Post-16 Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on post-16 reform. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
15:08
In September last year, I launched “Putting Learners at the Centre—Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”, which was a consultative paper that set out my ambitious proposals on reform of post-16 education. I am pleased to be able to address Parliament today to report on some of the key issues that are emerging from the consultation.
I thank everyone who has taken the time to contribute their views through written responses or as part of the consultation discussions. Today, I am publishing all the individual responses, alongside our consultation analysis, so that everyone can access the wide range of views that have been presented.
Much of the attention in past months has fallen on the implications of my plans for colleges; my proposals for the sector are unashamedly far reaching. During the consultation process we listened to the sector, and we have responded with the college transformation fund and the resources that are necessary to support students.
I have made clear my plans for regionalisation and I am fully committed, with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, to working closely with colleges to implement those essential reforms, which will bring benefits for learners and employers. I met college principals and chairs only yesterday to discuss the way forward on the important issue of governance. I am listening to their views and to the views of many other people and I will say more about the matter before the Easter recess.
Over the coming year, our programme of reform will gain pace. We will move to redistribution of resources based on needs, we will develop outcome agreements with our new regions, and many colleges will continue with their plans to merge because they think that that is the right thing to do.
My overall intention is to refocus our existing systems to ensure that they are driven by the needs of learners and not by the needs of institutions, so I was very pleased to see that proposition being strongly supported in the consultation responses. We have already made a great deal of progress by starting to reform college delivery structures and by making wider changes to underpin effective delivery in the sector.
Today, I want to focus on all the reforms that will put learners at the centre to create better life chances for young people and support our ambitions for sustainable economic growth. That will mean building on our many existing strengths and responding to the new opportunities that are emerging as curriculum for excellence becomes fully embedded in our schools.
As was reflected in the responses, the transition from school into training, college or university and the progression of young people through those systems into work are critical. The responses also demonstrated a great deal of consensus; in particular, the need to recognise and clarify the full range of possible pathways from school and to strengthen the system’s connectedness were paramount. From community learning and development to workplace learning right through to college and university, all parts of the post-16 system must be linked more effectively.
Equally, many respondents stressed the need to develop stronger partnerships across sectors. The consultation highlighted many areas where such partnerships are already emerging to create more coherent pathways. For example, the Dumfries and Galloway Council submission sets out how it is developing links through closer working between schools, CLD, colleges, universities and business and it is one of many good examples that I think reflect a commitment, across Scotland, to work differently to learners’ benefit.
Another emerging theme is the role of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, which I am glad to say was fully recognised and supported. However, views differed on how it might better support progression, with the key area of contention being whether it should form a basis for funding, and important points were made about raising its profile for learners, parents and employers.
In response to those views, I want to take a number of steps. First, I will issue new community learning and development guidance. I will also consider how I can use forthcoming legislation to develop stronger links between the provision that is offered in colleges and that which is offered elsewhere in communities.
I also want to make progress on the important issue of pathways. There was a clear view that learner journeys are not always linear and that we must do more to map out learner pathways to reflect that fact. I have asked my officials to work with Skills Development Scotland, learners and others to consider how best to achieve that objective.
Our fundamental challenge is to strike the right balance between having a flexible system that provides the best possible choices for learners, and making that system sustainable and reducing unnecessary duplication. Part of the answer to that will rely on making better use of the SCQF and developing clearer pathways. I will explore those issues further over the coming months.
We also received a big response on widening access. The clear message is that widening access goes beyond admission to university and that it is essential that we focus on other areas, including provision for those with more complex needs, opportunities for older learners and maximising the contribution of community learning and development. Although much of the work that I have already discussed will address that, I want to focus on three particular issues. First, we will continue to work through curriculum for excellence to enhance the offer in the senior phase of education. That will include not only promoting and extending the use of the Scottish baccalaureate and advanced higher, but looking at how schools prepare learners for transition into other areas such as college, training or employment.
Next, I want to work with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the National Union of Students Scotland and institutions to take forward the report that I commissioned last year from the council on improving articulation and transition, which sets out the current situation and what we might be able to achieve.
Finally, I want to develop further and more fully the case for a stronger legislative base for access. In so doing, I want to ensure that we recognise the importance of curricular links, and reflect learners’ different needs and the sector’s diversity. There seems to be clear support for legislation to support the current activity on access agreements that is being led by the Scottish funding council, and that is the route that I will pursue.
