This study was commissioned by City College Norwich to evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot, peer review project conducted within a Further Education (FE) institution and three secondary schools. The aims of the pilot project were to share and learn from the collective professional expertise of similar institutions and utilise that learning for continuous improvement. Each peer review concentrated on ‘Learner Experience’, with an emphasis on the 14-16 agenda, a focus area of the host institution’s choice and the sharing of good practice.
Recommendations to emerge from the pilot project were as follow:
•Participants should fully understand the motivations behind such a project; have a clear understanding of their role and the potential outcomes.
•It is essential that every effort is made to maintain the membership of the peer review team throughout the peer review cycle, with all team members attending all reviews, meetings and training sessions. 
•The constitution of the team needs careful consideration in order to generate a lively, yet well-balanced forum for dialogue.
•Host institutions should select focus areas carefully and in advance, as subject matter was important in sustaining motivation and interest among team members. Therefore, topics need to be well developed, clearly targeted and clarity of aims.
•Institutional selection needs great care. Many reviewers suggested selection based on a geographical basis, though local competition could cause conflict within such a review cycle. Alternatively, selection could be subject based, a perceived long term option for the peer review process by the team members.
•A pre-review briefing should always be held between the review team and the host staff, including senior management. This was perceived vital to ensure reviewers obtain full support, information, data and opportunities to engage with staff in dialogue and debate. Involvement of the head/principal is important to ensure the review’s success.
•It was important for host staff to be fully aware of the purpose and aims of the peer review process and to be open and honest during debates between all parties. This was a major factor in the review’s success.
•The student voice added another dimension to the process and, ultimately, the recommendations.  The participation of students within the peer review should be encouraged, dependent on subject and level of involvement. However, it was important to balance the student voice with class visits and staff forums.
•Peer reviewers should always remember that, although they may have access to a wide variety of data and people, they were only gathering a snapshot of life at that institution.  Opinion, commentary and recommendations during verbal feedback sessions or in the final report should clearly recognise this.
•The peer review programme at any institution should be flexible enough to allow peer reviewers to follow up new and emerging themes from the focus areas.
•Financial costs need to be considered if the process is to be sustained in the future.  Should the process continue in the spirit in which it was originally conceived here, long-term funding would need to be sought. Reviewers acknowledged that external financial support was the only way they could continue to be involved in this project.

Open full report