The Scottish Government

Listen

ISBN 0 7559 1095 8 (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (120k)

INTRODUCTION

1. We were appointed in June 2004 to examine the issues surrounding the qualifications of college staff to teach school pupils and to assess the implications for ¹:

• the qualifications required for college staff to teach school pupils in schools
• the qualifications required for college staff to teach school pupils in colleges
• whether there should be a common framework for the recognition of qualifications for school teachers and college lecturers and, if so, the principles on which this should be based.

Our full terms of reference are listed in Annex 1.

2. The establishment of the Working Group arose as part of the Executive's wider review of school and college collaboration. The review began in October 2003. It has four key themes:

• purpose of school/college collaboration
• managing pupil enrolments and funding responsibilities
• implications for schools and colleges;
• pupil welfare and support.

3. The review also encompasses how to deliver a key commitment of the Scottish Executive following the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary Election to " enable 14-16 year olds to develop vocational skills and improve their employment prospects by allowing them to undertake courses in further education colleges as part of the school-based curriculum".

4. The interim report of the review, published in November 2004, explained that the overall rationale for school/college collaboration is to help develop the attributes and abilities of young people to enable them to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors to society and at work by assisting schools to deliver the 3-18 curriculum. It was encapsulated in the following purposes:

• to widen pupils' opportunities for progression and prepare them for further study;
• to ease pupils' transitions from school to further learning, training or employment;
• to broaden pupils' curriculum choices; and
• to enrich pupils' educational experiences.

5. The initial school/college review consultation paper published in February 2004 explained that collaboration between schools and further education colleges brought together two quite distinct regimes for recognising the experience and expertise of teachers and lecturers, and that the school/college review would therefore need to examine carefully the implications for these regimes of this collaboration. It is within this context that the Working Group was asked to make recommendations on the qualifications of college staff to teach school pupils.

6. We understand from the responses to the consultation on the interim report that there is substantial consensus that schools and colleges should work jointly to ensure a broader curriculum for school pupils. There is also great support for the general thrust of the Executive's plans, though there remain differing views on the issues of direct relevance to the Working Group.

THE CURRENT POSITION

Qualifications to teach in schools and in colleges

7. Anyone who wishes to teach in a secondary school must first gain an appropriate teaching qualification. An appropriate qualification is a BEd, PGCE or Concurrent Degree 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 an education authority secondary school.

8. The college sector operates a post-entry system for the teaching qualifications of staff. Lecturers are appointed on the basis of their academic and/or vocational qualifications and experience. Having secured a post, they are then encouraged to study part-time for a teaching qualification in further education (TQ(FE)). This post-entry system suits the needs of colleges and it has equal validity to the pre-entry arrangements for school teachers. While lecturers are actively encouraged to gain a TQ(FE), a teaching qualification is not mandatory in the college sector. In addition, registration with the GTCS is entirely voluntary for college lecturers. There are around a 1,000 individuals who have FE registration with the GTCS, but this registration can be held by someone who is not currently working in a College.

9. As the partner document to the school/college review interim report outlined the teaching staff in colleges have never been so qualified both in their area of professional expertise and in teaching skills. Almost all staff have either a first degree or comparable vocational qualifications. Those who don't, bring extensive practical experience of industrial, business or crafts sectors and entrepreneurship to their teaching. Many are also working in the sectors about which they teach. Many others regularly update themselves to keep their knowledge and skills current on industry requirements. Statistical returns from colleges show that during academic year 2003/04 66.4% of permanent lecturing staff held a full TQ(FE) or equivalent while a further 17.0% held some other form of teaching qualification. All colleges in Scotland have committed to a wide range of continued professional development for their staff including access to programmes including in teaching qualifications In February 2005, HMIE published evaluations of current practice across the college sector in the report 'Initial and Continuing Staff Development in Scottish Further Education Colleges', which is available at www.hmie.gov.uk.

10. A college lecturer who holds a TQ(FE) is not qualified to teach in a secondary school. He or she would normally have to complete a conversion course to gain the equivalent of a TQ(SE) and be accepted for registration by the GTCS before he/she could take up a teaching post in a secondary school.

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 relax these rules and allow FE lecturers to teach in schools under certain conditions. The GTCS decided that college lecturers could teach in schools where they:

• were employed by an FE college which was working in partnership with the school concerned;
• held a TQ(FE);
• were registered with the GTCS;
• 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.

12. The current arrangements do not permit lecturers to teach pupils aged under 16 in schools. There are no requirements in respect of lecturers teaching school pupils, of any age, in colleges. As discussed below it is more usual for school pupils to travel to the college.