Continuing with the theme of building on curriculum for excellence—and, in particular, the senior phase—we must give learners the opportunities that they need to enhance their skills at every level. As we recognise the importance of higher level apprenticeships in supporting businesses to develop their staff, I am pleased to announce today that, following the conclusion of the “Making Training Work Better” consultation, higher level apprenticeships at SCQF level 8 or 9 will become technical apprenticeships while those at level 10 will become professional apprenticeships. Such a move will develop the flexible framework that will enable all businesses to develop their staff to acquire the skills that they need to grow at their own pace and without any limit on their ambition.
Our post-16 reforms will also contribute to achieving the aims that were set out by Angela Constance at the end of January in the draft youth employment strategy. The bedrock for that will be the opportunities for all scheme, which will guarantee every 16 to 19-year-old a place in education or training. I will also look at ways to improve our engagement with employers, and we will develop a more flexible approach to pre-employment training to ensure that that support is better aligned with the needs of learners, the labour market and our economic priorities. We are clear about the continued importance of local employability partnerships in delivering tailored employability programmes, and we will continue to work with the Department for Work and Pensions and other partners to drive better alignment.
On student support, the consultation responses generally welcomed the commitment to ensuring fair and affordable support arrangements. To deliver that, we continue to work closely with NUS Scotland on the commitment for a minimum income of around £7,000 in higher education. That work is on track and I expect to announce more details in the summer.
Alongside that, I want to ensure that we strike a balance between the consistency that will be achieved through a national policy on support for college learners and the local discretion of colleges to deliver tailored support and to improve support for part-time learners. The value of part-time learning was made clear in the responses, and I am also keen to build on our progress.
I make no apology for focusing on issues that address the learner, but before I conclude, I need to mention research. A key part of our proposals is the need to make better use of the world-class outputs from our universities, in order to support our ambitions. To achieve that, I have set out proposals to develop a single knowledge exchange office to help businesses to access that resource. I am pleased to say that, building on the responses, I have asked the Scottish funding council to set up a working group with Universities Scotland and business representatives. I look forward to seeing the output from their work later in the year.
The breadth of the consultation and the responses means that I have not been able to address every aspect of our reforms—far from it—but the paper that I have published today provides a lot more detail. I have tried to capture the key issues and, in concluding, I want to draw attention to what is at the centre of the issue: it is partnership, the importance of which was emphasised time and again during the consultation. Strong and purposeful partnership working is critical to the success of our reforms and to meeting our objectives in life chances, in jobs and growth, and in sustainability. The Government is focused on delivering the best education for our young people by protecting free access to undergraduate education, reforming student support, and building on the international excellence of our research reputation.
There is no doubt that we could do more if we had more powers, which is why we will hold a referendum on independence in 2014. For now, we will focus on what we can do within the existing arrangements.
I am far from being the first nationalist to see in education the bedrock for the new nation of Scotland. In his maiden speech to the House of Commons in 1945, the first ever Scottish National Party member of Parliament, Robert McIntyre, said:
“I happen to be more interested in the education and welfare of the people of Scotland than in any party consideration. We need a real programme for rebuilding our educational system in Scotland. We need a thorough-going measure of educational reform in Scotland.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 1 May 1945; Vol 410, c 1299.]
We needed that then and we still do.
The Government’s commitment to such reform is stronger than ever. I will continue to work with our partners across the education landscape to deliver it and I will introduce a bill after the summer recess to support it. I will also make announcements before the summer recess on how I intend to proceed on governance and a range of other matters.
Members who want to ask a question of the cabinet secretary should press their request-to-speak button now. Hugh Henry will be followed by Liz Smith.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
I share the cabinet secretary’s aspirations for learners in Scotland and support the need for improvement and clarification of possible pathways from school. We need to reflect on how we enhance the experience of the senior school years and consider how that fits with the transition to college and university. We should also recognise that increasingly poorer subject choices are being made available to fifth-year and sixth-year pupils, which needs to be addressed.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is more to do to ensure wider access for all students regardless of their background, and I look forward to seeing details, at some point, of the commitment to a minimum student income of £7,000 per year in higher education.
