The Scottish Government

Please click here to download a pdf version of this document.

SLALE Sub-group on Professional Development of Staff

Minutes of Meeting held on Thursday 14 September 2006 at St. Andrews House, Edinburgh

PRESENT

James Alexander, NUS Scotland (Joint Chair)

Marian Healy, EIS (Joint Chair)

Peter Beaumont, FAED Skills and Staffing Team

Raaj Bhatti, Further & Adult Education Division (Secretariat in place of Victoria Beattie)

Douglas Black, UNISON

Bill Harvey, Scottish Funding Council

John McCann, SFEU (associate member)

Stewart McKillop, South Lanarkshire College

APOLOGIES

Susan Bird, Stevenson College Edinburgh

John Bowditch, HMIE

Victoria Beattie, Further & Adult Education Division

1) Welcome and Introductions

1.1 The Chair welcomed everybody and apologies were noted as above.

2) Note of meeting on 4 July 2006 , incl update on Action Points

2.1 This was approved for publication on the ROSCO website, and it was noted that all actions had been completed.

3) Profile of College Staff - statistics paper

3.1 Peter spoke to paper 9 circulated in advance, which looks at trends in relation to the age, gender and ethnicity of staff across the college sector and makes comparison with staff in Schools and HEIs.

3.2 Due to the limitations of the available data, this is not an in depth profile of college staff but is simply intended to sit alongside the "Profile of College staff" project, currently being undertaken by SFEU.

3.3 The paper thus focuses on:

o Contract type

o Age

o Gender

o Ethnicity

3.3 The data appears to indicate scope for improvement in terms of the numbers of females in management positions and minority-ethnic staff employed by the sector. It was acknowledged that the paper presented a "snapshot" in time. The gut feeling was that overall, things are changing for the better and will improve as colleges continue to meet legislative requirements.

3.4 Consequently, it was suggested that the figures should be used with caution. For example, 40% Part-time staff are not doing 40% of the work in Colleges. The reality is some of them could only be doing one class per week.

3.5 The group did not believe that, in itself, the paper had any specific implications for its work or the college sector generally. The group also decided there was no need to engage Equality Forward for further research.

3.6 The group thus noted the broad findings in the paper and looked forward to receiving a more comprehensive report from the SFEU "Profile of College staff" project.

4) Estimated costs of Teacher Training

4.1 Peter provided a progress update advising that he is continuing to work with the SFEU's HR Community of Practice and the Professional Development Community of Practice. He has also had a useful meeting with Bill.

4.2 Audrey Miller and Geraldine McCluckie, respective chairs of each CoP, have agreed to discuss this within their steering groups, both of which are meeting later this month, and have undertaken to forward the combined views from those meetings.

4.3 A general discussion followed around remission costs. It was noted that, on average, these were higher than the direct costs of undertaking a TQ(FE). There is considerable variation in the sector but as a ballpark figure, it was suggested that £6000 per year on the basis of 6 hours per week was realistic.

4.4 A revised paper will be presented to the group at the October meeting.

Action: Peter to present revised paper at October meeting

5) Principles for a code of practice for all staff

5.1 John spoke to paper 10 circulated in advance, and summarised the feedback from the 14 colleges that had replied to the request for information concerning their codes of practice.

5.2 The diversity of responses received made it difficult to draw out any common ground and conclusions. For example, two colleges had separate guidance for support staff and teaching staff whereas one college only had specific guidance for senior staff. There was also significant variation in the level of guidance offered.

5.3 As colleges are autonomous bodies, it would not be desirable or feasible to impose a code of practice on the sector. That said, the group agreed it would be good practice for colleges to have one. It was also noted that despite the diversity of views expressed in the Executive's consultation on the need for a professional body, the need for a code of practice was one area where there appeared to be some consensus.

5.4 It was suggested it could be helpful to develop a guidance statement - this should be brief and not prescribe a code of practice but outline some of the things it could encompass. It was noted there could be other ways to do this as well. Reviewing the relevant responses from the professional body consultation may provide a useful steer as to how to take this forward.

Action: Victoria to look at the responses from the Professional Body Consultation and produce a summary of what respondees were saying regarding the need for a code of practice.

6) Update on CPD Pilot

6.1 Bill spoke to paper 12 circulated in advance and summarised some of the broad messages, on the basis of their initial analysis of the returns received from colleges.

6.2 There is a significant volume of training activity spread across all staff groups, but some variation in how colleges interpret what should be included under this banner. Whilst informal activity was generally acknowledged to have a significant impact on the CPD of staff, there is again, a lot of variation in the type of this activity and the volume of this activity.

6.3 Both IIP and SDCR are in place in most colleges who had responded so far.

6.4 Overall, there is an attractive picture of a sector that takes Training and Development seriously, but it may be difficult to quantify consistently and objectively across the sector. Bill will discuss this with the HR Community of Practice and the Professional Development Network, before making final recommendations to the SLALE group in November.

6.5 A general discussion ensued and the following points were noted:

· the updated paper needs to distinguish support staff more clearly

· it would be useful to speak to union learning reps - feedback from a recent EIS survey indicated that union reps sometimes find it difficult to be accepted by management

· valuable for individuals to have custody of their CPD logs and there is an opportunity for union learning reps to promote CPD logs

· overall, do not think the sector would be troubled if this group was to suggest specific criteria for meeting CPD requirements. The trick is to express this in an aspirational way that is seen to be constructive and helpful but not tying colleges down with bureaucracy

Action: Bill to present final paper to group at the November meeting

7) Any other business

7.1 Date of next meeting - this will be on 12 October 2006 in Europa Building, Glasgow, after the main working group meeting which starts at 1pm.

7.2 There being no further business to discuss, the Chair thanked everyone for their input and the meeting was brought to a close.

SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS:

Raaj K Bhatti

FAED Skills & Staffing Team

September 2006