The involvement of college staff in teaching school pupils

13. We surveyed Scottish colleges to assess the current involvement of college staff in teaching S3 and S4 pupils. The survey covered the 2004/05 session. 21 out of 45 colleges responded with 17 of these in the central belt and 2 each in the north and south of Scotland. The overwhelming majority of the S3/S4 pupils on college courses attended discrete courses specially run for them. Over half attended vocational courses, with a quarter attending taster courses and a quarter attending transitional courses.

14. A majority of staff involved (about four in five) were permanent staff of the colleges, and a similar proportion had teaching qualifications. Just over half of those with teaching qualifications had a full TQ(FE) or equivalent. The full results of the survey are included as Annex 2.

Review of occupational standards

15. Three other developments are relevant to our work. The first is the review of Scotland's occupational standards for college lecturers. The purpose of the review is to update and expand provision for professional training and development to take account of changes such as the introduction of new diversity legislation, the increased use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning, the recommendations on the training of teachers made by the Beattie Committee and changes in the role and responsibilities of college lecturers. One of the main aims of the review is to improve provision for continuing professional development (CPD). Work is in hand to develop an optional CPD Professional Development Award (PDA) for lecturers who teach 14-16 year olds. Higher Education Institutions will also revise TQ(FE) programmes in the light of the outcomes of the review. It is hoped that new TQ(FE) programmes will include an optional unit on teaching school pupils.

16. We welcome the proposed optional CPD award on teaching 14-16 year olds, but we note that it is intended for staff who already hold the TQ(FE), and it would not contain assessed teaching practice. Similar opportunities could be provided for new recruits and lecturers who are not teacher trained to gain the skills and knowledge required to teach school pupils. We have explored with the Steering Group of the Occupational Standards Review whether it would be possible to develop a new PDA which lecturers could take as part of their initial teacher training. In order to address this issue the Steering Group will conduct a 'mapping exercise' to compare the core occupational standards for college lecturers with the standard for full registration for secondary school teachers. This exercise will inform judgements about any additional skills and knowledge that may be needed either by lecturers who teach school pupils or by school teachers in the context of school-college partnerships.

Consultation on professional body

17. The second development is the consultation, between September and November 2004, on The Need for a Professional Body for Staff in Scotland's Colleges. This invited comments on whether there should be a professional body for college staff, the constitution of any such body and whether staff should be required to register with it. Our terms of reference specifically excluded these issues, as they were to be covered by the consultation. The outcome of the consultation is critical for the issues discussed in this report, as the functions of a professional body potentially include determining the qualification requirements for college staff, establishing procedures for recognising equivalent experience or competences in lieu of qualifications, and setting norms for continuous professional development. Any recommendations we make will be affected by the presence or absence of a body with these functions.

GTCS registration

18. The third development is that the GTCS recently established a Working Group to develop a "Framework for Professional Recognition" which would provide a more flexible approach to allow teachers/lecturers to extend their areas of expertise and gain professional recognition.

19. Over the last few years, the teaching profession has witnessed many changes to the expectations placed on the profession in terms of how teachers/lecturers work, what they teach and the increasing expectation of all sectors of society on what our schools and further education colleges can achieve.

20. As the professional body for teachers in Scotland the GTCS recognises the need for flexibility in the profession to enable education opportunities to be developed to meet the changing needs of our pupils. However, the GTCS is also conscious of the need to ensure that the high quality of teachers/lecturers and teaching is maintained and enhanced; is recognised and promoted; and is valued by the education system as a whole.

21. The five key principles underpin the framework.

22. The proposals developed by the Council's Working Group will address the requirements for primary or secondary teachers wishing to gain registration in the further education sector and further education lecturers wishing to gain registration as primary or secondary teachers and as such are considered to be of critical importance to the school/college interface and partnership arrangements.

23. The concepts and principles developed have been recommended and have been approved by Council on the 9 March 2005. Advice and guidance will now be prepared to support the implementation of the strategy from a date to be agreed.

THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP

Introduction

24. In this section we outline the way in which we have approached our work.

25. The consultations carried out under the school/college review have revealed widespread support both for the educational objectives outlined in the consultation documents and for the potential contribution of school-college partnerships to achieving these aims. This contribution is based on the complementarity of schools' and colleges' distinctive missions. However, these distinctive missions are in turn associated with differences in the ethos of schools and colleges, in their recruitment and training of staff and in their traditions of professionalism. The issues addressed in this report are therefore sensitive as they touch on core aspects of the identities and ethos of each sector. In seeking a solution that serves the best interests of learners the Working Group has aimed to build on the wider consensus supporting the school/college review and to make recommendations which carry the support and confidence of both sectors and of the stakeholders represented on the group.

