[SEETLLD R0SCCG/M03]
REVIEW OF SCOTLAND 'S COLLEGE
CORE GROUP
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Friday 5 May 2006 , 10am - Noon , G05/06 Meridian Court
Participants
Stakeholders
Scottish Funding Council - Riona Bell
Association of Scottish Colleges - Tom Kelly, Ian Macpherson and Sue Pinder
UNISON - Douglas Black
HMIE - Wray Bodys
Scottish Enterprise - Charlene O'Connor
Scottish Qualifications Authority - John Young
National Union of Students Scotland - James Alexander
Confederation of British Industry Scotland- Alan Mitchell
Scottish Further Education Unit - Brian Lister
Universities Scotland - David Caldwell
SKILL Scotland - Lesley Berry
Scottish Enterprise - Charlene O'Conner
Angus College - John Burt
Scottish Executive
Mark Batho, Head of Lifelong Learning Group (Chair)
Aileen McKechnie, Head of Further and Adult Education Division
Col Baird, Reviews Team Leader, Scotland's Colleges
Victoria Beattie, Reviews Team, Scotland's Colleges
Colin MacBean, Analytical Services Division
Apologies
Association of Scottish Colleges -Tony Jakimciw
Educational Institute of Scotland - Ken Wimbor
Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland - Niall Stuart
SKILL Scotland - John Ireson
Scottish Youth Parliament - Marie Grogan MYSP
Association of Directors of Education in Scotland - Michael O'Neil
Highlands and Islands Enterprise - Diane Duncan
Scottish Funding Council - David Wann
Hugh McAloon, Head of Higher Education Strategy and Governance Branch
Issues Discussed & Points Agreed
(i) Minutes of Last Meeting
- Agreed to amend the minute to reflect the view expressed by the Trade Unions that their comments at meetings should be noted as being attributed to the STUC.
- Agreed to amend the minute to signal that the Staffing, Learners and Learning Environment Working Group's sub group had been set up to discuss the professional development of all staff.
The minute will be amended in light of these comments and then published on the Executive's website.
Action Points from previous meeting
- Executive to re-issue the previous minute for final comment on the section relating to charitable status prior to publication on the Executive's website. This was done. Members agreed that the wording contained in minutes of the October meeting should not be amended. However it was agreed that the concerns expressed by members about charitable status should be noted in the February minutes and this has also been done.
- Accountability and Governance Working Group's 'think-piece' to be circulated to members of the Core Group. This Working Group meet on 26 April to discuss the draft 'think piece'. The Working Group are still considering amendments to this paper and hope to be able to provide Core Group members with the cleared "think piece" very shortly.
- Accountability and Governance Working Group to invite staff representatives to their future meetings when held within a college. The working group's Secretariat did invite staff representatives to their last meeting, unfortunately the representatives were unable to attend at the last minute. The Secretariat will ensure that staff representatives are invited to future meetings held in colleges.
- Core Group Secretariat to circulate a draft timetable for future Core Group meetings and put to members for agreement. This was e-mailed to members for comment in April and a paper was tabled for further discussion under agenda item (v).
- HMIE to send publication links to the Review Team to be inserted into the next e-bulletin. This has been done and the fourth e-bulletin was issued in March.
- Core Group Secretariat to contact Chairs of working groups to seek approval of the extension to the circulation list for papers to include the Core Group members. Secretariat contacted each of the Chairs and it was agreed that Core Group members will be sent copies of the formal papers of the Working Groups when they are issued to Working Group members.
(ii) Update on Ministerial Powers of Direction
Members were informed that Allan Wilson, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, appeared before the Enterprise and Culture Committee on 21 March 2006 to move the Further and Higher Education ( Scotland ) Act 1992 Modification Order 2006. The Committee, having taken evidence from the ASC, NUS Scotland and STUC, approved the order to remove Ministers' existing power to issue a direction to a college. The Minister assured the Committee that the Scottish Executive would monitor the impact of the Order on the sector and provide the Committee with advice on its impact within a year's time. The Order came into force on 24 April 2006.
