Post-16 Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on post-16 reform. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:03
Last week, the First Minster set out our programme for government and outlined the Government’s ambitions for the current session of Parliament. That was followed, earlier this week, by our refreshed economic strategy, which we will debate shortly. Both documents make it absolutely plain that a high-performing education and skills system is vital to creating the new Scotland that we wish to see, to building our workforce, to improving people’s life chances, and to maintaining our competitiveness, both at home and abroad.
We now have an enormous opportunity to build on what we have achieved so far—an opportunity that the Government fully intends to take.
During our first term, we intensified the most important education reform programme in a generation: the curriculum for excellence. We also undertook a thorough examination of higher education and consulted, through our green paper process, on a sustainable Scottish solution to the funding challenges that are facing our universities. Because of their high ambitions, the process of change to realise curriculum for excellence and improve Scottish education in both those spheres is unfinished business. Therefore, to complete the reforms we must maintain momentum.
This term I want to move to reform the broader post-16 education system, many parts of which have remained untouched for decades. The college sector, for example, has remained virtually unchanged since devolution—indeed, since incorporation in the early 1990s, when local accountability was weakened and competition encouraged. Some of that has, over time, led to wasteful duplication. That can no longer remain the case.
Today, I have published “Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”, a pre-legislative paper that outlines my proposals for the reform of post-16 education. The title that we have chosen reflects our overarching ambition to radically improve the offer to learners and to make the whole system work better for them.
Education has many different and important purposes. The eminent educationist, Frank Coffield, observed:
“Our learners become (or already are) not just workers, but ... parents, citizens, consumers ... We need to educate them for all these roles”.
Asked what he wanted for his own children, he added:
“I want for every child what I want for”
my
“children: a high-quality initial education, an appropriate vocational education and training, and a job worthy of a human being. For many young people ... their 21 hours per week in college may prove to be their only experience of education after they leave school at 16; so we must use that time wisely.”
I absolutely agree with that view.
Our reform programme will have at its centre learners and their readiness for work and life in general. As indicated last week by the First Minister, the bedrock of our proposals is opportunities for all. We will ensure that every single young person aged 16 to 19 has a place in post-16 education and training appropriate to their needs and circumstances. We believe that that, together with wider action to improve young people’s outcomes from early years through to adulthood, is the best way of giving them the strongest start in life. We will build on opportunities for all with a comprehensive programme of action based on the eight thematic priorities that I have set out in our paper.
The first priority is the learner journey. Scotland needs a post-16 education system in which everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to access and progress through learning successfully. In addition to our new commitment to young people, we will make progression, particularly between college and university, easier—and faster, if that is what learners want. We will also introduce more higher level and technical apprenticeships, and we will modernise the careers service to ensure that, alongside universities and other providers, it plays a full part in raising people’s aspirations from an early age.
My second priority is widening access, which is essential to helping everyone get on the right journey. Although most young people stay in learning after 16, too many still do not. We know all too well that that damages their job prospects and, over time, their life chances. Even for those who stay in the system, opportunity is not as fairly distributed as we would like. We will therefore legislate to ensure fairer access to higher education, protect places for Scottish students, and introduce tougher measures to ensure that learners from more disadvantaged backgrounds get the chance to study at university and are able to stay there.
Given our specific commitment to young learners, we will improve provision for young learners who have dropped out of learning. That will include the implementation across Scotland of activity agreements, to which I expect youth work and community learning and development to make a significant contribution.
The next theme is student support, which is a major factor in successfully widening access. On this, we have made clear our commitment to making the system simpler, fairer and more affordable, which we will do by introducing a minimum income of £7,000 for the lowest-income students, by exploring the introduction of entitlement-based support for non-advanced study, and by building on the success of part-time study by developing better support for part-time students.
The fourth issue in the paper is jobs and growth. In order to compete successfully, both here and abroad, Scotland’s employers need a workforce that is equipped with a broad range of skills, knowledge and attributes. Although our education and training system has served Scotland well to date, more can be done. For example, we must strengthen the essential role that universities play in growing our economy through their international contribution. Moreover, we must respond to economic imperatives by better aligning learning and skills with our ambitions for jobs and growth. In practical terms, that means focusing our investment where it has maximum economic and social return and on those people who most need Government support.