Principles

26. We first agreed the principles that should inform our recommendations. Our main guiding principle was that our 'recommendations should enable schools and colleges to collaborate to broaden the range, and maximise the quality, of learning opportunities available to school pupils, without adversely affecting adult learners in colleges.' We adopted a number of other principles that either amplify or follow from this. These principles are that the group's recommendations should:

• Maintain and enhance standards of professional competence in both sectors, and public confidence in those standards.
• Ensure that all staff teaching under-16 year olds in colleges and/or schools are competent to meet the specific needs of the age group or location.
• Recognise that many benefits of collaboration arise from the skills and backgrounds of college lecturers which differ from those of school teachers.
• Not restrict colleges' ability to recruit appropriate staff, including part-time staff.
• Not impose unnecessary barriers to collaboration, including in rural areas where the logistics of collaboration may differ.
• Facilitate local decision-making.
• Promote the mutual awareness and mutual respect between the two sectors which is necessary for effective collaboration, and encourage mutual trust in professional qualifications.
• Be realistic, and achievable within the available resources over a reasonable timescale.

27. We recognised that the benefits of school-college collaboration arise from the distinctive but complementary missions of schools and colleges. As noted above, these different missions are related to different arrangements for the recruitment, training and professional development of school and college staff respectively. A framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications should acknowledge these differences while ensuring that requirements which are common to all staff teaching school pupils are also met.

Issues: the Age and Educational Setting of the School Pupils

28. We do not envisage that college staff would normally be responsible for teaching school pupils below S3, except in the context of visits or similar occasions when school staff would be present. We therefore focused our attention on the issues affecting pupils in S3 and above. We identified a series of questions to be addressed.

1. Should the location in which lessons are being delivered (i.e. whether in a school or college) have any bearing on the qualifications that a member of college staff is expected to hold?

29. Programmes delivered by college staff for school pupils are usually delivered in colleges because they have the necessary specialist equipment and accommodation, but there are exceptions to this general rule. In some areas secondary schools do not have ready access to a college, or other considerations make it desirable for college staff to work with school pupils in schools. We agreed that it would be difficult to justify different requirements in terms of qualifications simply because teaching is delivered in a particular type of institution. Common requirements should apply to all college staff who teach school pupils, irrespective of whether lessons are delivered in a school or college.

2. Should there be a difference in the qualifications that a lecturer is expected to hold if the pupil is under the age of 16?

30. With respect to question (2) above, at least two points of view were expressed within the group. One point of view noted that many young people aged 16 entered mainstream college programmes; why should the college staff who taught these students require additional qualifications in order to teach young people of the same age who happened to be still at school? Many of the additional qualification requirements reflect the specific needs of the 14-16 age groups, and additional qualification requirements for college staff teaching school pupils should apply only with respect to pupils below the statutory leaving age. Another point of view stressed that the distinctive status of school pupils, as well as the needs of the holistic school environment, made it desirable that the same requirements should apply regardless of the age of the pupils. It was noted that the majority of school pupils involved in school-college activities were under 16.

31. It was agreed that enhanced disclosure procedures would need to apply to all staff teaching learners under 18 years of age.

Discussion Paper

32. We discussed three further questions:

3. Should the new PDA on teaching 14-16 year olds be a requirement for college staff delivering school/college courses?
4. Should the TQ(FE) be a requirement?
5. Should registration, such as with a professional body, be a requirement?

We agreed that question (5) could only be sensibly addressed in the light of the outcome of the current consultation on a professional body. With respect to questions (3) and (4), we recognised the wide range of views about the practicality as well as the necessity for any such requirements. We noted the concerns that any additional qualifications requirements for college staff might restrict the capacity of colleges to recruit suitable staff, especially those with relevant vocational qualifications or experience, and it would limit their flexibility in deploying staff.

33. To explore whether there was common ground among the different stakeholders, the Chair of the Working Group issued a Discussion Paper early in January 2005 as a basis for consultation within the organisations represented on the group and with other stakeholders. The paper drew on the group's discussions; the group agreed that the paper should be circulated, but neither the paper nor its proposals were specifically endorsed by the chair or the group either individually or collectively. The paper is included at Annex 3. It proposed that:

• the qualification requirements of college staff should be expressed as a set of 'normal expectations' (detailed in the paper);
• these expectations would apply to all full- and part-time staff teaching school pupils below the statutory leaving age, unless they were supporting or accompanied by an appropriately qualified person (eg as a visiting lecturer);
• to accommodate the colleges' post-entry system of training and qualifications, staff working towards the relevant qualifications, under appropriate supervision and within agreed time scales, should be permitted to teach school pupils;
• prior and experiential learning could count towards these 'normal expectations', subject to an appropriate procedure for recognising them;
• additional flexibility would be needed during the transitional period in which new arrangements were introduced.

