A d v ic e Pa p er (12 -02)

Februa ry 2 0 1 2

REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF FURTHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE IN SCOTLAND: a response to the Scottish Governments call for comments

Summary
We are concerned by the absence of an overarching strategy for post-16 education and skills. There is a need for a coordinated approach to identifying the strategic priorities and needs of education in Scotland. The report recommends some radical changes to the way in which colleges are constituted, governed, funded and managed both regionally and nationally. Although there are passing references to systems in other countries, little empirical evidence is presented to support the conclusions. Professor Griggs believes that implementation of the totality of the recommendations is required to bring about necessary change. It is difficult to find a justification for this assertion. Arguably, progress towards a regional model of governance should be made and then properly evaluated before further change is contemplated. The recommendation that chairs of boards should be remunerated is contentious, as has been demonstrated by the review of governance in universities, where this issue has prompted a minority dissention. Much greater consideration of the implications of such a step is required in both sectors. The Review recommends that the Minister should endorse the appointment of a chair, but it is not clear who would make the appointment and what powers are implied by the term endorsement. The Report advocates the establishment of a new national FE Strategic Forum with significant leadership, management and financial responsibilities, and with political direction.There is little analysis or evaluation of the implications of such a step or of the risks that it poses. It raises fundamental questions about the constitutional status of colleges, the financial autonomy of regional boards, and the relative roles of government and the Scottish Funding Council. Much more detailed investigation of these issues is required.

A d v ic e Pa p er (12 - 02)

Through its Education Committee, the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), Scotlands National Academy, identifies and promotes priorities for education in Scotland, and at all stages.The Education Committee comprises individuals with expertise and experience in and across the school, college and university sectors. We are concerned by the absence of an overarching strategy for post-16 education and skills. It is unfortunate that budgetary decisions that will have significant implications for schools, colleges and universities have been made without there being a coordinated approach to identifying the strategic priorities and needs of education in Scotland. In particular, we have real concerns about the extent to which the college sector can meet the expectations placed upon it in the face of the significant funding reductions it is experiencing. If the sector is to maximise its contribution to the governments aim of sustainable economic growth for Scotland, then sufficient resources must be in place to enable it to do so. While we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Report of the Review of Further Education Governance in Scotland, the short time allowed for responses is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly as there was limited opportunity to contribute to the review during its preparation. The report recommends some radical changes to the way in which colleges are constituted, governed, funded and managed both regionally and nationally. Although there are passing references to systems in other countries, little empirical evidence is presented to support the conclusions. Therefore implementation carries a degree of risk to the sustainability of the essential services provided by colleges. It cannot be guaranteed that the changes would have the positive outcomes attributed to them. It is crucial that sufficient time is allowed for the college sector to comment on the report before the Cabinet Secretary reaches a view on the implementation of its recommendations and thereafter, a continuing process of consultation is highly desirable. Professor Griggs believes that implementation of the totality of the recommendations is required to bring about necessary change. It is difficult to find a justification for this assertion. It could surely be argued that progress towards a regional model of governance, itself a radical step, should be made and then properly evaluated before further change is contemplated. Certainly it is important that consideration of wider issues should not disrupt the process of regionalisation. Taking the incorporation of Colleges in 1992-3 as a starting point is helpful as a context for the Review. 8

