« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FOUR: PARTNERSHIP WORKING
4.1 This chapter is based on the final survey of the 20 partnerships involved over the two years of the pilot. It starts by examining the links between schools and colleges, including the perceived effectiveness of the links between partner organisations, while the second section focuses on the frequency of contact between schools and colleges and the extent to which attendance data and other information was shared between the two. The third section explores employer involvement across the 20 partnerships, and the extent to which this has changed since the first year of the pilot. Finally, the last section discusses local authority involvement and support in relation to the SfW pilot.
THE LINKS BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
4.2 School staff were asked to identify the range of organisations they had had links with during the SfW pilot. Most schools (25 out of 29 schools surveyed) said they had worked with colleges and/or training providers, seven said they had worked closely with their local authority, while eight schools said they had worked with employers. A small number of schools (six) said they had strong links with other organisations including partner schools, Careers Scotland, and the SQA. 6
4.3 Of those schools responding to a question asking whether these links with other organisations already existed or whether they were newly developed, approximately half said they had developed new links with organisations since the first year of the SfW pilot. Some of these new links had been with employers which had been facilitated with the help of local authority business liaison officers.
4.4 The majority of schools (23) were generally very positive about the effectiveness of their links with other organisations in delivering the SfW programme. In most cases, school staff said they mainly liaised with a single key contact in these other organisations. This allowed good working relationships to develop and streamlined communication procedures, as a Principal teacher explained: "Things are better now - each piece in the jigsaw has a named person who you can email or telephone".
4.5 Many school interviewees said they had built up relationships with colleges or training providers ' over several years', and that SfW was just one of several programmes in which collaboration with other organisations, and particularly colleges, was talking place. The depute headteacher of one school explained how, owing to the effectiveness of the procedures between college and school, a problem with a student who attended the college had been resolved:
"We had an issue with the behaviour of one of our students within the college with a college student. That was highlighted to myself by the college. [The college liaison officer] came out to the school and spoke to our student and that was resolved. A new contract was signed [by the student] - it was laid down again that these are the rules and they have to be kept. It was a very effective process."
4.6 Schools that had forged new links with other organisations as part of SfW explained how they had gained a greater understanding and awareness of how these institutions operated. The depute headteacher from one school, for example, commented on how having a close rapport with the college had resulted in a positive working relationship.
"The fact that we've met so often as a group has really helped to make it a positive partnership. At the beginning we weren't really aware of the college processes and likewise they weren't really aware of our school processes, so because we've met together and because we all get on together it's made a huge difference."
4.7 Interviewees from four schools described their relationships with other organisations as being more mixed. The main problem-areas related to issues of communication or planning, specifically between the school and the college. For example, a deputy headteacher explained how the college had unexpectedly requested that a teacher from the school attend all college-delivered SfW courses, placing an additional burden on the school:
"The links with the college haven't been completely satisfactory. Originally we were supposed to send our children to the college but then they asked if we could send a member of our staff with the pupils as well. So there have been staffing difficulties for us because we've always had to release one member of our staff to go with the children to be another body there".
4.8 Interviewees from only two schools said that overall the links with other organisations had not been very effective. Both schools experienced difficulties in managing the expectations and involvement of partner organisations, specifically a college and an employer. The deputy headteacher from one school explained how, despite having written agreements in place, a partner employer never had time to contribute to the programme:
"[We had] wonderful looking agreements [with the employer] that promised the earth, but when you go to them to say: "Can you do this, this and this?" - and I appreciate they're always very busy - they can never usually do it. "
FREQUENCY AND TYPE OF CONTACT
4.9 Representatives from the schools and delivery centres were asked how frequently they had contact with one another. Of those 25 schools that were working in partnership with an external provider, most (13) said that they were in weekly contact, while others (four) were in daily contact. The remaining schools had either no direct contact with the providers, liaising with their local authority instead, or they said that the college only got in touch if an issue in relation to student behaviour or attendance arose. Some interviewees said they required more regular contact during the initial stages of the programme to initially "get things going". For some, this level of contact had subsequently and deliberately been reduced.
4.10 School and delivery centre staff generally discussed more 'strategic' issues, such as planning for the future and evaluating the success of courses and procedures, less frequently. This could take place as often as once a month or as little as once a year. Some school and college interviewees also said they met together at least once a year to discuss and review the selection procedures for recruiting young people to SfW courses.
