Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation

Chapter 4: Recommendations

4.01 This chapter sets out my recommendations for the structural and operational changes that I believe are required to deliver on the pillars of success I have identified for the future landscape. These focus on the specific aspects that I was asked to consider in the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Review i.e. recommendations for how the public body and advisory group landscape should be adapted to deliver on the ambitions for the system including ensuring Scotland's workforce can support the transition to net zero, and that all learners have the opportunities to develop the skills they need to equip them for rewarding careers, and, specifically, my views on the future remit, functions and status of Skills Development Scotland (SDS).

Decisive national direction and leadership

4.02 The passion of individuals within our skills system to deliver for people of all ages should be cherished. It is also clear that there is much good work that is already in place at a national and local level which demonstrates partnership working and innovation in tackling skills and workforce related issues.

4.03 I am keen that my recommendations do not cut across or diminish instances of good practice, but, whilst it is encouraging to see such approaches, it is not clear that the current system facilitates their replication or adaption. Indeed, the system itself often acts as a barrier to collaboration. One of the main issues that emerged through my discussions was the confusion over who does what and who has ultimate responsibility for delivery and performance. I have distinguished between complexity on the one hand (which can reflect the range of interventions to support differing needs) and clarity on the other hand (which is needed to avoid duplication, lack of understanding and overlap).

4.04 In the absence of clarity of purpose for the system and a clear definition of success, good intent can lead to fracturing of activity, with agencies and other actors working at cross purposes. This results in a feeling that the system is sub-optimal, and somehow unable to be agile or flexible enough to respond to short- and medium-term challenges. 

4.05 The ability to define success is also hampered by the fact that there is no single agreement on it. Indeed, there are conflicting views, including from national agencies, and no single position on how the system could be redesigned to improve delivery of outcomes to those who use and rely on it. So, while the complexity in the system could be seen as an argument for simplification, it is also a barrier to identifying how that can be best achieved.

4.06 In short, the landscape has become too fragmented and confused. At best, there are overlapping responsibilities, at worst, individual parts of the system work against each other. This has been occasionally evident in my own engagement with SDS and the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), from which I heard very different perspectives on the purpose and vision for the post-school learning system.

4.07 This underlines the requirement for decisive leadership and direction; something that I think has been absent from the system as the Scottish Government has devolved its responsibilities to different agencies, rather than bringing all partners together under one coherent narrative. For the system to work to best effect, I believe what is needed is significant reform of the public body landscape coupled with more decisive leadership from government in establishing and communicating a shared direction of travel with greater coordination and oversight of activities. This could reverse the fragmented culture that has arisen and provide the direction and accountability needed to reflect the significant investment that is being made.

Recommendation 1

The Scottish Government must take a clearer leadership role in post-school learning policy and stronger oversight of delivery and performance.

Within the context of this Review's recommendations for reform, it should:

• set out clearly the remits and expectations of its national agencies operating in the post-school landscape thus removing ambiguity and limiting opportunities for duplication or divergent narratives,
• build into the design, statutes and structures of its bodies the expectation of joint working within an integrated post-school learning system, and;
• prepare and publish a clear framework setting out where accountability for different functions lies across the landscape.

Parity of esteem

4.08 I have already indicated my belief that all pathways which support a positive destination for an individual have equal merit and should have equal status and esteem within the system and society.

4.09 Structures and language matter, because, in practice, how systems work and the way we talk about them can reinforce stigma or serve to counteract their intended aims or purpose. Close attention to language and structures are therefore fundamental to achieving parity of esteem, by which I mean a shared acknowledgement that different pathways are simply different: not better, not worse, just different. In other words, and to be blunt, I want to consign to the dustbin the outdated view that studying at university is somehow a "better" kind of success. It is undoubtedly something to be celebrated: we should be proud of Scotland's university sector and for many it is an important part of their post-school journey. However, there are multiple potential pathways available addressing different learning approaches, using different contexts to provide experience, and meeting individual (and economic and societal) needs.

4.10 I have already noted the tensions in the current landscape and the need for reform in the structures of our national agencies. Currently, the distinction made between educational and vocational routes is outdated, has perpetuated a lack of collaboration between key public sector institutions and is hampering the coherence of Scotland's post-school learning system. From my engagements with system users and stakeholders, I believe that it has also contributed to unhelpful and often unspoken assumptions, including, for instance, that wishing to enter the workforce directly after school is somehow a lesser ambition than continued study. National policy should recognise that skills are not an alternative to education, but an essential product of learning and training, and give equal value to the various settings and pathways in and through which skills development can occur.

4.11 As I have set out already, my ambition for the post-school learning system is that every individual is able to gain the knowledge, skills, experience and opportunities to progress through their learning and individual development towards the world of work, where it is possible and appropriate for them to do so. If an individual has equitable access to learning, reaches a destination in the workplace that feels right for them, is fairly rewarded in a role which contributes to them living a fulfilled life, then I think that Scotland's post-school learning system will have succeeded. To achieve this, it is critical that the Scottish Government puts in place, through its Purpose and Principles work, a clearer articulation of the outcomes that it wants to see from the post-school learning system. From the Scottish Government downwards there needs to be more careful consideration and articulation of the measures and performance indicators that we use to determine success and track progress.

