Education Reform Programme Board minutes: April 2022

Attendees and apologies

• Clare Hicks (CH)
• Graeme Logan (GL)
• Stephen Pathirana (SP)
• Alison Cummings (AC)
• Elaine Lothian (EL)
• Liza McLean (LMc)
• Robert Skey (RS)
• Laura Murdoch (LM)
• Geoff Huggins (GH)
• Jennifer Bradley (JB)
• Adam Reid (AR)
• Michael Chalmers (MC)
• Ken Muir (KM)

Apologies

• Stephen Kerr
• Peter Hookway
• Nicky Richards
• Helena Gray
• Louise Hayward

Observers

• Neil Cardwell

PMO

• Jill Roberts
• Gillian Winters

Items and actions

Summary of decisions and action points

• PB260422 – D03: board agreed for the board membership to include CEO’s from SQA, ES and Local Government representation
• PB260422 – D04: board gave their support for the proposed Governance Model
• PB260422 – D05: board gave their support to the development of the SOC and the timeline presented
• PB260422 – AP16: GH to meet with LM and CH to have fuller discussion around options for support on digital transformation
• PB260422 – AP17: TORs to be revised to include changes to governance structure, including roles of the SRO and board
• PB260422 – AP18: Governance Model to be amended to show clear link to Accountable Officer
• PB260422 – AP19: Programme SRO to be issued with a SRO letter from the Accountable Officer
• PB260422 – AP20: Change terminology from New Scrutiny Body to New Inspectorate on Governance model
• PB260422 – AP21: Letters of invitation to the board to be issued to CEO’s from SAQ and ES and representation from Local Government
• PB260422 – AP22: SOC to go through QR process before next board so that first iteration can be shared then for sign off
• PB260422 – AP23: Guidance on definition of Programme RAG to be shared with members

Welcome and introductions

CH welcomed welcome members to the fourth Programme Board and acknowledged apologies.

Minutes and actions – PB3 (15 March 2022)

GW noted comments from KM on PB3 minutes at section 4, that the wider system should replace the whole piece and that the minutes have been amended to reflect this. There were no other comments, and the minutes are now approved.

GW noted one outstanding action point from PB3 and this will be followed up with SK

SP noted that it was Katherine Peskett and Michelle Wallace who attended ALS meeting with KM.

GW noted outstanding actions points from PB1&2. Aims and Objectives (PB1) still require socialisation and work to complete and will be circulated for approval ahead of PB5, and the resource plan for risk ER20 has been developed and will be discussed at today’s board meeting.

Programme resource plan

CH noted that in response to the risk deep dive at PB on 2 February the board asked for more detail around risk ER20 - Programme capacity to deliver reform in terms of capabilities and capacity – and invited LMc to present the paper.

LMc gave an overview of the Programme Resource Plan, highlighting that the decisions following Professor Muir’s report had provided the Programme Team with sufficient clarity to develop an approach to resourcing this next phase. A business case on the basis on this Plan has been submitted to DG Education and Justice with a final decision pending the outcome of the Resource Spending review

Existing vacancies in the team are currently being pursued through redeployment and management move opportunities and are listed on the High Priority vacancy board.

LMc highlighted that ES and SQA staff will also need to be dedicated to the Programme and this is reflected in the business case in terms of potential need to back fill roles.

LMc sought views from the board on,

• if the plan strikes the right balance in terms of resource for this stage of the programme,
• how robust it is in terms of what needs to be delivered, and
• if there were any parallels in reform or lessons the board could share.

EL commented that it was a welcome step to clearly establish what is needed, and asked if the Programme had considered the level of risk and impact of inability to recruit in to key roles at the appropriate times, especially around Organisational Design, which would be critical.

JB highlighted the need to consider resource requirements arising from the Programme on Education Analytical Services as there are a number of pressures on resource in this area.

SP noted the importance of considering resourcing alongside the critical timelines for the Programme, in terms of the viability of the plan.

LMc responded that recruitment would be done in phases on the basis of the key milestones for the Programme, driven by the legislative timetable. Priority is therefore being afforded to recruiting to the policy teams needed for developing policy instructions and the Bill Team, which will be needed at latest by July.

GH highlighted the need for the Programme to consider the impact of the wider Scottish Government context of downward pressures on headcount. In terms of use of the Digital Transformation Service, Digital Directorate can advise on the best potential routes to secure support for digital transformation as part of the Programme.

