Grundtvig Multilateral Network 517901- LLP-1-2011-FI-GRUNDTVIG-GNW ADUQUA Quality Assurance in Integration Training for Adult Migrants Report on the situation in each of the countries of the project partners Background The aim of the ADUQUA network is to create a European framework for developing quality standards for integration training for adults with migrational background. An early task of the network was to investigate and produce a comparative report on the quality of 'integration training' in a range of European countries. This document describes the findings of this investigation which will be used by the network to inform its work in creating a European framework. Methodology This report is based on evidence provided by partners in each of the twelve countries participating in the network; Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the UK. The evidence was gathered via a questionnaire. Reports describing the specific situation in each country within the network were produced using the framework of the questionnaire; these reports provide further details and specific information some of which is not included in this composite report. The questionnaire was divided in to three sections; section A 'Terms and Definitions', Section B, 'Success and Impact', and section C, 'Quality Assurance and Improvement'. Within each section, a number of questions were posed to elicit information from the respondents in relation to the situation both in their organisations and in their countries. Guidance was given to respondents on the approximate length of the answers they should provide in order to ensure that there was sufficient detail and to attempt to ensure some consistency in the level of detail provided. Evidence was provided by the respondents at two different points; responses to the questions in sections A and B (questions 1 to 8) were provided by May 2012 and to the questions in section C (question 9 to 13) by September 2012. The findings were then collated and summarised and are presented in this report. The first part of the report relating to findings from sections A and B of the questionnaire was produced and shared with network partners in July 2012. A draft of the full report was produced in September 2012 and the findings communicated to network partners at a transnational meeting in Vilnius in October 2012. Following this meeting, the final version of the report was published in November 2012. 1
Findings A number of considerations need to be borne in mind in relation to the findings of the survey. In all of the countries represented except Belgium and Finland, there is just one network partner organisation. This may mean that the findings relating to the organisation are not typical of the country as whole. Furthermore, some of the partner organisations, for example the Austrian partner, are not single adult education institutions but represent a larger group of organisations. In relation to the national picture, in some countries, the situation can vary considerably from one part to another including variation in legislative frameworks. For example, Austria and Germany have federal political arrangements with distinct differences from region to region. Both Belgian partners are based in the Flemish part of Belgium and so their responses relate largely to this part of the country; similarly the UK partner is based in England which has different arrangements in place to other parts of the UK and therefore its response relates largely to the situation in England. All of this means that the findings, whilst providing an interesting insight and comparison, may not reflect a full or completely accurate picture. The findings are reported in the three areas relating to the different sections of the survey; terms and definitions, success and impact, and quality assurance and improvement. Terms and definitions Use of the term 'integration training' and the range of provision and support to which it refers Respondents were asked the questions; 'Is the term 'integration training' used in your country?' and 'What kind of provision and support is included within the concept of integration training'?' (questions 1 and 2). The term 'integration training' is used in the majority of the countries in the network but is not commonly used in Cyprus, Iceland, Norway, Sweden or the UK. Its meaning however varies across the countries in which it is used. In Belgium, for example, it is used as a translation of the concept of 'inburging', the process of becoming a citizen, whilst in Austria 'integration services are mainly focussed on German as a second language courses'. In Finland it is 'a legal term used in national legislation regulating the provision and support available specifically in relation to learning the national language and finding employment'. In the countries where the term 'integration training' is used, it refers to a range of provision and support. In all of the countries, learning the national language is a key element. Other areas of provision and support identified as elements of integration training are; courses on national history and culture; courses on the political and social system of the country; vocational training and preparation for employment; support in civic and social orientation in areas such as housing, employment and health, counselling; legal support; events that bring together migrants and other residents. The responses of the network partners illuminated significant variation across Europe in the levels of legislation and government intervention in promoting integration training. In some countries, such as Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany and Norway, national law describes the basic requirements of the content of 'integration training' through plans and programmes. In Finland, for example, recently introduced national core curricula specify the required content both for integration training and literacy programmes for migrants. In other countries, however, the legislative framework is less detailed and prescriptive. 2