Responses to the Discussion Paper

34. The responses to the Discussion Paper confirmed the broad support for the aims and objectives of school-college partnerships. They also revealed general support for the principles stated in paragraphs 26 and 27 above. However the approach outlined in paragraph 33 did not command broad support. In particular, it did not have the support of large parts of the college sector, which accounted for the majority of respondents. The responses expressed a range of viewpoints but they tended to cluster into two broad groups.

35. Most respondents were from the college sector and most of the sector's responses questioned the need for any additional qualification requirements. In their view the proposals in the Discussion Paper were based on a deficit model for which the case had not been made. Colleges already had procedures for staff training and development, whose effectiveness was evidenced by numerous quality assurance procedures and by the satisfaction of their partner schools. These procedures had to be flexible to cater for the diverse backgrounds, prior qualifications and contractual conditions of staff members; colleges needed the flexibility to decide whether and how these procedures should involve formal qualifications. The new PDA was welcomed as an additional resource on which these procedures could draw, but not as a requirement: a shorter training programme would meet the needs of many lecturers. College staff were already experienced in teaching a wide range of learners with different needs and learning styles. The purposes of school-college collaboration were largely based on the differences between the two sectors and on the distinctive skills and experience of college staff; an attempt to make them more like school teachers could undermine these purposes. Many of the young people whom colleges were asked to teach were those whom the school sector had been unable to engage in learning; it was therefore perverse to impose additional qualifications requirements on college staff and not to address the parallel issues for school staff raised by current curriculum changes. School-college partnerships accounted for only a small proportion of colleges' work, but imposing additional requirements on the staff involved in them could have a disproportionate impact on colleges' overall flexibility to recruit and deploy staff. It would also make it harder for colleges to participate effectively in school-college partnerships, and could lead them to reduce, or even end, their participation.

36. The second group of respondents considered that all staff teaching school pupils should hold a TQ(FE) or another appropriate teaching qualification, at least when teaching pupils below the statutory leaving age. Most of these respondents felt that staff teaching 14-16 year-old pupils needed additional training to support them to address child protection issues and the specific legal position of pupils, and to meet the distinctive pedagogical needs of this age group. There was support for the proposed flexibility in qualifications arrangements, subject to some concern that the time scales should not be too long and that the flexibility should not undermine the basic principle that all lecturers should be appropriately qualified. It was argued that college staff should have access to quality continuing professional development. There was support for the development of a framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications. It was suggested that this might be based around standards, and that alternative types of evidence that standards had been met could be explored. 'Ladders of progression' needed to be in place to enable the development of enhanced qualifications.

37. A further theme, implicit in several responses in each group, was that the Working Group needed to take account of wider issues, and to address them over a longer time scale. It needed to take account of other categories of college staff, and people who were neither school teachers nor college lecturers but who were increasingly involved in the education of school pupils: for example, staff of private training providers, higher education institutions and employers. It needed to take account of the independent school sector. It might need to await the outcomes of the professional body consultation and the other developments summarised above. The conflicting responses to the Discussion Paper reflected broader differences in views on the professionalism of school and college staff, which might need to be resolved or at least clarified before the specific issue of college staff teaching school pupils could be resolved.

RECOMMENDATIONS

38. During the course of the Working Group's discussions, it became increasingly apparent that a number of related developments could potentially have a bearing on the issues that it is considering. These include the Executive's consultation about whether there should be a professional body for the staff in colleges; the work currently taking place to develop a new professional development award and units for college staff teaching school pupils aged under 16; and the GTCS working group which is considering new flexible arrangements for the registration of teachers.

39. An agreement that does not take these matters fully into account runs the risk of being unsustainable.

40. A wide variety of lecturers, tutors and trainers work with school pupils, not only in colleges, but in higher education institutions, the voluntary sector and in some instances in the private sector. It may be preferable to identify and describe a position that encompasses all the work done by them.

41. New skills-for-work courses are being developed as the principal means of delivering the Executive's Partnership Agreement commitment to increase access for 14-16 year olds to vocational skills. These are being piloted in 2005/06 and 2006/07 with a view to national roll-out in 2007/08. These courses could be delivered in a number of different ways, some involving school/college partnership with learning taking place in either the school or college or in a mix of both. They may also involve non-school and non-college staff in their delivery, such as through a private training provider.

42. The Steering Group of the Review of Occupational Standards of college staff is conducting a mapping exercise to compare the core occupational standards of college lecturers with those of secondary school teachers. This exercise might form an appropriate starting point for consideration of a common framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications for school and college teaching staff. Our remit invited us to consider such a framework, but we have been inhibited from doing so by our focus on the specific issue of college staff teaching school pupils. A broader examination of the issues, based on the mapping exercise, might provide a basis for re-visiting this specific issue.

