applicable, the prison or YOI will need to inform the education and training contractors, their staff and other users about the inspection, emphasising that inspectors may visit any sessions involving prisoners.

50. During the planning call with the inspection nominee, the lead inspector will seek to understand the specific impact of COVID-19 on the establishment and prisoners, and how leaders and managers responded. The lead inspector will give the establishment an opportunity to raise any issues, or concerns or to seek clarification before the inspection and will explain how the establishment will be able to raise any matters during the inspection itself.

51. The establishment’s leaders should inform all contractors’ staff, prisoners, employers and other stakeholders about the inspection. They should emphasise that inspectors may visit any learning sessions involving prisoners, either at the prison/YOI or at other locations, including workplaces in the community that prisoners access through being released on temporary licence (RoTL).

52. Inspectors will select the deep dive (focused curriculum review) areas that they will focus on. They will also plan the associated inspection activities, such as which prisoners they will meet and which employers they will visit, as relevant. They will take into account a range of factors, including:

• the courses on offer, their subjects and levels

• the relative performance on different courses

• the geographical spread of any prisoners undertaking work or activities outside the prison

• the mode of delivery and attendance, including remote learning

• information from the nominee, prisoners and employers, HMPPS or HMIP

53. The lead inspector will draw up a pre-inspection team briefing for the inspection team and the nominee, who is the main link with the inspection team. The purpose of this briefing is to focus inspection activity and identify areas for exploration. The lead inspector’s team briefing letter may use, but will not be restricted to:

• the prison, YOI and any providers’ current self-assessment report or equivalent evaluation report and quality improvement plans

• performance data since the previous inspection, including achievement rates and entry to education, training or employment

• the report from the previous inspection

• any monitoring visit letters from Ofsted, including joint IRPs with HMIP

Seeking the views of prisoners, employers and providers

54. The views of prisoners are central to inspection. Inspectors will speak to prisoners in a variety of settings during the inspection. Prisoners’ views will also be collected through HMIP’s pre-inspection questionnaire. This survey includes questions about prisoners’ education, skills and work experience. Ofsted’s inspectors receive the analysis of this survey before the inspection. This may have a bearing on which areas of the curriculum they focus on. Where applicable, the views of employers and providers will be collected through meetings during the inspection.

55. HMIP asks prisons and YOIs to notify all current prisoners and any other relevant people of the inspection, and to include details of how they may inform the inspectors of their views.

56. Inspectors use the findings of HMIP’s pre-inspection prisoner survey and their focus group meetings with prisoners at the start of any joint full inspection. At these focus groups, they follow up any issues that the pre-inspection survey may have identified and, where relevant, share this information with Ofsted’s inspectors. These activities do not replace dialogue with prisoners during the inspection.

57. During the inspection, inspectors will use available opportunities to talk to prisoners and employers (where relevant), so that they have the opportunity to express their views about their learning and progress towards resettlement. This may happen face to face or remotely, for example by phone.

58. Inspectors will take account of views expressed to them by:

• prisoners

• the education and training provider/contractors

• employers

• the independent monitoring board

• senior staff

• the nominee

• other staff

59. The lead inspector will also take account of any external views on the prison or YOI’s performance, for example through briefings from monitoring, commissioning and funding bodies.

60. Staff and prisoners should be able to speak to inspectors in private, where possible and appropriate, to ensure that the presence of the nominee or senior staff does not influence their responses. Meetings during the inspection may include those with samples of prisoners selected by inspectors, and open-invitation meetings.

During the inspection

Days allocated to inspection and inspection team members

61. Inspections and monitoring visits will be led by either a HM Inspector (HMI) or an Ofsted Inspector (OI), assisted by other HMIs and/or OIs.

62. Ofsted normally inspects prisons and YOIs as part of HMIP’s joint inspections. Our inspectors normally attend full announced and unannounced inspections for up to 5 days on site (up to 3 days on site for a monitoring visit). The number of inspectors involved in the inspection will vary according to the type of inspection and, when it is a significant factor, the size/complexity of the prison or YOI.

63. Ofsted inspectors will normally arrive by Monday midday. If they start on any other day of the week, they may start earlier, for example at 9am. The lead inspector may attend the governor’s/director’s briefing with HMIP on Monday morning.

64. Ofsted inspectors no longer report on the sections covering the library and physical education. These are now in the ‘time out of cell’ section, in section 3 of the HMIP report (purposeful activity). Ofsted inspectors will, however, give their findings directly to HMIP inspectors on prisoners’ achievements, progress and learning that may take place in the library and the gym.

Gathering and recording evidence

65. Inspections will normally begin with in-depth discussions with leaders and managers about the prison’s or YOI’s curriculum, to establish the intent of the curriculum. During the inspection, inspectors will need to speak to staff in a range of different roles. They will do so in line with our code of conduct and at all times act with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect. Inspectors will ask about:

• what leaders intend prisoners to learn

• what end points and next steps they wish prisoners to reach

• what key concepts prisoners need to understand

• in what order prisoners will learn them

66. Although meetings with leaders are important, inspectors’ first priority during inspections is to collect first-hand evidence.

67. Inspectors will primarily do this through a range of inspection activities, grouped into deep dives. These will provide evidence of the effective implementation of the curriculum and its intent – but they will also gather evidence that may be relevant to the other key judgement areas and progress judgements. These activities will focus on curriculum areas selected by the lead inspector.

68. These inspection activities include:

• direct observation of teaching, training and assessment

• assessing case studies of prisoners, including potentially vulnerable prisoners, such as those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND)

• meetings with members of staff who work with individual prisoners receiving additional learning support, as well as support arrangements

• meetings and discussions with teachers, trainers and other staff, particularly subject specialists and subject leaders, so that inspectors can understand the intent and implementation of the curriculum

• interviews and discussions with prisoners

• scrutinising prisoners’ work

• evaluating learning materials and their use by prisoners, including resources for remote learning

• analysing the prison or YOI’s learner records; these records show planning for, and monitoring of, prisoners’ individual progress from their starting points when they began their courses and moved on to other courses

• the arrangements made for prisoners to gain experience of work, including on RoTL and their destinations on release

• assessing prisoners’ progress

• examining what prisoners know, understand, and can do and make, as a result of their learning

69. Information drawn from these different activities and focused on specific curriculum areas should provide valid, reliable and sufficient evidence of the quality of education and training when connected and brought together.

70. Evidence from these curriculum-related activities will also inform the other key judgements (on a full inspection):

• behaviour and attitudes

• personal development

• leadership and management

71. These curriculum-related activities will inform the progress judgements on a monitoring visit.

72. Inspectors will also carry out other inspection activities to gather evidence for the key judgements (or progress judgements on monitoring visits). These may include:

• analysing documents relating to:

  • leadership and management, such as records of governance meetings in YOIs, for example

  • personal development and behaviour, such as records about attendance

• analysing prisoner, employer and staff views provided through questionnaires and other sources

• scrutinising the quality of the learning journey for a selection of prisoners, starting from their arrival at the prison

• meeting with prisoners, employers, staff, governors and providers, where appropriate

73. During the inspection, inspectors will collect, analyse and record evidence and their judgements on paper forms. It is essential that the evidence accurately reflects discussions. Inspectors should clearly identify information that was provided in confidence. The evidence forms contribute to the evidence base, together with any briefings, plans or instructions prepared by the lead inspector, and responses from prisoners and employers (in any format). The lead inspector is responsible for assuring the quality of the evidence gathered.

74. Ofsted has no preferred teaching or training style. Inspectors judge the quality of education by the ways in which prisoners acquire knowledge, develop skills and exhibit appropriate behaviours for work and success in life or study. Teaching staff should plan their lessons as usual.

75. When prisoners are accessing work outside the prison as part of their RoTL, inspectors may visit employers. This is in order to observe prisoners’ on-the-job skills development and speak to employers and their staff.

76. Inspectors will not normally indicate which sessions they plan to visit. The team reserves the right to visit any prisoner or employer, and may cancel or add visits to ensure that enough evidence is collected. Inspectors will not normally give feedback to individual members of staff following these sessions.

Observations of teaching and training

77. An important element of the inspection approach will be to visit lessons, workshops or sessions where teaching, training, learning and assessment are happening. Inspectors will often invite appropriate staff from the establishment to take part in joint observations of these learning sessions.

78. Observation is primarily useful for gathering evidence about curriculum implementation and about how teaching and training sessions contribute to the quality of education and training. Inspectors can use observations to gather evidence about how well staff implement the curriculum by:

• looking at the teaching of one or more subjects

• triangulating observations with evidence collected through:

  • discussions with staff, prisoners and, where relevant, employers

  • scrutinising prisoners’ work

79. Inspectors will connect observation activity to other evidence for triangulation and as part of the deep dives. Observation is not about evaluating individual teachers or trainers. Inspectors will not grade the teaching or training they observe. Instead, inspectors will view teaching and training across a sample of the provision to give them part of the evidence base that informs their judgements, in particular those on the quality of education and training.

