School/College Review - Consultation Paper

Building the Foundations of A LIFELONG LEARNING SOCIETY

SECTION 5: IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Ethos of Further Education Colleges

5.1 While there was general support at the school/college conference for increased collaboration between the school and further education sectors, a number of participants stressed it was important that this does not alter that the fundamental characteristics of colleges. In particular the central ethos of colleges as centres of voluntary learning for adults needs to be retained. It was suggested that collaboration has to be managed carefully in order not to dissuade adult learners from returning to education. We were urged to ensure that a principal rationale for encouraging greater school pupil participation - to give them experience of 'adult' centres of learning - is not undermined by the presence of a disproportionate number of such pupils. While the concepts of 'saturation points' and 'critical masses' were discussed in some of the syndicate groups, these were not quantified.

Q34. What measures should be taken to retain the central ethos of further education colleges as centres of voluntary learning for adults?

Review of Professional Training and Development

5.2 As we explain in section 2.4, equipping further education lecturers with the necessary skills to teach under 16 year olds effectively is being considered in the context of the current Executive review of occupational standards and national guidelines on provision leading to the teaching qualification in further education and related professional development. The training needs of guidance, teaching support and other staff in further education colleges will be considered as part of this review.

5.3 The purpose of the aforementioned review is to update and expand provision for the professional training and development of further education lecturers to take account of:

developments in the use of information and communications technology for teaching and learning;
the recommendations on the training of teachers made by the Beattie Committee; ¹⁶
recent and forthcoming diversity legislation; and
changes in the role and responsibilities of further education lecturers (including greater collaboration between the school and further education sectors).

5.4 A steering group has been appointed and it is in the process of setting up working groups to undertake the detailed task of revising the existing occupational standards and devising new standards. The new standards will be converted into higher educational professional development awards and units, mostly at level 9 on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, which will be used in the initial teacher training (ITT) and continuing professional development (CPD) of further education lecturers. It is hoped that the new awards and units will be available for use early in 2005. The four Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) which provide courses leading to the award of a TQ(FE) will also have to revise the content of their programmes.

5.5 Also, the Scottish Executive Education Department recently announced the second stage of its review of teacher education for schoolteachers. Two of the main aims of this review are to examine whether existing teacher training courses prepare staff as well as possible for entry into the profession and to look at whether current guidelines and requirements relating to teacher education remain appropriate. Arrangements will be put in place to make sure that changes made to occupational standards for further education lecturers take account of the latest thinking on the education of schoolteachers.

Q35. Are there particular issues that the training and development of (a) further education lecturers and (b) teachers need to address in order to facilitate more effective collaboration between the school and further education sectors?

Q36. What training do guidance, teaching support and other staff in further education colleges need to be able to provide effective support to under 16 year olds?

PILOT STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM

NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS SCOTLAND

This paper pilots a possible new approach to consultations by the Scottish Executive by giving some key stakeholders interested in its subject-matter a platform within the paper to help shape the consultation process. Annex D outlines the pilot in more detail and invites views on the success or otherwise of the pilot to help evaluate it.

This is the platform of the National Union of Students Scotland (NUS Scotland).

NUS Scotland is supportive of the 14-16 initiative. It is, in essence, a positive agenda, which will broaden vocational opportunities for school-age students, and allow them to access subjects that schools are not able to offer.

The key issue is that schools and colleges must be, practically and legally, able to work together to ensure that this access is offered in a way that benefits school-age students, and does not undermine either the school or college involved. It is vital that the option of 14 year olds attending college is not used carelessly: that the needs and welfare of the young student are considered, and that they are involved in - not informed of - the decision.

However, further education colleges have a long-standing role in their communities and in Scotland as a whole, as providers of a broad range of learning opportunities to adult learners. There is a tradition of considering all further education students, even the 17 year olds whose peers are still at school, as 'independent' and 'adults'. NUS Scotland is determined that this should continue, and not be altered or undermined by the presence of younger students, legally still children. While it is unavoidable that large numbers of younger students will have an effect on the college environment, it should not become an all-pervasive change that may cause discomfort to older learners, or pose a barrier - real or perceptual - to prospective students.

There are issues of responsibility, and while it is clear that the educational authority is still legally responsible for the education of school-age students, even at college, it would be devisive and demoralising to place them in such an environment and deny them rights granted to every other student in the college. These rights include participation in a broader college life, or to be involved in quality processes, have an avenue for complaints, or seek support and advice from college services. Some colleges in England - where 14-16 is in the late pilot stage - have already sought alternative ways to engage and involve their youngest students: perhaps it will be useful to look to their experiences, as well as the best practice already in place in Scotland.

V. Views are invited on the platform of the National Union of Students Scotland.

Teaching Qualifications

5.6 Collaboration between schools and further education colleges brings together two quite distinct regimes for recognising the experience and expertise of teachers and lecturers. The review will therefore need to examine carefully the implications for these regimes of this collaboration.

