WORKING GROUP: THE DIFFERENCE COLLEGES MAKE
Minutes of Meeting on August 17 2005 at2 pm inRoom G.06, Meridian Court ,Glasgow
Attendees:
John Burt (Chair)
Linda Hall (Secretariat)
Col Baird, Review of Scotland's Colleges Team
Audrey Robertson, FAED
Simon Chisholm, ASD, Scottish Executive
Gerhard Mors, ASD, Scottish Executive
Colin Ross, Communities Scotland
Kish Srinivasan, HMIE
Gordon Craig, SFEFC
Gordon McBride, SFEFC
Mark Cummings, ASC
Julie Gilstrap, ASC
Brian Lister, Cumbernauld College
Christina Potter, Elmwood College
Vivienne Brown, Careers Scotland
Grahame Smith, STUC
Colin Macfarlane, Equalities Co-ordinating Group
David Lonsdale, Scottish Chambers of Commerce
Carl Bow, Scottish Enterprise
Gordon Rodgers, SQA
Mhairi Snowden, Skill Scotland
Lilian Anderson, NUS Scotland
1. Introduction
Welcome from Chair and introductions.
2. Update on the Review
This workstream will look at what colleges do and what difference this makes. It is hoped that it will inform the work of the other workstreams.
Linkages have been made with the English review which is now almost complete - Sir Andrew Foster has met with the Deputy Minister and officials.
Contact has also been made with officials in Northern Ireland who completed their college review last year.
3. Initial Discussion Paper
Remit of the Group
· Title of this workstream gives a 'then/now' message which should be reflected in the remit in terms of showing the progress which has been made pre/post incorporation.
· The main focus of the work should be the impact on learners, the economy and society i.e. what would Scotland lose without its colleges. We need to be able to quantify/map what colleges contribute. Also important to consider the value added to individuals.
· In the context of the Spending Review we need to consider what the impact of the additional funding has been.
· The main purpose is to gather information and identify any gaps. What colleges should be doing is for other workstreams to consider.
· Given the timescale the remit is very broad and commissioning primary research is outwith the timeframe.
· We will need to consider qualitative aspects as well as quantitative and make sure that we are comparing like with like.
· Need to be clearer on what is meant by competition and collaboration. Collaboration between colleges as a sector and/or between colleges and other sectors. Also, what is the impact of this collaboration?
· Also consider international competition and opportunities and the benefits/possibilities of collaboration.
· We should consider the possibility of moving away from the idea of collaboration towards partnership.
· Knowledge Transfer means different things to FE and HE and the reference to it in the remit might be misleading so this needs to be clarified. Important to refer to it but don't lose sight of the fact that it is only one of many other outcomes which could be listed.
Timescale
· Although there may be some scope to extend the deadline of mid February slightly due to uncertainty around timing of the Spending Review, every effort should be made to meet this timescale.
· It is also important to have the report ready in time to provide a sound evidence base for the rest of the Review.
Tasks
Encapsulating the full range of colleges' current activity and the breadth of the types of learners benefiting from college opportunities.
· ASC doing some initial work on this looking at types of qualifications and modes of attendance.
· Need to consider age, gender, disability, background and also non-recognised qualifications. However need to consider the quality of some of this data e.g. students do not need to declare a disability.
· Will cover Knowledge Transfer (KT) - look at SFEFC KT Taskforce and also employer engagement with the sector. There was some debate about whether KT, although important, should be specifically highlighted.
· Flexibility of colleges is a huge strength which it is important to highlight.
· Report shouldn't just be about graphs/statistics but about people and it should consider all aspects including barriers to learning. Some of this will be covered by case studies and the college visits being carried out by the Core Group will include both students and staff. Also consider HMIE input to this.
· Measuring impact is difficult so should perhaps consider what it is exactly that we want to encapsulate and that would serve to temper some of the evidence gathering activity. Important to consider real world outcomes to justify money spent and future investment.
Evaluating the outcomes for (a) the learner, (b) the economy and (c) wider society, including knowledge transfer, recognising that different types of student and learning may lead to different outcomes.
· There is a huge amount of data for learner outcomes. A longitudinal study was published in June covering both sectors looking at not only qualifications but what happens afterwards.
· Consider inviting key players to state what they contribute.
· Need to consider the full range of outcomes and strike a balance between easily measurable outcomes and those important ones which are not so easily captured.
· Consider how many people would have gone into employment without intervention of colleges, and where they have, how much of a factor college was in getting them into employment and enabling them to do the job.
· Also impact on other SE priorities - growing the economy and closing the opportunity gap. Look at relationship with productivity and consider human capital i.e. the experience that an individual has gained by going to college.
· Cover integrated role of colleges in re-skilling and up-skilling so that individuals can contribute to economic development. Case studies exist which cover this.
· Important issue is how to capture information not covered in data which is usually collected. In some cases the information exists but needs some analytical work.
· We need to make use of the data we already have but be aware of its limitations. In some cases we simply won't have the data available to do a useful analysis.
· Mapping exercise is needed between SE targets and outcomes.
· We also need to consider the major contribution colleges make to their communities through the Community Planning process and to the economy through Local Economic Forums. Also the innovative entrepreneurship of many colleges not only in generating income to support core business but also in getting involved in a wide range of activities that may not be seen as core business - nursery provision, conference centres etc. Also the impact of ESF funding and its future decline.
Identifying the costs, efficiency of colleges and benchmarking.
· SFEFC have information on this. There is a lot of information available but it needs to be presented properly. Need to have comparative figures with other sectors and internationally and these figures must be completely robust.
