The Scottish Government

(You can download a pdf version of this document by clicking here)

PRESENT

Laurence Howells Director of Learning Policy & Strategy SFEFC (Chair)

David Caldwell Universities Scotland

Diane Duncan Highlands and Islands Enterprise

John Ireson SKILL Scotland

Mary Garrity Scottish Qualifications Authority

Anne Grindley SFEFC

Tom Kelly ASC

Stuart King Futureskills Scotland

Ali Laiquat EIS

Brian McKechnie Senior Studies Institute, Strathclyde University

Kenneth Muir HMIE

Ian Ovens Dundee College

Grahame Smith STUC

Bill Wardle James Watt College (in place of Craig Thomson Glenrothes College)

Gareth Williams Scottish Council for Development and Industry

Graeme Wise NUS Scotland (on behalf Gail Edwards)

Col Baird FAED 2 Reviews Team Scottish Executive

Raaj K Bhatti FAED 1 Scottish Executive (Minute Secretary)

Simon Chisholm ASD Scottish Executive (on behalf of Colin MacBean)

Karen Friel ASD Scottish Executive (on behalf of Gerhard Mors)

Gavin Gray Funding for Learners Scottish Executive

Tom Kelly Funding for Learners Scottish Executive

Peter Lloyd HE&SD Scottish Executive (on behalf of Hugh McAloon)

Margaret Sutor FAED 4 Scottish Executive

APOLOGIES

Siobhan Berry Scottish Youth Parliament

Colin Dalrymple Association of Directors of Education in Scotland

Cath Hamilton Communities Scotland

Niall Stewart Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland

ITEM 1 - Welcome and Introductions

• These were duly completed.
• In line with the Executive's proactive publishing scheme and Freedom of Information best practice, all papers and minutes for this group will be posted on the Executive website. But this will only be once all members have had a chance to review and comment on them, and they have been ratified as a true and fair record by the group, at a subsequent meeting.
• The minutes themselves will also be in a simple format, recording key issues and actions, instead of detailed discussions.

• This is very much an open group, and delegates should feel free to discuss material with colleagues and feedback as appropriate, unless referring to sensitive topics. Anything sensitive will be highlighted as such during the meeting.
• Time pressures were acknowledged. Delegates can field a substitute at future meetings, ensuring their organisation's interests continue to be represented.

ITEM 2 - Update on the Review

• This began with an overview of the 4 workstreams that make up the Review. The other three in addition to this one being:

Ø The Difference Colleges Make (to the learner, the economy and wider society)

Ø Accountability and Governance in Incorporated Colleges

Ø Staffing and Facilities

• Output from the other 3 workstreams will be made available to this group.

Partner Discussion

• Before moving on to the initial discussion paper, the Chair invited members to discuss the following question, in pairs:

"What would be, from your perspective, a successful outcome of this workstream of the Review of Scotland's colleges"

• Feedback included:

§ Need to look outward towards key stakeholders/customers - shifts in the external environment will be far more powerful than the things that we do inside colleges.

§ Prove to be convincing and helpful in balancing different demands on college

§ system in a sustainable way.

§ In terms of scenario planning, let's also look at what would be desirable as well as what would be achievable.

§ Answer to where we are positioning Further Education (FE) in the overall education system, alongside schools, universities and work-based training

§ Agree a Strategy document for next 10 years, with an action plan identifying responsibilities to be taken forward by key partners and stakeholders.

§ A longer term view of the sector from a more strategic perspective.

§ A much clearer idea of the purpose of colleges.

§ Support for a much clearer and fairer entitlement to Lifelong Learning for everybody.

§ Convince decision makers, employers, employees and students that FE is at the heart of Lifelong Learning in Scotland.

§ It should add value, identifying areas where there is a consensus, producing realistic and achievable outcomes that we can take forward.

§ Coherent vision of the role of colleges within Lifelong Learning context and meeting Learners' needs. But in doing so, need for balance between what is aspirational and what is realistic.

§ Remember that this group is focussing on high level strategy, so avoid being drawn into exhaustive detail. Should ideally focus on a few key outcomes.

§ Clarity of role for colleges. Currently squeezed between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) & schools. Yet ever increasing demands on the sector including CLD and 14-16 schools context.

§ Parity with HEIs

§ Where exactly does FE fit in? How should it be perceived by a student in comparison with Higher Education (HE)?

§ Place of vocational qualifications in our national economy and their contribution to our international competitiveness.

§ Should result in evidence based policy, presenting a fair and balanced view of FE contribution to society and the economy.

§ Acknowledge that colleges are crucial and have a key role to play.