Members were reminded that whilst this power was used for specific funding purposes, such as EMAs and bursaries, it had never been used in anger. Again members were assured that that the Scottish Executive and in particular the Accountability and Governance Working Group will continue to monitor the impact of the Order and the new Charities regulations. Members were asked to provide the Executive with assistance in the monitoring.
The ASC informed members that there might be some areas of overlap between the Charities regulations and the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. In particular there might be issues relating to remuneration. Members were informed that the Accountability and Governance Working Group would also be looking into this issue.
(iii) Update from the Working Groups
Members were informed that there have been four e-bulletins published since the start of the Review and that the next e-bulletin will be circulated at the end of this month. The Group was provided with a brief update on the three workstreams and stated that the fourth workstream would be discussed under agenda item (iv).
Accountability and Governance Working Group
It was explained that:
- this Group has met four times;
- although there had been problems in identifying suitable dates for meetings the Group were back on track for delivery of its remit within the timescale agreed;
- despite the delay in commissioning research, the invitation for expressions of interest was due to be issued today;
- the research 'think pieces' will be discussed again at next meeting; and
- at the next meeting members will also discuss how to take forward the rest of the Group's work, including the issue of remuneration.
Staffing, Learners and Learning Environment Working Group
It was outlined that:
- this Group has met six times and the staff development subgroup has met three times;
- the Group is making good progress on the various aspects of its remit;
- the Executive has written out to colleges seeking comments on a paper about the number of staff who are teacher trained and that a discussion on the analysis of the comments will take place at the next meeting on 11 May;
- following a presentation from the Scottish Funding Council members will be discussing learning environments at the next meeting; and
- having conducted a literature review on the student experience, issues highlighted in the review will be discussed at its meeting in June.
Strategic Futures Working Group
It was commented that:
- this is deliberately the last Group to get its work underway;
- the Group is still at the information gathering phase;
- there has been some slippage in the original timetable as the information gathering phase will not now end until the end of June (envisaged initially for end of March). The new timetable will still enable the Group to deliver in January 2007; and
- there were two open space events examining the future of FE and HE on 2 and 5 May. The first was aimed at representatives of colleges and universities. The second was aimed at representatives of learners, employers, professional bodies and others from the wider community
The SFEU informed members that there are a number of benchmarking studies which will provide the Accountability and Governance and the Staffing, Learners and Learning Environment Working Groups with an array of best practice examples.
(iv) The Difference Col leges Make Report - Unlocking Opportunity
John Burt, who is Chair of the Working Group, was invited to present the draft report to the Core Group. He provided members with an overview of the Report and highlighted some specific areas of interest. In particular he stated that although the report should be regarded as a live document it should be made available to stakeholders in June so that the information contained in the report is useable and relevant. The desire of members of the Working Group was to produce a report which balanced human case studies with quantitative figures. He commented that the task of producing such a report had been a difficult one and that he was grateful for the support of other members of the group in taking this task forward..
Colin MacBean, Scottish Executive, presented the Economic Impact Paper. He informed members that for the first time, there is now a monetary value on the contribution that colleges make to enhancing the skills of the workforce in Scotland. On the basis of extremely cautious assumptions the benefit is at least £3.20 for every £1 invested. He told members that the methods used in the report were not those used in a classic multiplier study. Rather the figures were based on student data from the Funding Council combined with the labour force survey, the cost of student support, and opportunity costs faced by students in terms of income forgone.
There were a number of comments and suggested amendments made by members about these two documents. These comments included:
- Recognition that the Economic Impact paper did not show the whole economic benefit which colleges provide. Therefore the link should be made between the college activity not quantified and the case study examples to demonstrate that colleges are also involved in helping people in their transition from unemployment to employment; with CPD retraining; in the provision of a stepping stone to HE; and that students who attend college help to influence others into learning.
- Recognition that the report is a rich resource which should be made public as soon as possible in terms of getting out the positive messages contained within it.
- Need to highlight the contribution made by qualification attainment.
- The benefit of using language of the SCQF in the Impact Paper rather than using a mix of Scottish and English terminology.
- Inserting a section which gives a broader sense of colleges working together, both historically and now, with other organisations such as COLEG, ASC, SFEU and SQA.