5.7 Anyone who wishes to teach in a secondary school must first gain an appropriate teaching qualification (there is a parallel system for primary school teachers). An appropriate qualification is a degree or postgraduate certificate which constitutes a teaching qualification in secondary education and is awarded in a particular subject or subjects from the secondary school curriculum. Having gained an appropriate teaching qualification, new entrants to the profession are also required, by law, to register with the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) before they can teach in a Scottish Education Authority school.

5.8 The TQ(FE), on the other hand, is by custom and practice a qualification sought once a teaching post in a further education college has been secured. Lecturers are normally appointed on the basis of their existing academic and/or vocational qualifications. A teaching qualification is not mandatory in the FE sector. While FE lecturers are actively encouraged to gain a TQ(FE), they are not required to do so. Registration with the GTCS is voluntary for further education lecturers, and relatively few of them are registered with the GTCS.

5.9 If they can obtain a suitable post, a schoolteacher with a teaching qualification in secondary education is able to become a further education lecturer. However, a further education lecturer with a TQ(FE) is not qualified to teach in a secondary school. A fully qualified further education lecturer would have to complete a conversion course to gain the equivalent of a teaching qualification in secondary education before they could take up a teaching post in a secondary school. This could be done by undertaking an Additional Teaching Qualification (ATQ) (Secondary). However, to be able to take this type of course a lecturer must already hold a TQ(FE) and have full registration with the GTCS.

5.10 As the school/college conference heard, many members of college staff work part-time, and bring valuable technical knowledge and expertise without necessarily having formal academic or teaching qualifications. The breadth of the experience of further education staff was seen as a particular strength of the further education sector and is a key rationale for school/college collaboration. However, existing arrangements mean that there is not the same external professional benchmarking for all teaching staff as there is in the schools' sector. Some at the conference suggested that it may therefore be harder to instil the same level of parental confidence in the standards of teaching of school pupils by college staff.

College Staff Teaching School Pupils in Schools

5.11 To broaden the curriculum available to 16-18 year olds and to facilitate the delivery of the Higher Still programme, the GTCS decided in 1999 to allow further education lecturers to teach in schools. The GTCS decided that further education lecturers could teach in schools where they:

were employed by a further education college which was working in partnership with the school concerned;
held a TQ(FE);
were registered with the Council;
taught only the subject(s) or subject area(s) in which they held a TQ(FE);
taught only pupils who were following the 16-18 curriculum; and
taught subjects not presently offered by the school.

5.12 The GTCS is considering the need for further guidance on the implications of further education lecturers who are not registered teachers working in schools with pupils under 16 years.

College Staff Teaching School Pupils in Colleges

5.13 There are no similar requirements on college staff in relation to teaching school pupils in colleges.

Q37. Should there be a common framework for the recognition of the qualifications for lecturers and teachers?

Q38. Are there any unnecessary overly-prescriptive barriers concerning teaching qualifications that prevent effective collaboration between the school and further education sectors?

Q39. To what extent, if any, should the further education sector reflect (and/or adapt) for the teaching of school pupils in colleges the requirements for the teaching of school pupils in school? If so, how can this be done in a way that retains the existing strengths of the further education sector?

Reviews by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE)

5.14 HM Inspectors undertake an independent review of the quality of provision in further education colleges on behalf of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council (SFEFC) under the terms of the Service Level Agreement between the Council and HMIE. Review teams include HM Inspectors, associate assessors and a lay member.

5.15 There are two distinct but inter-related types of review: the Subject Review and the College Review. The Subject Review assesses the quality of the student experience in a number of subject areas in the college. The College Review assesses the impact on the student experience of educational leadership and direction, arrangements for access and inclusion, guidance and support, use of resources to support the learner, staff, quality assurance and quality improvement.

5.16 Members of review teams hold discussions with students and college staff. Members of subject review teams observe teaching and judge the quality of students' work. They review information on student performance and assess student achievement. Members of college review teams meet representatives of the Board of Management and hold discussions with local employers, schools and other users of the college. While the emphasis of the reviews is on SFEFC-funded work, HMIE look also at local enterprise company and employer-funded provision. This latter area has assumed greater importance since colleges make use of credit transfer arrangements to obtain exemption from aspects of Scottish Quality Management Systems audits on the basis of good performance at HMIE reviews.

5.17 HMIE as SFEFC's agents for quality assurance in further education evaluates the quality of the learning experience of all learners including school pupils who undertake programmes offered by colleges. HMIE will also look at school-college links in the context of school inspection where these are significant and contributing substantially to the delivery of education for pupils. Essentially HM Inspectors apply the tests outlined in the 'Guidance on Flexibility in the Curriculum' (SEED Circular 3/2001) ¹⁷ - is the provision provided through the link well planned, monitored and evaluated and is it resulting in real educational benefits for pupils?