43. If a more embracing consideration of the issues were to be taken forward, we would suggest that a new Working Group with membership that reflects its extended remit begins its work once the shape of the related developments is clearer, with an aim of putting recommendations to Ministers in early 2007 - ahead of the planned introduction nationally of the skills-for-work courses planned in June that year.

44. In the meantime, as a temporary measure pending the outcome of that review, there is an opportunity to introduce some greater flexibility for college staff teaching pupils in schools and to encourage the take up of the new Professional Development Award for the teaching of 14-16 year olds.

College Staff Teaching School Pupils in School ²

College Staff Teaching School Pupils in College

Take-Up of New Professional Development Award

45 These recommendations are intended to make school-college partnerships easier and more successful in the short term, but in the longer term more will be needed. Our recommendations do not on their own resolve all the issues addressed by this Working Group. Moreover, they continue to distinguish between college staff teaching school pupils in schools and those teaching school pupils in colleges, contrary to one of the principles agreed by the group. We hope that the new review proposed in paragraph 43 will achieve a lasting resolution of the issues discussed in this report, and enable the benefits to learners of school-college partnerships to be fully realised.

ANNEX 1: WORKING GROUP ON 'QUALIFICATIONS OF COLLEGE STAFF TO TEACH SCHOOL PUPILS'

Membership

Professor David Raffe, University of Edinburgh (Chair)
Aileen Barrie, Scottish Trades Union Congress and Teacher at Clyde Valley High School
Dr Valerie Hallam, General Teaching Council Scotland
Donald Henderson, Teachers Division, Scottish Executive
Iain Lowson, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education
Jason McDonald, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
Aileen McKechnie, Further and Adult Education Division, Scottish Executive
Dr Andrew Morrison, Further Education Professional Development Forum and Assistant Principal of Staffing and Resources at Elmwood College
Dr Jane Polglase, Association of Scottish Colleges

Remit

"To examine the issues surrounding the qualifications of college staff to teach school pupils, including issues raised by questions 37-39 ³ posed in the consultation paper 'Building the Foundations of a Lifelong Learning Society: A Review of Collaboration Between Schools and Further Education Colleges in Scotland', published in February 2004, and by the consultation responses.

To assess the implications for:

• the qualifications required for college staff to teach school pupils in schools;
• the qualifications required for college staff to teach school pupils in colleges; and
• whether there should be a common framework for the recognition of qualifications for teachers and college teaching staff and, if so, the principles on which this should be based.

To make relevant recommendations by 15 March 2005 to Scottish Ministers.

In developing its recommendations, the Working Group should have regard to:

• the conditions for effective collaboration between schools and colleges, and the benefits of staff with diverse but complementary backgrounds and skills;
• the distinctive needs of school age pupils, the need to maintain and enhance the quality and effectiveness of collaboration;
• the central needs of colleges to provide post-school education, including working in collaboration with higher education institutions, with industry and with the professions.

The Working Group's recommendations should not address whether there should be a professional body for the further education sector. The Scottish Executive will be conducting a separate consultation exercise on this matter."

ANNEX 2

Staff Involvement In The Teaching Of Pupils In S3-S4 During Academic Year 2004/05

Purpose of the survey

• To collect up to date information on the level and type of provision provided by current collaboration between schools and FE colleges.
• To collect information on the qualifications of the teachers involved in school college collaboration programmes.
• To gather some information on how colleges administer their school college collaboration programmes.

Survey design & response

• The short survey form was designed to collect information on a small number of key factors including type of course offered, subjects studied and specific qualifications and terms of employment of college staff involved.
• The form was issued to all FE colleges in Scotland with a month to respond.
• 21 colleges responded with 17 in the central belt and 2 each in the north and south of Scotland.

Type of provision

In terms of the numbers of pupils involved 88 per cent of reported S3S4 provision through school college collaboration is through discrete programmes specifically run for school pupils.

A further 6 per cent is provided through a mixture of discrete and infill programmes. 6 per cent of pupils are involved in programmes which are exclusively run on an infill basis.

Course type

23 per cent of students at respondent colleges attend courses described as taster courses while 22 per cent attend courses covering the transition from school to work or further study. This group includes those courses specifically designed for Christmas leavers although evidence from previous years suggests significant numbers of Christmas leavers will also attend more mainstream courses.

The remaining 54 per cent of students attend vocational courses covering subjects such as construction (16 per cent), care, health & fitness (9 per cent) and business admin & IT proving (8 per cent) most popular.

