Education Reform Programme Board minutes: June 2022

Attendees and apologies

• Claire 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)
• Stephen Kerr (SK)
• Peter Hookway (PH)
• Louise Hayward (LH)
• Fiona Robertson (FR)
• Mike Baxter (MB)
• Gayle Gorman (GG)
• Grace Vickers (GV)
• Laura Caven (LC)
• Douglas Hutchison (DH)

Apologies

• Nicky Richards
• Helena Gray
• Gillian Hamilton

Guests

• Neil Cardwell
• Phil Young

Observers

• Chris Dunne

PMO

• Jill Roberts
• Gillian Winters

Items and actions

Summary of decisions and action points 

• PB070622 - D07 - Board gave their support to the first iteration of the Strategic Outline Case (SOC) and asked to see a future iteration in September
• PB070622 - D08 – It was agreed to extend future Board meetings to two hours
• PB070622 – AP24: LMc to discuss with SK approach taken by Social Security Scotland on the publication of the SOC
• PB070622 – AP25: LMc to consider how best to raise the profile of the UNCRC within the SOC
• PB070622 – AP26: Board to provide feedback to LMc on the SOC in writing or through follow up 1-2-1s if they have any further comments
• PB070622 – AP27: NC to ensure Communication and Engagement approach includes learners of all ages
• PB070622 – AP28: NC to ensure Communication and Engagement Plan addresses short term communication needs and includes Elected Members
• PB070622 – AP29: Communication and Engagement Slides to be shared with Board
• PB070622 – AP30: CH to review governance of Delivery Boards
• PB070622 – AP31: Consider new risks identified at risk review meeting 9 June
• PB070622 – AP32: CD to bring forward a Board paper on risk thresholds and establish an escalation process
•  PB070622 – AP33: RAID log will be shared with Board members as a BTL paper for future Boards
• PB070622 – AP34: Board to send feedback in writing on the New Inspectorate Commission to RS
• PB070622 – AP35: Board to let CH know of any concerns around meeting timings or frequency.

Welcome and introductions 

CH welcomed members to the fifth Programme Board, acknowledged new members and highlighted apologies.

Minutes and actions – PB4 (26 April 2022) 

GW noted that the minutes from PB4 were issued on the 12 May. No comments were received so minutes will be marked as approved.
 
GW noted there were 8 new actions from PB 4 and 3 outstanding actions from previous boards. Of the 11 outstanding actions; eight have been completed and three remain open. 

•  AP13 – meeting held between David Wallace, Stephen Kerr, Clare Hicks and Liza McLean week commencing 16 May. Board agreed to close this action and SK gave an open invitation for the Board members to revisit this further down the Programme timeline if needed
• AP17 – Board ToRs amended with recent changes to membership. Revised ToRs to be shared with members at the next Programme Board which will include the feedback from ES, SQA and the Unions, along with clarity around the roles of Local Authority partners within the Board
• AP19 – In Progress – SRO letter currently with DG for consideration 

Strategic outline case (SOC)for structural reform

LMc gave an overview of the SOC development, highlighting that the work has been developed using the 5-case model set out in the Treasury Green book.

She highlighted that the SOC is a living document and will continue to be developed iteratively.

She asked the Board to consider and provide feedback on the overall content of the Case; provide their input on the approach to developing benefits; and provide views on any gaps in the commissioning approach. She also welcomed comments in writing to feed into the next iteration of the SOC.

RS explained the commissioning approach and the interfaces between the new bodies work and components of design identified as cross cutting. He confirmed that this was phase one of the Target Operating Model development work and would guide efforts through to the end of this calendar year.

GV asked how the National Discussion will play into the work and how we join the dots with all the other changes going on. CH confirmed that work on the National Discussion is still in early development and the Programme will respond to that work as it progresses and be flexible in its response to related outputs.

SK also noted that the SOC under discussion has a particular role in relation to enabling the new bodies, and while it should demonstrate connections with the National Discussion, it shouldn’t try and manage that work. He then asked if LMc had given thought to publishing the SOC, and who would scrutinise before publication. He added that Internal Audit and Audit Scotland were used by Social Security Scotland for this purpose.