80. Observation is also useful for gathering evidence that contributes to other key judgements, including behaviour and attitudes. It enables inspectors to see direct evidence about how behaviour is managed and how behaviours and attitudes are developed in individual learning sessions. This evidence will complement the other evidence that inspectors gather about behaviour and attitudes during the inspection.

Work scrutiny

81. Inspectors may scrutinise prisoners’ work across the prison and YOI and aggregate insights to provide part of the evidence for an overall view of quality of education, primarily around the impact of the education provided. Inspectors will not evaluate individual pieces of work. Inspectors will connect work scrutiny to lesson/session observation, conversations with prisoners and staff where possible, and discussions with employers where appropriate.

82. Inspectors may invite appropriate staff from the establishment, including PEF providers or education, skills and work contractors, to take part in joint scrutiny of prisoners’ work.

83. Scrutiny of prisoners’ work is useful primarily for gathering evidence about the curriculum impact of the quality of education. Inspectors can scrutinise prisoners’ work to evaluate prisoners’ progress and progression through their course of study. Scrutiny of prisoners’ work will show whether they know more and can do more, and whether the knowledge and skills they have learned are well sequenced and have developed incrementally. Inspectors will synthesise what they find in order to contribute to their overall assessment of the quality of education across the prison or YOI.

The use of data

84. Inspectors use a range of data that is available. Both before and during the inspection, they will analyse the establishment’s performance using the most recent and reliable data. They will take into account the age and relevance of the data. Analysis may be at overall establishment level and/or for individual subjects or courses. Although data alone will not lead directly to judgements, the primary data that measures success for each type of provision will provide important evidence for judging the impact of the quality of education.

85. Inspectors will evaluate prisoners’ progress in relation to their starting points, based on:

• their rate of learning

• acquisition of knowledge, skills and behaviours

• whether they have achieved their individual challenging targets

Inspectors will also take account of data on the education, training and employment destinations that prisoners go to when they leave the establishment.

86. Inspectors will not look at internal progress data when fixed-time terminal examinations comprise the entire assessment of the course (for example, GCSE or A level). Similarly, inspectors will not normally look at predicted in-year achievement and attainment data more generally. That does not mean that establishments cannot use this data if they consider it appropriate. Inspectors will, however, focus more on the curriculum and less on the prison’s generation, analysis and interpretation of performance data. Inspectors will be interested in the conclusions drawn and actions taken from any internal assessment information, but they will not examine or verify that information first hand.

The self-assessment report

87. Inspectors will use self-assessment reports, or associated documents such as quality or development plans, to assess risk, monitor standards and plan for inspection.

88. If these documents are not available in advance, the prison or YOI should share its latest report/plan(s) with the lead inspector following notification of the inspection.

89. Inspectors will, in any case, use other readily available information about the establishment.

90. Ofsted does not require self-assessment to be provided in a specific format. Any assessment that is provided should be part of the prison or YOI’s processes and not generated solely for inspection purposes.

Meetings during the inspection

91. Inspectors are likely to have a number of different meetings with the prison or YOI’s staff for different purposes. They will try to minimise disruption to the establishment’s regular business and to the inspection team’s focus on assessing the quality of education and training. Therefore, meetings will be kept brief and purposeful.

92. Inspections will normally begin with an in-depth discussion with senior leaders and managers about the prison’s or YOI’s curriculum to establish the intent of the curriculum. This initial meeting will also provide useful insights into leadership and management and other areas. This initial meeting with leaders and managers should be carried out face to face. This is an opportunity for senior managers to provide a fuller context that may not be expressed through documents and data alone. It is also an opportunity for senior leaders to discuss the particular circumstances of the establishment that have had a role in the decisions made by leaders. It will help the inspectors and senior managers to establish a constructive, professional dialogue for the inspection.

93. There may be other meetings with senior leaders, including the nominee when necessary, as the inspection progresses. Inspectors carrying out deep dives that focus on specific areas of the curriculum will normally meet with key curriculum staff. This is to understand intent and implementation before carrying out their inspection activities to review that area of the curriculum. Other types of meetings have been referred to above.

94. The inspection team itself will hold meetings. These may include:

• an initial team meeting to:

  • brief the inspection team on the schedule for the inspection

  • clarify any queries about team members’ roles

  • receive a brief update from the prison or YOI, including, if appropriate, an initial briefing from managers with relevant responsibilities for key areas of the inspection

• a meeting for the nominee to hear the emerging judgements and to identify any opportunities to provide additional evidence

• a meeting towards the end of the inspection to reach grading/progress judgements about the prison or YOI

95. The lead inspector will hold inspector team meetings during the inspection to which the nominee(s) will be invited. At these meetings the nominee can hear the emerging judgements, understand how the inspection is progressing and continue the constructive professional dialogue. By taking part in discussions about evidence collected during the inspection, the nominee can help to ensure that all appropriate evidence is taken into account, although they may not contribute to decisions about inspection judgements. The lead inspector will check whether there are any issues, concerns or points of clarification that the prison or YOI wants to raise about the inspection. Any concerns about evidence should be raised with the lead inspector. The nominee will report to the prison or YOI’s staff, including any relevant contractors, on the progress of the inspection. The governor or a senior leader may also be invited to the meeting.

96. Inspectors may hold additional meetings with the prison or YOI’s staff. The lead inspector will meet with the prison or YOI’s governors/director to share feedback with them, normally on Wednesday afternoon.

97. The lead inspector will hold a feedback meeting for the prison or YOI and invitees to hear the key messages at the end of the inspection. It is the responsibility of the nominee and/or relevant prison managers to coordinate the attendance of HMPPS at this feedback meeting.

98. The lead inspector will also attend the agreed team meetings of HMIP to provide Ofsted’s initial emerging findings. The Ofsted lead inspector will provide a written draft of Ofsted’s findings for HMIP’s team leader before the end of the inspection and in readiness for HMIP’s moderation meeting.

99. In addition, the lead inspector will attend the debriefing provided by HMIP, when required to do so by HMIP’s team leader.

Reaching final judgements

100. Inspectors will discuss emerging findings regularly with the nominee and, where appropriate, senior staff.

101. The lead inspector will ensure that the inspection team agrees the judgements using the descriptors in part 2 of this handbook. The overall judgements will reflect all the evidence considered by the inspection team. The evidence base must support the judgements convincingly.

Providing feedback

102. At the end of the inspection the lead inspector will ensure that the prison or YOI is clear:

• about the grades awarded for each judgement required

• that the grades awarded are provisional and, although unlikely, may be subject to change through moderation and quality assurance. We expect leaders to share the inspection outcome and findings with whoever they deem appropriate. Leaders may also share inspection outcomes, in confidence, with others who are not involved with the establishment. This may include leaders’ colleagues, family members, medical advisers, and/or their wider support group. However, the information should not be made public

• that the main points provided in the feedback, subject to any change, will generally be reflected in the text of HMIP’s report (or Ofsted’s report in the case of a standalone inspection), although the report may differ slightly from the oral feedback

• that the provider has an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns or to seek clarification about the inspection, and can also contact Ofsted on the working day after the end of the inspection, if necessary

• about the main findings and areas for improvement

• that inspection findings and provisional grades or judgements may be shared with HMPPS before the publication of the report and, in the case of a standalone inspection, the findings will also be shared with HMIP or any other relevant regulator/inspectorate before the report is published

• about the procedures that will lead to the publication of the report

• about the complaints procedure

• where relevant, about the implications of the establishment being judged as requires improvement or inadequate overall, including the possibility that it might have a separate Ofsted inspection of its education, skills and work

After the inspection

Arrangements for publishing the report in joint inspections with HMIP

103. The Ofsted lead inspector will draft:

• section 3: ‘purposeful activity’ (excluding the ‘time out of cell’ section);^{[footnote 4]} when writing this section, inspectors will make specific reference to the curriculum intent, implementation and impact of the provision delivered by the PEF provider or the main education, skills and work contractor

• the separate ‘education, training and employment’ section of the resettlement and reintegration planning pathway in HMIP’s report, for women’s prisons only

104. The lead inspector is responsible for writing the inspection report and submitting the evidence to Ofsted and HMIP shortly after the inspection ends. The text of the report should reflect the evidence. The findings in the report should be consistent with the feedback given to the prison or YOI at the end of the inspection.

105. We will quality assure the inspection report before the lead inspector submits it to HMIP. The inspection process is not complete until the report is published. We may share a draft of the inspection report with funding bodies as necessary.

Arrangements for publishing the report in separate Ofsted inspections of education, skills and work

106. The lead inspector is responsible for writing the inspection report and submitting the evidence to Ofsted shortly after the inspection ends. The text of the report should reflect the evidence. The findings of the report should be consistent with the feedback given to the prison at the end of the inspection.

107. Inspection reports will be quality assured before we send a draft copy to the prison or YOI for a factual accuracy check. The establishment will normally receive the draft report within 18 working days of the end of the inspection. We expect leaders to share the inspection outcome and findings with whoever they deem appropriate. Leaders may also share inspection outcomes, in confidence, with others who are not involved with the establishment. This may include leaders’ colleagues, family members, medical advisers and/or their wider support group. However, the information should not be made public. The inspection report is not complete until the prison receives the final version of the report. We will share the findings of the inspection with HMIP after the inspection and before publication. We will also share the findings with HMPPS.

108. The establishment’s leaders will have 5 working days to comment on the draft report, inspection process and findings. We will consider all comments and will make changes as appropriate. We will respond to them when we share the final report with the establishment within 30 working days of the inspection.

109. If leaders wish to make a formal complaint, they have 5 working days after we have shared the final report with them in which to do so. If a complaint is not submitted, we will normally publish the report on our reports website 3 working days later. If a complaint has been submitted, the publication of the report may be delayed.

The inspection evidence base

110. The evidence base for the inspection must be retained for the time specified in Ofsted’s guidance. This is normally 6 years from the publication of the report. We may decide that retaining it for longer is warranted for research purposes.

Pausing inspections and incomplete inspections

111. There may be exceptional occasions when it is difficult or inappropriate to continue with an inspection and the inspection needs to be paused. We will consider these on a case-by-case basis. We will apply our policy on incomplete inspections where that is appropriate.

Quality assurance and complaints

Quality assurance of inspection

112. All inspectors are responsible for the quality of their work. The Ofsted lead inspector must ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with the principles of inspection and the code of conduct. Inspectors will uphold the highest professional standards in their work. They will treat everyone they meet during inspections fairly and with the respect and sensitivity they deserve. Inspectors will work constructively with leaders and staff, demonstrating professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect at all times.

113. Ofsted monitors the quality of inspections through a range of formal processes. Senior HMI or HMI may visit some prisons and YOIs to quality assure inspections. We may also evaluate the quality of an inspection evidence base. The Ofsted lead inspector will be responsible for feeding back to the team inspectors about the quality of their work and their conduct.

Handling concerns and complaints

114. The great majority of Ofsted’s work is carried out smoothly and without incident. If concerns arise during an inspection visit, they should be raised with the Ofsted lead inspector as soon as possible in order to resolve any issues before the inspection is completed. The lead inspector should seek advice where necessary. Inspectors should note any concerns raised, and actions taken, in the inspection evidence. If an issue remains unresolved, the establishment can contact Ofsted on the working day after the end of the inspection. This will be an opportunity for them to raise informal concerns about the inspection process or outcomes, ask about next steps or highlight information that they feel was not fully considered during the inspection. This will be directed to an inspector who is independent of the inspection, to discuss and to resolve, where appropriate, at the earliest opportunity. If an establishment has a safeguarding concern about an inspector, they should raise this with the lead inspector in the first instance. If they are not comfortable doing so, or if the concern is about the lead inspector, they should contact Ofsted using the phone number provided at the beginning of the inspection.

115. If it is not possible to resolve concerns during the inspection, shortly after the inspection or by submitting comments in response to the draft report, the prison or YOI may wish to lodge a formal complaint. The lead inspector should ensure that the establishment is informed of the procedures for making a formal complaint and that information about how to complain is available on GOV.UK

 

Part 2. The evaluation schedule: how we will judge education, skills and work activities in prisons and young offender institutions

Background to the evaluation schedule

116. Inspectors must use the evaluation schedule alongside the guidance set out in part 1 of this handbook and the EIF.

117. The evaluation schedule is not exhaustive. It does not replace the professional judgement of inspectors. Inspectors must interpret the grade descriptors in relation to the context of the prison or YOI.

118. In line with the EIF, inspectors will make judgements on the following areas:

• overall effectiveness

and the 4 key judgements:

• quality of education

• behaviour and attitudes

• personal development

• leadership and management

119. We have created the criteria for each of these judgements using inspection experience, areas of consensus in academic research and our own research.^{[footnote 5]} Ofsted’s criteria need to be understood in the context of HMIP’s ‘Men’s prisons Expectations’ and ‘Children’s Expectations’.

120. Inspectors use the following 4-point scale to make all judgements, including, where applicable:

• grade 1: outstanding

• grade 2: good

• grade 3: requires improvement

• grade 4: inadequate

The evaluation schedule and grade descriptors

Overall effectiveness

121. To make the judgement on a prison or YOI’s overall effectiveness, inspectors must use all their evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the learning that prisoners undertake.

122. In judging the overall effectiveness, inspectors will take account of the 4 key judgements. They will consider whether the quality of provision is good or whether it exceeds good and is therefore outstanding. If it is not good, inspectors will consider whether it requires improvement or is inadequate. An establishment will be inadequate under a particular judgement if one or more of the criteria for inadequate apply, unless these criteria apply solely due to the impact of COVID-19.

123. Before making the final judgement on overall effectiveness, inspectors must evaluate the extent to which the education and training provided meets the needs of all prisoners. This includes prisoners with SEND and those with learning difficulties.

Grade descriptors for overall effectiveness

Outstanding (1)

• The quality of education, skills and work is outstanding.

• All key judgements are likely to be outstanding. In exceptional circumstances one of the key judgements may be good, providing there is convincing evidence that the prison or YOI is improving this area rapidly and securely towards it being outstanding.

124. In order to judge whether a prison or YOI is good, requires improvement or is inadequate, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

Good (2)

• The quality of education, skills and work is at least good.

• All key judgements are likely to be good or outstanding. In exceptional circumstances, one of the key judgement areas may require improvement, as long as there is convincing evidence that the prison or YOI is improving it rapidly and securely towards it being good.

Requires improvement (3)

• Other than in exceptional circumstances, it is likely that, when the prison or YOI requires improvement in any of the key judgements, the establishment’s overall effectiveness will require improvement.

Inadequate (4)

• The judgement on overall effectiveness is likely to be inadequate when any one of the key judgements is inadequate.

The quality of education, skills and work

125. Inspectors will take a rounded view of the quality of education, skills and work that a prison or YOI delivers to its prisoners, including the quality of education and training delivered by its contractors.

126. Inspectors will consider the prison or YOI’s curriculum, which embodies the decisions the establishment has made about the knowledge, skills and behaviours its prisoners need to acquire to fulfil their aspirations for learning, employment and independence.

127. They will also consider the way teachers, tutors and instructors teach, train and assess in order to support prisoners to build their knowledge and to apply that knowledge as skills.

128. Inspectors will also consider the outcomes that prisoners achieve as a result of the education and training they have received and the work they have undertaken.

129. Finally, inspectors will specifically consider the contribution that the PEF provider or main education, skills and work contractor makes to curriculum intent and its implementation and impact.

130. Inspectors recognise that establishments may have been unable to implement the curriculum in the usual way during the COVID-19 pandemic. They will seek to understand how leaders and managers have adapted and prioritised the curriculum.

131. Inspectors recognise that establishments may have made changes to some courses to create a short-term specific focus for some or all prisoners. However, where this is the case, there must be a clear rationale for why this is in those prisoners’ interest, and there must be a clear plan for returning all prisoners to studying their full programme.

132. Inspectors will explore how the establishment implemented the curriculum remotely. Inspectors will also look at how managers and staff identified learning gaps and any new starting points of prisoners, and how managers and staff have responded to these in their curriculum planning.

133. When we refer to the intent, implementation and impact of the curriculum and quality of education within this handbook, we are including remote education. We consider that education delivered remotely or online should be integrated into the programme of education/training, and be designed to support the wider implementation of the establishment’s curriculum.

Intent

134. In evaluating the prison or YOI’s educational intent, inspectors will primarily consider the curriculum leadership provided by senior and subject leaders.

135. The evaluation focuses on factors that contribute to prisoners receiving education and training that enable them to achieve well. These factors are listed below.

• Leaders and managers have selected and developed a curriculum that develops the knowledge, skills and behaviours that prisoners need in order to take advantage of the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences that prepare them for their next stage in education, training or employment within the establishment or on release.

• This includes English (in particular, reading), mathematics and information and communication technology (ICT). These subjects encompass knowledge and skills that, as well as being valuable and engaging in their own right, will also enable prisoners to access the full curriculum.

• It is clear what the curriculum is preparing prisoners for. It is also clear what prisoners will need to know and be able to do at the end of their learning or training programmes.

• Leaders, managers and teachers have planned and sequenced the curriculum so that prisoners can build on previous teaching and learning, and develop the new knowledge and skills they need.

• The curriculum offers prisoners the knowledge and skills that reflect the needs of the local area and region where they are likely to be released.

• The curriculum intent takes into account the needs of prisoners, employers and the local, regional and national economy, as necessary. Curriculum planning takes account of delays and gaps that arise as a result of the pandemic.

136. The curriculum ensures that all prisoners benefit from high academic, technical and/or vocational ambitions. This means that the curriculum should be ambitious for prisoners with SEND or learning difficulties, including those who have additional learning needs, and it should meet those needs.

The curriculum

137. The curriculum sets out the aims of a programme of education and training. It also:

• sets out the structure for those aims to be implemented, including the knowledge, skills and behaviours to be gained at each stage

• makes it possible to evaluate prisoners’ knowledge and understanding against those expectations

138. When establishments take radically different approaches to the curriculum, we will judge them fairly. We recognise the importance of an establishment’s autonomy in choosing its own curriculum approaches. If leaders are able to show that they have thought carefully, that they have built a curriculum with appropriate coverage, content, structure and sequencing, and that it has been implemented effectively, then inspectors will assess it favourably.

Sources of evidence specific to curriculum intent

139. Inspectors will draw evidence about leaders’ intent for the curriculum principally from discussion with senior and subject leaders. Inspectors will explore:

• how leaders and managers, including contractors, have ensured that a subject curriculum includes content that has been identified as most useful, and have ensured and that this content is taught in a logical progression, systematically and explicitly, so that all prisoners can acquire the intended knowledge, skills and behaviours; this includes understanding how the pandemic may have led to gaps in prisoners’ knowledge, learning delays and new starting points

• how leaders ensure that the curriculum supports prisoners’ progression and provides knowledge and/or skills for the future (including non-qualification activity, where relevant)

• how prisoners see links between different areas of knowledge and skills and recognise that some knowledge and skills are transferable

• how carefully leaders and managers, including contractors, have thought about the sequence of teaching knowledge and skills to build on what prisoners already know and can do

140. Inspectors will also consider any documentary evidence that leaders wish to provide in the format that the prison or YOI normally uses. Inspectors will not ask for materials to be produced or provided in any specific format for inspection.

Implementation

141. In evaluating the implementation of the curriculum, inspectors will focus on how the curriculum is taught at subject, classroom or workshop level.

142. We will focus on the following factors and the extent to which they are implemented.

• Teachers, trainers and instructors have expert knowledge of the subjects that they teach, including reading, as appropriate. If they do not, they are supported to address gaps so that prisoners are not disadvantaged by ineffective teaching, training and instruction.

• Teachers enable prisoners to understand key concepts, presenting information clearly and promoting discussion.

• Teachers check prisoners’ understanding effectively, and identify and correct misunderstandings.

• Trained peers are deployed as mentors to work closely with staff to provide focused individual guidance and help for prisoners.

• Leaders and teachers have designed and are delivering the subject curriculum in a way that allows prisoners to transfer key knowledge to their long-term memory. The curriculum is sequenced so that new knowledge and skills build on what prisoners know and can do, and prisoners can work towards defined end points.

• Teachers ensure that prisoners embed key concepts in their long-term memory, and apply them fluently and consistently.

• Teachers use assessment to:

  • check prisoners’ understanding in order to inform further teaching, training and instruction

  • help prisoners to embed and use knowledge fluently

  • develop prisoners’ understanding

  • help prisoners to gain, extend and improve their skills and not simply to memorise disconnected facts

• Prisoners’ employment-related skills are recognised and recorded.

• RoTL is used to enhance prisoners’ employment or training skills and prepare them for release.

The use of assessment

143. When used effectively, assessment can help prisoners to embed and use knowledge fluently, and show that they are competent in applying their skills. Effective assessment helps teaching staff to produce clear and achievable next steps for prisoners.

144. However, assessment is too often carried out in a way that creates unnecessary burdens for staff and prisoners. It is therefore important that leaders and teachers understand its limitations and avoid misuse and overuse.

145. Inspectors will evaluate how assessment supports the teaching of the curriculum, while not driving teachers and trainers towards excessive individualisation, differentiation or interventions that are almost impossible to deliver without lowering expectations of some prisoners and/or driving up teachers’ workload. This will include considering how the provider responds to any learning gaps that have arisen as a result of the pandemic.

Sources of evidence specific to curriculum implementation

146. The following activities will provide inspectors with evidence about the establishment’s implementation of its intended curriculum:

• discussions with subject specialists, subject leaders and teachers/trainers/instructors about:

  • the curriculum that prisoners follow

  • the intended end points towards which those prisoners are working

  • their view of how those prisoners are progressing through the curriculum

• reviews of curriculum plans or other long-term planning, in whatever form teachers and/or subject leaders usually produce and use them

• visits to classes, workshops and other activities, including observations of teaching and training

• scrutinising prisoners’ work

• interviews with prisoners

• discussions with teachers/trainers about how often they are expected to record and review data

• discussions with subject specialists, leaders and contractors about the content and pedagogical content knowledge of teachers/trainers, and what is done to support them, including with remote teaching

• discussions with staff, including specialist staff and peer mentors, who support prisoners in developing their knowledge, skills and behaviours

• where relevant, discussions with subject leaders and teachers about any aspect of the curriculum that has been delivered remotely and reviews of prisoners’ work that has been completed remotely

147. In order to triangulate evidence effectively, inspectors will ensure that they gather a variety of these types of evidence in relation to the same sample of prisoners. Inspectors will also ensure that the samples of prisoners they choose are sufficient to allow them to reach a valid and sufficiently reliable judgement on the quality of education and training offered by the prison or YOI overall.

Impact

148. When inspectors evaluate the impact of the education, skills and work provided by the prison or YOI, they will focus on what prisoners have learned, and the skills they have gained and can apply.

149. Inspectors will focus on the following factors.

• A well-constructed, well-taught curriculum will lead to good results because those results will reflect what prisoners have learned. There need be no conflict between teaching a broad, rich curriculum and achieving success in examinations and tests.

• Prisoners with learning difficulties and those with SEND acquire the knowledge and skills they need to improve their chances of successful rehabilitation, becoming more independent in their everyday life and/or progressing to employment.

• Prisoners make good progress with their reading skills and this contributes towards their successful next steps and rehabilitation plans. Prisoners, in particular those who face longer custodial sentences, read for pleasure.

• Examinations are useful indicators of prisoners’ outcomes, but they only represent a sample of what they have learned. Inspectors will balance this with their first-hand assessment of prisoners’ work.

• All learning builds towards an end point. Prisoners are being prepared for their next stage of education, training or employment, within their establishment or on release, at each stage of their learning. Learning takes account, where relevant, of prisoners’ sentence plans. Inspectors will also consider whether prisoners are ready for the next stage and are progressing to appropriate, high-quality destinations within the prison or YOI, or on release.

• The provision gives prisoners the skills to help them reduce reoffending.

Sources of evidence specific to curriculum impact

150. Inspectors will gather evidence of the impact of the education, skills and work offered by the prison or YOI, directly or via contractors, from the following sources:

• valid/externally validated performance information about prisoners’ progress and attainment, where it is available

• first-hand evidence of the progress that prisoners are making, drawing together the evidence from the interviews, observations, work scrutiny and documentary review described above (see ‘sources of evidence specific to curriculum implementation’)

• any information provided by the prison or YOI about the destinations to which its prisoners progress when they leave the establishment

• discussions with a selection of prisoners about their intended/planned destinations

• discussions with prisoners about the impact of the curriculum, for instance regarding what they have remembered about the knowledge and skills they have acquired, and how their learning enables them to connect ideas

151. Inspectors will also evaluate prisoners’ progress in relation to their starting points, based on:

• their rate of learning

• their acquisition of knowledge, skills and behaviours

• whether they have achieved their individual challenging targets

152. Inspectors will not look at internal progress and attainment data on courses when fixed-time examinations at the end of the course make up the entire assessment. Similarly, inspectors will not normally look at predicted in-year achievement and attainment data more generally.

Balancing intent, implementation and impact to reach a quality of education, skills and work judgement

153. Inspectors will not grade intent, implementation and impact separately. Instead, they will reach a single graded judgement for the quality of education, skills and work, drawing on all the evidence they have gathered and using their professional judgement.

Grade descriptors for the quality of education, skills and work

For the quality of education, skills and work provided to be judged outstanding, it must meet the following criteria.