ITEM 3 - Initial Discussion Paper

• There was a detailed discussion around paper SEETTLD CSFWG-P01, which had been circulated to members in advance. A number of points emerged and are noted below by section.

• PURPOSE

§ Needs to be more upfront - why are we doing this review?

§ Should focus on next 10-15 years - a 20 year horizon is too remote to have any real impact - though demographic trends could be looked at in this timescale.

§ Reflect on where sector came from (i.e. Local Authority control and fixed volume), where it is now, and where it is heading.

§ Are we sure we know anything about what the economic context will be?

§ More explicit as to why we are doing this exercise. Emphasise that we are not starting from a deficit position, but looking at how colleges can continue to meet the demands on them successfully, in the changed future.

§ Make intelligent guesses as to what future landscape might look like. Provide intelligence to colleges that will let them carry on their good work.

§ Identify key players/issues that college sector needs to respond to.

§ Acknowledge that there are college specialisms and work to maintain them.

§ Look at college contributions to local community and national economy. What do they do collectively/individually?

§ Remit needs less of an operational focus - some of the bullet points look terribly specific at the moment

§ Consider how learning and teaching itself will look in 10-15 years - the current draft has terribly little focus on learners and learning.

• OPERATION

§ Some existing work could be usefully fed into any scenario planning e.g. Cubie Report and Parliament inquiry into Lifelong Learning. We should avoid going over ground already covered elsewhere

§ Feed in outputs from the other Review workstreams

§ The core activity of the group is scenario planning, which entails two distinct functions - providing (a) the direction of the activities; (b) the generation of ideas for and about the scenarios.

§ Thus propose that the group form a small steering group from its membership to discharge the first function. And that the second function could be delivered by the group being consulted electronically, when required, and meeting in a series of workshops to facilitate the generation of ideas for the workstream.

• HE FUTURES - Noted

• JOINT CIRCULATION - Noted

• TIMESCALE - Period from June 2006 to Jan 2007 seemed to be a long period between the scenario work ending and a final report being produced. It was agreed that a more developed project plan was needed once we were clear about the methodology for the study.

• RESEARCH

§ What do we really need? Can we use anything that's already out there?

§ Need a projection on if Colleges continue to provide as they do currently, where will they end up?

§ It would collate material already produced or available on college strategies particularly for the non-HE components of their work.

§ There is a lot of information available, for example in colleges' Development Plans, which is not collated or assessed in any organised way.

§ The specific gap to investigate further is in projections and cross-sector assessment of work in colleges other than HE and about barriers to work

§ Do we need to agree overall context of Review / scenarios and methodology thereof, before we know what questions we need to ask and what research material we require? (This point also echoed later on).

• SURVEY

§ Reviews team are proposing to use a single survey to cover all 4 work streams.

§ Is the survey remit wide enough to cover economic impact?

§ Views expressed that survey needs to consider a wider range of stakeholders.

§ Should also invite views from:

o College boards;

o Current & recent learners;

o Potential learners, in the context of any scenarios addressing how the sector might look in the future;

o Voluntary sector, in terms of links into community education.

§ Noted that Scottish Chambers of Commerce are surveying employers as part of a different workstream. We might be able to use that as well.

§ Also refer to existing research/Parliamentary inquiry concerning Barriers to Learning and the Leitch Review looking at overall UK skill needs.

§ Noted that we could liaise with Martin Boyle in Skills for Life and Work Division, in the context of a strategic planning exercise currently underway by the Sector Skills Councils.

§ Any conversations should be on the basis of an agreed scenario/methodology otherwise they risked not contributing to our exercise. This pointed to the need for us, very early on, to firm up on our methodology for the scenario analysis.

§ Can we identify and seek advice from someone, who has good scenario planning experience - it would be a shame to reinvent the wheel?

• TASKS

§ Would it be useful to have workshops in colleges, facilitated by a college principal allowing them to talk about their experience and how the college fits into the local community?

§ Noted that other workstreams will also be visiting colleges, not just for meetings but to engage with them and seek their views. So this is a more than valid approach for this group as well.

§ It may be possible to learn lessons from work conducted elsewhere in the UK, concerning the purpose of colleges

ITEM 3 - AOCB

• Members were invited to take copies of some draft mind maps, broadly summarising some of the HE Futures work and outlining the proposed areas to be covered during conversations with College & HEI Principals.

• The Chair suggested it may be easier, and less time consuming, if members are canvassed later by e-mail for potential dates for the next meeting.

• There being no further business to discuss, the Chair thanked everyone for their input and the meeting was brought to a close.

All agreed actions are summarised on the next page

SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS :

Raaj K Bhatti

Further and Adult Education Division

September 2005