Official Report 115KB pdf
We now move to agenda item 3, which is our consideration of evidence on the general principles of the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill. Our first witnesses are Tom Kelly, chief executive of the Association of Scottish Colleges, and Jane Polglase, policy manager of the ASC. I thank the witnesses for coming. We have received your written statement. Do you have any comments to add before we move to questions?
I will not repeat what we said in our submission. Instead, I make two points about the wider context. Although we think that the SQA is still recovering from what happened in 2000, we are fixing our gaze on where we want to be when that process is complete. We want to create not only the Scottish credit and qualifications framework but a year-round, first-class system of certification and awards that will provide a truly world-leading service. From that point of view, it is vital that we overcome some of the difficulties concerning the SQA's engagement as a service organisation with the presenting centres. Those centres are not simply customers, but part of the process of the authority's work. I am happy to answer the committee's questions.
I find it interesting that you have immediately highlighted the aim to provide a world-class service. No one would object to that. However, is not the objective to ensure that the SQA provides a Scottish-class service? In other words, it needs to deliver the services that it has to deliver in Scotland efficiently, effectively and with the confidence of its stakeholders.
Absolutely. We do not foresee a complete recovery for another couple of years. What was achieved last year involved a prodigious effort not just by the SQA but by all the centres to put right the many things that had gone wrong. We are still in that process of recovery.
Two further points arise from what you have said, the first of which relates to the two markets—to put it crudely, the colleges market and the schools market—that the SQA serves. You have already addressed that question by saying that the markets overlap in some places. However, in its inquiry into the SQA, the committee concluded that many of the problems that arose two years ago came about because of the organisation's inability to develop a single culture as a result of merging two different organisations serving different markets. How does the bill help to overcome that and what other steps are necessary? When you have answered that, I will ask you a further question about your detailed submission.
We have one significant criticism of the arrangements. That is the concern about whether a single advisory council is the right supporting advisory and consultative structure for the whole of the SQA. We have established, by agreement with the SQA, a strategic forum for further education and a technical user group. We are trying to sort out strategic issues about where we go with the development of qualifications and awards. We are also trying to sort out the detailed and difficult issues about processing and the system. We have those processes in place and we do not want to lose them. Moreover, we do not want to lose the directness of consultation between the SQA and the presenting centres.
So you are looking for a more customer-focused organisation than the one that exists.
In our submission, we say that there should be a hybrid. We propose that the Executive's powers should be held in reserve. The powers would be available if needed and the Executive could react quickly, but there would be less confusion, as there would be no suggestion that there was more than one hand on the tiller.
Michael Russell has covered the question that I was going to ask about the advisory council. You have said that it will take some time for the SQA to achieve what is recognised in Scotland and worldwide as the gold standard. The benchmark as far as the committee is concerned is whether the system is delivering for youngsters. What still needs to be put in place? What issues does the bill not include that would assist in getting to the gold standard more quickly than the couple of years that has been suggested?
We are trying to shape a much better business relationship between the further education sector and the SQA. Broader issues are being considered, such as the updating and development of awards. A lot of that work has been put on hold while so much effort has gone into recovery from the crisis. An awful lot of work must be done to make the Scottish credit and qualifications framework a reality. That work is technical. When people talk about levelling units for Scottish vocational qualifications, that may sound like something that can just be left to be done, but it is not; it requires a lot of effort and work.
Will we still require the effort over the period in personnel and resource terms to remedy what emerged in the past or do you see that effort being scaled down?
We are through the worst. There was a good run of certification by the SQA last autumn. Many of the awful problems in the process have been ironed out, but we want to stay on top of that.
You indicate in your written submission that you are comfortable with the advisory council monitoring and advising the SQA on issues of qualification and assessment of standards, but caution that, because of the potential for conflicts of interest, the council should not be expected to advise more broadly than that remit. You go on to say:
I can understand why you have picked up the issue in that way. Perhaps I can outline what we envisaged as the advisory council's role. There is a wide range of views on the role of internal assessment in relation to national qualifications, for example. It seems reasonable to us that there should be a properly constituted body from which the SQA can draw advice on what has emerged from the consultations.
So we need a clearer delineation of who is doing what—
And in what capacity.
One of the submissions talks about the drawbacks of the old way in which the board was constituted—it was full of stakeholders and representatives of different groups. Are you more comfortable with the board as it will be constituted under the proposed arrangements?
We support the changes in the board but feel that the maximum size of nine will not allow it to be as effective as it needs to be. We are thinking of the practicalities. Board members have other responsibilities—for example, chairing major committees such as the qualifications committee, which is a time-consuming task for the person who is doing it. If we multiply that across the board, we are not sure that a membership of nine gives the flexibility to cover all the responsibilities that board members must take on.
