REVIEW OF SCOTLAND'S COLLEGES (SLEWG - SG - 01)
WORKING GROUP: STAFFING, LEARNERS & LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
SUB GROUP: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STAFF
This paper is also available to download as a PDF file.
Minutes of Meeting Held at Noon 12 January 2006
in Stevenson College , Edinburgh
Attendees:
Gail Edwards, NUS Scotland (Chair)
Marian Healey, EIS
Stewart McKillop, South Lanarkshire College
Susan Bird, Stevenson College Edinburgh
Douglas Black, UNISON
David Lott, Scottish Funding Council
Peter Beaumont, Scottish Executive
Victoria Beattie, Scottish Executive
Apologies:
John Bowditch, HMIE
Bill Harvey, Scottish Funding Council
1. Chair's Introduction, Apologise etc.
· Members agreed that the Chair of the sub-group should be the same as the main Working Group ie in rotation between the NUS and EIS.
· Apologies were recorded as noted above.
2. Initial Discussion Paper
· Peter Beaumont spoke on the paper - SLEWG-SG-P01 - circulated in advance. He emphasised that the paper was a discussion paper and that the Executive would welcome comments.
Remit of the Sub Group
· In light of some prior concerns raised by members about the remit of the sub group, the Executive prepared, in advance, the following revised wording:
"6. To prepare recommendations to support the continued professional development of all staff in Scotland's Colleges.
7. This will also include developing specific policy proposals and formulating action plans for implementing the Ministerial policies to:
· increase the number of lecturers that are teacher trained;
· require lecturers to undertake a minimum amount of continuing professional development (CPD);
· develop and disseminate a code of practice;
· consider whether the Department can delegate some of its functions: and
· improve the training and development for learning and teaching support staff".
· Members agreed upon this revised wording of the remit.
ACTION POINT
Ø Executive to amend the remit to reflect discussions.
Membership
· Members agreed that the Professional Development Forum should be invited to join the sub group as an associate member.
· Members remained unsure about the remit of LLUK and requested some information about the organisation.
ACTION POINT
Ø Executive to provide members with information about LLUK.
Tasks
· One member suggested that a conceptual framework which included a definition of the types of staff who work in a college, along with summary information on main staff development activities and priorities by staff type, should be drafted.
· Some members were concerned about the scope and purpose of a code of practice. There was agreement that a code of practice should not be too prescriptive and that it should be drafted as a general advice document, outlining generic principles, but that Colleges should be encouraged, if they have not already done so, to finalise their own code of practice for all staff.
· It was noted that any guidance on best practice should be based upon the SFEU and HMIE guidance which is already available. There was agreement that this task should be redrafted to reflect these discussions.
· Some members were also anxious about the research proposals contained in the paper. In particular members felt that it would be more appropriate to commission one piece of research on CPD and further development needs of all staff. It was agreed that the Executive will formally ask the Funding Council to undertake this piece of research and will then meet to discuss the draft scope of this research proposal.
ACTION POINTS
Ø Executive to amend the list of tasks contained in the paper to reflect discussions.
Ø Executive, in discussion with Susan Bird, to draft a conceptual framework.
Ø SFEU and HMIE to provide copies of existing guidance material.
Ø Executive to formally ask the Funding Council to undertake research on CPD and further development needs of all staff and have an initial meeting to discuss the draft scope of the research.
2. Research Proposal on Teacher Training
· Peter Beaumont explained to members that the Executive had just received the data from the Scottish Funding Council's returns of college staff 2004/05. Members were informed that the Executive had met with the Funding Council to discuss the robustness of the returns and that the Executive would prepare a paper on teacher training numbers for the next meeting in February. This paper will also compare the numbers of staff, who are teacher trained, across the 43 colleges.
· Some of the members remained concerned about the robustness of the data and in particular with the definitions of the categories.
· It was agreed that Executive should write out to colleges with the data, based upon the recent staffing returns, and allow each college the opportunity to comment on the returns.
ACTION POINT
Ø Executive to prepare a paper on the numbers of staff with teaching qualifications and seek comments from Col leges about their staffing return statistics.
4. AOB
· Dates for the next sub group meeting: It was decided that this should be agreed once the dates for the next Working Group meeting had been agreed.
· Papers and minutes of the sub group meetings: It was agreed that once the minutes and papers had been agreed that they should be provided to members of the Working Group.
List of Action Points
(1): Executive to amend the remit to reflect discussions.
(2): Executive to provide members with information about LLUK.
(3): Executive to amend the list of tasks contained in the paper to reflect discussions.
(4): Executive, in discussion with Susan Bird, to draft a conceptual framework.
(5): SFEU and HMIe to provide copies of existing guidance material.
(6): Executive to formally ask the Funding Council to undertake research on CPD and
further development needs of all staff and have an initial meeting to discuss the draft scope of the research.
(7): Executive to prepare a paper on the numbers of staff with teaching qualifications and seek comments from Col leges about their staffing return statistics.
Review Team
Scotland 's Col leges
20 January 2006