Similarly, the requirements and the support available for successfully completing integration training, which can impact on the migrant's citizenship status and/or right to work, vary considerably. In Germany, for example, a migrant completes 600 lessons of integration training which costs 2.40 per lesson of which the state pays 50% and, in Belgium (Flanders), integration training includes a 60 hour civic orientation programme. In many other countries, however, a prescribed national framework appears to be absent meaning that programmes are presumably developed at an organisational level. Other terms used in relation to working with people with migrational background and the range of provision and support covered by these terms Respondents were asked the questions; 'What term(s) is/are used in relation to working with people with migrational backgrounds to support them in integrating into the society of the host country?' and 'What kind of provision/support is included is covered by this/these term(s)' (question 3 and 4). A number of terms used in relation to working with people with migrational background were identified and described by respondents. These can be categorised into two broad areas; legislative and support/tuition. Legislative terms were identified by partners in countries where a well-developed national framework exists for supporting people with migrational background. In Germany, there is in place a 'National Integration Plan' which contains integration objectives in areas that include early childhood education, training, heath care, civic engagement, local support, and language and integration courses and which measures the success of integration policy on the basis of the achievement of the objectives; in 2010 a national integration programme was launched of which the most important element is the delivery of integration courses. In Finland, the 'Act on the Promotion of Integration' came into force in 2011 and has broadened the target group for integration services which now includes all people with migrational background who have residency permits or citizenship rights; the Act requires the implementation of a 'national integration programme ' which includes a broad range of measures. In both the Flemish and French parts of Belgium, provision of 'integration centres' and 'integration services' are key elements of national policy. In both Sweden and in Norway, 'Introduction Acts' have been passed by the governments outlining rights and duties for a wide range of people with migrational background and which include provision for 'introduction programmes' for newly arrived migrants; in Norway the legislative framework includes the requirement for some individuals to follow a 'language and society' programme in order to gain a residence permit or citizenship. In Iceland, a 'parliamentary resolution on an action plan on immigrant issues' was accepted by the government in 2008; the plan covers areas such as language tuition, health care, social services and employment and is supported financially by a number of public institutions. In Iceland and in the UK, passing a 'citizenship test' is a requirement for individuals applying for citizenship; however, in Iceland this relates to language competency in Icelandic at A1 level whilst, in the UK, it relates to an understanding of life and culture in the UK. Terms relating to support and tuition for people with migrational background were identified by a number of respondents. Almost all included reference to learning the national language or one of the national languages of the country. Other terms included 'initial assessment' which is a fundamental aspect of the Finnish 'integration programme' providing a basis to identify the specific needs of individuals and leading to an 'individual study plan'. Other terms which were identified by partners in relation to integration included, 'support and guidance' in Germany, an 'adult refugee programme' in Ireland which includes short integration courses for refugees, 'social assistance' in Poland which 3
includes financial aid and free medical care, 'civic orientation' courses in Sweden which, since 2010, have been an entitlement of newly arrived migrants, and an 'international organisation for migration' in Lithuania, a non-political organisation which supports people with migrational background. Success and impact Measuring the success of provision and support for people with migrational background Respondents were asked the questions; 'In your organisation, how do you measure the success of the provision and support?' and 'In your country, how is the success of this provision and support measured?' (questions 5 and 6). A number of measures of success were identified by respondents in relation to provision and support for people with migrational background. Many of these relate to the provision itself whilst others relate to aspects which impact directly on the provision. Participation The German, Irish, Norwegian and UK partner organisations indicated that participating in integration training is a measure of success both at an organisational level and, in some instances, at a national level. In Sweden, the number of applicants for such provision is a further measure of success. In the UK, levels of participation and volume of activity within an organisation are measured against a contractual target set by the national funding body and failure to achieve the target results in a corresponding reduction in funding. Attendance In Austria, Belgium and Finland the level of attendance on integration courses is used as a measure of success. In Belgium, the level of attendance determines the government funding received for the training and in Finland, there is a stipulated minimum attendance level for participants wishing to undertake the training in order to gain residence of citizenship. Retention Retention of learners on integration courses was cited as a measure of success by respondents from Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. In Norway, at an organisational level, surveys are undertaken to establish the reasons for learner drop-out in order to identify any necessary improvements. Achievement Learner achievement of identified learning goals, external awards, or both was the most commonly cited measure of success provided by respondents. All twelve respondents indicated that it was a measure of success at an organisational level and, in a number of countries, including Cyprus, Norway, and Poland, data was provided in the survey response on achievement rates. There was no indication however of how such data is used to identify trends in achievement rates or how achievement is benchmarked against national averages. In the UK, a provider's achievement and retention rates are multiplied together to provide a 'success rate'; if the success rate falls below a national minimum level of performance, it can result in the loss of the funding for the provision. 4