Professor Griggs points to a series of inconsistencies that have arisen in the operation of colleges since incorporation and to a small number of high profile difficulties with individual colleges. This underplays both the successes of incorporated autonomous colleges and the very positive developments in governance and management of colleges that have taken place in recent years, which will be built on as the regional arrangements evolve. Consistency across regions will be important but it will also be essential to promote local responsiveness and innovative practice. There are also positive lessons to be learned from the success of recent mergers. Evaluations of these mergers provide evidence of both financial efficiencies and improvements in provision and services for learners. 7 Regionalisation, for most colleges, already seems to be accepted as the best way forward to preserve services to learners in the context of reduced resources, and to further enhance services through a coherent approach to identifying and meeting regional priorities. The Review emphasises the importance of ensuring that there is clarity about the role and purpose of the new regional governance arrangements and of ensuring that the regional colleges or groups of colleges work well with other stakeholders. These relationships and partnerships will be important in delivering the ambitions of Putting Learners at the Centre. Bringing greater transparency and rigour to the appointment of chairs and members of boards is a worthy objective and would build on the steps already taken by many colleges to open up board appointments through good recruitment and selection processes. If use of the full Public Appointments process is deemed necessary, care must be taken to preserve the accountability of boards to local and regional stakeholders. Furthermore, in order to ensure that potential candidates are not deterred from applying, it will be important to ensure that this process does not add an unnecessary layer of complexity and bureaucracy. The recommendation that chairs of boards should be remunerated is contentious, as has been demonstrated by the review of governance in universities, where this issue has prompted a minority dissention. Much greater consideration of the implications of such a step is required in both sectors. The Review recommends that the Minister should endorse the appointment of a chair, but it is not clear who would make the appointment and what powers are implied by the term endorsement. In our view, the board members themselves should play a decisive role in the appointment process to ensure that the chair has the full confidence of the board.

A d v ic e Pa p er (12 - 02)
10 Professor Griggs asserts that Colleges should not become public bodies in the formal sense. We are unsure what is meant by the term public body and note that some of the later recommendations to transfer powers of intervention to the government could have a bearing on the status of colleges. Greater investigation of the implications of these recommendations is urgently required, to avoid possible unforeseen consequences. 11 We understand that the Scottish Funding Council is already developing an outcome based funding model for the regions. The Review emphasises simplicity in the setting of outcomes.An equally important consideration is that the outcomes are able to reflect the complex nature of learners needs. This type of thinking is crucial if we really are to put Learners at the Centre. Furthermore, outcomes should be based on sound, transparent and relevant demographic and other evidence and there should be an appropriate balance between delegation of responsibility to regions and accountability for delivery of outcomes. 12 Clearly, once the regional arrangements are established, there will be scope for regions to collaborate across Scotland and to consider certain skills issues at a national level. There is some good evidence of this happening already, facilitated by the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland. The Review advocates going well beyond voluntary co-operation towards a more formal national structure with wider roles and purposes.Whilst questioning the rationale for formal national structures, we support the continued development of arrangements for national oversight of skills development in certain economic sectors of national importance. 13 The Report advocates the establishment of a new national FE Strategic Forum with significant leadership, management and financial responsibilities, and with political direction.There is little analysis or evaluation of the implications of such a step or of the risks that it poses. It raises fundamental questions about the constitutional status of colleges, the financial autonomy of regional boards, and the relative roles of government and the Scottish Funding Council. Much more detailed investigation of these issues is required. 14 It would be one thing for the FE Strategic Forum to review college provision with a view to making recommendations, it would be quite another for such a Forum under ministerial direction to mandate changes. We contend that it is the institutions themselves who are best placed to determine the most appropriate course of action to be taken. 15 In this context, given that the majority of college activity is locally and regionally based, greater consideration will have to be given to how this will continue to be delivered against a background of national strategic and economic priorities, particularly as national priorities may not necessarily align with local and regional needs. It will be important not to undermine the autonomy of the regional boards or to compromise their ability to attract and retain talented chairs, board members and senior staff.

Additional Information and References

This Advice Paper has been prepared by the RSE Education Committee and signed off by the General Secretary.

Any enquiries about this Advice Paper should be addressed to the RSEs Consultations Officer, Mr William Hardie (Email: evidenceadvice@royalsoced.org.uk) Responses are published on the RSE website (www.royalsoced.org.uk).
Advice Paper (Royal Society of Edinburgh) ISSN 2040-2694

The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) is Scotlands National Academy. It is an independent body with a multidisciplinary fellowship of men and women of international standing which makes it uniquely placed to offer informed, independent comment on matters of national interest. The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland's National Academy, is Scottish Charity No. SC000470