Outstanding (1)

• The establishment meets all the criteria for a good quality of education, skills and work securely and consistently.

• The quality of education, skills and work is exceptional.

In addition, the following apply.

Intent

• The prison or YOI’s curriculum intent is strong. Throughout the prison or YOI and its providers/contractors, the teachers, trainers and instructors have a firm and common understanding of the intended curriculum and what it means for their practice.

Implementation

• The prison or YOI’s implementation of the curriculum is consistently strong. Across all parts of the establishment, including in contracted/subcontracted provision and for prisoners with SEND and those with additional learning needs and/or disabilities, teaching and training are of a high quality.

• Teaching and training activities contribute well to delivering the curriculum intent.

• The work that prisoners do over time embodies consistently demanding curriculum goals. It matches the aims of the curriculum in being coherently planned and sequenced towards cumulatively sufficient knowledge and skills for future learning, training and employment.

Impact

• The impact on prisoners’ learning of the curriculum taught by teachers, trainers and instructors is strong. Prisoners acquire and develop high-quality skills and produce work that is of a consistently high standard.

• Prisoners consistently achieve well, particularly the most disadvantaged. Prisoners with SEND and learning disabilities and/or difficulties achieve the best possible outcomes.

• Prisoners are exceptionally well prepared for the next stage of their education, training or employment and have attained relevant qualifications, skills, knowledge and understanding. They progress to positive destinations that are relevant to their sentence plans and/or rehabilitation plans.

154. In order to judge whether the quality of education, skills and work is good, requires improvement or is inadequate, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

 

Good (2)

Intent

• Leaders and managers, including the contractors, adopt or construct a curriculum that is ambitious, appropriate to the relevant local and regional employment and training priorities and designed to give prisoners, particularly the most disadvantaged, the knowledge and skills they need to succeed on release.

• The curriculum is coherently planned and sequenced towards cumulatively sufficient knowledge and skills for future learning, training and employment.

• The prison or YOI is ambitious for all its prisoners, including those with learning disabilities and/or difficulties and those with SEND, and this is reflected in the curriculum. The curriculum remains ambitious and is tailored, where necessary, to meet individual needs.

• Prisoners study the intended curriculum. The prison or YOI ensures this by teaching all components, including reading, of the full programmes of study.

Implementation

• Teachers, trainers and instructors have expert knowledge of the subject(s) and courses they teach. Leaders, managers and contractors provide effective support, including for those teaching outside their main areas of expertise. Where relevant, teachers, trainers and instructors have extensive and up-to-date vocational experience.

• Teaching/training staff present information and/or demonstrate skills clearly, promoting appropriate consideration of the subject matter being taught. They check prisoners’ understanding systematically, identify misconceptions and provide clear, direct feedback. In doing this, they respond and adapt their teaching as necessary, but without having to use unnecessary, time-consuming, individual approaches to presenting subject matter.

• The work that teachers give to prisoners is demanding and ensures that they build knowledge and acquire skills, improving on what they already know and can do.

• Teachers encourage prisoners to use subject-specific, professional and technical vocabulary well.

• Teachers work effectively with support staff to ensure that all prisoners achieve as they should.

• Over the course of study, teachers design and use activities to help prisoners remember long-term the content that they have been taught, to integrate new knowledge into larger concepts and to apply skills fluently and independently.

• Teachers and leaders use assessment well, for example to help prisoners embed and use knowledge fluently and flexibly, to evaluate the application of skills, to check understanding and inform teaching, or to understand different starting points and goals as a result of the pandemic. Leaders understand the limitations of assessment and do not use it in a way that creates unnecessary burdens for staff or prisoners.

• Teachers create an environment that allows prisoners to focus on learning. The resources and materials that teachers and trainers select and produce – in a way that does not create unnecessary workload for staff – reflect the prison or YOI’s ambitious intentions for the course of study. They also clearly support the intent of a coherently planned curriculum, sequenced towards cumulatively sufficient knowledge and skills for future learning, independent living and employment.

• Release on temporary licence is used to enhance prisoners’ employment or training skills and prepare them for release.

Impact

• Prisoners develop detailed knowledge across the curriculum and, as a result, achieve well across all areas of their study. Prisoners make substantial and sustained progress from their identified and recorded starting points in each of their courses and, where applicable, across the curriculum. Where appropriate, this is reflected in results from national examinations, which meet government expectations, or in the qualifications obtained.

• Prisoners are ready for the next stage of education, employment or training in the prison or on release. They have gained qualifications or have met the standards to go on to destinations that meet their interests and aspirations and the goal of their course of study. Prisoners with SEND/learning disabilities and/or difficulties have greater independence in making decisions about their lives. They progress to destinations relevant to their rehabilitation and/or sentence plans.

Requires improvement (3)

• The quality of education, skills and work is not yet good.

Inadequate (4)

The quality of education, skills and work is likely to be inadequate if any one of the following applies (unless they apply solely due to the impact of COVID-19):

• The curriculum has little or no structure or coherence, and leaders and managers, including contractors, have not appropriately considered sequencing. Prisoners experience a jumbled, disconnected series of lessons/training that do not build their knowledge, skills or understanding.

• Prisoners’ experiences in lessons or sessions contribute weakly to their learning of the intended curriculum.

• Weak assessment practice results in teaching that fails to meet prisoners’ needs.

• Prisoners do not develop or improve the English, including reading, and mathematical skills they need to succeed in their next stage, whether that is in education, training or employment or in becoming more independent.

• The attainment and progress of prisoners are consistently low and show little or no improvement over time, indicating that prisoners are underachieving considerably.

• Prisoners with learning disabilities and/or difficulties or SEND do not benefit from a good-quality education. Staff’s expectations of them are low. Staff do not identify prisoners’ needs accurately, and are therefore unable to support their development effectively.

• Prisoners have not attained the qualifications, skills or behaviours appropriate for them to progress to their next stage of education, training or employment in the prison or on release.

• The proportion of prisoners progressing to further/higher education, training and/or employment, relevant to their rehabilitation and/or sentence plans, is low.

Behaviour and attitudes

155. This judgement considers how leaders and staff, including the contractors, create a safe, disciplined and positive environment within the education, skills and work areas of the prison or YOI, and the impact that this has on the behaviour and attitudes of prisoners.

156. The judgement focuses on the factors that research and inspection evidence indicate contribute most strongly to prisoners’ positive behaviour and attitudes, thereby giving them the greatest possible opportunity to achieve positive outcomes. These factors are:

• a calm and orderly environment in the prison or YOI’s classroom, workshop and workplace, as this is essential for prisoners to be able to learn

• the setting of clear expectations for behaviour across education, skills and work activities

• a strong focus on attendance at, and punctuality to, education, skills and work areas in order to minimise disruption, and so that prisoners gain valuable employability skills

• prisoners’ motivation and positive attitudes to learning as important predictors of attainment

• a positive and respectful prison or YOI culture in which staff know and care about prisoners, and place the appropriate priority on prisoners attending education, skills and work

• an environment in which: prisoners feel safe when engaged in education, skills and work-related activities because staff and prisoners do not accept bullying, harassment or discrimination; staff deal with any issues quickly, consistently and effectively

• prisoners’ appreciation of the importance of the skills learned in the context of their next steps and rehabilitation plans

Prisoners with particular needs

157. The prison or YOI may be working with learners with particular needs to improve their behaviour or their attendance. When this is the case, behaviour and conduct that reflect the prison or YOI’s high expectations and their consistent, fair implementation are likely to indicate improvement in the attendance, punctuality and conduct of these prisoners. In the case of some groups of learners, COVID-19 may have affected their attitudes to learning or work. This could mean that their attitudes are not yet in keeping with the establishment’s high expectations.

158. Some prisoners, or groups of prisoners, who have particular needs may have weak attendance or display challenging behaviour. When this is the case, inspectors will evaluate:

• the impact of the prison or YOI’s high expectations

• the consistent, fair implementation of policies

• the support given by the prison or YOI to the prisoners

• the impact on the attendance and behaviour of these prisoners

Sources of evidence specific to behaviour and attitudes

159. Inspectors will use evidence gathered during the inspection, as well as evidence of trends in prisoners’ behaviour and attitudes over time. Inspectors will use first-hand evidence from visits to learning sessions and training workshops, including visits to prisoners while they are at work or on work placements. Inspectors will also gather evidence from interviews with prisoners, staff, employers and other partners, and documents such as attendance registers may also be used.

160. Inspectors’ judgements about prisoners’ behaviour and attitudes are concerned with the extent of prisoners’ ability to demonstrate appropriate behaviour for the learning, training and work environments. Inspectors’ judgements also take account of prisoners’ attitudes to learning and, where appropriate, to work.