Course duration

In line with evidence from previous years, S3S4 school college provision in respondent colleges in 2004/05 splits evenly between short courses lasting 2 weeks or less (45 per cent of students in respondent colleges) and longer courses lasting 20 weeks or more (48 per cent).

Course duration

If the information provided on course type is combined with the information on course duration, it emerges that the shorter courses tend to be the taster courses (obviously) and the transitional courses. 85 per cent of students on these two types of course attend for 2 weeks or less.

The subject specific vocational courses tend to last longer with 80 per cent of students on such courses attending for 20 weeks or more.

Level of study

39 per cent of S3S4 students at colleges responding to the survey are studying for formal qualifications. Of these the highest share (22 per cent) are studying for SQA Intermediate level 1 and 2 qualifications with 7 per cent studying for SVQ/NVQ level 1 and 2.

The remaining 11 per cent are studying for other qualifications including Scottish Progression Awards and Professional Development Awards.

Level of study

As we would expect the majority of students studying for qualifications are on longer vocational courses. 44 per cent of students participating on construction course are studying for a Scottish Progression Award. Construction students make up 84 per cent of students studying for this qualification.

Conclusions

• The overwhelming majority of S3S4 school collegestudents in respondent colleges are attending discrete courses specifically run for them.
• Just over half of such students attend vocational courses, with a quarter each attending taster courses and transitional courses.
• The tendency for longer courses to be vocational innature and geared toward obtaining a qualification provides evidence that college is seen as a good optionfor developing new skills and attaining qualifications.
• There is little evidence from this data that significantnumbers of Christmas leavers attend college to 'kill time' before leaving school.

Status of teaching staff

85 per cent of staff involved in delivery of school college provision to S3S4 students in 2004/05 are on permanent contracts with the college involved. Only 2 of the 21 colleges who responded to the survey have more than half of the staff involved in this type of provision on recurrent fixed term contracts. In both cases the number of staff involved at that college is less than 25.

Staff with a teaching qualification

78 per cent of staff at involved in delivering teaching and training to S3S4 students at respondent colleges in 2004/05 hold a teaching qualification. For permanent staff this share stands at 81 per cent while for staff on fixed term recurrent contracts the share is 64 per cent.

Of those who do hold a teaching qualification, 53 per cent hold full TQ(FE) or equivalent.

Other college staff involved

In addition to the 885 teaching staff involved in school college collaboration at the 21 respondent colleges, a further 61 other staff are involved in other capacities. Of these 21 are involved directly in teaching while 23 are involved in a range of support functions including school liaison.

Conclusions

• A large majority of staff involved in school college collaboration at respondent colleges are permanent staff.
• A similarly high proportion have a teaching qualificationand of those with a teaching qualification just over half hold a full TQ(FE) or equivalent. However 1 in 5 teachingstaff have no teaching qualification.
• 6 per cent of staff involved in school collegecollaboration are non-teaching staff, although just around a third of these are involved in teaching in some capacity.

Other information

On average across Scotland, respondent colleges are working with just over 11 schools each. In Glasgow the average is just under 11 schools whereas in the rest of the central belt this figure is just over 12 schools. In the north the average is slightly higher than the Scottish average. Only in the South is the average significantly different from the Scottish average at 6 schools per college.

Other information

ANNEX 3: SCHOOL/COLLEGE WORKING GROUP ON QUALIFICATIONS

QUALIFICATIONS FOR COLLEGE STAFF WHO TEACH SCHOOL PUPILS: A DISCUSSION PAPER

Introduction

1. This paper draws on the discussions of the qualifications working group, set up to make recommendations for the qualifications of college staff who teach school pupils. The group agreed that the Chair and Secretariat should prepare a discussion paper, with provisional proposals and comments on outstanding issues, as a basis for consultation within the organisations represented on the Working Group and with other stakeholders. The paper draws on the group's discussions but neither the paper nor its proposals have been specifically agreed by the group. The paper covers:

• the general principles agreed by the group;
• the scope of the proposals (the ages and locations of the school pupils concerned);
• proposed 'normal expectations' for the qualifications of college staff teaching these school pupils (these proposals reflect substantial agreement within the group); and
• the flexibility in applying these expectations.