We will therefore work much more closely with employers to ensure that the training and qualifications courses that are delivered meet their needs. We will prioritise skills development in key economic sectors and sectors where there are large numbers of job opportunities. We will also focus funding on nationally recognised qualifications. In pursuing the latter approach, I of course recognise that some types of access courses that do not lead to recognised qualifications provide a very important first step into formal learning for many people. We will protect those courses.
The next item is research, which is a major contributor to economic growth. We must maintain Scotland’s world-leading position in university research and maximise its contribution to sustainable growth, but to build on our successes, we need to go on improving our approach. That will mean focusing our investment on excellence and closer alignment with national priorities, and ensuring that business, industry and the economy are better supported by knowledge exchange, innovation and exploitation of research.
My final two priorities relate to how the system can deliver more effectively and efficiently. We have to get in place delivery structures that meet our priorities and which work for learners and employers. They must be sustainable. Do we have the right configuration of colleges? The fact that we have essentially the same arrangement now as we did in 1993 after the Tory reforms that Margaret Thatcher instigated should surely give us pause for thought.
Ideally, I would wish to see emerge regional groupings of colleges, with a spread of specialist, higher-level and access-level provision delivered locally; greater collaboration between universities, with the possibility of mergers where that makes educational and financial sense; and closer integration of local skills and employment services, including Skills Development Scotland and, crucially, Jobcentre Plus. There are some good examples where that is already happening, but we need to accelerate the process of change and build the best practice into the system as a whole.
Finally, I turn to funding, performance and governance. This Government spends close to £2 billion each year on post-16 education—that is in the region of £50 million each and every week. We therefore have a duty to give learners, employers and taxpayers every confidence that public funds are being invested wisely and are delivering teaching and learning of the highest possible quality. As I have made plain on many occasions, I have particular difficulties with the complexity and lack of transparency of the existing college funding model and with the governance arrangements that apply to our colleges and universities. On that point, I agree with Malcolm Chisholm who, only last week in the chamber, called for the democratic accountability of colleges to be increased. He will agree, I think, that the same is required of universities.
We will therefore move to funding models that reflect need and are based on outcomes, will raise standards and performance, and will make the governance of colleges and universities more open, transparent and accountable. Members will be aware that I have established two governance reviews—one for colleges and one for universities. They will report in December and will inform the process.
The pre-legislative paper that I am launching today sets out in detail the ambitious steps that I want to take in partnership with universities, colleges, training providers, staff, learners, trade unions, business and others to achieve our vision for post-16 education. Throughout the document, we have outlined our legislative intentions and I expect a bill in the second half of next year, but it is clear that not everything needs legislation. I am ambitious for the people of Scotland, and the proposals—both legislative and non-legislative—that our paper contains will ensure that our ambitions are realised.
In reforming post-16 education, I have three key objectives. A reformed system must support jobs and growth, improve people’s life chances and be sustainable. Those are the criteria against which each element of the reform programme will be tested.
Reform of post-16 education is urgently needed; some might argue that it is overdue. To compete successfully in a rapidly changing global economy, Scotland’s employers need a high-performing, well-educated and skilled workforce. We do well, but we can do better.
We have a duty to learners—and to employers—to ensure that they acquire the knowledge, skills and attributes that we know will be important, whatever direction our economy moves in. In addition, we have a wider public duty to target our investment where it will produce the maximum economic and social return.
More than 130 years ago, President Garfield said:
“Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.”
That remains as true today as it was in 1880. It is our job to make Scotland’s post-16 system a foundation stone for the successful country that we want to create.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I remind all members that the more succinct the question and the more succinct the answer, the more we will get through.
I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of his statement.
Much of what the cabinet secretary outlined this afternoon could have been lifted straight from the Labour Party manifesto from 2007, let alone 2011. However, late in coming or not, a guarantee of education and training for every 16 to 19-year-old is nevertheless welcome. What worries me is that, while he today outlines his good intentions and long-term plans, the decisions that he has already taken and the actions that he is already responsible for are not helping.