4.12 Closely linked with this is the need to establish a shared language. During discussions with stakeholders I heard many times that our use of language perpetuates false divisions (e.g. speaking of education or work; learning or skills) and causes confusion through a lack of clarity in the terms used. There needs to be an agreed, shared language so that all actors in the system can work together to reinforce a positive, collaborative approach to ensuring that everyone can access the relevant information and all options are understood to be equally valid. Ultimately, we need to consider the entire post-school landscape as a holistic, integrated learning system which recognises that that learning happens in school, colleges, universities, workplaces and elsewhere in communities.

4.13 Together with the specific recommendation below, all the recommendations in this report are aimed at shifting the structures and processes in the landscape towards a single, integrated system which has parity of esteem embedded throughout.

Recommendation 2

Through its Purpose and Principles, the Scottish Government should establish a single, coherent narrative for what a successful post-school learning system looks like and how progress towards it will be measured.

This should:

• be accompanied by a shared terminology which sets a common strategic language and intent.
• seek to break down the tensions and false dichotomies in the current system, and;
• ensure that policy development, performance measures and programme initiatives do not inadvertently drive behaviours which run contrary to the need for parity of esteem.

Needs-based skills planning processes

4.14 In my analysis of the current landscape, I identified a fundamental question about what and for whom we are planning which I think is critical to developing successful approaches for skills alignment. It is, I think, the same point that Audit Scotland expressed in its report on the subject in recommending that the Scottish Government set out its strategic intent for skills alignment, the outcomes it aims to achieve, and how it will measure progress. Suffice to say, I don't think we yet have a satisfactory answer.

4.15 We are told alignment is about 'matching available skills to needs' but whose needs? Need is not the same thing as 'demand', yet they are often conflated. Labour market intelligence can only get us so far and when it comes to strategic ambitions, there are niche industries with low levels of demand which might be as critical to delivering policy intentions as sectors looking for high numbers of new employees. Equally, the market may lag transformation ambitions and will require intervention to drive demand to meet needs.

4.16 Understanding the imperative underpinning skills planning should help us to identify the structures that are required to support it. At a basic level, I think it is very difficult to plan for skills at a national level. Much of the economy operates more locally and it is unrealistic to expect national government or its agencies to have a role in leading the development (or meeting the needs) of every single economic sector or profession. Yet, there are sectors and professions that will be integral to the delivery of national policy ambitions, which face critical shortages or where there isn't currently demand in the market, and where investment is required to drive and incentivise the workforce. I am thinking, in particular, of the changes that might be required to support just transition, where government is seeking to play an active role in changing market and individual behaviours and shaping a green economy.

4.17 To use resources to best effect, and to ensure funding and provision can be aligned to need (not just demand), then there must be a clear articulation of the areas that are a national priority. This goes beyond signalling 'economic transformation' or 'net zero' into a specific articulation, aligned to strategic policy intentions, of the sectors and occupations that will be critical to their delivery and their workforce needs. With this deeper understanding of the requirements of critical sectors and occupations alongside an assessment of their relative importance in the context of strategic outcomes and ambitions, skills action plans will be better placed to more effectively drive delivery and guide investment.

4.18 This requires a clear process for prioritisation and for the resulting priorities to be articulated and communicated to enable delivery bodies responsible for learning and training provision to ensure that their services and parts of the system are delivering against those priorities. It is my view, because of its strategic role in setting policy ambitions, that this is something that can only be done by the Scottish Government, under Scottish Ministers, as it is they who will ultimately take decisions about priorities, how funding is aligned to ambitions, how incentives are built into the system, and can direct and hold agencies to account for their part in delivery.

4.19 Of course, these decisions must not be taken in a vacuum. Good data and intelligence will be critical to support and inform decision-making and to enable the measurement of impact. I would expect the Scottish Government, in developing its approach to national planning to work closely with the National Strategy for Economic Transformation (NSET) Delivery Board and Industry leadership Groups (ILGs) to ensure that the criteria for prioritisation are transparent and well-informed. Although there is currently a reasonable amount of labour market intelligence flowing through the system, it isn't easily accessible to different stakeholders to interpret for their own needs, and there is a deficit of quality interpretation or analysis connected to strategic ambitions and policy development.

4.20 The intelligence that comes from having oversight will also enable the Scottish Government to better manage expectations, particularly where labour market challenges are related to other drivers, for example, population growth, migration or the political economy. There will, I anticipate, also be efficiencies in bringing these functions into the Government. At present, there are resources in both SFC and SDS which are committed to skills planning together with staff in Scottish Government who are managing the assurance of this work and mediating the relationship between the two bodies.

4.21 It is not my intention to underplay or devalue the work that both agencies are doing, but I believe, going forward, a more centralised, directive approach to national skills planning will enable the prioritisation, direction and accountability that is needed.