Satisfaction Ten of the twelve respondents indicated that they collect and use feedback from learners about the quality of their provision and use this as a measure of success. Feedback is gathered primarily through questionnaires and surveys. Few respondents however indicated specifically how feedback is used although in Finland, at an organisational level, is used in the decision-making process in relation to future provision and, in the UK, it is used as evidence in the organisation's self-assessment process leading to identified improvement actions. Self and peer assessment The Finnish and Icelandic partner organisations indicated that the outcomes of learner self assessment are used as one of their measures of success. In Iceland, for example, learners self-assess their success in writing at the end of a course. Outcomes of peer assessment are also a measure of success in Iceland. Motivation The Swedish partner organisation indicated that they assess the increase in learners' levels of motivation whilst learning and use this as one of their measures of success. Progression Five of the respondents, from Belgium, Finland, Germany, Sweden and the UK, indicated that they follow up the progress of their learners once they have completed their course in order to assess the impact of the provision. This includes progression on to other provision and into employment. This is particularly important in Finland where, nationally, the most important measure of the success of 'integration training' is the impact on the employment rate among people with migrational background. In both the German and UK partner organisations, follow up surveys of previous learners are conducted although in both organisations this type of evaluation is not as well developed as it might be. (This measure is considered further in the next section on impact measures.) External quality standards Four of the partner organisations, from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK, measure the success of their provision against external quality standards such as ISO 9000, the European Framework for Quality Management and, in the UK, the national inspection body's 'common inspection framework'. However, these quality standards are generic and not specifically designed for measuring quality in integration training. (Quality standards are considered more fully in the section on 'quality assurance and improvement' below which summarises responses to the questions on this topic.) External evaluation The Belgian, German, Swedish and UK partners indicated that the outcome of external evaluation is used as a measure of success. In Belgium, Sweden and the UK, this includes the outcome of inspection of the provider by the respective national inspection bodies. In Belgium, Finland, and Germany, specific government agencies also undertake external evaluations. In Belgium, the mission of the national integration programme is evaluated every three years by a university. Quality of teaching and learning In Germany and the UK, the quality of teaching and learning is used as a measure of success with evidence obtained primarily from lesson observations. (This aspect is considered further in the section on 'quality assurance and improvement' below which summarises responses to the questions on this topic.) 5
Teachers' qualifications The German partner identified the relevance and level of the qualifications held by teachers in 'integration course' as a measure of success. Tendering outcomes In Finland, a measure of success of a provider in relation to the quality of its integration training is the outcome of a tendering process between the government's Employment Office and providers. In choosing which providers it will fund to deliver integration training, the Employment Office considers the previous level of success of a potential provider. Co-operation with other agencies The Swedish partner organisation identified a measure of success as the level of co-operation with other relevant agencies such as the Employment Office, social services, and local businesses. Success of international projects One of the measures of success of the Lithuanian partner organisation is the effectiveness of the international projects on the theme of integration training in which it is involved as measured by external evaluation. In summary, quite a wide range of measures are used across Europe to evaluate the success of integration training. Some of these are widely used whilst others were cited by only a few respondents and, in relation to some measures, by just one. Also apparent from the responses is the significant variation in the legislative or statutory requirements and expectations of providers to achieve success and the national measures in place to evaluate their success. In some countries, governments or government agencies take significant interest in the success of providers' integration training and the outcomes of evaluations undertaken can affect future funding and provision. In other counties, however, the statutory and legal demands are less great with providers being largely left to independently define and implement their own measures of success. Measuring the impact of provision and support for people with migrational background in enhancing integration and community cohesion Respondents were asked the questions; 'In your organisation, how do you measure the impact of this provision and support in enhancing integration and community cohesion, both for individuals and groups?' and 'In your country how is the impact of this provision and support measured in terms of enhancing integration and community cohesion, both for individuals and groups?' (questions 7 and 8). The responses to these questions demonstrate that across Europe, measuring the impact of provision and support for people with migrational background in enhancing integration and community cohesion is under-developed, both at a national and an organisational level. Nine of the twelve respondents indicated that such measures are either non-existent or under-developed at a national level and seven respondents indicated that they are under-developed at an organisational level. In Germany and Finland, national surveys are undertaken to measure the impact of integration programmes. In Germany this is undertaken by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and involves a longitudinal study of a sample of 4,000 integration course attendees surveyed at different points in time including immediately after the course and three years after course completion. The 6
survey is supplemented by structured interviews to ascertain perceived levels of integration. In Finland, although there is no comprehensive measure of the impact of integration training at a national level, a number of surveys have been undertaken which included indicators for measuring the impact, including one undertaken in 2009 which included 29 indicators. Of the respondents who indicated that some impact measures are in place in their organisations, the most cited measure was the level of progression into employment among people with migrational background; the Belgian, Finnish, Icelandic and Swedish respondents indicated that this measure was used in their organisations. Evidence is gathered through follow up questionnaires; in the Icelandic organisation, this is done in partnership with a university. A questionnaire used by one of the Finnish partner organisations not only asks migrants whether they are working but also gathers information on job applications and on progression on to work placements and into further training; if a respondent indicates that they are unemployed, they are asked what they consider to be the main barriers in finding a job with options including 'language skills' and 'professional skills'. A number of other impact measures were identified. The Lithuanian respondent indicated that trends in recruitment of learners is an indicator of the impact that their provision as is the level of public awareness and understanding of migration and integration issues. The UK respondent identified a number of other measures which, although not in place, might be considered as possible measures including involvement by people with migrational background in community activity and volunteering and levels of racist crime. In summary, whilst measuring the wider impact of integration training is significantly under-developed across Europe, there are some examples of practice both at national and organisational level which potentially could be shared more widely and used as a basis for developing a framework for measuring impact. Quality assurance and improvement Quality standards Respondents were asked the questions; 'In your organisation, what quality standards do you have in place in relation to this provision and support?', and 'In your country what quality standards are in place in relation to this provision and support?' (questions 9 and 12). The responses from partners demonstrated that there is a wide range of standards in use across Europe in relation both to adult education in general and integration training in particular. However, there is also significant variation in the use of such standards. At an organisational level, a number of providers indicated that they apply general established standards to the work of their organisations, some of which carry accreditation. For example, in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, and Lithuania, the ISO framework is used as a basis for organisational standards with some providers gaining ISO 9000 accreditation. In Austria, Lithuania and Finland, the EFQM model is also used as a framework whilst one of the Belgian partners is currently considering a model used in the commercial sector, the 'Balanced Scorecard', as a framework to ensure its activities are aligned with its vision and strategy. In addition, many organisations are required or expected to apply national or regional standards to their activity. In some instances, these are statutory 7
requirements; in Germany, for example, a centre must be accredited by a government agency and, to achieve this accreditation, it must demonstrate it has met defined standards. Similarly in Norway, private providers must seek and obtain accreditation based on approved standards. In the UK, providers use standards defined in a 'Common Inspection Framework' which is the basis for inspection by the national regulatory body; a provider needs to be able to demonstrate that it meet the standards in order to have a successful inspection outcome and thus retain its role as an approved provider. Specifically in relation to integration provision including language teaching, standards which are set by bodies which award course accreditation are used by providers. This is the case in Ireland and in the UK where, in addition, a national regulatory body sets criteria and monitors the quality of the course accreditation available. In some countries a national curriculum is in place which defines core outcomes and content for integration training and so provides standards which providers must meet. For example, a national curriculum for integration training has recently been introduced in Finland and such curricula are also used in Norway and the UK. In some countries, there appear to be few identified national standards in place for integration training. This is the case, for example, in Iceland and in Lithuania. In some other countries, generally agreed standards are in place but appear to be quite narrow. In Ireland, for example, they relate to learner outcomes and professional development whilst in Cyprus, they relate specifically to achievement rates for learners. A number of respondents identified some of the specific standards used which can be categorised into the following seven areas; Good outcomes for learners, including achievement and progression Some providers indicated that the number of learners achieving and progressing is a key quality standard. In the UK, this one of three key elements of the Common Inspection Framework and includes learners' achievements against their identified goals and progression on to further courses and into employment. In Cyprus and in Ireland, learner outcomes and achievement are identified as key standards. In Belgium and in Finland, the number of learners who are successfully prepared for the labour market and progress into employment are key identified standards. High quality of teaching and learning Some respondents referred specifically to standards relating to the quality of teaching and learning. In Finland, there are standards relating to how up-to-date and efficient teaching is as well as how effectively it is delivered. Standards in Sweden relate to how varied and 'active' the teaching is, the 'atmosphere' in teaching sessions, how motivated learners are, and how effectively learning is contextualised in relation to the learners' backgrounds and experience. In Germany, the quality of the learning materials used is an identified standard. In the UK, one of the three sections of the Common Inspection Framework focuses on the quality of teaching and learning and defines standards relating to its effectiveness in meeting the needs of learners. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, the existence and quality of learners' individual plans is a recognised standard. Effective engagement with the community In Belgium the effectiveness of a provider's liaison with the community is used as a quality standard. Similarly, in the UK, the Common Inspection Framework includes standards relating to the provider's success in promoting priorities that are relevant to local communities. 8
High level of staff competence A number of respondents cited the level of staff qualifications, skills and competence as a standard. In Finland, 'teaching is organised with experienced and competent staff' is identified as a standard. In Germany, teachers are required to be appropriately qualified with the requirements clearly stipulated; in Norway, Sweden and the UK too, 'appropriately qualified staff' is an identified standard. In Ireland, Cyprus, Norway and Sweden, relevant continuous professional development is also cited as a standard. Appropriate course content, length and delivery method A number of respondents made reference to aspects of integration courses themselves in relation to standards. In Finland, Norway and the UK, the requirement to follow a prescribed national curriculum is identified as a standard whilst in Germany and in Norway, courses must meet prescribed volume in terms of delivery. In Sweden, standards include the existence of a variety of possible attendance modes to meet diverse needs as well as stipulated minimum group sizes. Effective leadership and management Three respondents made specific reference to aspects of leadership and management including strategy in relation to standards. In the UK, one of the three elements of the Common Inspection Framework defines standards relating to effective leadership and management although in relation to provision generally rather than integration provision specifically. In Norway, the quality and relevance of an organisation's strategic plan is identified as a standards whilst, in Belgium, standards include the 'effective use of funds in achieving organisational objectives'. Effective integration Three providers, Belgium, Norway and the UK, cited effectiveness of strategies to promote integration and social cohesion as a broad standard although, of course, all of the standards and activities described by respondents contribute to the overall aim of promoting integration. Measuring and reporting on quality Respondents were asked the questions; 'In your organisation, how do you measure and report against these quality standards?' and 'In your country, how is performance measured and reported against these standards' (questions 10 and 13) A number of internal measures were identified by respondents. Most partners collect information on learner satisfaction primarily through end-of-course and follow-up questionnaires and use this information to identify their performance against quality standards. In the UK, feedback from employers and other stakeholders on effectiveness is also collected and analysed. In Belgium, follow-up questionnaires are designed to assess the impact of integration provision on social inclusion. Observation of lessons is another commonly used tool for measuring performance against standards in relation to the quality of teaching and learning. In some countries such as Germany and the UK, this involves identifying strengths and areas for improvement and producing an improvement plan, if appropriate, for the teacher. In the UK, observations are graded in line with the Common Inspection Framework. Most respondents indicated that they collect and analyse data in order to assess to what extent they are meeting their standards. Data on learner achievement against learning goals and external accreditation provides information to enable the provider to measure its performance. Some providers also analyse data relating to attendance, retention, and progression on to other provision and into 9
employment. The Finnish partners indicated that they collect data on staff qualifications in order to measure their compliance with agreed standards. A number of respondents indicated that they bring together the evidence gathered in relation to measuring performance against standards into a self-assessment or self-evaluation report. In Germany, this relates to the 'quality goals' set by the organisation. In Lithuania and in the UK, the self-assessment report identified strengths and areas for improvement and leads to the production of quality improvement plan. In addition to evidence on learner outcomes and quality of provision, the selfassessment report produced by the UK partner also uses evidence gathered in relation to the effectiveness of leadership and management. The German partner also invites external partner organisations to undertake an external evaluation of its performance. At a national level, the arrangements for measuring and reporting on performance against standards vary significantly. In some countries national arrangements are either not fully developed or nonexistent. However, in Finland a national project called 'Participative Integration' has resulted in the identification of criteria for measuring quality in integration training as well as approaches to evaluation which may be adopted in the future. In Austria and Germany, a key national measure is that organisations have met the criteria to become accredited providers. This involves external evaluation of performance against national standards by the relevant national body. In the UK, providers must be able to demonstrate to the national funding body that it is achieving recruitment