161. Inspectors will carry out other evidence-gathering activities that include, but are not limited to:

• observing prisoners’ behaviour in a range of different classes/workshops/workplaces at different times of the day

• observing prisoners’ punctuality in arriving at classrooms, workshop sessions and work

• observing prisoners’ courtesy and respect for, and good manners towards, each other and staff, and their pride in themselves and their employers, as appropriate

• reviewing documentary evidence about behaviour, including how the prison or YOI tackles challenging behaviour

• gathering the views of prisoners, employers, parents and carers (in YOIs), staff, those with responsibility for governance (in YOIs) and other stakeholders

• gathering evidence about the typical behaviour of prisoners while they attend RoTL placements

• balancing evidence seen during the inspection and evidence of trends over time

Grade descriptors for behaviour and attitudes

162. In order for the behaviour and attitudes of a prison or YOI to be judged outstanding, it must meet all of the good criteria securely and consistently and it must also meet the additional outstanding criteria.

Outstanding (1)

• The prison or YOI must meet all the criteria for good behaviour and attitudes, securely and consistently.

• Behaviour and attitudes are exceptional.

In addition, the following apply.

• Prisoners have consistently high levels of respect for others. They play a highly positive role in creating an environment that values and nurtures difference. Bullying and harassment are never tolerated.

• Prisoners consistently demonstrate highly positive attitudes and commitment to their education, training and work. They are persistent in the face of difficulties. If prisoners struggle with this, the prison or YOI takes intelligent, swift and highly effective action to support them.

• Prisoners are proud of their achievements and take pride in the work they complete in the prison or YOI and, where applicable, during RoTL.

• Attendance and punctuality at learning sessions and work activities are consistently excellent.

• There are many examples of commitment beyond the basics, for example participation in skills competitions or prison/external community projects.

• Prisoners behave consistently well, demonstrating high levels of self-control and consistently positive attitudes to their education, training and work. If they struggle with this, the prison or YOI takes intelligent, fair and highly effective action to support them to succeed in their programme of learning.

163. In order to judge whether behaviour and attitudes are good, require improvement or are inadequate, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

Good (2)

• The prison or YOI has high expectations of prisoners’ behaviour and conduct and these are applied consistently and fairly. This is reflected in prisoners’ behaviours and conduct.

• Prisoners’ attitudes to their education, training and work are positive. They improve their attitudes over time. They understand their rights and responsibilities as learners and when engaged with work. They are committed to their learning, know how to study effectively, are resilient to setbacks and take pride in their achievements.

• Prisoners have high attendance (bearing in mind the context of the pandemic as necessary) and are punctual. This includes participating in any distance-learning activities, such as virtual learning environments. They are ready to learn, work and meet deadlines.

• Relationships among prisoners and staff reflect a positive and respectful culture in which the principles of equality and diversity are nurtured.

• Prisoners feel safe when attending education, skills and work-related activities, and rarely experience bullying, harassment or discrimination. If incidents occur, prisoners feel safe and confident to report them, knowing that staff will take swift and appropriate action.

• Prisoners take pride in their work at the prison or YOI and, where applicable, on RoTL.

• Prisoners’ attitudes to all aspects of their learning are consistently positive. These positive attitudes have a good impact on the progress they make.

• Prisoners have respect for others’ ideas and views when engaged in their education, skills or work-related activities.

• Prisoners value their education, learning and skills and work activities. Few are absent, and no groups of prisoners are disadvantaged by low attendance.

• Staff are quick to tackle the rare use of derogatory or aggressive language, and always challenge stereotyping.

Requires improvement (3)

• Behaviour and attitudes are not yet good.

• Prisoners feel safe when attending education, skills and work-related activities, and are confident about reporting incidents of bullying, harassment or discrimination, knowing that staff will take swift and appropriate action.

Inadequate (4)

Behaviour and attitudes are likely to be inadequate if any one of the following applies.

• Prisoners’ lack of engagement, motivation or enthusiasm inhibits their progress and development.

• A significant minority of prisoners show a lack of respect and self-discipline. Prisoners ignore or rebut requests to moderate their conduct and are not ready for progression in their education, training or work.

• Attendance is consistently low and shows little sign of sustained improvement.

• Incidents of bullying, harassment or prejudiced and discriminatory behaviour, both direct and indirect, are frequent.

• Prisoners are not safe, or do not feel safe, when engaged in education, skills and work-related activities at the prison or YOI.

• Prisoners have little confidence in the prison or YOI’s ability to successfully tackle incidents of bullying, harassment or discrimination in education, skills and work.

Personal development

164. The curriculum should support prisoners to develop their knowledge and skills beyond the purely academic, technical or vocational. This judgement evaluates the prison or YOI’s intent to provide for the personal development of prisoners, and the quality of the way in which it does this.

165. As the prison or YOI is working with prisoners, those prisoners are also being influenced by other factors in their environment, their community and elsewhere. For example, staff can teach and train prisoners in how to build their confidence and resilience, but cannot determine how well the prisoners draw on this. Similarly, staff cannot make their prisoners active, engaged citizens, but they can help them understand how to engage with society and provide them with plentiful opportunities to do so. Prison or YOI staff can take effective action to prepare prisoners for many aspects of life, but the impact of this work may not be seen until many years later. In this judgement, therefore, inspectors will seek to evaluate the quality and intent of what a prison or YOI offers and will look to see what prisoners know, but will not attempt to measure the impact of the prison or YOI’s work on the lives of individual prisoners. Where the usual opportunities have been disrupted by the pandemic, the establishment has found alternative approaches to providing a rich range of personal development opportunities.

166. When forming judgements about personal development, inspectors will seek to understand what took place before the pandemic, what the establishment has in place currently and what its future plans are. Inspectors recognise that many elements of personal development that were in place before the pandemic may have been disrupted. Therefore, they will focus on understanding the steps that leaders have taken to offer or to restore a wide range of personal development opportunities.

167. The judgement focuses on the most significant dimensions of the personal development of prisoners as part of their education, skills development or work-related activities:

• developing responsible, respectful and active citizens who are able to play their part and know how to become involved in prison life, and in the community when on RoTL

• developing and deepening prisoners’ understanding of the fundamental British values of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law and mutual respect and tolerance

• promoting equality of opportunity so that all prisoners understand that difference is a positive, not a negative, and that individual characteristics make people unique

• promoting an inclusive environment that meets the needs of all prisoners, irrespective of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation, relationship status or pregnancy

• developing prisoners’ character so that they reflect wisely, learn eagerly, behave with integrity and cooperate consistently well with others; this gives prisoners the qualities they need to lead positive lives in prison and on release in the community

• developing prisoners’ confidence, resilience and knowledge so that they can keep themselves mentally healthy

• providing an effective careers programme that offers advice, experience and contact with employers, where appropriate, to encourage prisoners to make informed choices about their current learning and future career plan; this includes how effectively learning plans are linked with, and take account of, prisoners’ sentence plans

• supporting prisoners’ readiness for the next phase of education, training or employment within the prison or YOI, or on release, so that prisoners can make the transition to the next stage successfully

• encouraging and supporting prisoners due for release to progress to suitable further education, training and employment on release, including through access to modern means of searching and applying for jobs through the virtual campus

168. These aspects of personal development will be considered in an age-appropriate way within the context of the establishment and its prisoners.

Sources of evidence specific to personal development

169. To inform this judgement, inspectors will use evidence gathered during the inspection and evidence of trends in prisoners’ personal development over time.

170. Inspectors will use first-hand evidence from visits to learning sessions and training workshops, including visits to prisoners at work or on work placements, where relevant. Inspectors will gather evidence from interviews with prisoners, staff, employers and other partners. Evidence will also include information gathered from questionnaires for prisoners and other relevant stakeholders. Inspectors will use a range of evidence to evaluate personal development, including:

• the range, quality and take-up of extra-curricular activities offered

• how well leaders promote British values

• how well leaders develop prisoners’ character through the quality of education, training and work that they provide

• where appropriate, the quality of debate and discussions that prisoners have

• prisoners’ understanding of the protected characteristics and how they can promote equality and diversity, and how they celebrate the things we have in common

• the quality of careers information, education, advice and guidance, and how well these benefit prisoners in choosing and deciding on their next steps

Grade descriptors for personal development

171. In order for personal development to be judged outstanding, it must meet all of the good criteria securely and consistently and it must also meet the additional outstanding criteria.

Outstanding (1)

• The prison or YOI must meet all the criteria for good in personal development securely and consistently.

• Personal development is exceptional.

In addition, the following apply.