• action: GH to meet with LM and CH to have fuller discussion around options for support on digital transformation.
• owner: JR
• deadline: 07 June 2022

KM highlighted the need to work closely with the Change Teams within the existing predecessor bodies.

Governance, roles, and responsibilities

RS presented slides on the proposed new Programme Governance, Roles, and Responsibilities, noting that the model reflects proven practice from other change programmes e.g. in Social Security Scotland and Public Health Scotland, and also noting that the model is currently with the Education Scotland, SQA and their Trade Unions for comment.

The new governance arrangements will support the Discovery and Design phases of the programme but will be formally reviewed before Delivery phase.

RS sought the board’s views on:

• whether the structure gave the right the balance of oversight and accountability at the right levels.
• proposal to extend membership to include CEOs of SQA, ES, as well as Local Government representation.

GH recommended that, when the TORs are reviewed, that it is made clear that the SRO is the decision maker and that other Board Members’ roles will be to advise, support and challenge. He would also like to see the Accountable Officer reflected on the Governance Model.

GH also stated it is good practice to issue the Programme SRO with a SRO letter from the Accountable Officer, detailing responsibilities and accountabilities. It was advised that the Programme Team have this in hand and will report back to the board when this has been done.

KM asked that the term Scrutiny Body be replaced by Inspectorate, as throughout his consultation the use of the term scrutiny was referred to as not being liked.

AC noted that the Programme will need a well-staffed PMO and it was therefore good to see this reflected in plans.

Action -  TORs to be revised to include changes to governance structure, including roles of the SRO and board.
Owner: - RS
Deadline: 7 June 2022

Action - Governance Model to be amended to show clear link to Accountable Officer.
Owner - RS
Deadline - 13 May 2022

Action - Programme SRO to be issued with a SRO letter from the Accountable Officer.
Owner - JR and RS
Deadline - 13 May 2022

 

Action - RS to change terminology from New Scrutiny Body to New Inspectorate on Governance model.
Owner - RS
Deadline - 7 June 2022

Decision: Board agreed for the board membership to include CEO’s from SQA, ES and Local Government representation.

Decision: Board gave their support for the proposed Governance Model, subject to comments above.

• action: Letters of invitation to the Board to be issued to CEO’s from SAQ and ES and representation from Local Government.
• owner: CH and RS
• deadline: 13 May 2022

Strategic outline case

LMc shared details of the work undertaken so far to develop the Strategic Outline Case (SOC), drawing on a range of information, including the OECD and Professor Muir’s reports. The timeline for full business case to be in place was set out.

The quality review process of the SOC has started, and will be presented to the board at its June meeting.

LMc asked for the board's views on the outline content and timeline for the development of the business case.

GH – reflected on the retrospective nature given decisions that have already been taken but agreed that the SOC would give strength to and support scrutiny of those decision.

GL supported the development of the SOC noting there are still a number of important decisions to be made, and the SOC could also help identify further areas for developments and improvement, and the identification of different solutions.

Decision: board gave their support to the development of the SOC and the timeline presented.

Action - SOC to go through QR process before next board so that first iteration can be shared then for sign off.
Owner - JR
Deadline - 7 June 2022

Programme dashboard and risk heat map

JR talked through the Programme Dashboard, highlighting that Programme Board agendas to-date have been weighted towards the Structural Reform side of the Programme, but going forward the board will start to see more detailed updates and agenda items on the OECD and Professor Hayward work. The dashboard does however provide an update on this work.

JR presented the Risk Heat Map, highlighting that four risks have closed, three risks have increased, and three risks have decreased since the last board.

Risk ER12 – has been escalated and will be included on the DG risk register for the DG assurance meeting in May.

LMc made the board aware that the SQA board has separately escalated five of its people risks to the Scottish Government, citing the impact of the Reform Programme as the reason, and that the SQA Sponsorship Team is managing a process of requesting further information from SQA about the reasons for this and providing advice to DG on next steps.

LM asked whether, given the increase of risk, whether the overall programme RAG assessment of Amber was still appropriate.

The Programme Team have reviewed the guidance and believe the amber status is more reflective of where the Programme is just now.

Amber RAG assessment criteria is defined as: Successful delivery appears feasible but issues already exist requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and if addressed promptly, should not present a cost/schedule overrun.

Action - guidance on definition of Programme RAG to be shared with members
Owner - JR
Deadline - 7 June 2022

Any other business

CH thanked the board for their contributions and ended the meeting – next meeting will be 7 June 2022.