· Consider who we are benchmarking against - universities or colleges in England? To show value for money we need to select things which are directly comparable and this is not easy because of the different ways of funding. Will need to consider colleges in other countries.
· Be clear about use of 'cost' and 'spend'. Need to differentiate between average spend and average cost.
· Multiplier effect - consider impact of staff and student population on local economies i.e. indirect spend. Look at research which has been commissioned by individual colleges on this.
Describing competition and collaboration
· Already discussed earlier.
Research
· Possible primary research to be considered at later meeting.
· ASC planning to do some research on the interaction between businesses and colleges which they could feed into the work of the Group.
· Also useful to get views of new employees on the effect of having been at college i.e. would cover period of reflection.
· Also consider data set from Supply and Demand Mapping Exercise.
Stakeholders
· Meeting with 14 college principals and also half day visits to some colleges.
· STUC could set up focus group of members who had been through FE.
· Representatives of key partners who work with colleges.
· Voluntary sector (SCVO)
· People studying in the workplace.
· Potential gap is people who have left college and are now in business.
Report of the Working Group
· Preliminary thoughts only.
· Very difficult to classify colleges into particular groups.
4. Statistics, Research and Other Evaluative Material (Paper tabled at meeting)
· Paper provides the results of a trawl of the data sets available.
· SFEFC will also be able to provide data, including staffing.
· Scottish Enterprise should have information on Modern Apprenticeships.
· Qualitative data from HMI reports will also need to be captured.
· Important to consider timing as some data may be out of date by the time the report is completed.
· Literature review will consider currently available evidence. The remit of the group will dictate the scope of what is considered.
· Must consider the outcomes for the learner as well as the labour market and impact on other SE initiative e.g. Health.
5. Any Other Business
· Next meeting will be at Angus College (to include a tour of the college and sandwich lunch before the meeting). Venues for future meetings to be considered at next meeting (either another college visit or back in Glasgow).
List of Action Points
· Amend remit in light of comments and consider introducing some sort of timescale to it particularly if we are going to be using data sets. ( ColBaird)
· ASC to put paper on full range of college activity to next meeting of the Group for comment. (Mark Cummings)
· ASC to prepare draft proposal on research on the interaction between businesses and colleges and circulate. (Mark Cummings)
· Members to send comments on preliminary thoughts on Report of the Working Group to ColBaird. (All)
· ASD to consider what data is available on interaction between businesses and colleges. (Simon Chisholm/Colin MacBean)
· SFEFC to provide data on staffing. (Gordon Craig/Gordon McBride)
· SEn to check out data protection issues and report back on data for Modern Apprenticeships. (Carl Bow)
· Members to consider any gaps in data sets and any other areas of research to be considered. Comments to be sent to Linda Hall to be passed on to ASD. (All)
· Trawl for dates for future meetings of the Group to get dates in diaries as soon as possible. (Linda Hall)
Linda Hall
FAED
August 19 2005
Initial discussion paper
INITIAL DISCUSSION PAPER
Purpose
1. To provide a basis for members to discuss how the group should complete its work.
Remit
2. The remit of the group is to "examine the difference Scotland's Colleges make (to the learner, the economy and wider society) including:
- the full range of colleges' current activity
- the full range of learners benefiting from college opportunities
- costs, efficiency of colleges and benchmarking
- competition and collaboration
- outcomes for the learner, economy and wider society, including knowledge transfer
3. Views of members are invited on the remit of the group.
Timescale
4. It is envisaged that activities will principally involve desk research, interviews with stakeholders to identify source material, the identification of existing statistical data, research, and other evaluative material, and consideration of the information to include in the report and how it should be presented.
Mid August 2005 Identify existing data
End August 2005 First meeting of Working Group to agree scope of the work
End September 2005 Complete desk research and interviews with stakeholders
Mid October 2005 Second meeting of Working Group to discuss desk research and interviews with stakeholders
End November 2005 Third meeting of Working Group to discuss inclusion and presentation of information
mid January 2006 Fourth meeting of Working Group to discuss draft report
mid February 2006 Final meeting of Working Group to agree report.
5. Views of members are invited on the proposed timescale for the group's work and on how regularly the group should meet.
Tasks
6. Views of members are invited on how best to take forward the following tasks.
Encapsulating the full range of colleges' current activity and the breadth of the types of learners benefiting from college opportunities.
Identifying the costs, efficiency of colleges and benchmarking.
Describing competition and collaboration.
Evaluating the outcomes for (a) the learner, (b) the economy and (c) wider society, including knowledge transfer, recognising that different types of student and learning may lead to different outcomes.
7. Views of members are invited on which other tasks should be undertaken and the appropriate timeframe for them
Research
8. As the Working Group will have to complete its work by February 2006, it is unlikely that the results of new research would be available by then. However, the Working Group may be able to help identify future research needs that may help inform subsequent Spending Reviews.
Interviews with Stakeholders
9. Views of members are invited on which stakeholders the Reviews Team should meet to discuss the workstream and to identify source material.
Report of the Working Group
10. Preliminary thoughts for the report of the Working Group include:
- describing colleges by reference to six predominant 'types' i.e. community, specialist etc, and outlining their characteristics;
- describing learners by reference to a dozen predominant 'types' i.e. full-time teen, in-work day release etc, and outlining their numbers and characteristics, including gender and ethnicity; and
- inclusion of six 'case studies' that exemplify the difference colleges make.
11. Views of members are invited on the above preliminary thoughts for the report.
Reviews Team: Scotland's Colleges
August 2005