Recommendation 3

The Scottish Government should be responsible for national skills planning and oversight of sector and regional needs, including the collation and dissemination of relevant labour market intelligence and data.

Government officials, on behalf of Scottish Ministers, should:

• establish a transparent process for identifying and communicating national priorities for workforce and skills linked to strategic policy ambitions;
• develop central oversight of national skills needs across Ministerial portfolios to ensure there is a comprehensive national picture to inform decision-making and prioritisation; and
• urgently articulate the specific skills requirements associated with the policies in the Climate Change Plan and assess these against existing provision in the post-school learning system, taking a whole-system perspective to ensure that there is a cumulative understanding of skills needs of the path to net zero.

The relevant resources, currently in Skills Development Scotland, allocated to skills planning should be transferred to the Scottish Government to provide capacity and expertise to develop this function.

Clear regional autonomy

4.22 Although I have outlined a case for national skills planning to be delivered centrally by Scottish Government, I am strongly of the view that the structures and decisions to better support skills planning and delivery of skills provision in local and regional economies should not need to be taken or controlled nationally. Owing to their place-based nature, partnership approaches that are developed locally are likely to be stronger and, in most cases, should be more effective at securing buy-in from employers and professional bodies to ensure alignment with local skills requirements. A recognition of the need to devolve more decision making is an important feature of NSET which has emphasised the need to work collaboratively with regions to deliver economic goals.

4.23 However, to enable regional bodies to be responsive to requirements, they need more autonomy in decision-making. There is currently too much prescription at a national level on post-school skills and learning delivery, constraining the ability of local areas to determine what delivery best suits the needs of their region. It makes no sense to me, for example, for a national agency to be determining how many funded apprenticeship places a local college should be allocated and impeding the ability of the college to transfer places between different frameworks in response to need. If we accept that there are, at a national level, overriding imperatives that the skills system must embrace, then beyond these, local areas need the freedom and flexibility to decide how funding is utilised, to consider the specific needs of their communities, and the planning needed to ultimately support the success of local labour markets.

4.24 As noted by the Regional Economic Policy Advisory Group (REPAG) in its recent Review of Regional Economic Policy^[19] there is a local and regional desire to use existing structures and enable regional actors to take responsibility for local ambition and problem-solving. Yet there are currently multiple actors across Scotland with strong local focus in delivering skills development – 32 Local Authorities and associated Local Employability Partnerships and 30 Chambers of Commerce; 26 colleges and 19 universities; multiple local charities and community groups; and local employers large and small. Presently, it is possible for each of these bodies individually or collectively to bid to a myriad of different funding streams and opportunities, each with unique bidding and reporting requirements, to support their skills development plans and provision. Layered on top of this are several regional groupings, often overlapping with each other, which have coalesced or come into being around requirements for Regional Skills Plans or to access specific funding opportunities (such as Region Deal funding).

4.25 In my view, Scotland is too small and integrated to have multiple regional skills frameworks. The REPAG Review makes a strong case for adhering to the eight existing Regional Economic Partnerships (Ayrshire; Edinburgh and the South East of Scotland; Forth Valley; Glasgow City Region; Highlands & Islands; North East; South of Scotland; Tay) for regional economic planning. Regional Skills Plans are a crucial tool, but what I have heard is that these need to be more clearly aligned to regional economic strategies and developed not just with quantitative labour market data, but also with local intelligence from employers and industries operating in local areas. As such, to my mind, it is absolutely critical that colleges, business and universities are at the heart of this process.

4.26 While the Scottish Government should maintain oversight of regional skills planning to ensure that national imperatives – such as the just transition – are prioritised and realised, I see Regional Economic Partnerships as the vehicle for driving and coordinating regional skills planning as an integrated part of regional economic strategies. This would complement the devolution that is already happening in how employability support services are delivered through No One Left Behind, with a clear focus on national and local government working with partners to deliver person-centred and place-based approaches. In my engagement with Local Authorities they were clear that there had been teething issues in going from national orientated, often bespoke, delivery programmes to more tailored local solutions but there was a general consensus this was the right way forward to adapt services to local need.

4.27 Several things therefore need to be considered in relation to the local and regional landscape: clear structures to ensure the right bodies are involved; clear national priorities within which to consider local/regional goals; the availability of good, relevant and timely data; simplicity and flexibility of funding; and straightforward mechanisms to ensure proper accountability.

Recommendation 4

Linked to Recommendation 3 above, in recognition of the need for a genuinely place-based approach to regional and local skills planning, the Scottish Government's new skills planning function should establish a clear template for regional skills planning, working with providers, employers and regional economic partners and using insights from the Scottish Funding Council Regional Pathfinder projects.

