The Scottish Government

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

SLALE Sub-Group on the Professional Development of Staff

Minutes of Meeting held on 20 November 2006 at St Andrews House, Edinburgh

Attendees:

Marian Healy, EIS (Chair)

James Alexander, NUS Scotland

Victoria Beattie, Scottish Executive

Peter Beaumont, Scottish Executive

Susan Bird, Stevenson College Edinburgh

Douglas Black, UNISON

Stewart McKillop, South Lanarkshire College

Bill Harvey, Scottish Funding Council

Apologies

John Bowditch, HMIE

1. Chair's Introduction, Apologies etc.

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

2. Note of Meeting of 14 September 2006, incl. update on Action Points

· The minutes were agreed to be accurate.

· Members agreed that the minutes should be sent to the main Working Group and Associate Members.

· An update of the action points was provided as shown below:

3. ESTIMATED COSTS OF TEACHER TRAINING

· Peter Beaumont presented revised paper SLEWG-SG-P07 which provided further evidence regarding the estimated costs of teacher training.

· Members commented that figures contained in the paper need to be revised to take account of the new staff who will join in years 2 and 3 of the process.

· Members recognised that staff turnover varies between colleges and fluctuates over different years. However on the whole they agreed with the 8% figure.

· There was a concern raised that the current costings figures did not include training for support staff.

· It was emphasised that colleges who have not been training their staff should not be financially rewarded and that those who have been diligently training staff should not be penalised. It was agreed that in order to prevent this situation the implementation group should pay due regard to this issue and that colleges who have invested in their staff training should be given more discretion, should any additional funding bid be successful. Moreover, it would be important for the outputs of this work to emphasise to the sector that progress should not be halted pending the outcome of the spending review - much good work has been done at current resource levels and Colleges should be encouraged to continue to support staff through TQ(FE) and other relevant qualifications in the meantime.

· There was a general discussion regarding remission. It was noted that levels of remission differed between colleges. It was also thought that the issue of remission had a bearing on the number of staff willing to undertake training and CPD. It was noted that some colleges do not offer remission but that this does not adversely affect the number of staff who undertake training..

· Members recognised that remission was a matter for individual college decision, however when the final recommendations and relevant costings are outlined they should explain that, in respect of TQ(FE), costings assume 6 hours of remission per week for 40 weeks, resulting in an estimated cost of £9,600 relating to remission (other costs, including payment to TEIs, take the total to £12,000). In addition, it should be made clear that a turnover rate of 8% has been assumed.

· Members agreed that an implementation and monitoring group should be set up and that it should be a Sub-group of the PDF. This group should have responsibility not only for implementing the recommendations regarding teacher training but also, importantly, for monitoring the uptake of CPD recommendations and the use of funding. The Executive were asked to prepare a draft remit and membership list of this group.

ACTION POINTS

• Peter Beaumont to revise paper SLEWG-SG-P07 to take into account the 2nd and 3rd year cohorts.
• The Executive to prepare a draft remit and membership list for the PDF Sub-group.

4. OUTCOME OF THE CPD PILOT

· Bill Harvey introduced paper SLEWG-SG-P13. He explained that currently all college staff are involved in CPD activities. However, it was noted that some of this CPD activity was actually informal.

· Members made the following comments about the paper and recommendations:

• Para 22 - Agreed that statements arising from ROSCO's consideration of CPD should be framed in terms of all staff, and should not emphasise distinctions between groups of staff with different professional responsibilities.
• Para 24 - Agreed subject to amendment - that ROSCO should give primary consideration to recommendations on CPD for all staff on a pro-rata basis to ensure that part-time staff are not disadvantaged from undertaking CPD in anyway.
• Para 26 - Agreed subject to amendment - the PDF Sub-group should examine the benefit of colleges using external monitoring groups, such as IiP or the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), as a means of reviewing the effectiveness of their policies on staff development and CPD.
• Para 27- The Scottish Funding Council to amend this paragraph to reflect the positive role that Union Learning Representatives can have on CPD.
• Para 28 - Agreed subject to amendment - the PDF Sub-group should consider a review of the role of Union Learning Representatives.
• Para 30 - Agreed that colleges should be encouraged to develop and deploy CPD logs for all staff, and that relevant communities of practice should be encouraged to consider ways of measuring and benchmarking the contribution of informal CPD to the achievement of college CPD policies.
• Para 32 - Agreed that colleges should be encouraged to develop and deploy systems for recording and evaluating the impact of CPD on college processes.
• Para 35 - Agreed that all full-time staff in colleges should fulfil, as a minimum expectation, 6 days of CPD a year, and that this should be on a pro rata basis for part time staff. Colleges should work together with the PDF sub group to collect better evidence on the scale and nature of informal CPD, and that as such evidence emerges this minimum expectation should be periodically reviewed with a view to increasing it
• Para 35 - It was also agreed that colleges should report back to the PDF Sub-group if certain groups of staff are not undertaking their minimum CPD training. Agreed that all staff should include Principals.
• Para 39 - Agreed that ROSCO should contextualise its conclusions on CPD in terms of Ministers' new targets on the timetable for achieving PDAs/TQFE for newly appointed staff, and to address the additional backlog issues of TQFE for existing staff as quickly as possible. And that ROSCO should seek consensus on the following shared goals for the sector: This recommendation should be used as the starting point