• The prison or YOI consistently and extensively promotes the personal development of prisoners. The establishment goes beyond the expected, so that prisoners have access to a wide, rich set of experiences that teach them why it is important to contribute actively to the establishment community and society overall. Opportunities for prisoners to develop their interests are of exceptional quality.

• The prison or YOI ensures that participation in these activities is very high, particularly among those with SEND or learning disabilities and/or difficulties, and all benefit from these opportunities and experiences.

172. In order to judge whether personal development is good, requires improvement or is inadequate, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

Good (2)

• The curriculum extends beyond the academic/technical/vocational and provides for prisoners’ broader development, enabling them to develop and discover their interests and talents.

• The curriculum and the establishment’s wider work supports prisoners to further develop their character – including their resilience, confidence and independence – and, where relevant, helps them know how to keep physically and mentally healthy.

• The prison or YOI prepares prisoners for future success in education, employment or training by providing: unbiased information to all about potential next steps; high-quality, up-to-date and locally relevant careers guidance; and, where appropriate, opportunities to do voluntary or paid work in the community.

• The prison or YOI prepares prisoners for life in modern Britain by: teaching them how to protect themselves from radicalisation and extremist views; helping to equip them to be responsible, respectful, active citizens who contribute positively to society; developing their understanding of fundamental British values; developing their understanding and appreciation of diversity; celebrating what we have in common; and promoting respect for the different protected characteristics as defined in law.

Requires improvement (3)

• Personal development is not yet good.

Inadequate (4)

Personal development is likely to be inadequate if any one of the following applies.

• A significant minority of prisoners do not understand how to, nor why they should, live healthy, positive lives.

• Leaders and/or those responsible for governance, through their words, actions or influence, directly and/or indirectly undermine or fail to promote equality of opportunity.

• Managers, teaching staff, leaders and/or those responsible for governance (in YOIs) do not protect prisoners from radicalisation and extremist views when prisoners are vulnerable to these. Policy and practice are poor, which means that prisoners are at risk.

• The establishment does not ensure that prisoners have access to unbiased information about potential next steps, high-quality careers guidance, and opportunities to experience voluntary or paid work, meaningfully and as relevant.

Leadership and management

173. Inspectors will look at the work of governors (in YOIs), senior leaders, subject leaders and others with leadership and management roles when reaching this judgement.

174. This judgement is about how leaders, managers, including contractors, and/or those responsible for governance ensure that the education, skills and work-related activities delivered by the prison and YOI have a positive impact on all prisoners, including those with SEND and those with learning difficulties. It focuses on the areas in which inspection evidence and research show that leaders and managers can have the strongest impact on the quality of education, skills and work provided. Important factors include:

• leaders’ high expectations of all prisoners and the extent to which these are embodied in day-to-day interactions with, and support for, prisoners

• the extent to which leaders focus their attention on the education, skills and work-related activities they provide, leading to better outcomes for prisoners such as reducing re-offending, and continued and sustainable improvement

• the extent to which leaders ensure that prisoners’ knowledge and skills in reading are accurately identified and monitored, including those of prisoners who cannot read, and that appropriate support is provided to ensure they make good progress

• whether continuing professional development for teachers, trainers, instructors and other staff is aligned with the curriculum, and the extent to which this develops their subject expertise and teaching/training knowledge over time, so that they deliver high-quality education and training

• the extent to which leaders ensure that prisoners benefit from effective teaching/training and high expectations in classrooms, remotely, in workshops, at work or with contractors

• whether leaders engage with prisoners, their community and employers to plan and support the education and training that prisoners get

• the extent to which leaders consider the workload and well-being of their staff, while also developing and strengthening the quality of the workforce

• the extent to which leaders’ and managers’ high ambitions are for all prisoners, including those who are difficult to engage

• whether leaders and/or those responsible for governance understand their respective roles and carry these out to enhance the effectiveness of the prison or YOI

• the extent to which the prison or YOI has sufficient education, skills and work provision for its population and availability of appropriate learning opportunities

• the extent to which leaders and managers monitor the progression and destinations of their prisoners (including whether prisoners enter secure and sustained employment) and use this information to improve provision

• the effectiveness of the allocation and attendance measures in ensuring prisoners attend their activity on time with minimal interruptions

• whether leaders and managers have an accurate understanding of the prison or YOI’s effectiveness, and its providers’ and contractors’ effectiveness

Safeguarding

175. Inspectors will always have regard to how well prisoners are helped and protected so that they are kept safe. Although inspectors will not provide a separate judgement for this key aspect of the prison or YOI’s work, inspectors will always inform HMIP’s inspectors, who inspect this area, about any concerns or good practice that they identify during their inspection activities.

176. The judgement of safeguarding prisoners is made by HMIP in the safety section of the joint inspection report.

177. Inspectors will consider whether:

• prisoners’ behaviour towards each other is unsafe, putting prisoners at risk of harm when attending education, skills and work activities

• incidents of bullying or prejudiced and discriminatory behaviour, either direct or indirect, are common

• prisoners or particular groups of learners do not feel safe (for example, because of unsafe working practices, the dangers of radicalisation and extremism and the risk of sexual abuse) when attending any of the education, skills and work activities

Sources of evidence specific to leadership and management

178. Inspectors will gather a range of evidence from meetings with leaders and managers and first-hand evidence of their work across the prison or YOI, including in subcontracted provision.

179. Inspectors will use documentary evidence that the prison or YOI supplies to evaluate the impact of the work of leaders and managers, both currently and over time. They will use this in conjunction with first-hand evidence. Evidence overall includes, but is not limited to:

• meetings with leaders and those responsible for governance (in YOIs), to evaluate how well they fulfil their responsibilities for education, skills and work

• documentary evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of the provision for all prisoners and its continuous and sustainable improvement

• interviews with staff and prisoners to evidence how well leaders have created a positive culture

• first-hand evidence gathered during the inspection

• responses to any staff, prisoner and employer surveys/questionnaires; these will be particularly useful for judging the culture that leaders and managers have established

• any evidence that the prison or YOI has from regularly surveying the staff and the way in which leaders and managers have responded to concerns raised by staff or employers

Grade descriptors for leadership and management

180. In order for the leadership and management of a prison or YOI to be judged outstanding, it must meet all of the good criteria securely and consistently and it must also meet the additional outstanding criteria.

Outstanding (1)

• The prison or YOI must meet all the criteria for good leadership and management securely and consistently.

• The leadership and management are exceptional.

In addition, the following apply.

• Leaders ensure that teachers receive focused and highly effective professional development. Teachers’ subject, vocational, technical, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge builds and develops consistently over time and improves the quality of education provided for prisoners.

• Leaders’ engagement with prisoners, employers, parents (where relevant) and the local community/economy is very effective. They provide clear and direct evidence of how this engagement benefits prisoners and ensures continuous and sustainable improvement.

• Leaders ensure that regular, frequent and meaningful engagement takes place with staff at all levels, so that they can be confident that issues will be identified. When issues are identified – in particular about workload – leaders deal with them consistently, appropriately and quickly.

• Staff consistently report high levels of support for well-being issues.

• The prison or YOI has sufficient places in education and training to ensure that all prisoners have access to learning. An excellent range and quantity of purposeful activity places meet the needs of the population exceptionally well. Allocation processes are very well managed and highly effective.

• Senior managers ensure that prisoners are able to attend their activities and arrive on time.

181. In order to judge whether leadership and management are good, require improvement or are inadequate, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

Good (2)

• Leaders have a clear and ambitious vision for providing high-quality, inclusive education and training for all. This is realised through strong shared values, policies and practice. This vision has been maintained through the pandemic and beyond/during the transitional period.

• Leaders focus on improving teachers’ subject and teaching knowledge to enhance the teaching of the curriculum and the appropriate use of assessment. The practice and subject knowledge and up-to-date vocational expertise of staff build and improve over time.

• Leaders ensure that all prisoners, including those with SEND and those with learning difficulties, get the information, advice, guidance and support to achieve their next steps and progress to positive destinations. Leaders provide the support for staff to make this possible.

• Leaders engage effectively with their community, including, where relevant, with parents/carers, employers, local services and organisations responsible for local and regional economic planning.

• Leaders engage with their staff. They are aware of, and take account of, the main pressures on their staff. They are realistic and constructive in the way they manage staff, including their workload, and have acted proactively in response to COVID-19 and beyond/during the transitional period.

• Those responsible for governance (in YOIs) understand their role and carry this out effectively. They ensure that the YOI has a clear vision and strategy, and that resources are managed well. They hold leaders to account for the quality of education, skills and work-related activities to ensure continuous and sustainable improvement.

• Leaders ensure that the prison or YOI fulfils its legal duties and responsibilities towards ensuring the safety of prisoners when attending education, skills and work-related activities.