The statement was disappointing. It contained no detail about what is going to be done. It is about aspirations and I am not sure what its purpose is and how it allows questions to be asked. It is full of commitments to say more later and makes promises for new guidance. It asks officials to consider how best to achieve progress on learning pathways. On the SCQF, the cabinet secretary said that he would explore the issues
“further over the coming months”,
and, on student support, he said that he expects to
“announce more details in the summer.”
He also said that he has
“asked the Scottish funding council to set up a working group”,
and that he will have more to say about colleges before the Easter recess. Such statements make me wonder what the point is.
Will the cabinet secretary reconsider his decision to force through significant changes to college structures, which already have to cope with large-scale budget cuts? Will he abandon full centralisation and the increase of ministerial control? Will he provide the details of the number of subjects that are being studied in the Scottish baccalaureate and the number of schools that are participating in it? Will he ensure a reversal of the cuts to careers service staff?
I welcome the fact that Hugh Henry and I can make common cause on many areas of my statement. I hope that we will enjoy the support of the Opposition as we advance important issues such as the pathways, the details for which I have given. I regret, however, that Hugh Henry is not able to be more positive about the range of subjects that I have talked about, which are full of detail and consideration. We are also publishing comments today on some important initiatives.
There are two ways to approach education. The first is to work together to ensure that we improve Scottish education, and the second is to be bitterly partisan. The first part of Hugh Henry’s response hinted that he wants to work together but, alas, he ended up being bitterly partisan. That will not help Scottish education.
We are making a range of reforms in the post-16 sector, and they are regarded as being long overdue and essential. My discussions with the principals and chairs of Scotland’s colleges are positive, as are those with a wide range of people in the sector, including the trade unions. We have important reports on governance. I would very much welcome the support of the Opposition and its constructive criticism. To say simply, “Stop what you are doing,” is not constructive criticism.
What did the cabinet secretary mean when he said that he would be
“promoting and extending the use of the Scottish baccalaureate and advanced higher”,
which is on page 6 of his statement? Is that meant in relation to entrance qualifications, employability skills or greater opportunity for flexibility in the transition process? Will the deliberations be concluded at the same time as the new Scottish Qualifications Authority details are announced in April?
Secondly, does the cabinet secretary now accept that the timescale that he gave colleges to seek assistance from the college transformation fund was too short, given the enormous importance of the restructuring programme and given the contention—this is mentioned on page 4 of his statement and page 17 of the responses—about the basis for funding decisions?
Finally, what principles will underpin the legislation that the cabinet secretary intends to use to develop stronger links between college provision and communities?
Those are important and good questions. On the principles that will underpin the link between colleges and communities, I want each of the regional boards to focus closely on that question as they develop. How can we ensure that the wider recognition of what the region needs and what is needed throughout the community is reflected in the college delivery structures? I would be very happy to discuss with the member those principles in detail and how they work together. It is an important issue.
On flexibility and funding, I want to be as positive as I can be. The resource will be available in the coming year. When I met the college principals yesterday, I think that they agreed that we have to stick to a demanding timetable, given the demands of the budget that comes to us from elsewhere. Were we living in a more normal nation that had full control of its resources, that would not be the case. Within that, I am willing to be as flexible as I possibly can be in relation to access to transformation funding.
The points about the baccalaureate and advanced higher are interesting. I accept that we need to make sure that they dovetail with other changes in Scottish education. We need to look at three things. The first is, undoubtedly, a widening of the scope of the baccalaureate. I have supported the baccalaureate. Its uptake is small, but growing, and we need to see what else can be addressed. Indeed, I anticipate an early announcement from the SQA on that.
Secondly, transition is extremely important. This morning, I spoke to a headteacher who is concerned that the universities need to give a much clearer indication of how they understand what is happening with curriculum for excellence and what will flow out of that, as well as what is taking place with the baccalaureate and advanced highers. We are making progress on that and there are interesting indications. I have spoken to universities on a number of occasions about how important that is, and we will follow that through.
Thirdly, I am keen that the range and depth of qualifications improve. One of the most impressive things in curriculum for excellence is the understanding by young people not just of what they are learning, but of why they are learning it. In one sense, that understanding of what skills are and how they build up is the most extraordinary change. We need to see that in the higher-range qualifications, too, because that is good preparation for further learning and development.
I remind all back-bench members that, if they are going to pose a question to the cabinet secretary, it should be one question and there should be no preamble.
I welcome the commitment to provide more detail on the £7,000 minimum income. Will the cabinet secretary make clear what the objective is and say what he sees as being the likely benefits of delivering the policy?