- Including a section on inclusion and equality. With particular reference to students with disabilities, migrant workers and asylum seekers.
- Celebrating the success of HNC and HND students, for example the use of graduation ceremonies.
- Noted that the paper was readable despite its length, and that although the conclusion was succinct it also captured all the important points.
- Noted that the paper was powerful, particularly in relation to the benefit figures, and that it focussed the mind.
- Possibly investigate the potential of comparing return of investment with other sectors such as transport.
- Care should be taken when presenting the paper to different audiences, as too much narrative could turn the general public off reading the Report, and the need to recognise that the Report is not (and cannot be) absolutely all inclusive about the sector's activities.
- The breadth of what colleges offer causes a dilemma about what should be included in the report, possible need to elevate a few core activities to make a big impact and link these activities back to the case studies.
- Include the value added benefit, for example European Funds.
- Delete the word "substantial" in the sentence referring to public funds.
- Useful to build in the opportunity costs ie the cost of not going to college for groups such as those in the NEET group.
- The Report highlights the flexibility of the sector in comparison to 13 years ago, and that colleges can tailor themselves to the needs of society.
- There is a need to emphasise the variety of groups of staff who work in colleges, the increased mobility of staff and the investment made to staff in terms of development and CPD which they can then take back into industry or their communities. Recognition that the profile of staff has altered.
- Possible need to have a separate and larger Executive Summary and potentially a shorter glossy summary paper for distribution more widely.
In response to these suggestions members were informed that:
- Suggestions made in relation to qualifications and partnership working will be captured with the Report.
- It was commented that it would not be appropriate to use the SCQF as it can not be combine it robustly with Labour Force Survey earnings data.
- Not appropriate to compare benefit cost ratios with different projects.
- Although there is a section relating to inclusion and equalities contained within the body of the Report it was agreed these issues will now also be highlighted within the Executive Summary.
- Links will be made to the NEET Strategy and Employability Framework.
- The Executive will reflect further on how the Report should target different audiences.
- The Report is a living document so as new issues arise such as ESOL these can be included within the Report.
The Group endorsed the Report, subject to some minor alterations which the Working Group has been asked to make.
ACTION: Working Group to amend the Report in light of the discussion.
There was discussion about how the Report should be launched. John Burt commented that he thought the Report would be ready for launch by June. The Group considered that the Report should be widely disseminated. It was suggested that a conference should be held to discuss the Report's findings based around some of the case studies presented in it. The Group acknowledged that given the need to finalise the report, arrange for it to be printed, and organise the event, this could not happen until September. To avoid devaluing some of the currency of the Report by not making it public before then, the Group felt that the sector would benefit from early sight of it in a near-final form. The Association of Scottish Colleges Annual Conference the following month was identified as a suitable opportunity to circulate the draft Report.
The Group also thought it may be helpful to send a copy of the near final draft to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.
It was suggested that stakeholders such as STUC and CBI could issue press releases to inform their members of the publication of the Report.
The Chair, members of the Working Group and the smaller sub group were thanked for their achievement in producing the Report and for the efforts and energy which they had invested in taking this work forward.
The Working Group are currently considering the Core Group's request that they extend their remit to include consideration of the difference colleges could make if additional funding were allocated as a result of the next Spending Review.
.
ACTION: Executive to consider how the Report should be launched, including how it should be targeted to different audiences.
( v) Future Core Group Meetings
The Secretariat had canvassed members via e-mail on a draft timetable for future Core Group meetings. Members were happy with the dates contained in Paper 06. It was commented that every attempt would be made to ensure that members were not overburdened with the final three reports in late December/early January and that delivery of these reports would be phased in. The Funding Council reminded members that evidence would need to be prepared in time for the Spending Review.
ACTION: Secretariat to set up dates for future Core Group meetings.
(vii) A.O.B
There was no other business discussed.
Action Points
- Working Group to amend 'Unlocking Opportunity ' in light of the discussions.
- Executive to consider how the Report should be launched, including how it should be targeted to different audiences.
- Secretariat to set up dates for future Core Group meetings.
Review Team Secretariat
May 2006