The Scottish Government

SCOPING A REVIEW OF THE COLLEGE SECTOR

TUESDAY MAY 17, 2005 ,1.30pm , CORUS HOTEL,377 ARGYLE STREET ,GLASGOW

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders

Scottish Further Education Funding Council - David Wann and Riona Bell
Association of Scottish Colleges - Tom Kelly; Sue Pinder; Tony Jakimciw; Andy Bastow
Scottish Trades Union Congress - Mary Senior
National Union of Students Scotland - Gail Edwards
Scottish Further Education Unit - John McCann
HMIE - Wray Bodys
Scottish Enterprise - Alan Sinclair and Carl Bow
Highlands and Islands Enterprise - Diane Duncan
Scottish Youth Parliament - Kristofer McGhee
Association of Directors of Education in Scotland
Universities Scotland - David Caldwell
Scottish Qualifications Authority - Neil Robertson
SKILL Scotland - John Ireson

Scottish Executive

Mark Batho, Head of Lifelong Learning Group (Chair)
Aileen McKechnie, Head of Further and Adult Education Division
Gill Troup, Head of Higher Education and Science Division
Col Baird, Further Education Reviews Team Leader
Victoria Beattie, Further Education Reviews Team
Hugh McAloon, Head of Higher Education Strategy and Governance Branch
Colin MacBean, Economic Adviser, Analytical Services Division

Apologies

Association of Directors of Education in Scotland
Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland
CBI Scotland

AGENDA

1. Introduction

2. Possible Pillars for Review

3. Name for Review

4. Process for Review

5. Research Requirements

6. Statistical Requirements

7. Timetable for Completion of Review

8. Progress Reporting Mechanisms

9. Any Other Matters

A Discussion Paper for the meeting is attached.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Issues Discussed & Points Agreed

(i) Initial Questions

• Agreed that Review should encompass all activities of FE colleges, a consistent approach should be used with statistics relating to Bell College and UHIMI and that we should consider what it is we expect colleges to deliver.
• Agreed that certain issues will result in an overlap with the ongoing HE Futures activity which is due to commence imminently.
• Agreed that there should be an openness with papers and discussions across both Reviews .
• Agreed that the Review should not shrink away from challenging issues and that it should deal with each issue as it arises. But also agreed that the Review would need to have regard to political realities.
• Agreed that student interests would be a thread that will run through all the workstreams of the Review. However noted this would be re-evaluated, as necessary, during the course of the Review.

(ii) Pillars/Workstreams

Agreed that the 4 pillars identified (with some minor modifications) cover the key issues and that they should be referred to as workstreams. Noted that the workstreams, contained in the discussion paper, were not ranked according to priority.

Agreed that issues relating to competition, collaboration and knowledge transfer should be inserted into the contribution workstream.

Agreed that other related initiatives ie Employability Strategy should be included into workstreams as and when appropriate.

Agreed that student interest should be more explicit in reference to the workstreams.

(a) Governance & Accountability

Agreed that this workstream should be renamed to Accountability and Governance and it would focus on reviewing the impact of changes which resulted from the 2002 review.

(b) Contribution to Scotland's Learners, Economy and Society

Agreed that this workstream should include learners, potential learners and a reference to society.

Discussed the importance of balancing the demands and needs of learners and potential learners with those of employers and society.

Agreed on the requirement to analyse the demands and needs of these three elements to see if they complement each other or if they are in competition with each other.

Discussed the need to provide robust evidence of colleges' contribution to Scotland's economy and society.

Agreed on the importance of proper careers advice to learners and potential learners - also discussed the possibility of undertaking a gender analysis.

(c) Staffing Issues

Facilities issues and the capabilities and capacity of colleges should be included in this workstream.

(d) Long term strategic future

Discussed the need for identification of future skill demands which command broad agreement so that colleges can plan accordingly.

Discussed what was meant by long term.

Discussed the Scottish Parliament's inquiry into Lifelong Learning especially issues arising from entitlement.

Noted the need to include income generation, international and commercial activities: as well as student entitlement and learning barriers.

(iii) Name of the Review

Agreed that the Review will be called the Review of Scotland's Colleges (RoSC).

(iv) Process for Review

Agreed that the Steering Group for the Review should include the organisations represented at this meeting and that the Equalities Co-ordinating Group would also be invited to participate.

Agreed that the Steering Group will decide who should be represented on the workstream Working Groups.

Agreed that some workstreams may require more than one working group.

