THE DIFFERENCE COLLEGES MAKE
Minutes of Meeting on October 19 2005, atAngus College
Attendees
John Burt (Chair)
Linda Hall (Secretariat)
Col Baird, Review of Scotland's Colleges Team
Audrey Robertson, FAED
Colin MacBean, ASD
Sean Stronach, Communities Scotland
Kish Srinivasan, HMIE
Gordon Craig, SFC
Gordon McBride, SFC
Andre Reibeg, SFC
Mark Cummings, ASC
Julie Gilstrap, ASC
Brian Lister, Cumbernauld College
Gordon MacDougall, Careers Scotland
Mary Senior, STUC
Adam Gaines, Equalities Co-ordinating Group
Carl Bow, Scottish Enterprise
Lilian Anderson, NUS Scotland
Apologies
Gerhard Mors, ASD, Scottish Executive
Christina Potter, Elmwood College
David Lonsdale, Scottish Chambers of Commerce
Gordon Rodgers, SQA
John Ireson, Skill Scotland
1. Minutes of meeting on August 17
· Agreed with some minor amendments arising from comments received from the Group.
2. Revised Remit of the Review
· The revised remit of the review has been endorsed by the Core Group.
· There have been no fundamental changes to the remit of the Difference that Colleges Make workstream. The changes made reflect the Group's earlier discussions at the first meeting on 17th August.
· The inclusion of analysis and comment on the changed nature and level of college activity since incorporation in 1993 was welcomed. Whilst it was pointed out that data from 1993 - 1998 was not as robust as that available from 1999 onwards it should still be possible to do some analysis which give a sense of the level of change since incorporation. It was pointed out by ASC that the FE Annual Reports from 1993 to 2005 are an excellent source of high level comparative data and policy narrative over this period.
· The Strategic Futures working group is different from the others in that it will involve scenario planning rather than roundtable discussions. Key stakeholders will be asked to consider the future challenges which colleges are likely to face over the next 10-15 years. The Difference that Colleges Make workstream will provide an analytical basis on which to make meaningful forward projections in the Strategic Futures workstream.
3. Proposed Structure and Content for Funding Council FE Baseline Publication
· This publication will be high level sectoral and won't focus on individual colleges or groups of colleges.
· After the report has been completed it should be possible to identify areas where further research is needed.
· Time period covered will be 1998 to 2004-05. 1993-98 not included because of the significant differences in the quality of the data recorded (due to the fact the SFEFC did not exist prior to 1999).
· The FE Baseline report will exclude HE activity delivered by UHIMI partner colleges and Bell College. This is a key component of the contribution that colleges make in terms of higher education (both in the college and HEI sectors) so it needs to be included in the Difference Colleges Make publication no matter how it is funded. If it is not included we will be understating the level of activity undertaken by colleges. This will require a separate piece of work outwith the FE Baseline publication.
· There is no consistent approach to funding partnership activity given the differences in the SFEFC and SHEFC funding methodologies so it is difficult to use the data for quantitative purposes but it could certainly be used in the qualitative analysis.
· Agreed that it would be helpful to have more of a time series than that given in the sample chapter. Also it might be better to consider not splitting part-time and full-time. Could also include socio-economic breakdown of part-time and full-time, gender breakdown with regard to subject choice and breakdown by age.
· The publication is due to be completed in draft by end of December 2005. If it is published before the Group's report in early 2006 then it will be possible to use the data from it to strengthen the report. However the figures won't include data from 1993-98.
4. ASC paper
· This paper was re-worked in light of the draft SFC Baseline Report. It includes narrative on what many of the SFC statistics actually mean and some other statistics not fully addressed in the SFC paper. It also includes information and commentary on the SCQF which is essential to understanding the full range of education and training that colleges deliver.
· It was noted that it would be advisable to take a consistent approach in both the SFC and ASC papers to make sure we are using the statistics to outline and quantify the college contribution.
· International students (page 11) - the data used here is not wholly robust. We need to consider how many of the international students are asylum seekers i.e. are colleges responding to demand from people already here or are people coming to Scotland to go to college?
· Should also include a section on Trade Union training and learning since this is an area where colleges are heavily engaged and likely to expand significantly in the future.