4.11 Not all of the contact was directly between colleges and delivery centres. In at least three partnerships where SfW courses were being delivered by a college, information on attendance and achievement reached the school via the local authority. The depute headteacher at one school explained that while he considered the level of direct contact with the delivery centre to be "sufficient", he only heard from the college when a problem arose:
"I only get contact from them [the college] when there are any problems. We do get reports on the children's progress from the college, but that goes through the local authority and then it comes to me."
4.12 Similarly, a college-based Schools Liaison Officer explained that the local authority acted as an intermediary between the college and SfW schools, but that he thought that this form of communication was no less effective:
"The council has a coordinator that brings together groups of schools. They form the link between us and the schools, so we have less direct contact with the schools but it's certainly not less effective, just different."
4.13 While some college and school staff said that there were "always ways to improve" the strength and depth of the links between partner organisations, the majority of interviewees were very happy with the level of contact they had with one another. Some teaching staff expressed the view that they would like to visit the college or training provider more often, but that this was difficult due to pressures of work, as one Principal Teacher explained:
"The links we have with the college are sufficient, but we could improve them further. We could, for example, visit the college more often - but with all the school commitments I have it is very difficult. I make every effort to see each pupil [being taught in college] at least once a year."
4.14 Other suggestions for improving the links between organisations included:
- Having named contacts and agreeing procedures for day-to-day contact and the exchange of information
- Ensuring all partner organisations (including schools, colleges, local authorities and employers) were represented on any working groups that had been established
- Developing a year planner so that all partner organisations could work towards agreed milestones (for example, timetabled activities and report writing).
4.15 All 20 partnerships kept records of students' attendance on SfW courses. This information was either recorded by the school or by the delivery centres. Where students were taught outside of school, attendance data was recorded in one of four ways:
- Individual college tutors would take a register
- A member of the school staff (e.g. a teacher or teaching assistant) would accompany the students to the delivery centre and take a register once there
- A single contact at a college or training provider would be responsible for recording attendance data for students on all SfW courses
- The school would take a register before students left for the college or training provider.
4.16 Where attendance was recorded off the school premises, this information would be sent to the school by phone, email, or fax. Most school staff working with an external provider reported that attendance data was collected daily or weekly (23 schools out of 25). A minority of interviewees reported that where such information was recorded by individual course tutors or by more than one person at the delivery centre, the process for getting this information back to school could be "more ad hoc".
4.17 Most of the staff from schools that were working with colleges or training providers to deliver the SfW programme said that they or someone from the school had visited the delivery centre at least once as part of the SfW pilot. The nature and frequency of the visits varied, although visits were generally mutually initiated. A similar number of school staff said they visited once or twice a year to those that visited more frequently (up to once a week).
4.18 Most delivery centre staff agreed that visits from school staff were beneficial and indeed necessary in order for schools to achieve a "full understanding of what colleges do". The need for school staff to visit the college or training provider was said to be even greater where schools were solely responsible for the recruitment and selection of young people to SfW courses, as one college coordinator explained:
"Schools make decisions about who does certain courses and [school-based] guidance staff need to make decisions based on course knowledge, not misconceptions. It makes for better selection."
4.19 A small number of schools regularly sent school staff to accompany their students to college. In one school, this was done in response to the perceived need that someone with or at least working towards a teaching qualification should be present in every college class. 7
4.20 All of those schools (23) that had sent staff to visit a college or training provider said the visits had been useful. The visits helped staff from both organisations to get to know to one another, and helped familiarise teaching staff with the college environment, as well as reassure them about the quality and standard of teaching being delivered to their students. Visits by school staff also helped to maintain a visible link for students between school and college life, while reminding them that school expectations regarding attendance and behaviour needed to be maintained, as one Principal Teacher explained:
"The value for us [in visiting the pupils at college] is that the pupils out there don't feel forgotten, they feel we've still got an interest in what they're doing, and that there's a link between what they're doing at college and at the school. I think some pupils think because they're not in school that day, it's nothing to do with the school so attendance and behaviour doesn't really matter…So I think it gives them the idea that it's every bit as important as the other subjects they do in school."
4.21 Staff from only three schools involved in school-college partnerships said they had not carried out a visit to their local delivery centre. The main reasons given were pressures of time and workload, although all three schools said they had excellent links with their delivery partners and that they had "a good feeling for what was happening in college".
4.22 Delivery centre staff thought it was equally important that they visited their partner schools. A representative from only one delivery centre said he had not visited his partnership's schools, but that he planned to do so in the future.
