Evaluation of the Golden Hello Initiative - York Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 ELIGIBILITY AND DESIGN6.1 In order to explore any additional factors that may contribute to the success,or otherwise, of the initiative, in this section we provide comment oneligibility and design. The findings presented are based on qualitativefeedback from local LSC staff delivering the initiative, colleges and teachers,and quantitative evidence from the postal survey of recipients, whereapplicable.6.2 Several issues emerged in relation to the eligibility criteria and design of theinitiative and these are explored under the following headings:• Shortage Subject Areas;• Prior Teaching Experience;• Range of Eligible Institutions and Staff;• Coherence with Other Initiatives;• Timing and Amount of Payment;• Flexibility for Colleges.Shortage Subject Areas6.3 The eligibility criteria for a Golden Hello dictate that applicants must be‘wholly or mainly’ employed to teach one or more of the designated shortagesubject areas.6.4 Three main issues emerged with regards to the list of designated shortagesubject areas. These relate to:• definition;• interpretation;• relevance.Definition6.5 The definition of what constitutes a shortage subject area is unclear atboth the policy and operational level. This is leading to confusion amongstthose responsible for authorising applications at all levels (college, LSC) andresults in dissonance where some applicants have been approved and othersnot.
The Evaluation of the Golden Hello Initiative6.6 All LLSCs consulted had requested clarification of what constitutes a priorityshortage subject area. Although LLSCs appreciated the internal guidanceprovided by LSC National Office, several felt that this would benefit fromfurther detail and wanted to circulate this to colleges themselves to ensuregreater understanding and transparency in decision-making.Interpretation6.7 Qualitative feedback from consultations with college staff, recipients and nonrecipientsshows that there is evidence of differential ‘interpretation’ ofshortage subject areas that is not being picked up effectively by theapplication form and is resulting in applications slipping through thenet (see Table 6.1).Table 6.1:Case study example to demonstrate interpretation of shortage subject arealeading to applicants slipping through the net“I was very disappointed when I was rejected. How does catering fit in withdesign technology when anatomy and physiology for beauty therapy doesn’tcount towards science. It was a real kick in the teeth when you expect to berewarded like your colleagues in other departments have. I’m going to contestthe decision.”6.8 Therefore, there is scope to include further detail on the application form interms of the main subject area applicants are teaching and how this relatesto the shortage subject area under which they are applying.Relevance6.9 The extent to which the list of shortage subject areas is an accuratereflection of the needs of the FE sector is not known. There is currently adearth of nationally available up-to-date quantifiable data regarding therecruitment and retention needs of the FE sector from which to analyse thescale of issues by subject area and locality.6.10 Similarly, quantitative evidence available from and supplied by collegesvisited as part of the evaluation is insufficient to make any firmconclusions. The issue is further compounded by the fact that collegesoften use high numbers of part-time, casual and fractional staff andthereby figures concerning turnover rates are distorted. Qualitativeevidence has to be relied upon in this area.50 York Consulting Limited
Page 3:
The Evaluation of the Golden Hello
Page 7 and 8: The Evaluation of the Golden Hello
Page 19: The Evaluation of the Golden Hello
Page 57: The Evaluation of the Golden Hello
show all

Evaluation of the Golden Hello Initiative - York Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?