LMc advised that it was the intention for the SOC to be published. She also confirmed that planning was in place for a Gateway 0 review for August 2022. She welcomed the offer of further discussion with SK on the approach taken by Social Security Scotland prior to publication. 

Action - LMc to discuss with SK approach taken by Social Security Scotland on the publication of the SOC.
Owner - LMc
Deadline - 16 August 2022

AC commented on the financial aspects of the SOC still being at a high level. She emphasised that we would need to continue developing costings, review options and build these into future portfolio finance planning. It was noted that there was scope within the design of the new bodies to build on the existing commercial services and revenue raising and this should be considered by the Programme.

In terms of benefits realisation, LMc was encouraged to look at how we further define benefits in the SOC so as not to stretch the Programme too thinly. We also need to consider benefits from the wider perspective of Curriculum for Excellence and the Learner journey, including early level curriculum and consider resourcing priorities for new organisations.

KM asked about the timeline for the National Discussion, when outcomes will be published and how we will dovetail these activities into the Programme. CH anticipated more information around who will be involved, timescales etc. in the Cabinet Secretary’s June statement. The expectation is that the National Discussion will be formally launched in September. 

MB noted that the interdependency of Professor Hayward’s work would have a significant bearing on the new qualifications body. The timing of when decisions are made following conclusion of Professor Hayward’s work will be key. He also added that resourcing will have a significant impact on the aspiration in the SOC to deliver within the proposed timescale. He added that clarity about resourcing requirements across transformation, transition and continued delivery is vital. CH noted that there would need to be rigorous and ongoing assessment of these risks.

GV added that the SOC should give more detail to the work going on around the UNCRC. LMc agreed to take this forward.

Action - LMc to consider how best to raise the profile of the UNCRC within the SOC.
Owner - LMc
Deadline - 01 August 2022

FR noted that she would have liked more time to review the SOC to ensure it provides a clear and compelling case for change. She noted that questions remain around delivery and wider interdependencies and added that we need to consider how we present the material to staff in the existing organisations. She also noted that related delivery timelines are highly ambitious.

CH advised that the SOC would continue to be developed iteratively, including to take on Board comments from the Board and other stakeholders, and will be brought back to the Board in September.

Action - Board to provide feedback to LMc on the SOC in writing or through follow up 1-2-1s if they have any further comments.
Owner - LMc
Deadline - 01 August 2022

Decision – Board gave their support to the first iteration of the Strategic Outline Case (SOC) and asked to see a future iteration in September.

Communications and engagement project brief

NC presented a strategic approach to communications and engagement for the work on structural reform. The approach recognises the importance, complexity and sensitivities around the reform agenda, how it is communicated internally and externally by and with our respective organisations, and how we engage and involve stakeholders.

He acknowledged the need to be realistic about the risks that a reform programme of this nature carries from a communications and engagement perspective. He added that collective work around development of joint narratives to support and communicate the process and purpose of reform activity had begun.

He asked for the Boards thoughts on the approach and their support for the approach. 

CH added that it was important to get partners and stakeholder to recognise the complexity of the messaging around this.

GV commented that learners were not mentioned, and they need to be up front and central in this approach. 

Action - NC to ensure Communication and Engagement approach includes learners of all ages. 
Owner - NC
Deadline - 30 June 2022

FR added the need to recognise the tension between the messaging around the need for change and the organisations and people who are continuing to deliver. This needs to be navigated carefully and thoughtfully so that existing bodies and the services they deliver still have credibility and the ability to deliver, and that the risks arising to this ongoing delivery caused by the pressures of the need to change are mitigated.

DH commented on the urgent need to get something published on progress. CH noted that the Cabinet Secretary will aim to address this gap with her June statement. 

LM Noted that Elected Members will need to be engaged and communicated with on an ongoing basis too. 

Action - NC to ensure Communication and Engagement Plan addresses short term communication needs and includes Elected Members. 
Owner - NC
Deadline - 30 June 2022

FR added that communications need to be tailored to different audiences, noting that the focus has been on the governance models for reform but learners and those whose jobs are potentially affected need to know how the reform impacts them.

GG added that it is important that communications are co-ordinated and in the right sequence, noting that people working in the organisations affected need to be high priority. She welcomed the joint approach being taken so far. 