LINKS WITH EMPLOYERS
4.23 Employer involvement appeared mixed across the 20 partnership areas. More than half of the delivery centre staff (11) reported that employers played little or no part in the delivery of SfW courses, while staff from nine delivery centres reported that employers did contribute to the delivery of the programme. Where employers were involved, they tended to visit delivery centres, give talks to the students, and provide work experience placements, as the representative for one college explained:
"Employers are involved because we work with a number of nurseries across the city and students get the opportunity to go out and work in those nurseries, so those nurseries are very closely involved in helping us to deliver the course."
4.24 Rural Skills and Construction Crafts were identified as the courses which had most employer involvement (this was the case also in Year 2 Partnerships). Some Early Education and Childcare courses had also managed to establish very strong links with local nurseries or accessed school or college facilities. The spokesperson for one college suggested that the Sports and Recreation course "uses employers and work practitioners to a greater extent than the other courses", although this was not substantiated by any other interviewees.
4.25 Many of the interviewees from partnerships where employers played little or no part in the delivery of SfW courses wanted to involve employers more, but felt restrained, either because of the young age of students on SfW courses, or because of difficulties experienced in recruiting employers to the programme. The relatively short time students spent each week on their SfW courses was also said by some to limit their exposure to the world of work, as the schools' liaison officer from one college explained:
"We do have a good bank of employer contacts but obviously these pupils are only coming half a day a week and they're a lot younger than our full-time students. [For this reason] you can't expect these pupils to go anywhere outside the city. For example, for Sport and Recreation we put them into a primary school to carry out their work experience but ideally it would be a leisure centre."
4.26 It is worth noting that while several interviewees stressed that they already had good working relationships with employers before the start of the pilot, most delivery centre staff (15) reported that they had not managed to develop any more effective links with employers in the second year of the programme. Many partnerships were still trying to engage employers, although all were happy with the current programme of activities being offered to pupils. Where links with employers had been strengthened, SfW courses were thought to have benefited, though, as one college representative explained:
"In Construction, employers have been involved in the adaptation of the course when switching to school delivery at the satellite centres. Their involvement has been fantastic. If only that happened in other areas."
LOCAL AUTHORITY INVOLVEMENT AND SUPPORT
4.27 About two thirds of the school staff interviewees reported that local authority involvement had been "considerable" and that they valued the support provided, as the following quotation from a depute headteacher illustrates:
"The local authority has a strong involvement with the programme and it's very much appreciated. If we've had any problems either [our contact at the local authority] or one of his colleagues has come straightaway. They also come to school at options time and during parents' evening and parents can ask him questions".
4.28 In only two of the 29 schools, interviewees said that their local authorities had had "no real involvement" in the SfW pilot so far. An interviewee in one of these schools said that while their local authority had not had much involvement they did not require any further help, while a Principal Teacher at the second school said he was encouraged by the appointment of a new educational development officer by his local authority:
"We've had very little involvement from the local authority so far, but I think things will improve in future as they have a new educational development officer who is an ex-principal teacher from the school and who is very behind Skills for Work. The more involvement [the local authority has with the programme] the better."
4.29 Almost all of the school interviewees said they were satisfied with the level of support provided by their local authority. Many said that local authority involvement and support had improved in the second year of the programme, with local authority officers increasingly attending partnership meetings. Some school staff also reported that local authority officers were involved in interviewing SfW applicants and contributed to the selection of students for SfW courses.
4.30 Staff from only three schools said that more support, in addition to that already received from partner organisations, would have been helpful. In particular, school staff said they would have liked:
- More help from the local authority and college in selecting and recruiting young people to SfW courses
- The partnership to take a more strategic and less ad hoc approach to developing SfW and other vocational programmes.
- More help in developing school-based SfW courses.
KEY FINDINGS
- Most schools said they were working with a range of partners to deliver the SfW programme, including colleges, training providers, the local authority and other partner schools.
- Most schools were very positive about the effectiveness of their links with other organisations, helped in part by the fact that in most cases, school staff said they mainly liaised with a single key contact in these other organisations. This allowed good working relationships to develop and streamlined communication procedures.
- Some interviewees said that the level of contact between schools and delivery centres had naturally decreased since the start of the pilot and the setting up of the programme. However despite this, most school and delivery centre interviewees said they were still in weekly or daily contact with one another.
- Information on attendance and recruitment was regularly exchanged between provider and school. In three partnerships information on attendance and achievement reached the school via the local authority.
- There was some variation in the level of involvement from local authorities and employers. Although in most cases local authorities had provided support to schools and delivery centres, in the partnerships surveyed as part of the evaluation around half were still struggling to engage employers in the SfW courses.
« Previous | Contents | Next »