Agreed that the Steering Group would share the chairing of the working groups.

(v) Research and Statistical Requirements

Agreed that there is a vast amount of research and statistics currently available but that it would be useful to identify gaps.

Discussed the need to undertake a mapping exercise to look into interfaces between colleges and different agencies.

Discussed the need for international benchmarking.

Discussed the need to identify the barriers to learning.

Discussed public perception of colleges.

(vi) Timetable for Completion of Review

Agreed that there would be certain issues requiring a shorter and higher priority than other issues. Thus the structure of the Review should reflect these priorities within specific timeframes. The most time critical elements are those which will feed into the Spending Review 2006.

(vii)Reporting Methods

Steering Group papers and minutes from meetings will be published on the Scottish Executive website once they have been formally agreed by Steering Group Members.

Agreed that the Review of Scotlands' Colleges will become a standing item on the Roundtable agenda.

A monthly newsletter will be issues to all relevant stakeholders.

Meetings will be identified as appropriate during the course of the review.

Action Points

• Analytical Services Division, Scottish Executive, and SFEFC to map out what research/information is currently available. ASD will then discuss with the working groups their additional data requirements.

• Steering Group Secretariat to arrange the date of the next meeting.

• ASC to map the range of functions of colleges.

• Secretariat to prepare a revised paper including terms of reference of the Working Groups and timeframes.

Review Team Secretariat

Initial Questions

• How should the sector be defined?
• How challenging should the review be?
• What should the review encompass?
• Where should the review dovetail with ongoing HE review activity?
• Is it sufficient to have the student interest clearly referenced throughout all pillars of review or should this be a stand-alone pillar?

Possible Pillars of Review of Sector

Governance and accountability in the FE sector;

This pillar could include, among other things:

• whether boards should be responsible for appointing their own membership, including the chair of the board
• enhancing the performance of board members
• whether the chair and other board members should be remunerated
• the relationship between the chair, board and principal to ensure maximum quality oversight, including the Board's ability to obtain independent advice
• whether there is a continuing need for powers of Ministerial Direction
• the composition of the boards, including whether more needs to be done to ensure diversity and the current statutory requirement for 50% of board members to have capacity in "industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession
• The contribution which the FE sector makes to Scotland's economy and society, including FE's current activity, costs, outcomes etc
• Staffing issues, including career and remuneration modernisation; leadership and learning; affordability and delivery of core mission
• Consideration of FE sector's long-term strategic future (10-20 years). Examples of issues considered might be: breadth vs. specialism of provision; changing demographics; changing expectations; joining up of delivery of post-school education?
• Student interest (include that of potential students) is a thread that would run through all pillars of the review.

Name for Review

1. College Sector or Further Education College Sector?

2. Review or Comprehensive Review?

3. [Sector]….[Review] or [Review]….[Sector]

i.e. College Sector Review (CSR)

College Sector Comprehensive Review (CSCR)

Review of College Sector (RoCS)

Comprehensive Review of College Sector (CRoCS)

Further Education College Sector Review (FECSR)

Further Education College Sector Comprehensive Review (FECSCR)

Review of Further Education College Sector (RoFECS)

Comprehensive Review of Further Education College Sector (CRoFECS)

Timetable for Completion of Review

Second pillar of review needs to be complete by February 2006 to feed into SR2006. However, this constraint need not necessarily apply to other review pillars. For example, can some of the workstreams be divided to concentrate on (a) SR matters and (b) longer term matters?

Process

• Should we envisage a continuing process of review stretching into the future, i.e. possibly turn the review into something more permanent?
• Overall steering group - Who should be on the steering group?
• One Working Group per pillar? - Who should be on the working groups?
• Role for public consultation - initial discursive consultation paper (with stakeholder platforms) and consultation on interim report? Should each pillar have a separate paper or can the issues all be rolled up together? Would there be value in a stakeholder conference before the end of 2005?
• Progress reporting mechanisms - how do we ensure all stakeholder interests are kept fully up to speed with developments?

Research

What information is already available? What are the additional research needs? What should the timetable for research be? Who should manage which individual research projects?

Possible research projects could include:

• student and potential student attitudes to FE
• the size of the economic and social impact of the FE sector in Scotland
• staffing issues
• governance models
• analysis of the composition of college boards
• the likely and possible effects of changing demographics on the FE (and HE?) sector over the next 20-25 years

Statistics

What statistical information is there already? What further data is required and by when? Who should collect the information?

FE Reviews Team
May 20