I am sure that it has not escaped the cabinet secretary’s attention that youth unemployment has risen yet again. In fact, under the Scottish National Party there has been an 89 per cent increase in joblessness among young people—up 13,000 in the past three months alone. After four and a half years, he outlines his plans in a pre-legislative paper to be consulted on with a view to legislating in a further year. There is clear support on this side of the chamber for action now, so why is there no action now?
The decisions taken by the cabinet secretary could actually be making things worse. Last year, the SNP cut funding to colleges by 10.5 per cent, and the number of university places fell. Will he tell us whether today’s guarantee is backed up by funding for new places at college or university? If not, will he tell us what he will do to help the displaced adult returners and other lifelong learners who lose their places because of the welcome offer of support to 16 to 19-year-olds?
The cabinet secretary also announced the SNP’s plans for a minimum income of £7,000 for lower-income students—another policy that we have urged on him for several years. Will he tell Parliament exactly at what income level the support will kick in and when students can expect to receive the minimum income?
Mr Macintosh has his own grudging style, but I must say that on this occasion he was more grudging than ever. I point out to him as kindly and supportively as I can that the Government is delivering 10,000 more modern apprenticeships than any previous Administration. I know that, despite his aspiration to lead his party, he has never held office, but had he held office in the previous Labour Administration he would have delivered substantially less in education and training than we are delivering now.
Mr Macintosh might have noticed the effect of the recession that we have lived through, some parts of which were caused by his own party. At every turn, we have focused on providing opportunities in Scotland, and the pre-legislative paper is exactly about that. If he reads the statement again—and now he has a chance to read the paper—he will realise that the more effective and efficient college system that we propose will deliver more. It will focus on the individual learner and make a guarantee to individual learners that has never been made before. There is every reason to say that that is a good and substantive step forward. A fair-minded politician would have said so.
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement.
The cabinet secretary makes much in his statement of the increase in transparency and accountability for both colleges and universities, which are fine principles. However, will he give the Parliament an assurance that that does not mean greater Government control and centralisation?
The Government also proposes a minimum income of £7,000 for the lowest-income students. What proportion of the total number of undergraduates will receive that income, and will it be open to European Union students?
On the question about greater Government control, let me say that I have no aspiration to run the colleges or universities. However, I have an aspiration to ensure that there is accountability for every penny of public money that is spent. I expect the support of the entire chamber in that matter, and I hope that I will have it when issues are decided on. As I indicated, substantial sums of public expenditure are going out the door on a daily basis. They are invested in the future of our young people, and we must ensure that every penny is spent wisely.
Governance reform in colleges and universities is long overdue. I would have hoped that, across the chamber, that fact would be recognised and there would be support for ensuring greater transparency—that being one of the founding principles of this Parliament and something that should be a founding principle of every organisation in Scotland.
On support for students and the consultative paper, I am sure that, if Liz Smith has views on how and to whom support for students should be applied, she will give them. As far as I am concerned, the undertaking that we made to students in our manifesto will be delivered. If there are good ideas about how we can deliver it better, I am open to them.
I welcome the emphasis that the Scottish Government has put on ensuring that apprenticeships and training opportunities are linked directly to real jobs. I believe that that will address the particular issues facing young people in my constituency. Can the cabinet secretary describe the benchmarking, monitoring and reporting frameworks that the Scottish Government intends to put in place to ensure that learners, trainees and apprentices have high-quality experiences that lead to quality outcomes in employment or advanced education?
A variety of benchmarking takes place in education and training, part of which is the assessment and examination system in which there is external verification of things learned. It is more difficult in other areas. Christina McKelvie makes an important point. She has been active in the activity agreement pilots in her area. The activity agreements are tremendously important parts of delivery, where we reach out to those furthest from the labour market, who have given up on education and who do not understand the need for education and training, and draw them back into the system. It is important to have strong, external verification of the success of these parts of delivery—success not just in seeing young people get into formal education but in making full use of the third sector in so doing. I expect local authorities and the third sector to collaborate in that way.