targets and minimum levels of performance in relation to learner achievement. In Belgium and in the UK, external inspection arrangements are in place to assess the quality of provision; in Belgium this involves assessing whether the provider is making effective use of public funding to achieve its social mission whilst in the UK, the national inspection body assesses and grades all aspects a provider's activity. In summary, a number of measures are in place within partner organisations which are used to evaluate performance against the standards described in the previous section and, in some organisations, these are brought together through a self-evaluation process and, in others, the measures are related to the criteria for approval as a provider. Improving quality Respondents were asked the question, 'What arrangements are in place for making improvements once the quality of provision has been assessed against the standards? (question 11). Arrangements for making improvements that were identified by respondents can be categorised into three kinds; systematic improvement planning and monitoring, a project approach, and more informal planning and action. A number of respondents indicated that systematic quality improvement planning and monitoring are in place in their organisations. In the UK, this takes the form of an annual 'quality improvement plan' which identifies actions for improvement identified in the self-assessment report and covers all aspects of activity including learner outcomes, the quality of teaching and learning, and leadership and management as well as all areas of provision including integration and language training. Actions in the plan are implemented by managers across the organisation and progress is monitored systematically throughout the year. Improvement plans are also a key feature of the quality improvement arrangements in Finland, where an annual development plan is produced which is linked to either the 10
ISO or the EFQM framework and to the outcomes of the national learner feedback programme. In Sweden, a working plan provides evidence to the regulatory body that the provider's 'quality guarantee' is being met. The German respondent described how the outcomes of lesson observations inform the professional development reviews of teaching staff through the identification and monitoring of improvement actions. Some respondents identified a project approach as a response to addressing areas for improvement, either through creating an internal project or participating in relevant external project. The Belgian and Norwegian partners indicated that their organisations identify initiatives for improvement and create projects in order to implement relevant actions, whilst the Finnish respondent indicated the value of participating in external projects in order to improve quality. Some respondents provided specific examples of less systematic but nonetheless important strategies for improving quality, in some cases to be implemented alongside the formal mechanisms. In Cyprus, for example, specific actions are identified and the management team decide how best to implement them. In Finland, as well as the implementation of a development plan, less formal actions include the use of staff suggestions for improvement and open discussion forums whilst, in Ireland and in Sweden, actions includes staff meetings and discussions where evaluation is undertaken. Recommendations for the quality framework The following six recommendations emerging from the findings of the survey are suggested for consideration by the network as it develops a European framework of quality standards for integration training for adults with migrational background: 1. Agree a definition of the term 'integration training' that is commonly understood, or adopt and use a new term with a definition. A new term might be, for example, 'integration services' together with a definition of what the specific components are. 2. Identify key elements for inclusion in a common set of measures of success. In relation to the findings from the survey, core measures might include; participation and attendance rates, achievement rates, levels of learner satisfaction, levels of motivation, and progression rates on to further study and into employment. 3. Identify key elements for measuring the impact of provision and support for people with migrational background in enhancing integration and community cohesion. These might include progression into further training and employment, migrants perceptions of how integrated they consider themselves to be, measures relating to levels of community cohesion such as participation by migrants in community activity and volunteering, levels of racist crime, public awareness and understanding of migration and integration, children's success in school, and family integration. In identifying impact measures, look in detail at those used in national surveys undertaken in Germany by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and in Finland as reported in (Kotouttamisen ja etnisten suhteiden seuranta ja indikaattorit (Monitoring and indicators of ethnic relations and integration) (2010) 11
4. Identify a set of quality standards which are relevant in the context of integration training. These might be considered within the following categories; good outcomes for learners (using the measures relating to participation, retention, achievement and progression; see recommendation 2 above), high quality teaching and learning, effective community liaison, high levels of staff competence, effective course design, and effective leadership and management, with an overarching set of standards relating to the effective integration of people with migrational background. 5. Identify approaches to measuring providers' performance in delivering integration training. Measures might be categorised according to use of data on leaner success, use of lesson observations and use of feedback from learners and stakeholders. In considering measures, look in detail at the recently introduced Finnish project, 'Participative Integration'. 6. Identify approaches to improving the quality of integration training. These might include a project-based approach as well as the self-assessment model where an improvement plan based on identified areas for improvement is produced and monitored. Steve Hailstone October 2012 12