Due to the diverse starting points of learners and their complex and specific development needs, it is difficult to define and quantify learner progress. As a result, references to progress are most often founded on learners’ satisfaction with their programmes and the impact their learning has had on their personal and working lives. Since the Concordat in 2007, there has been no national data gathering to quantify the extent to which literacy initiatives have resulted in the 800,000 people identified in ALNIS achieving functional literacy. A Scottish Government report on literacy and numeracy levels of the working age population is scheduled for spring in 2010 and is intended to provide a fresh baseline against which to measure future progress.
Most learners made good progress in their learning, in terms of achieving their individual learning goals. All learners considered that their acquisition and development of literacy skills had improved their lives and relationships and in many cases the effects had been transformational.
Staff engaged new learners in discussing and identifying their individual needs and aspirations and drew on this process to identify their starting points and help them plan their learning. Most staff made good use of these plans to help learners identify achievable individual goals, set realistic targets to meet them, reflect on progress and reassess their goals. Learners found this process helpful, motivating and affirming. However, in more than a few cases staff did not make sufficient or effective use of individual learning plans to involve learners in reviewing their learning and planning for progression.
The diversity of learner needs and aspirations, and the lack of appropriate formative assessment tools, made it difficult for service managers and tutors to formally assess and provide evidence of the progress of learners. However, most service areas used a range of informal processes to capture and report on learner progress. There were some good examples of staff using software to profile the existing skills of learners at point of entry. Some staff made good use of tools within the Curriculum Framework devised by Learning Connections, such as The Wheel, to help them plan and review learning and gauge progress. All providers made good use of learners’ individual learning plans to assess progress towards individual learning goals. In a few cases service managers were proactive and systematic in discussing and reviewing the progress of learners with individual tutors. However, in the absence of formal data, informal and anecdotal evidence provided by staff and supported by field visit findings, indicated that most learners achieved skill levels roughly equivalent to Access 3 (SCQF level 3) and Intermediate1 (SCQF level 4). One partnership is currently refining a Learning Outcome Tracking Information System (LOTIS) to help monitor and measure learner progression. The system records individual learner progress against hard and soft indicators, including wider outcomes related to personal, work, family and community life, and the four capacities identified in Curriculum for Excellence.
In all areas, staff promoted and celebrated achievement. Several partnership areas arranged community events to recognise and reward learners for their achievements. Some providers made good use of accredited learning programmes, such as ASDAN, to provide learners with formally recognised qualifications. However, in most areas, providers did not provide sufficient opportunities for learners to gain formal certification in recognition of their achievements and attainments. In other areas, good partnership working with a local SQA-approved centre, such as a local college, provided opportunities for learners to attain formal recognition of their learning. However, the new literacy qualifications, to be introduced from 2012-13, which are to be levelled at SCQF levels 3, 4, and 5, should go some way towards enabling all providers of literacy to provide accreditation.
In most areas, staff worked very effectively with other providers to plan, provide and promote opportunities for learners to progress to different types and levels of learning. In these areas, staff drew on their understanding of the nature and content of other locally based provision to help learners plan and prepare for progression. However, in a few areas staff did not have sufficient knowledge of, or did not take sufficient account of, the opportunities afforded by other providers to encourage and enable learners to further develop and extend their skills. In these cases staff did not promote progression effectively. In too many cases, staff delivering one-to-one provision did not give learners enough encouragement to progress to other types of learning. As a result, there were instances where learners, particularly vulnerable learners, undertook the same level and type of provision for several years with no awareness of other opportunities or plans for progression.
The quality of support given to learners to ease their transition to other types and levels of provision to further develop and extend their skills ranged from very good to poor. In some areas high-quality inter-agency working and effective referral arrangements took good account of the circumstances and needs of learners. In these cases, staff responded to individual and group needs and took time and care to introduce learners to their new staff and learning environments. However, in more than a few areas, staff did not take sufficient account of the needs and anxieties of learners progressing to further learning. In these cases, staff did not provide appropriate levels of support to enable learners to prepare effectively for transition.
Overall, service managers did not place sufficient importance on recording learner progress and progression into or within employment, further learning, volunteering or other contexts. In all areas, there were insufficient arrangements for capturing and tracking the progress of learners and demonstrating the impacts and outcomes of learning.
Learning centre staff promoted and encouraged progression within the opportunities available. Staff took care to help learners identify their individual needs and goals at the start of their programmes and drew on this process to initiate individual learning plans. However, in too many cases staff did not use these plans effectively or involve learners sufficiently in discussing and reflecting on their progress. In some cases learners were unaware that they had an individual learning plan. Nevertheless, most learners made good progress in developing new or existing literacy skills.
There were good examples of learners receiving both informal and formal recognition of their achievements. In many cases, learners were attaining nationally recognised qualifications for the first time. Some learners were developing their literacy skills to enable them to progress to and achieve SQA units in various subject or vocational areas. Staff promoted and celebrated learners’ achievements well and held a range of events to celebrate their success.
In general, staff did not take sufficient account of the opportunities offered by awarding bodies to enable learners to attain formal recognition of their achievements and improve their employability prospects. Insufficient links between prison, college and CLD/ALNP staff resulted in missed opportunities for learners to gain certification for the literacy and wider skills they developed in conjunction with other prison activities.
Arrangements to enable learners to continue their learning on transfer to other prisons or release were often not effective. The SPS had recognised that its arrangements to support transition were weak and had devised and implemented a prison-wide prisoner tracker system to improve this. The system enabled staff to record and share information on the learning activities and achievements of individual offenders in order to aid transition between prisons. In some cases, staff made good use of this facility to make arrangements for learners to continue their learning in other prisons. However, it was not used widely enough and in too many cases information on learners was not kept up to date. In more than a few cases, CLD/ALNP and CJA staff were making effective arrangements for pre-release learners to continue their literacy development in the community.
Most learners made good progress. In most cases college staff identified and set various criteria for success and used this to assess progress. For example, one criterion involved achieving sufficient confidence and skills to enable progress to paired or group learning, and others related to attaining accredited units and group awards. Almost all learners had individual learning plans and in most cases these were well matched to learners needs. Most staff made good use of these plans to engage learners in discussing, negotiating and planning their own learning. There were good arrangements for learners to review and discuss their progress with staff. Learners valued and applied the feedback they received from staff to amend and update their individual learning plans.
There were some good examples of learners undertaking access and preparatory programmes, receiving formal recognition of their literacy achievements. However, this was not sufficiently widespread. Overall, programme planning did not take sufficient account of the opportunities offered through SCQF and awarding bodies to provide learners with more formal recognition of their levels of achievements in literacy.
In almost all cases, colleges provided very good progression opportunities for learners to further develop, extend and apply their literacy skills. Progression routes to other types and levels of college provision were clear and well understood by staff and learners. Staff encouraged their learners to progress to further learning. However, in more than a few cases, progression routes into college programmes from other types of locally based provision were not clear. Overall, colleges did not have sufficient arrangements in place to identify and track learners progressing onto college programmes from other locally-delivered provision.
Most learners gained confidence and developed independence in their learning. Many part-time learners, particularly older learners and those with no, or very low levels of literacy skills (generally at or below SCQF level 2) on average took two years to achieve sufficient confidence and levels of literacy skills to be able to learn on their own. In most cases, these learners achieved literacy skills broadly equivalent to SCQF level 4 prior to progressing to mainstream programmes. There were very good examples of colleges adjusting and increasing the length of their full-time FE programmes to give learners enough time to achieve sufficient levels of literacy skills to undertake the award and progress to further learning or employment.