Although college places have been maintained, over the past two years there has been a decrease in the number of contact hours from 21 to 16 hours a week for full-time college students—a decision taken by college principals—along with cuts in guidance and counselling services and increased class sizes. The cabinet secretary states that he wants to put learners at the centre. How will the post-16 reforms address issues of student experience and course quality? Will national standards in those areas be considered?
There will be no dilution of national standards. The more money we put into the front line, the better. There is huge financial pressure—no one in the chamber can deny that. Our budget is under enormous pressure, and we must make sure every penny we spend is spent wisely and in a way that gets to those with the greatest need.
I am certain that, by taking these reforms forward, we will ensure a positive benefit for learners. I remind Claire Baker of the 16 to 19 guarantee, which is central and which no previous Government has made. It will ensure young people have something available that is tailored to their needs. That is as good an offer as can be made, and I am very glad this Government is making it.
The cabinet secretary remarked that Scotland has a world-leading position in university research. Can he explain that and, given the divergence that is developing between the Scottish and English higher education systems, say how we compare with the United Kingdom Government in relation to support for and investment in university research?
Our university model combines teaching and research, and I think that it is successful. We have a uniquely successful series of research outcomes because we value education highly. We see the link between public benefit and individual education. That approach has been abandoned south of the border—I think that they are wrong, but it is up to them to make their decisions. My only difficulty is when such decisions attempt to impinge on what we are trying to deliver.
That long-term link has led to the unique situation, where we have five of the world’s top 150 universities in this small country and where 0.1 per cent of the world’s population—which is what Scotland has—delivers 1.8 per cent of the world’s research citations. This is an extremely important area in which we must continue to invest. In recent years, we have had useful and important innovations, such as research pooling, and I am keen to make sure that those continue. Today, I am announcing another £500,000 to support international research activity as part of this process, but we will need to continue to ensure that what is delivered with world-beating excellence in Scotland continues in that way. That requires that we invest where success is and that we invest to intensify success.
What benefits does the cabinet secretary see coming from efforts to work with employers to ensure relevance of qualifications, and how does he see that process working in practice?
The college sector already has good links with employers, but we need to make sure that their purposes and what they are trying to achieve is well aligned with college outcomes. We are developing that approach in curriculum for excellence, and I am very pleased at the close contact that now exists between employers and those who are developing the new examinations in curriculum for excellence. We need to ensure that that closeness remains as curriculum for excellence rolls into the college sector. The positive nature of the outcomes will ensure that we have greater economic success and a workforce that expects to be employed in sectors in Scotland that are growing. That is distinctly possible if we follow the route that I am laying out.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, much of which I welcome—particularly the commitment to the minimum income of £7,000. I am sure that many members across the chamber will take up his request that they submit their views on that proposal. I go back to Liz Smith’s question on the situation in relation to EU students, which I think he overlooked in his response.
Does the cabinet secretary appreciate that his description of further education in Scotland as a Thatcherite model will confirm the fears of many in the sector that he plans to press ahead with a top-down restructuring of the colleges? Does he believe that forcing through swathes of college mergers and cuts to courses will improve the learner experience or deliver the high-performing education and skills system that, as he has acknowledged, we all wish to see?
That is an interesting question from Mr McArthur. It is interesting to see the Liberal Democrats defending Margaret Thatcher. The coalition is now complete; there is ideological unity at last.
I described further education in Scotland in the way that I did because that is the way it is. A college system was created that has had some successes—I am not saying that it has been unsuccessful. However, when we look at it now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we can see that there is a strong need to change the sector to align it much more closely with Scotland as it actually is, and that is what we are going to endeavour to do. Defending the indefensible—the status quo—is, of course, a classic description of conservatism and is more proof that the Lib Dems have become Conservatives.
On the question of EU students, Mr McArthur knows very well that I am working hard, as are my officials, within the EU to ensure that we have a better settlement than we have now. We will continue to do that, and I welcome his views on the matter.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his visionary statement in offering the young people of Scotland this future and ensuring that Scotland is tooled-up for the future when we come out of the economic downturn.