1. all staff in Scotland's colleges engage in systematic reflection of how they contribute to the work of colleges in supporting learners

2. all colleges provide opportunities for all members of staff to upgrade or improve their professional skills

3. all colleges provide opportunities for members of staff to gain appropriate qualifications relevant for their professional role, including TQFE/PDAs for teaching staff

• Para 42 - Members requested that the Scottish Funding Council estimate costs for implementing the recommendations regarding CPD training.
• Para 43 - There was a request that there should be an additional recommendation. It was agreed that although there was no need to make an actual recommendation with regard to a national maximum of working hours it should be highlighted that when preparing the teaching timetable consideration needs to be taken to ensure a balance between teaching contact time and training time.
• Para 44 - Agree but strengthened - that if ROSCO concludes that further investment in CPD is justified, this should be done through an overall increase in the unit of resource for colleges rather than through earmarked funding for staff development. This recommendation should be put at the start of the paper.
• Para 45 - Agree but strengthened - that ROSCO should strongly endorse the positive role which CPD can play in achieving broader objectives of quality improvement in colleges, through its impact on efficiency and effectiveness of college processes, on capacity building and promoting flexibility, and on the quality of students' learning experience. We recommend that all agencies with responsibilities for quality should give due consideration to encouraging good practice in the effective deployment of CPD. This recommendation should be put at the start of the paper.
• Members requested that the revised teacher training costs paper and CPD paper be merged into one single paper.
• Members asked if there would be Ministerial endorsement of the Review's recommendations so that the momentum created by the Review will be maintained and become fully official. The Executive stated that they would provide advice on this point at the next meeting.

ACTION POINTS

• The Executive to prepare a revised joint teacher training costings and CPD paper. This paper to include all the amendments agreed by the sub group.
• The Scottish Funding Council to amend Para 27 regarding Union Learning Representatives.
• Scottish Funding Council to recalculate the estimated costs for implementing the recommendations regarding CPD training.
• The Executive to report back to the Sub-group about whether or not the Review's recommendations will receive Ministerial endorsement.

5. Sub Group's Final Report

· Members were informed that the Executive would prepare a draft recommendations paper for the Sub-group to issue to the main Working Group. The paper will outline the background discussions, evidence gathered and the Sub-group's recommendations regarding the Professional Development Staff. The Executive has prepared an initial paper which provides members with a grid detailing the tasks and the relevant pieces of evidence which the group will need to consider when drawing up their recommendations.

ACTION POINTS

• The Executive to prepare the Sub-group's recommendation paper.
• The Executive to circulate the tasks and evidence grid.

6. AOB

· There were no other items for discussion.

List of Action Points

• Peter Beaumont to revise paper SLEWG-SG-P07 to take into account the 2nd and 3rd year cohorts.
• The Executive to prepare a draft remit and membership list of the PDF sub group.
• The Executive to prepare a revised joint teacher training costings and CPD paper. This paper to include all the amendments agreed by the sub group.
• The Scottish Funding Council to amend Para 27 regarding Union Learning Representatives.
• Scottish Funding Council to calculate the estimated costs for implementing the recommendations regarding CPD training.
• The Executive to report back to the Sub-group about whether or not the Review's recommendations will receive Ministerial endorsement.
• The Executive to prepare the Sub-group's recommendation paper.
• The Executive to circulate the tasks and evidence grid.

Reviews Team

Scotland's Colleges

24 November 2006