CH commented that we will hold the Communications and Engagement strategy against the principles set out, ensuring the story makes sense and is sequenced carefully. 

GV asked if a decision has been made around when the change to the qualifications will happen given the time these changes need to work through the system.

CH responded that the outputs from the Independent Review Group Qualifications and Assessment (IRCQA) were due in March 2023 and decisions would be taken thereafter and that it is high on the list of dependencies. 

Action - Communication and Engagement Slides to be shared with Board.
Owner - JR
Deadline - 24 June 2022

Commissioning approach

RS gave a further update on how the commissioning approach would work, with commissions being owned by Programme Directors and governed through Delivery Boards, reporting to the Programme Strategic Board.

MB added that the paper set out a high-level approach, but more detail would be needed. He noted that we need to look at wider technology changes; there are broader system issues if those charged with delivery of education system at local and regional level are not considered. 

GL noted the risk of having colleagues from existing bodies chairing the Delivery Boards. This could be perceived as existing organisations designing the new organisations. DH agreed. There is a significant risk that ES and SQA are perceived to be designing their own reform.

GG pointed out that the governance structure makes it clear where decisions are made, and that successful reform needs significant input and expertise from within the current organisations.

FR agreed with GG adding that expertise needs to be galvanised so that the Reform Programme achieves what it has set out to do. Staff need to feel respected and valued for the expertise they bring and be involved in helping shape the future. 

DH agreed that expertise of the organisations is key, but we risk the whole programme if stakeholders believe that reform process lacks grit. There is potential for criticism in Parliament, and this is a significant risk. 

GL was sensitive to staff wellbeing and expertise and acknowledged that staff need to play their part.

GG added that professionals need to be at the heart of this. Criticism will be for a brief period and our communication strategy should be used to mitigate against this.

CH added that decision making for the programme sits with SRO, she noted the importance of the existing organisations involvement in reform processes while acknowledging the perception risks highlighted, she agreed to reflect on the governance of the Delivery Boards to ensure this risk was mitigated and would confirm the approach to the Board.

Action - CH to review governance of Delivery Boards 
Owner - CH and RS
Deadline - 24 June 2022

Update on spending review and programme budget

CH updated the board on Spending Review. The Budget has been agreed at level 2 with plans to align with 2023 to 2024 budget.Within the SOC, the Financial and Economic cases will continue to develop and reflect this context.

Programme dasboard and risk heat map 

JR presented the programme dashboard and confirmed the addition of a RAG definition following discussions at Programme Board last month. She highlighted key priorities and next steps for the Programme including preparation for the Cabinet Secretary’s statement later this month.

JR then presented the heatmap. She advised the Board that nine risks had been closed and an additional 11 risks had been identified. She then provided a summary of the latest mitigation on the 5 red risks currently held by the Programme.

GV added that we may need to add risks around designing new organisations before the National Discussion has started and failure to meet the needs of learners during this ongoing work.

Action - Consider new risks identified at risk review meeting 9 June.
Owner - JR
Deadline - 21 June 2022

FR acknowledged that the risks were heavily focused on SQA but agreed with the risk assessments, adding that mitigations could be further developed.

GV added that we may need to look at management of risks, calling in all risk registers relating to strategic and operational matters. SK added that this may overload the Board and that the escalation process needs to be clearly defined. 
verall, the Board noted that risk management arrangements are working well, but maturity of mitigations needs further development. 

Action - CD to bring forward a Board paper on risk thresholds and establish an escalation process.
Owner - CD and JR
Deadline - 16 August 2022

Action - RAID log will be shared with Board members as a BTL paper for future Boards.
Owner - JR
Deadline - 16 August 2022

Any other business

CH asked the Board for any comments on the draft New Inspectorate Commission - BTL paper 1 

Action: - Board to send feedback in writing on the New Inspectorate Commission to RS. 
Owner - All
Deadline - 30 June 2022

CH asked the Board to consider extending the meeting to 2 hours to allow more items to be covered and sufficient time allowed as the Programme progresses. This 

Decision – Decision to extend the meeting to 2 hours was agreed by the Board. 

Action - Board to let CH know of any concerns around meeting timings or frequency. 
Owner - All
Deadline - 30 June 2022

CH thanked the Board for their contributions and ended the meeting – next meeting will be 16 August 2022.