Would you welcome the kind of people who are currently on the board—those with business experience, for example?
Yes. We think that there should be a proper, non-executive board with collective responsibility. We do not want the confusion of identity and role that went with the old board, which was very large and which included people who had apparently been appointed in a representative capacity. We fully accept that board members are directors of the SQA.
Do you think that the FE sector should have a place on the advisory council? Are you worried that the council would not represent your views?
We would be happy to take part. As I said, the council's job should be clear—we would make separate, direct representations to the SQA.
As there are no other questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
I thank the committee for inviting the NUS to give evidence. NUS Scotland represents students in the majority of universities and colleges in Scotland. We are keen on a progressive, open and fair qualifications system. Obviously, we have a primary interest in the qualifications system in Scotland, but we see it in its widest context through concepts such as the Scottish credit and qualifications framework.
I asked our previous witnesses about the SQA's two customer bases—it has an FE customer base and a school customer base. Many of the organisation's problems have resulted from the failure to bring the two cultures together. Does the bill succeed in doing so? Do you have any suggestions to aid that task?
The success of bringing those cultures together will not necessarily lie in the bill itself, but in how the bill is implemented and how the advisory council is established. It is crucial that the whole spectrum of interests—including those of teachers and students—is represented on the advisory council so that advice to the SQA comes from a broad perspective.
On the involvement of the student base through the advisory council, what role do you see your organisation and others having? What perspective would you bring?
Like many organisations, NUS Scotland is always happy to provide the perspective of current and potential students in higher and further education. We would be more than happy to assist in any way.
How much contact did students have with the NUS on issues relating to the SQA before 2000, during 2000 and subsequent to the 2001 diet?
After the problems that the SQA experienced, the level of student contact with the NUS skyrocketed, as did the prominence of the issue. It must be remembered that there were changes prior to the problems—two organisations came together. It is difficult to give a direct comparison, but the problems meant that, for a short period, we were inundated by calls from students.
Aside from the diet in 2000, are there continuing issues? One such issue appears to be connected to FE students, as opposed to those who came through schools.
Confidence in the system is still to be restored. As was said earlier, it is important to clarify the relationship between the delivery of qualifications and the delivery of teaching. Not all students in FE colleges who are studying for SQA qualifications are aware of which responsibilities are the SQA's and which are the teachers'. The committee should recommend that the SQA provide information—perhaps in a leaflet—that is aimed at students and that explains the SQA's responsibilities. That would go some way towards restoring confidence.
So the situation has calmed down considerably.
It has calmed down, but that does not mean that confidence has returned to the level that existed prior to 2000.
I have not seen the full details of the advisory council's role. Do you want student representation on the advisory council or would you be happy with a mechanism for consultation?
A formalised procedure for dialogue would be beneficial for the SQA and students.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
May I declare an interest?
Your interests are noted in the register of members' interests.
I will ask the head teacher.
I will delegate the question. That is a habit.
My question is for David Eaglesham. In 2001, you and I took part in a television debate on the SQA. During that evening, you talked about re-establishing confidence among staff. Do you feel that the 2001 diet did that? What lessons must be learned from the work that was undertaken in 2001?
The best that we can say about the 2001 diet is that it stopped the rot. The events in 2000 were seen as being discrete in time, but to say that the SQA's reputation was restored in 2001 would be going too far. The SQA is on the right track; there is no indication that it will not be trusted in future to get matters right. During the 2001 diet, many problems arose because the SQA did not listen—that was a problem with the previous diet—and we felt at times that there was a danger that things might go wrong. Mercifully, thanks to the efforts of all involved, things did not go wrong.
I will target my questions on the teaching unions and head teachers collectively. I will pursue with you the questions that I asked about the two customer bases. During the year after the disaster through to the success of last year's exam diet, there were signs of tension between the two customer bases and a feeling that one or the other was not getting a proper service. How can the two bases be reconciled in a single organisation? If they cannot, what should happen?
What you describe is accurate. I believe that there were tensions. The option A versus option B debate has historically encapsulated those tensions. My organisation would say, "A plague on both your houses." We hope that we can evolve from where we are. Similarly, the introduction of a winter diet was perceived as coming from the FE sector, although the reality is that, in the first dribble, the school sector has been using it.
The problems of bringing together the two cultures as well as the disparate buildings are managerial and operational. That is part of the SQA's problem, which it was addressing in the period that led up to the 2001 diet and which it continues to address now.