Will the cabinet secretary expand on the progression theme and movement between schools, colleges and universities at the levels of Scottish credit and qualifications framework levels 6, 7 and 8, higher and advanced higher, higher national certificate, higher national diploma and degree, because that has been identified as the main area of blockage—
Can we get to a question, please?
—and duplication by the National Union of Students? That is it, thanks, Presiding Officer.
I welcome the mention of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. We are very fortunate in Scotland in having the SCQF, which gives us a uniquely successful template against which to gauge the progress of each learner and to mark the learning journey. Interestingly, that template has been exported elsewhere. For example, when I was in Hong Kong last year, they were just putting in place a very similar model with the advice of those who are involved in the SCQF.
Mr Adam mentioned a very important issue. The movement between school, college and university is particularly crucial. However, the movement between college and university has not been marked by as much success as it should have been. That has sometimes been because of unnecessary duplication. The SCQF indicates that such duplication should not take place, but not all colleges and universities observe that. As our consultation paper makes clear, I am very keen that we have a greater adherence to the SCQF, that those transitions are marked seamlessly and that the learner progresses at their own pace, which sometimes happens faster than colleges and universities usually allow it to happen.
First, on the issue of activity agreements, how does the cabinet secretary square the fact that he spent £12 million on a pilot across 10 local authorities but promised only £4 million to roll it out across the remaining 22 local authorities? Secondly, is he aware that there are five schools in Edinburgh where more than a quarter of school leavers have no positive destination? Does he agree that much more needs to be done in schools much earlier on to identify kids and young people who are at risk of having no positive destination?
I am very happy to ensure that we work with every local authority and every school to ensure that there are positive destinations. That is what we have been trying to do, and the position has been getting better. The guarantee that we are making is a very important guarantee in taking that forward. I would therefore have hoped that the member would welcome the guarantee and help us to ensure that it takes place.
On the activity agreement pilots, I think that the member must have been asleep for the past two or three years. The enormous financial pressure means that, regrettably, much more must be done with existing resources. I have been visiting activity agreement pilots and delivery projects that are delivering wonderfully well—particularly given the pressure on resources—and I pay tribute to how important they are. I think that we should celebrate that. It is always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Scotland’s record on young people training and studying abroad does not compare favourably with that of other nations in Europe. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that that is a problem? If so, what action will he take to address the issue in the coming years?
I very much recognise the point that the member makes. There is a great benefit in studying and learning from elsewhere. The Scottish Government is supporting the NUS Scotland-led work on the year of mobility, and we are providing funding to the EU lifelong learning programme. Opportunities for Scottish students to experience study overseas through the study China and study India programmes have been expanded, and we are ensuring that there are opportunities for technical work placements.
Last year, when I was in Finland to look at the Finnish education system, I was impressed to meet a group of students from Dundee College, who were there on placements while undertaking a vocational course in caring. The opportunities are great and we should encourage young people to take them up, because the experience is very good for them.
It has come to my attention that South Lanarkshire College, which is one of the best colleges in Scotland, has turned away prospective students, not because they did not meet the entry requirements but because of a lack of funded college places in comparison with Glasgow and the surrounding area. Many qualified young people and school leavers in South Lanarkshire have to travel to Glasgow for further education, which is paid for by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we can make savings in the student support bill by distributing weighted student units of measurement more equally across Scotland?
I agree with the member that the weighted SUM system is no longer fit for purpose and requires to be changed, as I indicated in my statement. It is regrettable that people will have to travel for education and training, but we cannot deliver everything on everyone’s doorstep. What we have tried to do is ensure that there are opportunities for all, and the guarantee that we are making shows that there will be an opportunity for everyone. That is a step forward.
We are in difficult times and it is extremely important that we recognise that. It is not enough simply to regret that something is not happening; we must have imaginative solutions to take forward new ways of delivery. That is what I commend to the Parliament in the context of the paper, “Putting Learners at the Centre”.
I thank members for their co-operation. We managed to call every member who wanted to ask a question.