The likely benefits include more money in the pockets of students, which is what many students are looking for. We understand and need to break the link that exists between the difficulty of supporting oneself as a student and the pressure that might apply and which might lead to people dropping out or not completing a course. I want to ensure that we give our students the best possible opportunities.
I welcome the commitment to guarantee a place in education or training for every 16 to 19-year-old, which is a policy that the Labour Party proposed five years ago. Will the guarantee be met by the target date of April 2012? How many extra college and training places are required to meet the target?
The guarantee will be met. We intend to do that and we are working hard on it. I will not get into the business of who is the only begetter of a policy, but I am glad that the member likes it and that we are on the same page. We could make common cause and make the policy work well. We have given a guarantee, and the necessary places are being provided. As the member will know from discussions with his local college, there is a clear understanding of the number of places that are being supported through our guarantee for places, which is absolute.
I want to follow on from Liz Smith’s question about what might underpin the forthcoming legislation. The cabinet secretary stated that he would consider how best to use that legislation. Will he outline the perceived benefits that he sees from introducing legislation to widen access to all aspects of post-16 education?
The use of legislation is important because it will underpin our aspirations. We have been making slow but steady progress on increasing access under previous Administrations and the present one. However, as I said in my statement, the access issue is not just about access to university; it is about a range of possibilities. We need to consider whether we can guarantee continuing improvement in access. In some areas, it is possible to underpin that with legislative force. One important area that I mentioned is the access agreements that are negotiated by the SFC. That is our direction of travel and where the support lies. We now need to ensure that we devise legislation that will be effective and will produce a result. I am not interested in legislation for legislation’s sake; I am interested in legislation that will assist the good efforts of a range of people.
How will the loss of 100 more staff at Skills Development Scotland that was announced this week improve the learner journey through education into work?
The question of how Skills Development Scotland takes forward its business and activities is for Skills Development Scotland. If the member wants to ask that as a parliamentary question, I will ensure that the chief executive of Skills Development Scotland answers it. However, if the member is simply arguing, as he frequently does, that nothing should change and everything must stay the same in education, I will introduce him to the philosophy of conservatism.
What action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that research intensive universities, such as the University of Edinburgh, which has a Times Higher Education ranking of seventh in Europe, can derive the full economic benefits from the development of a single knowledge exchange office? That would support the university’s world-class outputs in renewables and life sciences, as the basis for future sustainable economic growth.
Knowledge exchange is extremely important. We have a strong world-beating research sector in Scotland, which—considering our size—is quite remarkable. We need to ensure that we do everything possible to encourage and support the sector, but translating the outcomes of the research into other activities in Scotland has been difficult. Some places have succeeded very well—the University of Edinburgh being a good example—but some have done fairly badly.
In my discussions with the universities, we have come to the conclusion that those that are doing well need to influence the process for those that are not. That is why the combined working between the funding council and Universities Scotland that I announced today, which will refine the proposal and ensure that it both learns from the experience of places such as the University of Edinburgh and brings some added value to that university, is the right way forward. Both sides are keen to work in that way, and I am keen to encourage them.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome his other comments this afternoon, notably on widening access.
May I focus on colleges? With ministerial endorsement of chairs, direction of and through the strategic forum, and what the cabinet secretary has called his “unashamedly far-reaching” process of merger, how can he allay fears that more controls are being invested in ministers and wrested away from local colleges and the communities in which they operate?
Scotland’s Colleges says that there is ambiguity about the status of a regional college, and the Griggs report appears to suggest that merger is inevitable. Can the cabinet secretary give us more detail about the status he sees collaboration and federation arrangements having? Will the £15 million transformation fund be exclusively for colleges that go down the merger route, or will it be open to those operating collaborative and federal approaches?
Let me start with the last point, because it is an important one. I made it clear yesterday, and am happy to make it clear again, that merger is not a precondition for access to the transformation fund. There are a number of other models developing in Scotland, including some collaborative agreements, but there has to be reality in those agreements. In one or two places, there is much talk about collaboration but little sign of such. We need to understand that, but merger is not a prerequisite.
I had an interesting discussion about regionalisation with principals and chairs yesterday. I hope that Scotland’s Colleges is much clearer now about the issue, but it is absolutely clear that the relationship between a regional strategic board and an individual college will change from place to place. In some places, there will be one single delivery college and in others there might be two or three colleges. We need to get that relationship right where structure is concerned. The paramount body will be the regional one because it will have the strategic overview.