This should:

• be aligned to regional economic strategy and compatible with the recommendations of the Regional Economic Policy Advisory Group Review;
• clearly articulate the roles and expectations of different regional actors in identifying skills needs, and aligning these to provision, funding and careers education;
• recognise the central role of providers, particularly the huge potential of colleges in planning for and addressing skills needs in their regions;
• allow for existing Regional Skills Investment Plans, where appropriate, to see out their existing term and empower Regional Economic Partners comprising key providers, local authorities and employer networks to co-produce future plans;
• provide for light touch oversight and monitoring by the Scottish Government to ensure regional plans are collectively delivering against identified national skills and workforce priorities; and
• ensure that regional planning is underpinned by data, by exploring how regional intelligence hubs, based on the Glasgow City Region model, could be established in each of the eight regional economic planning areas to supply relevant information and analysis to regional and local groups, and coordinate data flows with national and sectoral bodies, including from and to the Scottish Government.

Streamlined, flexible public funding

4.28 Public funding rightly comes with an expectation of accountability and the need to demonstrate best value for money and effectiveness in its use. As such, recommendations on public funding within the post-school learning system must also consider issues of reporting, regulation and quality assurance.

4.29 If we begin by acknowledging that there is unlikely to be a significantly increased amount of funding flowing into the post-school learning system soon, then we need to ensure that what is in the system already is being used to best effect. I am not convinced that this is currently the case. Public investment is currently too focused on programmes and institutions rather than delivering the flexibility across the post-school learning system needed to achieve genuine agility. There is a lack of coherent measurement of quality and impact across the landscape as a whole, national targets that constrain flexibility and resources that are diverted to managing conflicts or satisfying bureaucratic processes.

4.30 Part of the confusion is that there are multiple agencies involved in the funding and oversight of the delivery of learning and training provision and their processes and requirements, relationships with providers, and measures of success, are fundamentally different.

4.31 SDS is positioned as the national skills agency funding and promoting work-based learning and training, predominantly but not exclusively through apprenticeship provision. It funds delivery largely through public service contracts to independent training providers, colleges and local authorities. Quality assurance in the context of this provision is underpinned by SDS's own quality assurance framework although His Majesty's Inspectors of Education (HMIE), currently based in Education Scotland, undertakes external evaluations of elements of the provision. SDS also plays an active role in managing the flows of information relating to the performance of apprenticeships including employer engagement, promotion of fair work and equalities.

4.32 SFC is legally only able to fund a specific list of post-16 education bodies, colleges and universities, to deliver provision. It provides funding for core running costs for colleges and universities and assigns funding to different institutions for student teaching costs through its credit-based funding model (where funding levels differ depending on the type and subject of the course). Although its founding legislation suggests it should have regard to 'skills needs in Scotland', it is unable to intervene too strongly in the specific mix of courses or curricula that any provider makes available, and the funding, instead, follows the courses and degree programmes chosen by the eligible students. In terms of quality assurance, the SFC has a statutory responsibility for ensuring that there are processes in place to measure, assess and enhance the quality of fundable provision. It uses quality assurance frameworks to deliver this and works closely with the HMIE and the Quality Assurance Agency Scotland to secure external assurance.

4.33 Adding further complexity to this picture, is the funding that flows into the post-school learning system through the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). SAAS's functions, which sit outside the scope of this Review as not exclusively linked to the skills functions set out in the ToR, are to establish eligibility for, and administer, living cost loans, bursaries and grants to enable learners to access provision. SAAS is also responsible for calculating each eligible student's tuition fee element covered by the Scottish Government's free tuition policy, and paying these funds directly to institutions.

4.34 Not only do these various funding arrangements increase the risks of inefficiencies, but they often create unnecessary competition between different types of providers, contribute to complex delivery environments and impede parity of esteem between different types of learning and training.

4.35 To give an example, the Scottish Government's Flexible Workforce Development Fund (FWDF) allows businesses to access funding for upskilling their workforce. The Fund is delivered largely through colleges with funding allocated by SFC. However, if a business is unable to secure the provision they need through colleges, they are redirected to SDS to apply for grant support for them to procure the training through an independent training provider. This creates a complex interface for providers and employers. The funding sitting across two bodies with separate accountability structures then means that Scottish Government has to take on overall accountability for the programme, which adds another layer of governance and resources into the mix. These issues are highlighted in a recent evaluation of FWDF^[20] which calls for simplicity and a reduction in administrative burdens.

4.36 It is a similar story with Foundation Apprenticeships (FAs) where the complexity and diversity of funding arrangements, and delivery models, was highlighted in the HMIE Review^[21] as being less than optimal. During my own Review I received evidence pointing to FA delivery in Aberdeenshire, where the local authority leads delivery with little or no sub-contracting or engagement with external providers, as an exemplar of good practice. Indeed, other councils were asking how they could have the same. Yet, owing to the delivery model, that single local authority receives, through grant funding, almost half of the SDS budget for new FAs in a single year. As such, under that model, if all local authorities and regions were to attract the same numbers of participants, the cost of FA delivery would need to increase significantly. When this is set against the fact that the rationale provided by the Scottish Government for moving funding for FAs to the SFC was to create a sustainable model of funding for the programme, it becomes clear why it is not attainable. Added to this, the complexity of two bodies with different reporting methods and success measures, it becomes clear that something needs to change.