· Agreed that this paper should map the full breadth of college activity in terms of what colleges do and for whom. It should also include something on citizenship and core skills. It would also be useful to have some case studies on cross college collaboration/partnership.
5. Initial Thoughts on Final Report Format
· These initial thoughts arose from ROSCO team visits to colleges and dialogue with key stakeholders.
· Important not to overload the report with success stories. It should be a substantive and credible account of what colleges actually do and the difference colleges make.
· Difficult to define what is 'typical' in colleges because they respond to student demand, employer requirements and society's needs. Colleges cater for students with very specific needs and it will be important to demonstrate how they respond to these challenges. Illustrative case studies would help to bring the message to life.
· We could perhaps consider producing a DVD to accompany the report which might get the message across more effectively. However it is crucial that this isn't seen as a marketing tool as that could undermine the credibility of the report. It is essential that the report should give a rounded picture of college activity.
· Agreed that DVD format would work with different audiences by broadening the appeal of the report. Given that the difference colleges make to students is often in areas like soft skills, confidence and communication the DVD format might provide learners with a unique opportunity to get their point across far easier than in a written report.
· Objectivity and robustness must underpin the report and this would need also to be reflected in the visual presentation.
· The economic impact of colleges - this should focus on the supply side only i.e. what do we get by spending public money on colleges rather than on other public services e.g. hospitals. There is a lack of research on pay premia for college graduates and productivity gains for businesses who work with colleges. ROSCO provides an opportunity to look at both of these areas. What matters is what colleges actually deliver and how they add value through private sector leverage to complement public funding. Focussing on this will give the report credibility.
· Section 7 - there should be more emphasis on college collaboration/partnership as this is one of the sector's huge strengths. The school/college strategy would be a good example but we need to remember that it still early days for the strategy.
· We need to include something to reflect lifelong learning in practice i.e. the difference colleges make throughout an individual's lifetime. Returning to the idea of an entitlement model for LLL would demonstrate that FHE is not something just available to full time school leavers.
· Section 9 - the competitiveness of colleges, including efficiency and value for money will be crucial in terms of the Efficient Government Initiative and the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review (expected in Autumn 2007).
· The report should pick up trends identified from existing research and literature in this field. We need to understand what is driving these trends so that we can judge if they are (a) accurate, and (b) likely to continue in the short to medium term.
· We need to start considering what case studies should be included in the report. It was noted that HMIE have significant literature in this field over the lifecycle of the last Quality Assurance cycle.
· There should be a chapter at the end of the report pulling the views of the Group together and giving the Group's recommendations.
5. Any Other Business
· Agreed that Aileen Ponton of the Sector Skills Development Agency should be invited to join the Group. Aileen will be able to provide valuable input on the sector's relationship with employers and the business community.
· ASC is working with Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) on research looking at the quality of college leavers and the range of services colleges can provide to SCC member companies. ASC/SCC will share the findings from this research with the Group. Agreed that it would be useful for the Group to see the questions to be included in the questionnaire for this research (if time permits before the next SCC quarterly bulletin is issued in November).
· The Group thanked John and the staff at Angus College for what had been a very useful and enjoyable visit. Brian kindly agreed to host the next meeting on 1 December at Cumbernauld College.
List of Action Points
· Make agreed amendments to minutes of first meeting on 17 August and re-circulate before these are published on the ROSCO website. (Linda Hall)
· Questions to be used in research being carried out by ASC/Scottish Chambers of Commerce to be circulated to the Group for comment (if time permits). (Mark Cummings/ David Lonsdale)
· Detailed comments on SFC publication to be fed back to SFC. ( ColBaird)
· ASC paper to be reworked for next meeting of the Group in light of comments. (Mark Cummings/ Julie Gilstrap)
· Paper on economic case to be prepared for next meeting. (Colin MacBean)
· Paper on the competitiveness of colleges to be prepared for next meeting. ( GordonCraig and Gordon McBride)
· Colleges to be asked to draft case studies for the final report. ( ColBaird)
· Proposed content and structure of the final report to be further fleshed out for the next meeting. ( ColBaird)