General Principles

2. Members of the working group agreed that its main guiding principle would be that its 'recommendations should enable schools and colleges to collaborate to broaden the range, and maximise the quality, of learning opportunities available to school pupils, without adversely affecting adult learners in colleges.' They also adopted a number of other principles that either amplify or follow from their main guiding principle. These other principles are that the group's recommendations should:

• Maintain and enhance standards of professional competence in both sectors, and public confidence in those standards.
• Ensure that all staff teaching under-16 year olds in colleges and/or schools are competent to meet the specific needs of the age group or location.
• Recognise that many benefits of collaboration arise from the skills and backgrounds of college lecturers which differ from those of school teachers.
• Not restrict colleges' ability to recruit appropriate staff, including part-time staff.
• Not impose unnecessary barriers to collaboration, including in rural areas where the logistics of collaboration may differ.
• Facilitate local decision-making.
• Promote the mutual awareness and mutual respect between the two sectors which is necessary for effective collaboration, and encourage mutual trust in professional qualifications.
• Be realistic, and achievable within the available resources over a reasonable timescale.

3. The group recognises that the benefits of school-college collaboration arise from the distinctive but complementary missions of schools and colleges. These different missions are related to different arrangements for the recruitment, training and professional development of school and college staff respectively. A framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications should acknowledge these differences while ensuring that requirements which are common to all staff teaching school pupils are also met.

The Age and Educational Setting of the School Pupils

4. It is not envisaged that college staff would normally be responsible for teaching school pupils below S3, except in the context of visits or similar occasions when school staff would be present. With respect to pupils in S3 and above, the group has considered two questions:

• Should the location in which lessons are being delivered (i.e. whether in a school or college) have any bearing on the qualifications that a lecturer is expected to hold?
• Should there be a difference in the qualifications that a lecturer is expected to hold if the pupil is under the age of 16?

5. While programmes delivered by college staff for school pupils are usually delivered in colleges because they have the necessary specialist equipment and accommodation, there are exceptions to this general rule. In parts of the country such as the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway many secondary schools do not have ready access to a college. To enable colleges to offer programmes to school pupils in some of the more outlying localities, a college lecturer may have to deliver lessons in a school. It would be difficult to justify different requirements in terms of qualifications simply because teaching is delivered in a particular type of institution. The same requirements should apply to all lecturers who teach school pupils, irrespective of whether lessons are delivered in a school or college.

6. In many areas of life Scots law regards a 16 year old as an adult. Young people aged 16 and over are free to enter employment or undertake further education and training by enrolling voluntarily on mainstream college programmes. Many of the additional qualification requirements reflect the specific needs of the 14-16 age groups, and it is therefore proposed that additional qualification requirements for college staff teaching school pupils should apply only with respect to pupils below the statutory leaving age. (Note that this would include many S5 groups, at least before the winter leaving date.) College staff do not currently require additional qualifications in order to teach school pupils aged 16 and 17 in colleges; to extend the additional qualification requirements to college staff teaching school pupils of all ages would create additional costs for colleges and disrupt the way in which they currently operate.

7. An alternative proposal would apply additional qualification requirements to college staff teaching school pupils below the statutory age, in any location, and to college staff teaching school pupils above that age in schools. This would be justified on the grounds that common qualification requirements should apply to all staff teaching within a school, in order to preserve the holistic ethos of the school. However it would contradict the principle outlined in paragraph 5 above.

Normal Expectations for the Qualifications of College Staff teaching School Pupils

8. All lecturers and support staff who are to be involved in delivering lessons to school pupils below the age of 18 should be subject to prior disclosure checks.

9. The college sector operates a post-entry system for the teaching qualifications of staff. Lecturers are appointed on the basis of their academic and/or vocational qualifications and experience. Having secured a post, they are then encouraged to study part-time for a teaching qualification in further education (TQ(FE)). This post-entry system suits the needs of colleges and it has equal validity to the pre-entry arrangements for school teachers. In the light of this, it is proposed that the qualification requirements for college staff teaching school pupils (as set out in paragraphs 12 to 16 below) would be deemed to be met by a member of staff who is working towards the appropriate qualification. It is understood that college staff who are working towards a teaching qualification receive appropriate mentoring and supervision.

10. Qualifications should be gained within a reasonable period of time, but the specific period should take account of individual circumstances and be negotiated between lecturers and their line managers. The Working Group may decide to give further guidance on the length of time within which lecturers would normally be expected to gain the appropriate qualifications.

11. To comply with equal opportunities requirements, all permanent lecturers, whether employed on a part-time or full-time basis, should be expected to gain the same qualifications. Part-time lecturers would normally need to be allowed a longer period of time to complete the qualifications.

12. Guidelines on proposed qualifications for different categories of lecturing staff teaching school pupils (as defined in paragraphs 4 to 7) are shown in the grid at Annex A. The normal expectation is that permanent lecturers teaching school pupils should hold, or be working towards, the full TQ(FE). They should also hold, or be working towards, a Professional Development Award (PDA) on teaching school pupils.