4.37 What is more, these complex funding arrangements make it far more challenging to rebalance investment across the system because it isn't simply a case of realigning budget with one organisation from one line to another. It is a case of moving it across organisational structures and governance and accountability lines. I have heard very clearly and am sympathetic to the calls for more investment in apprenticeships. Work-based learning opportunities such as apprenticeships are important. They have capacity for growth and deliver on a more work-integrated learning culture we need to embrace. I also recognise that the uncertainty over available levels of funding from year to year makes them vulnerable to declining commitment from businesses and providers. That needs to be avoided. I heard from many stakeholders, for example, that establishing multi-year funding assumptions and commitments, over a three-year horizon, would help with longer-term planning of provision and strategic partnership working. We need more work-integrated learning; apprenticeships are a critical vehicle to achieving this and success will mean they are more widely embraced. However, if I were to simply recommend 'more funding for apprenticeships' I'd be doing so knowing that it would be interpreted as taking funding away from colleges or universities (even though they are often, and should be, involved in delivery) or even from SFC to SDS. I just don't think that this is the answer.

4.38 Instead, it is my contention that we need to start thinking about, and funding, delivery of learning and training provision in the round. The money is ultimately there to support the learner to develop their skills and knowledge, not to benefit the provider, and funding and delivery models and agency structures should be developed with this principle in mind. For example, the process and criteria for allocating teaching and tuition funding for any individual to undertake a degree level apprenticeship (Graduate Apprenticeship (GA)) should be the same as providing teaching and tuition funding for that same individual to undertake the same qualification through an institution-led course of study at university. The attainment level of both types of provision are the same, yet they are not currently treated as such in terms of how they are funded or in who is able to access funding.

4.39 I recognise that there are differences in apprenticeships compared to other types of provision. As well as being learners, apprentices are employees and, given the financial investment that employers make, some will argue that apprenticeship programmes should serve the needs of the employer first. However, while I think there have been benefits in apprenticeships having had a separate agency focus while the concept was developed and incubated, their continued separation from the wider delivery landscape is now impeding their further growth and progression. This is holding them back from becoming an embedded part of the post-school learning system and delivering on their full potential for meeting employer and learner needs. If, for example, within the context of national priorities, we can give freedom for universities to utilise funding to deliver degree-level learning, whether that is through full time learning or learning as part of an apprenticeship, then the 'caps' on GA numbers could be removed and employers could see increased numbers of learners accessing this route.

4.40 At the same time, of course, we need to recognise that there is not an infinite amount of money available and that this means there are difficult decisions to be taken about how funding is prioritised to deliver outcomes, both for learners and for the wider wellbeing economy. Setting out criteria for prioritisation goes beyond my remit, but I do believe that to move forward there should be a fundamental revision of the way public funding for learning and training provision is allocated. Within this, the specific models of funding for different types of provision should be carefully considered, including, critically, Modern Apprenticeships (MAs) on which I received evidence regarding the inadequacy of the current contribution rates and also of the value for money achieved through the contracting model.

4.41 Prioritisation should undoubtedly be informed by performance. However, as noted above, the complex funding processes and the multiple bodies involved in delivery and quality assurance, mean that it is currently difficult to take a holistic view across provision. The measures of success and processes of quality assurance differ depending on the delivery model and type of provision making it challenging to compare outcomes from different investments. Addressing the fragmented funding environment and delivery arrangements thus offer the opportunity to clarify and bring greater coherence to regulatory and quality assurance roles and requirements.

4.42 Prioritisation should also take account of learners, and courses, most in need of government support. In the context of optimising the system for upskilling and reskilling a number of responses called for a more learner-centred approach to funding, for example via a 'skills wallet' which learners could access throughout their working lives. This is the approach being adopted by the UK Government with its Lifelong Loan Entitlement.^[22] Yet it is difficult to imagine, within the context of the current funding arrangements, how the Scottish Government, were it minded to develop similar, might begin to explore the costs, feasibility and policy implications of such an approach. As such, to ensure that current structures do not continue to impede ambitions, the agency landscape must be transformed.

Recommendation 5

Scottish Ministers should identify and establish a single national funding body to have responsibility for administering and overseeing the delivery of all publicly funded post-school learning and training provision. This would bring together the responsibility for funding of apprenticeships and training currently remaining in Skills Development Scotland with the functions for dispensing funding to colleges and universities currently carried out by the Scottish Funding Council. Ministers should consider whether this new body should also include responsibilities currently undertaken by the Students Awards Agency for Scotland, which sat outside the remit of this Review.

The new funding body should be responsible for:

• allocating and distributing funding for post-school learning and training provision in line with Ministerial priorities and policies;
• managing relationships with all providers in receipt of funding;
• ensuring that provision is delivering for the needs of learners (including apprentices) through reporting against agreed outcomes and measures;
• embedding commitments to equalities, widening access and fair work within the delivery system; and
• ensuring that any funded provider, whether that is a college, university or independent provider, would have sufficient procedures in place to ensure that provision could meet the agreed definition and standards of quality as determined by a relevant quality assurance framework.

The Scottish Government will need to consider whether it would be appropriate for the new funding body to have a statutory duty for ensuring quality assurance and for governance of higher and further education institutions, as is currently the case with SFC or, to ensure that regulation remains independent, impartial and ensures public accountability, whether those functions should sit separately.

Relevant staff and resources from the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland associated with the funding and delivery of learning and training provision, including apprenticeships should move to this new body to support its work and ensure the capacity for delivery.

Recommendation 6

Simply transferring all existing funding mechanisms to one body is unlikely to deliver enhanced efficiencies or streamlined reporting and application requirements. As part of the process for establishing the new body, the Scottish Government should redesign the process for how funding for all learning and training provision, including apprenticeships, is allocated to ensure it is prioritised to deliver strategic outcomes and best value for public investment, defined in terms of preventative spend as well as economic return on investment.

The redesigned system of funding should, as a priority:

• not favour any single type of provision (i.e. have regard to parity of esteem);
• ensure it caters to national skills priorities and needs;
• offer flexibility for regional interpretation and empower decision making, in line with Recommendation 4 above;
• simplify the funding streams to providers, meaning they do not compromise delivery as they seek to satisfy the administrative burden of different audit and reporting requirements;
• Provide for a multi-year baseline funding commitment to allow greater certainty in planning (particularly for apprenticeships where employer commitment is essential);
• promote provision which embeds work-integrated learning and skills development, particularly degree-level apprenticeships;
• consider a colleges and universities first approach to ensure best value from public investment; and
• consider the introduction of mechanisms for employer-contributions where provision for certain courses or qualifications hasn't been identified as a priority for public funding but is still considered desirable by industry.

Access to financial support for living costs

4.43 Linking with my statement that all pathways are equally valid, addressing different learner needs, there should be explicit recognition in the system that life and work journeys post-school are not linear. The recent Report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Young Academy of Scotland on Tertiary Education Futures^[23] sets out that we are expecting learners to want to consume learning differently in the future and that they are likely to make more demands of the system.

4.44 This necessitates us ensuring that funding presents no barrier to those wanting to undertake learning and training in more flexible ways, by reviewing caps on those who can apply for loan support and ensuring expenses cover the real living wage. Although learner support, as a function, wasn't strictly within my remit, it links strongly to the need to optimise the future system for upskilling and retraining given what we know about changes in the economy, and the need to put measures in place to address inactivity and reduce poverty.

4.45 Many of the call for evidence responses sought flexibility in this space, highlighting how systems of support are outdated. The UK Government's response to its recent Lifelong Loan Entitlement consultation^[24] indicates a recognition of similar concerns across all parts of the UK. If we are to provide greater opportunity for learners, the funding system needs to have the ability to support those who decide they want to undertake further study at any stage of life and under any circumstances, be that through part time degree or college course, a full-time accelerated retraining programme or other modular provision.

Recommendation 7

As part of the redesigned funding process in Recommendation 6,

• The Scottish Government, should ensure that there is provision in the system for those undertaking part-time learning or pursuing certain approved accelerated retraining programmes to receive the same pro-rata level of funding support for living costs as those in full time education. 

Clear, coherent recognisable learning pathways

4.46 In my analysis of the current landscape, I identified the absence of any single individual or organisation who appears to have both a strategic view of post-school qualifications and pathways and the objective ability to influence the shape and scope of this element of the landscape. This has resulted in a very complex and fragmented post-school offer to learners, particularly in terms of what are often considered 'technical' qualifications and awards such as some Higher National qualifications and apprenticeships. Don't get me wrong, diversity is a good thing. Learners should have choice, but the focus on awards or qualifications as individual 'products' and the various actors involved in their development and approvals has led to a melee of qualifications which don't appear, collectively, to constitute clear pathways. The exception is, perhaps, in the university sector where the control that institutions exert over the design and awarding of degrees has ensured clear pathways within that part of the system but, arguably, at the expense of integration within the wider landscape.

4.47 As with other parts of the system, I attribute this to both a lack of clear intent and confusion in the roles and responsibilities of national agencies. Without a collective sense of what is trying to be achieved from post-school qualifications and awards, decisions are driven by various different actors based on their own philosophies or interests. This appears to be most clear in the gulf between the desire for employer-led innovation which I understand underpins the approach to apprenticeship development being pioneered by SDS, under the direction of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board (SAAB), and the more cautious, quality-driven and learner-centred approach taken by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) in both its awarding and accreditation functions. These divergent approaches have, arguably, impeded Scotland's commitment to important aspects of the system such as the imperative to modernise the National Occupational Standards (NOS) that underpin vocational qualifications and apprenticeship frameworks. It has also led to uncertainty, for example, about who decides which qualifications should be prioritised for development and under what criteria.