If we were starting again from the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, we would not be doing what we are doing just now. The two interests are divergent and competing and there is a problem in putting them together. The last thing that we should do at this point is try to split them up, because dividing one's troops in the face of the enemy is not the best strategy.
I have a question for David Eaglesham and Sandy Fowler on the attitudes of their members. Everybody realised that the effort that was made between the disaster and the successful diet was superhuman, particularly the efforts of your members and those who work in the SQA. It is unlikely that that could be repeated exactly. How far does the bill go in creating new confidence in the SQA among your members, particularly on the direct relationship with the Government? Some have argued that floating the SQA off yet again will create the potential for further disaster and that the close relationship with the Government—the almost-agency status—under which the SQA operated in the year of difficulty was one of the key factors of success. I have an open mind on that.
The one thing that would lead to a lack of confidence would be a change in the status of the SQA at this stage. A degree of continuity is required in the SQA's organisation and in the membership of the board. That will provide confidence and credibility in the system, so I would be concerned about changing the status of the SQA. However, I take your point. On the one hand, the SQA needs to be politically independent, so there is a problem with its having agency status. On the other hand, we should be careful not to say that all the SQA's problems went away in the 2001 diet. The Executive and the committee need to keep a close eye on how the SQA performs, both in the 2002 diet and in subsequent diets. That can be done through co-option to the board and through the advice that the advisory council provides directly to the Executive, as well as to the SQA.
As Sandy Fowler said, the twin prongs of the advisory council and the link that has been proposed between the Executive and the SQA provide a satisfactory mechanism. I do not believe that individual teachers will be greatly concerned about that approach, although they will hold a watching brief on the SQA to see how things go. Teachers will feel that they have the opportunity to contribute and that this time, unlike before, there will be a conduit for their views straight into the heart of the organisation, where those views will be listened to. That is their main concern.
The Headteachers Association of Scotland argued powerfully for the retention of the SQA's existing status, to avoid disruption, but we also argued for strong monitoring and scrutiny. We are pleased to note the rigorous annual plan that has been mentioned, which will be a good scrutiny mechanism. We also welcome the provision that has been made for ministerial representatives to attend meetings of the board. We endorse those measures.
I asked previous witnesses about the make-up of the board. In your written submission, you discuss the notion of co-option, and you have mentioned that again in passing today. How do you envisage co-option working? What sort of people would you want to be co-opted on to the board?
To whom is your question addressed?
It is directed straight at Sandy Fowler.
This is like a game show.
Ian Jenkins's question relates to the board. The bill allows for the board to have between seven and nine members. In fact, nine appointments have been made. It is important that there should be co-option on to the board. Although the SQA's problems were managerial and organisational, the purpose of the SQA is to provide a credible certification system. We are concerned that that system should be credible and of a high standard—in Scottish and in world terms. We regard the qualifications committee as the most important committee in the SQA. If we want to ensure a credible qualifications system, it is crucial that we have the ability to co-opt members on to the SQA board and, therefore, on to the qualifications committee, where they can provide educational expertise
Should there be a representative of the minister on the board?
As a co-opted member?
The submissions that we have received contain different views on that. No one has rushed to embrace the principle of co-option. People have tended to be sceptical about it, to welcome it in exceptional circumstances or to advocate observer status for co-opted members. As trade unions and members of staff, do you have strong views on the matter?
It would not matter significantly whether the minister was represented formally on the board or through the kind of mechanism that has been suggested. During the 2000 diet, it became clear that it was hard to get people to listen when problems were pointed out. The most effective conduit was the Scottish Executive: it was possible to go to people there and to get the message through by another route. It is vital that that facility is retained so that the message can get through if the need arises. I hope that such a serious situation will not arise again, but the conduit should exist in the event that there is a need for it. My organisation is not greatly concerned whether we proceed on one basis or another, as long as the channel is available and it is clear that the relationship exists and that the SQA is not totally free-standing.
We argue that there is a place for proactive participation by the Executive, however the body is described and regardless of whether the Executive is represented on the board. The Executive should engage in overtly hands-on monitoring to ensure security and credibility.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence.
What further evidence does the committee intend to take at stage 1?
We have asked for evidence from the chief executive and the chairman of the SQA, the Minister for Education and Young People and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. That evidence will be taken on 26 February and will complete our stage 1 consideration. If members feel it appropriate, we can ask the SQA witnesses to give us an update on progress on the 2002 diet when they are here on 26 February.
That is an excellent idea.
The clerks will take a note of that and factor it into the agenda.
Previous
Items in PrivateNext
Petition