• Leaders protect staff from harassment, bullying and discrimination.

• Senior managers ensure that prisoners are able to attend their activities and arrive on time.

• The prison has sufficient places in education and training to ensure that all prisoners have access to learning.

• Prisoners progress into further education, training or employment on release.

Requires improvement (3)

• Leadership and management are not yet good.

Inadequate (4)

Leadership and management are likely to be inadequate if any one of the following applies.

• Leaders are not doing enough to tackle a poor quality of education, skills or work. This significantly impairs the progress of prisoners, including those with SEND and learning difficulties and/or those learning to read.

• Leaders are not aware of, or do not take effective action to stem, the decline in the quality of provision.

• Leaders do not engage effectively with key stakeholders and so the curriculum fails to meet the needs of prisoners, employers, the local community or local and regional economies. This is reflected in the low proportion of prisoners who progress to destinations internally or externally, relevant to their career or learning aims.

• The curriculum does not equip prisoners with the skills, knowledge or understanding required to prepare them for life in modern Britain or enable them to progress to their next steps.

• Leaders, managers and those responsible for governance, where relevant, through their words, actions or influence, directly and/or indirectly undermine or fail to promote equality of opportunity. They do not prevent discriminatory behaviour or prejudiced actions and views.

• The prison or YOI’s arrangements for safeguarding prisoners while they are attending education, skills and work-related activities are ineffective.

• Prisoners are prevented from attending their activities.

 

HMIP’s ‘Expectations’

‘Expectations’ for children (YOI) purposeful activity: education, skills and work activities, section 3

182. In addition to the evaluation criteria set out in this handbook, inspectors will consider the following indicators.

Governance

183. Inspectors will seek evidence of the impact of those responsible for governance. They will determine whether they:

• provide confident, strategic leadership

• create strong accountability for, and oversight and assurance of, educational performance to ensure continuous and sustainable improvement

184. Inspectors should consider whether those responsible for governance:

• know the prison or YOI and understand its strengths and weaknesses

• support and strengthen the prison or YOI’s leadership and contribute to shaping its strategic direction

• provide challenge and hold senior leaders and managers to account for improving the quality of learning and the effectiveness of performance management systems

185. Inspectors will satisfy themselves that those responsible for governance understand their responsibilities and are ensuring that these are carried out appropriately within the establishment. They are not expected to review a list of duties with inspectors.

• Information regarding children’s individual needs, including their abilities in oral language, literacy (in particular, reading) and numeracy, and any special educational needs, is used effectively to inform the planning of teaching and learning. Information about children’s needs and abilities is shared appropriately with all staff who need to know, including residential staff.

• Children access a curriculum that provides them with challenge and inspiration, and enhances their confidence and self-esteem.

• Children’s lack of progress triggers more in-depth assessment of their underlying skills.

• The contents of learning plans are properly coordinated with any other existing plans involving the children.

• Children are involved in setting, reviewing and monitoring their progress as they engage in a clear and well-defined curriculum. Where relevant, individual learning goals are underpinned by appropriate personal and social development targets.

• The views of children form an effective part of the review and future planning of the curriculum.

• Education staff attend all training, planning and remand management meetings, and make a significant contribution to training or remand plans.

• Children have appropriate access to a range of additional learning resources. Children based in different locations, for example in care and separation or healthcare, are provided for.

• Education assessments and achievement records are transferred effectively and efficiently to the onward responsible body.

• Children enjoy their learning and make good progress relative to their prior attainment, especially in the key areas of literacy (including reading) and numeracy.

• Children have equal opportunities to access education, skills and work activities.

• Up-to-date information collected on the existing skills and knowledge needs of the children, such as that contained in education, health and care plans, informs the provision of education, skills and work-related activities.

• Staff have appropriate qualifications and expertise, and can access specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, and dyslexia and autism spectrum services.

• Staff have an appropriate understanding of mental health issues and their impact on children’s attitudes, ability and readiness to learn.

• There are no significant variations in the progress and achievement of different groups of children, such as those in different locations within the establishment, for example healthcare or care and separation.

• Leaders and managers prepare children for a successful life in modern Britain and promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different backgrounds, faiths and beliefs.

• Leaders and managers prepare children with SEND to become more independent in their everyday life.

• The effectiveness of safeguarding practice in education, learning and work activities includes the prevention of extremism and radicalisation and peer- on-peer abuse among children.

• Teaching staff have access to the necessary information to understand how broader issues, such as family, healthy relationships and well-being (including mental health), currently affect individual children and impact on their learning.

• Children have access to a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum that includes education, an introduction to the world of work through pre-vocational training and work-related learning, and the promotion of their personal and social development.

• The requirements of the national curriculum are adapted appropriately when planning provision for children under school-leaving age. Children under school-leaving age receive their statutory entitlement of education, skills and work activities.

• Classes are rarely cancelled. Cancellations are robustly monitored, and appropriate action is taken to make sure that classes are not cancelled again. In these cases, teaching staff deploy contingency plans to allow children to catch up with their work and to continue making progress with their learning.

• Children behave well. Poor behaviour is responded to quickly and managed effectively. Children are only returned to their residential units if their behaviour becomes too disruptive to manage. Leaders and managers investigate repeated returns to identify underlying causes.

• Exclusions from education are monitored robustly and used only as a last resort. Leaders, managers (including contractors) and staff do not use separation as their main behaviour management strategy.

• Children who are excluded have a clear and timely plan for their full reintegration. During the period of their exclusion, they are provided with high-quality learning opportunities that are sufficient to occupy them throughout the day.

• Children who refuse to attend education and learning and skills activities are actively monitored. They have a clear and timely multi-disciplinary plan, which addresses their difficulties and works towards a return to their learning and skills programme at the earliest opportunity.

• When a child is transferred or released, an accurate record of the child’s learning needs, progress and achievements is sent promptly to the receiving establishment or education, training and employment provider.

• All children leave custody with finalised arrangements for their education, work or training. There is a good liaison between the establishment and the education, training and employment provider to organise ‘start up’ arrangements and other practical aspects of transition and allow children to begin their education without delay.

• Links with community youth offending teams and home-based careers advice services enable children to continue to receive appropriate education, training and employment guidance.

• Children are encouraged to develop their research and independent learning skills, including the development of their digital skills, through supervised use of the internet.

‘Expectations’ for women purposeful activity: education, skills and work activities, section 3

186. In addition to the evaluation criteria set out in this handbook, inspectors will consider the following indicators.

• All women receive timely and accurate initial assessment, taking account of any records of prior learning and achievement, to provide a clear understanding and record of their education, skills and work needs, including social and life skills, literacy (in particular, reading), numeracy and language support, employability and vocational training.

• Work environments are appropriate, representative of those outside of prison and improve the employability of women.

• Women access a curriculum based on identified needs that promotes their successful resettlement and enables them to lead autonomous and independent lives.

• The education, skills and work curriculum adequately meets women’s needs.

• The curriculum is diverse and not based on gender stereotypes.

• Women are able to combine work and study.

• The curriculum is based on an effective women-centred analysis of the needs of the prisoner population, relevant research and local and national labour market need.

• Women are occupied in activities that benefit them, enhance their self-esteem, and improve their well-being and chances of successful resettlement.

• Women wishing to be self-employed receive specialist support and encouragement.

• Women are given opportunities to use their skills for the benefit of other women, for example, in peer mentoring and support roles.

• Women develop relevant knowledge, skills and understanding which contribute to their personal development and economic and social well-being.

Print or save to PDF

To print this content you can:

• use the ‘Print this page’ button under the Contents menu

• right-click or secondary click on the page and choose ‘Print’ in the menu

• press Ctrl + P on a Windows keyboard or Command + P on a Mac

You can also use these options and change the printer destination to save the content as a PDF.

Instructions may vary depending on which internet browser you use, such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and the type of device you use, such as a phone or laptop. You can find your print and save options in your browser’s menu.

1. ‘Expectations’ are the documents that set out the detailed criteria HMI Prisons uses to appraise and inspect prisons [and includes Ofsted’s EIF]. There are separate documents for the inspection of men’s prisons, for women in prison and for children and young people in YOIs. ↩

2. Our guidance ‘Conduct during Ofsted inspections’ outlines our expectations for the conduct of inspectors and providers during inspection, and applies to inspections and monitoring visits in this handbook. ↩

3. ‘Further education and skills: Ofsted privacy notice’, Ofsted, updated March 2022. ↩

4. This will include a brief section setting out how the PEF provider or main contractor has contributed to the quality of education at the establishment. ↩

5. You can find a full note of how the judgement criteria relate to the available research in: ‘Education inspection framework: overview of research’, Ofsted, January 2019. ↩