4.48 This is holding us back from ensuring that qualifications and pathways accurately reflect the needs of industries now, and in the future. It is critical that employers are able to hire a workforce with, or with the potential to learn, requisite skills for the occupation or role. This means that relevant industries must be involved in the process of defining the standards that will underpin technical qualifications and apprenticeship frameworks, and also work with providers to ensure all qualifications and awards make the most of opportunities for work-integrated learning and the development of meta-skills. I have heard positive things, in this respect, about the concept of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) approach that SDS has developed for agreeing new standards to underpin apprenticeship frameworks. However, I am clear that the employer role must not come at the expense of the quality of provision to, or experience of, the learner or apprentice. Nor should it create a two-tier system of standards and awards which add further complexity and inconsistency to the landscape, damaging the parity between different pathways.

4.49 For this reason, my view is that there needs to be a single national public body with clear responsibility for overseeing the post-school qualifications landscape including all publicly-funded qualifications and awards; working with the university sector to ensure consistent articulation with the qualifications for which it is responsible, and developing, where appropriate, new technical pathways and apprenticeships clearly underpinned by a single set of NOS. Such an agency must operate in line with Scottish Ministers' strategic ambitions and offer clarity about the processes for prioritising, developing, approving or accrediting and regulating new qualifications in Scotland.

4.50 Post-school pathways and qualifications must also support the needs of learners who may want to learn at a different pace and by different means to upskill or retrain. Full-time degree courses are undoubtedly beneficial, however, there must be more flexibility to suit learners of all stages in life. Modular courses should now be embraced, allowing for individuals to build and gather qualifications and skills throughout their life. There are opportunities across the system to condense or reformat existing curricula into shorter, sharper courses to facilitate upskilling and reskilling and to ensure that these are a core part of the provision on offer, based on national and regional needs. Equally, modularisation offers opportunities to better link university curricula within the wider provision landscape, especially through use of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), for more effective and consistent recognition of prior learning. This could facilitate more direct entry routes to later stages of degree courses, reducing the risk of individuals re-taking existing learning and saving public money in the process. Success here might include a person who can start their learning at college, but transition into an apprenticeship or into university as they build their skills and qualifications. Finally, modularisation could also ensure that learners who do not wish – or are not able – to complete a four-year degree course could leave earlier with recognised qualifications earned up to that point.

4.51 The need for, and benefits of, modularisation have been recognised already. For example, the SFC Review recommended that SFC pilot a National Micro-credential Framework and delivery plan to develop a comprehensive approach to certifying modular courses, although we are still to see the outputs from this work. As with many system-wide issues, success is currently impeded by a combination of lack of clarity of purpose and flexibility of finance: at present the inflexibility of funding models have constrained course developments, and the impetus to pursue modularisation does not seem to have a clear home within the agency landscape.

4.52 To enable such a flexible system to be created across all learning and training, there needs to be a greater coherence to post-school pathways, and greater parity for equivalent qualifications at the same SCQF attainment levels. I find the current naming structures for qualifications and awards, particularly in relation to apprenticeships, to be varied and confusing and a barrier to achieving parity of esteem. For learners, parents and guardians, and employers they must be bewildering. At best, they place undue emphasis on certain learning routes. At worst, they actively and negatively stigmatise important, valuable routes for learning.

4.53 For example, through my engagement, I have heard how an FA isn't actually an apprenticeship as it doesn't have the critical 'earn as you learn' principle, and that there are negative connotations in the word 'foundation' in a senior phase context. I agree. An FA is essentially a senior phase qualification which includes in-built work experience. Calling it an apprenticeship sets it apart from other senior phase qualifications that are well recognised, like Highers, even though the two sit at the same level on the SCQF. From where I am standing, this has arisen because two separate bodies have had responsibility for the design and development of different parts of the same curriculum and, ultimately, this arrangement has impeded the ambition to embed vocational qualifications into the senior phase. For the philosophy behind FAs to be realised, then, in my view, the processes for design, delivery, and funding – and indeed the name of the qualification – need, as much as possible, to mirror those for the equivalent subject-based senior phase qualifications.

4.54 Similarly, GAs have huge potential in supporting an individual into work whilst providing an alternative way to gain Level 9-11 qualifications. Yet the name suggests they are aimed at individuals who have already graduated, rather than those seeking to study degree-level qualifications. It's not clear if this is the reason why in the academic year 21/22, 57% of enrolments to GAs have been taken up by individuals who are 25 and over and 81.8% of new starts were already in-work with their employer^[25], but it certainly would appear to be a barrier in promoting that pathway as an alternative for school leavers or those undertaking first degrees. This is a missed opportunity. I heard compelling evidence that many learners felt societal pressure to enter the workforce quickly after leaving school rather than undertake further study. For these learners, GAs offer a good compromise; a route through which they can combine earning with study towards degree-equivalent qualifications. I therefore believe degree apprenticeships could also play a critical role in widening access to learning.