I am grateful to be asked to allay fears, and I am sure that the fears are real in the member’s mind. I want to ensure that the structure is much more accountable. From the very beginning, I have pointed out that there is a lack of accountability in the college structure that needs to be addressed. Russel Griggs made the important point to the committee that there is a considerable difference between appointment and approval.
I want to ensure that the regional chairs are people with whom we can all work, but I have no desire to control the structures. I want to ensure that the structures emerge as accountable ones, and I want to create the ways in which there can be full accountability. The Griggs report and, in parallel, the von Prondzynski report talk strongly about how accountability can be applied to further and higher education, and I am keen to see those principles applied firmly and properly, providing an accountable sector. To be honest, we have not had that in every place up to now.
I very much welcome the fact that the Scottish Borders has been recognised as a separate region. How much progress does the cabinet secretary feel there has been since the consultation launched last September with organisations that initially were unconvinced by the reform proposals? Have those groups now joined Universities Scotland, the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils, the SFC and Professor Anton Muscatelli, among others, in committing to work towards change?
Yes, I think that they have. There are still odd pockets that need to be convinced—mostly Labour members. However, I am not entirely sure that I will ever convince Mr Findlay of the need for change—such a natural conservative he has become—but we have made significant progress with those of more open mind and disposition. There have been consultation responses from more than 300 organisations, individuals and institutions, and they have shown broad overall support for reform. “Putting Learners at the Centre” and the concurrent SFC consultation on college regionalisation have received strong support from colleges for the regional college model. In fact, the SFC described it as overwhelming support. As part of my continuing commitment, I have held regular meetings with principals, chairs, college leadership teams and a range of others including students, those who work in the colleges and the trade unions, and I will continue to do so.
I have met—I think—every single college principal. I have had meetings in a number of colleges and I am happy to go on doing so. Indeed, members have been bringing college principals to me, and I am happy to meet them with members. Consistent with that, I am establishing a change team that comprises core Scottish Government officials, the SFC and senior representatives in the college sector to continue to drive forward what is recognised as necessary change that will produce benefits for learners.
The statement refers to the opportunities for all agenda and the challenge that faces us all when it comes to tackling Scotland’s youth unemployment crisis. Some people believe that youth unemployment is endemic. Does the cabinet secretary share that view? If not, does his ambition for young people in Scotland extend to full employment?
My ambition for the world extends to full employment. I have lived through generations of Labour Governments that have never delivered it, but I am, as they say, aye hoping.
I want to see progress on youth employment. I was happy to see that the member was present at the event on 1 February. There is considerable scope for us to regard youth employment as a national priority and to work together on it, and I encourage that. If contributions are made from members in every part of the chamber, I will welcome that, and we will get things done together. We can choose to do that, or we can choose the sniping from Labour’s front bench. That is the choice—join in, and let us get it solved, or keep sniping. I know which I prefer, and to be honest, I think that Kezia Dugdale is the type of member who could contribute a great deal to that, if only her front bench would let her.
There will be outcome agreements with the new regional colleges. What does the cabinet secretary foresee that they will focus on initially, and will they be developed year on year?
I believe that college regional outcome agreements will be developed year on year, and I think that they will be very helpful. First, they have to focus on the aims of the post-16 reforms, meeting the needs of learners, supporting jobs and growth, delivering life chances, and developing the sustainability of the college sector. Initially, I expect colleges to focus on meeting the needs of learners in their own defined regions, and on delivering the structural change that will allow them to do that, in the process focusing on the needs of those regions. That will involve them delivering on our opportunities for all guarantee, putting in place effective structures and then looking forward.
I think that the agreements will be annual, in line with academic years. I suspect that, in time, they will develop to reflect the changing needs of regions and, more important, learners within those regions.
Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that mature students who return to further education to build on their skills or go on to higher education will be recognised and supported, and not disadvantaged as a result of his wide-ranging strategy of reducing budgets and of centralisation?
There is no such strategy, but let me give a guarantee that I am keen to encourage mature students. Indeed, I understand that Drew Duncan, the former chair of James Watt College, is at a loss to know what to do, given that he resigned in a pet because he was not being listened to. If he would like to learn in his own college, I am sure that he will get a place.