5.18 There would be implications for these reviews if funding responsibility transferred from the Funding Council to another body, which the review would need to encompass.

Q40. What responsibility should the Funding Council have for assessing and assuring the learning experience of school pupils (including for provision not funded by the Funding Council)?

Flexible Further Education Courses

5.19 In recent years, the transition by schools to programmes of study for S5 and S6 pupils which are based on the 'Higher Still' initiative has been widespread. At the same time, National Certificate courses in further education colleges have been transformed into National Courses and Scottish Group Awards, based on the same frameworks and units as are in place in secondary schools. Programmes for S5 and S6 pupils are now largely made up of courses and units at levels Intermediate 1 to Higher and Advanced Higher. Further education courses in colleges exist mainly at Access 3 to Higher levels. There is scope for duplication of provision and for overlap in the transition of school pupils to further education programmes at colleges. A college student who progresses to study at a further education college may have already achieved a number of the units which make up the college programme for which he or she has enrolled. This is particularly prevalent in the area of core skills. Simply omitting relevant units from a student's programme may have implications for college and student funding.

Q41. How can college programmes become more flexible to take account of units students have gained while they were at school?

PILOT STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM

SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL

This is the platform of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

We welcome this important consultation as an opportunity for all stakeholders to reflect on the value of further education's current work with schools and to consider how that should be best developed. It is already clear that there are many inter-related strategic, operational and legal aspects that need to be thought through very carefully. At the same time we will need to ensure that we remain focused on the key principles set out below.

1. The best interests of the pupil are paramount

In some cases pupils would benefit from college provision, but institutional interest might prevent this happening. In other cases organisational convenience could force a pupil into an engagement with a college _ but without any benefit to the pupil. Our solutions should not only address the practicalities of how schools and colleges can best work together, but must also pass the test of supporting the best interests of pupils.

2. The local education authority retains overall responsibility for the pupil's whole package of learning and their welfare

Responsibility for the management of the whole content and structure of a pupil's education experience should not be divided between different organisations since this could result in confusion. Education authorities have certain legal duties to look after each pupil's welfare in place of parents or guardians (commonly referred to as 'in loco parentis' responsibilities). Local education authorities should therefore continue to be responsible for the whole package of a pupil's learning and welfare, even if some of the content is provided in partnership with colleges.

3. Protect the core ethos and mission of the school and college sectors

Schools and colleges have many areas of overlapping interest and work, but they have distinctly different purposes. Changes to the balance of school and college work with school-age students could significantly impact on the nature of schools and colleges and therefore on their ability to fulfil their main roles. For example, if colleges were to provide a very significant amount of provision for school-age students they might become more like 'technical schools' and less like 'lifelong learning colleges'. This could impair the ability of colleges to meet the needs of the communities they serve for lifelong learning. Such an outcome would also run counter to the underlying objectives addressed by this consultation exercise, since participating school students might end up not experiencing a very different ethos and environment compared to that now offered by schools.

4. Funding follows the activity

Detailed funding arrangements should be designed to support the best solutions to the policy and strategic objectives, within the constraints of available resources. Therefore, the first stage must not be to design the funding approach. Whatever solutions are developed in the context of our three previous principles, the funding arrangements will need to be consistent with these solutions. In particular, they will need to reflect the different levels of engagement the pupil has with each school and college.

VI. Views are invited on the platform of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

Reporting Examination Statistics for Schools and Colleges

5.20 As school/college collaboration develops, it will be important that the monitoring of attainment in both the schools and colleges fully reflects the activities that are taking place within these establishments. There was general consensus at the school/ college conference that this matter needs to be addressed.

5.21 At present attainment is recorded against the centre that presented the candidate for any particular diet of exams. A candidate can be shown against more than one centre in a year. However, the data do not currently show the base centre for a candidate or the teaching centre for a particular subject, or the reason for the dual recording. The issue is whether attainment should be shown against the base school or teaching centre (however that might be defined), or whether existing arrangements should continue.

5.22 A pilot exercise to collect additional information from a few local authorities has just been completed by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). Initial findings from the pilot indicate that this exercise proved more difficult than anticipated. Of the three authorities involved in the pilot, only one was able to provide useable information to the SQA. Further, the information provided by the authority did not match completely with the details already held by the SQA. If implemented, this additional data processing step within the SQA could delay the supply of results for use in statistical analyses.

Q42. How should examination statistics be reported to reflect school/college collaboration?

Practical Issues

5.23 We heard at the school/college conference that there were different arrangements across education authorities and colleges for arranging and funding transport (including the provision of bus passes) and lunch vouchers. The review group was asked to consider whether there should be common arrangements across Scotland for these matters.

Q43. Where should responsibility for transport and for lunch vouchers for pupils eligible for free school meals lie?

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Consultations

On this page: