[SEETLLD R0SCCG/M02]

REVIEW OF SCOTLAND 'S COLLEGES

CORE GROUP

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2005 , 2.00 PM - 4.00 PM MERIDIAN COURT ,GLASGOW

(This document can also be downloaded as a PDF file here)

Participants

Stakeholders

Scottish Funding Council - David Wann and Riona Bell

Association of Scottish Colleges - Tom Kelly, Ian Macpherson, Sue Pinder and Tony Jakimciw

UNISON - Douglas Black

Educational Institute of Scotland - Ken Wimbor

Universities Scotland - Robin McAlpine

HMIE - Wray Bodys

Scottish Enterprise - Katie Hutton

Scottish Qualifications Authority - John Young

National Union of Students Scotland - Gail Edwards

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

Margaret McLachlan, Reviews Team, Scotland's Colleges

Hugh McAloon, Head of Higher Education Strategy and Governance Branch

John Ireland, Analytical Services Division

Apologies

Confederation of British Industry Scotland- Alan Mitchell

Scottish Further Education Unit - Alison Reid

Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland - Niall Stuart

Universities Scotland - David Caldwell

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

Colin MacBean, Economic Adviser, Analytical Services Division

Issues Discussed & Points Agreed

(i) Minutes of Last Meeting

In relation to the issues of charitable status and Ministerial powers of intervention, some members felt that a commitment had been given at the previous meeting to return to the Core Group before Ministers came to a decision on this matter. They were concerned that an Order had been laid before Parliament the previous day to give up Ministerial powers of intervention, without the Core Group having an opportunity to consider the implications of this.

The Executive advised that further substantive discussion at the Core Group had never been envisaged, given that this was a decision for Ministers and that urgent action was required to protect the charitable status of colleges. The Order had to be laid on 20 February to allow it to come into force by 24 April, when the Charities Act came into force.

ACTION POINT: Agreed to re-issue the minute for final comments from members prior to publication on the Executive's website.

Action Points from previous meeting

• Steering Group Secretariat to arrange the date of the next meeting in February 2006. Meeting arranged.

• Secretariat to put the papers and the minutes from the preliminary meeting on to the Review's website. Now available on the Executive's website.

• Secretariat to put the cleared position papers from this meeting on the Review's website. Minutes from last meeting to be re-issued for final comment prior to publication on the Executive's website.

• Secretariat to circulate the paper prepared by Analytical Services Division on what research/information is currently available. This was issued in November 2005.

• Review Team to submit the report on Ministerial Powers of Intervention to Ministers. Report submitted to Minister's on 31 October. Order removing Ministerial Powers of Direction was laid before the Parliament on Monday 20 February.

• SQA to update members about its meeting with one of the organisations mentioned in a recent press article. Following the adverse publicity in the media, SQA had a meeting which achieved a satisfactory outcome.

• Secretariat to provide a paper on consultation for the next meeting. The Consultation Initiatives paper (RSCCG/04) had been issued prior to the meeting.

(ii) Update of Charitable Status (Agenda item 3 - brought forward)

The report of the Core Group had been put to Ministers following the last meeting of the Core Group. The Deputy First Minister had consulted with Communities Ministers on the substance of the report . Ministers concluded that it was important to maintain the integrity and credibility of the Executive's charities policy, and in view of the other safeguards that are already in place such as the powers of Ministers to remove board members, the powers of the Funding Council and of the Charities Regulator, there was no compelling case for exempting colleges from the test that they be independent of Ministers.

The issue of removing Ministerial powers of direction had been discussed at the Accountability and Governance Working Group on 24 January and at the FE Roundtable meeting on 2 February. There was also informal dialogue with key stakeholders in the period up to the laying of the Order to remove these powers.

The Order was laid on 20 February given that it must lie for 40 Parliamentary days and is due to come into force on 24 April 2006, when the Charities Act comes into force.

The STUC and NUS confirmed that they were uncomfortable with this outcome and advised that they would now lobby Ministers and the relevant committee members before the order comes into force.

(iii) Update from the 4 Working Groups (Agenda item 2 - re-ordered)

Difference Colleges Make Working Group

Col Baird gave an update on this workstream, on behalf of the Working Group's chair, John Burt. He outlined the remit and membership of the group. There have been four meetings held to date, three of which had been held in colleges. These college visits provided the Group with the opportunity to meet both students and college staff. Good progress had been made in collecting the base data, from a wide variety of sources, including illustrative case studies on a range of topic areas (e.g. School/College Links) which are being fed into the Report - 'Unlocking Opportunity'. The timetable for this working group has been extended to take account of the scale and complexity of the desired final report, and the importance of getting the final product right. The next meeting will be held on Friday 31 March at Elmwood College.

In the discussion that followed it was highlighted that the report must be comprehensive and assist in making an authoritative case for the next spending review. It was important that the forthcoming Employability and NEET strategies are appropriately reflected in our report.

Members advised that given the importance of this issue and experience and expertise of the Core Group members, they should have a role beyond simply monitoring progress of the Review. They want to be able to steer and shape the review as it progresses.

Members of the Group expressed a desire for the Working Group to continue to meet to refine its report on the Difference Colleges Make to ensure a robust and up-to-date evidence base is available for the next Spending Review. The Core group also requested that the Working Group extend its remit to include consideration of the difference colleges could make if additional funding were allocated as a result of the next Spending Review.

Accountability and Governance Working Group

Aileen McKechnie, the Chair of the Working Group, gave an update on this workstream. She outlined the remit, and membership of the group. The group had met on four occasions, two of which had been held in a college. The meetings held in the colleges had given members the opportunity to meet with the Student Presidents and hear at first hand their experiences as President and of their role on the Board of Management. The first critical task of the group had been to take forward the issue of charitable status and produce a report for the Core Group. The group had carried out a survey on 'College Governance and Accountability' which had included changes in Board of Management composition over the previous two years; and a sub-group had been established to draft a strategic think-piece for research proposals.

The think-piece will be discussed at the next meeting, which is expected to be held at the beginning of April. It is anticipated that this working group will conclude at the end of the year.

In the following discussion, it was suggested that the Working Group meet staff representatives at future visits. This was agreed.

ACTION POINTS: Circulate the think-piece to Core Group members once agreed by the Working Group.

Staffing, Learning and Learning Environment Working Group

Gail Edwards, on behalf of Melanie Ward and Marian Healy, the co-chairs of the Working Group explained that the Working Group had held its meetings in colleges, which had given members the opportunity to experience the variety of learning environments. They have been looking at estates development and highlighted South Lanarkshire College's new-build project as a good example of student input to estates development. A staffing sub group had been set up to discuss the professional development of all staff. SFEU has been working on a project about the Profiling of Staff, which is due to report around Easter. There have been discussions on learners and the learning environment and a paper has issued to instigate further discussion on improving student involvement. Members were in discussion regarding the research proposals and getting the balance right. The next meeting will be held in Adam Smith College at the end of March.

In the ensuing discussion, West Lothian College pre and post estates student satisfaction data were offered as a case study for this working group. Members highlighted the importance of looking at staff recruitment and retention under the Profiling of Staff project.

Universities Scotland is developing work on estates in HE which they will discuss with HESD. Members requested that HE evidence and FE evidence be prepared in a similar format for consistency And that the core group be given the time to review the reports for coherence.

Strategic Futures Working Group

Hugh McAloon, on behalf of the Group's chair, Lawrence Howells, explained that this Working Group had met in August and agreed that a Steering Group should be set up. This group held its first meeting at James Watt College on 31 January. The main area of discussion was the methodology of how the scenario development work will be undertaken. There will be four phases - information gathering, identifying themes, scenario development and decisions. So far the Futures Team has held four rounds of 'strategic conversations' with Principals to discuss the strategic future of the sector. Further conversations will take place in March/April.

In the following discussion, Core Group members who had met with the team gathering the information for this workstream commented that they had found the wide ranging discussions useful. They had taken the opportunity to look back 15 years and to look forward to consider what kind of Scotland and what kind of learners we will expect to have. It was noted that it was also important to look at Scotland's Colleges international operations rather than simply international students coming to Scotland.

(iv) Spending Review

Although a date for the spending review has not yet been formally announced, the timetabling of the Executive's spending review is dependent on the corresponding timetable of the UK Government, which has now been scheduled for 2007. It was likely therefore that the Executive's timetable would follow this.

John Ireland advised on the internal process for taking forward spending review activity. It was anticipated that this spending review would set the direction of future ones. In considering how the evidence from this review should be presented, regard should be given to the evidence base for high level strategies and to how stakeholders can help Ministers shape Scotland's policies for the spending review period and beyond.

(v) Consultation Initiatives

At the last Core Group meeting members discussed ideas about future consultation events. A paper had been circulated and members agreed that it was an appropriate approach but should remain flexible if need be. David Wann reminded the group that the Funding Council would be holding a series of consultation meetings on its draft corporate plan in April and May in order to obtain Ministerial approval of the plan in the summer. Care would therefore be needed to avoid clashes of dates and potential confusion,

(vi) Pattern of Future Meetings

It was highlighted that the revised timescales of the other workstreams would have an impact on the pattern of future Core Group meetings. The next meeting should focus on the early material from the Difference Colleges Make working group.

ACTION POINT: It was agreed that Secretariat would circulate a draft timetable of future Core Group meetings and put this to members for agreement.

(vii) A.O.B

HMIE report 'Improving Scottish Education' was circulated to members. A summary of this report will be issued and made available on the internet. HMIE identified other publications that would be of interest to both members and stakeholders as part of the review.

ACTION POINT: It was agreed that links would be sent to the Review Team and would be added to the next e-bulletin.

Members requested that they be copied into the other working groups' papers at the time of issue to ensure they are aware of any significant issues being discussed.

ACTION POINT: It was agreed that Chairs would be contacted first for views prior to this request being approved.

Action Points

• Executive re-issue the previous minute for final comment on the section relating to Charitable status prior to publication on the Executive's website.

• Accountability and Governance working group's "think-piece" to be circulated to members of the Core Group.

• Accountability and Governance working group to invite staff representatives to their future meetings when held within a college.

• Core Group Secretariat to circulate a draft timetable for futures Core Group meetings and put this to members for agreement.

• HMIE to send publication links to the Review Team to be inserted into the next e-bulletin.

• 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.

Review Team Secretariat

March 2006