13. The stage at and the order in which these qualifications are completed will depend on a lecturer's existing qualifications. For example, a new recruit or an existing lecturer who is not teacher trained would normally be expected to complete the 'Introduction to Teaching in Further Education' and a PDA on teaching school pupils before going on to take a full TQ(FE). On the other hand, a lecturer who already holds a TQ(FE) would only be expected to complete a PDA on teaching school pupils.

14. To allow different routes to qualification, appropriate provision will need to be available at both the initial teacher training (ITT) stage and as a continuing professional development (CPD) option. The steering group which is overseeing the review of the occupational standards is in the process of developing a PDA on teaching school pupils which will be available as a CPD option for lecturers who already hold a TQ(FE). The occupational standards steering group will also look at the skills and knowledge on teaching school pupils that lecturers need to gain during their initial training and will make recommendations on how to devise a PDA that will meet these needs. A PDA which is designed to meet initial training needs may have to include an amount of assessed teaching practice. A PDA developed for this purpose should also carry credits which count towards a full TQ(FE).

15. The Higher Education Institutions which deliver TQ(FE) programmes will be asked to include optional modules on teaching school pupils. Lecturers who complete these optional modules as part of their TQ(FE) will be considered to be fully qualified to teach school pupils.

16. Newly appointed lecturers, and existing lecturers who do not hold a full TQ(FE), may be at a relatively early stage in their progression towards the qualifications requirements described in paragraph 12. However the minimum requirement of all college staff teaching school pupils is that they should at least be working towards the existing PDA 'Introduction to Teaching in Further Education' and a specific PDA on teaching school pupils. Lecturers would be expected to hold or be working towards these qualifications irrespective of whether the school pupils were being taught in discrete groups or were 'infilling' in mainstream courses. Temporary lecturing staff should not be expected to achieve the same level of qualification as permanent lecturers, but should meet the minimum requirement stated above.

17. The role of an instructor is understood as being to help a qualified lecturer; an instructor would not normally be expected to plan lessons or conduct assessments. However if an instructor is to take sole responsibility for a class containing school pupils, he/she should hold the minimum teaching qualifications set out in paragraph 16.

18. A qualified lecturer should be present when a class containing school pupils is being taken by a visiting lecturer or guest speaker.

19. There would be a transition period before the new arrangements become fully operational, to allow the new PDAs to be introduced and to allow time for existing staff to obtain qualifications.

Flexibility

20. The proposed 'normal expectations' detailed in paragraphs 8 to 19 draw on the working group's discussions and reflect a broad measure of agreement among members of the group. The group also recognises the practical pressures on colleges which make flexibility in the recruitment, training, qualification and deployment of staff desirable, but it has not yet discussed in detail the flexibility to be allowed around these 'normal expectations'. Three broad positions can be identified:

• that there should be no flexibility beyond that described above, for example in respect of staff 'working towards' qualifications;
• that colleges should have discretion to waive the requirements in specified circumstances, for example when strict adherence to them would make it impossible to recruit or retain staff with relevant backgrounds and expertise;
• that there should be a process whereby staff who do not hold the expected qualifications could be recognised as competent to teach school pupils. This might be linked to a procedure for recognising prior and experiential learning.

21. A possible approach would link the flexibility described above to a process of professional registration. The Working Group has discussed whether lecturers who teach school pupils should be required to register with a professional body. Members have not yet reached a conclusion on this question. To help them come to a conclusion, they have decided that they will look at what is involved in the process of registration with a view to determining whether there are other ways of achieving the same ends.

Questions for discussion

22. Comments are invited on the four main issues covered by the paper:

1. Do you agree with the general principles agreed by the working group (paragraphs 2 and 3)?
2. For which college staff should the working group frame its recommendations: those teaching school pupils in S3 and above below the statutory leaving age? those teaching older school pupils in schools (paragraphs 4 to 7)?
3. Do you agree with the proposed 'normal expectations' for the qualifications of college staff teaching school pupils, including the principle that staff working towards relevant qualifications under appropriate supervision and within agreed time scales should be deemed to meet these expectations (paragraphs 8 to 19)?
4. What flexibility should be permitted around these normal expectations (paragraphs 20 and 21)?

Professor David Raffe
Chair
School/College Review Working Group on Qualifications
January 2005

ANNEX A

*Permanent lecturers who work part-time may need to be allowed a longer period of time to complete these qualifications.

1. In this report, unless otherwise indicated, colleges refer to Scotland's colleges of further education, excluding Newbattle Abbey College, which is an adult residential college. References to schools are to state schools in Scotland and include, where appropriate, new 'Learning Communities', which are groups of primary and secondary schools under one principal.
2. The GTCS is currently considering the extension of conditional registration to college lecturers.
3. 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?