4.55 The process for developing GAs is likewise not integrated or aligned to that for other university-based qualifications. I heard a lot about the potential of GAs, including from universities, but this was coupled with frustration from providers that they don't have more influence over the early development and shape of the qualifications. To my mind, if we want GAs to be seen as an alternative route to other degree courses, then there needs to be consideration of how universities can take more ownership of their design and development to give them confidence in the product and to build direct relationships with employers.

4.56 The SCQF comprehensively maps qualifications against the various learning levels, enabling clear comparisons of each pathway and, crucially, providing learners a simple way to understand and chose a route that is right for them. It is therefore one of my greatest frustrations that its implementation and articulation is not widespread and that it fails to be the catalyst it could so clearly be in defining a common language to describe each qualification according to the level of learning being delivered. I also believe that it can usefully support the facilitation of modularised and flexible learning which, as I have set out above, I consider to be critical to meeting Ministers' ambitions of a system that supports upskilling and retraining opportunities.

4.57 Additionally, the work that has been undertaken with Skills Recognition Scotland to map the skills and qualifications of migrants within the SCQF is extremely important. There is an ongoing risk that the skills of those who have come to settle in Scotland from elsewhere continue to be both under-recognised and under-utilised. This is a waste of critical human resource for an economy already facing skills shortages. The SCQF provides a solution to this particular need and, importantly, this work goes beyond what many other countries have done to recognise prior learning. The SCQF should be appreciated as the asset that it is.

4.58 It is therefore my view that the SCQF must be comprehensively embraced, and our language adapted to describe all qualifications according to their place on the Framework. A better utilisation of the SCQF in defining post-school qualifications and pathways would enable colleges, universities, employers and parents to better understand the value of the qualifications and the potential learning journeys that are available.

4.59 I am aware that Professor Ken Muir in his report on the future of the reform of school system similarly recognised the potential of the SCQF to play a more central role in the future of education in Scotland. On this basis, he recommended that the SCQF Partnership (SCQFP), the independent charitable body that oversees the framework, should be brought into the proposed national agency for Scottish education in order that its framework and staff could play an enhanced role in planning learner journeys and providing greater parity of esteem.

4.60 In their response, the Scottish Government welcomed the recognition of the value of the SCQF and accepted that the embedding of the Framework within the education system should be further strengthened. However, they rejected the recommendation to merge the SCQFP with the new education agency on the basis that it would present significant risks, particularly through the loss of the Partnership's independent and non-sectoral status which it said was central to its ability to 'broker a holistic approach across the learner journey'^[26].

4.61 Given the central role of SCQF to the whole learning system in Scotland from schools to post-school, I can understand why the education body, with its focus on school education, may not have been considered the appropriate home for the Partnership. However, it still stands that if the potential of the SCQF is to be realised with a more central role at the heart of learner pathways, then bringing the functions of the SCQFP more central to the administration of the system, should be considered. To my mind, the body has two central functions which don't easily fit within any single body, but which could, separately, be better embedded within the new landscape that I am proposing.

Recommendation 8

Scottish Ministers should ensure that the new qualifications body, currently being established, has a clear remit for national oversight of the post-school qualifications landscape and for the development of all publicly funded post-school qualifications and awards, including Scottish Vocational Qualifications, apprenticeship frameworks and the underpinning National Occupational Standards.

Taking account of outcomes of Recommendation 9 below:

• The existing processes for developing, approving and accrediting all publicly-funded post-school qualifications, and the authorities responsible, should be agreed and set out clearly;
• Where processes require adaptation or enhancement, new end-to-end processes should be established and clearly communicated;
• Where appropriate, for example, in relation to technical qualifications and apprenticeships, processes should build on the employer-centric approach to development pioneered by Skills Development Scotland through the Technical Experts Group process, but incorporate providers and learners to ensure the resulting standards and qualifications or awards meet the needs of all system users; and
• The Apprenticeship Approvals Group should remain as the vehicle for approving apprenticeship frameworks while the Scottish Government considers its composition alongside wider accreditation and approval processes.

Relevant resources in Skills Development Scotland which are associated with standards and frameworks and the development of apprenticeships should move to the new qualifications body to support this work. This should include the secretariat responsibility for the Apprenticeship Approvals Group.

Ministers may also want to consider whether there are functions within the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership which could be merged into the new qualifications body to reduce the potential for duplication, and to reinforce the important role of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework at the centre of Scotland's vision for qualifications and learning pathways.

Recommendation 9

The Scottish Government should carry out a comprehensive audit of post-school qualifications and pathways with a view to rationalising and refining publicly funded qualifications to produce clearer articulation between qualifications and awards, and greater clarity about the purpose and opportunities of different options.

This audit should:

• include consideration of how post-school qualifications can be developed into clear pathways which give learners options and flexibility to pursue and transfer between subject-based routes underpinned by meta-skills, or more, occupational-focussed routes underpinned by specific technical skills and knowledge;
• using the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework as a foundation, look at how qualifications and pathways are named and communicated to ensure these have respect to the need for parity of esteem and to ensure they accurately reflect the type of opportunity they present;
• identify actions to expedite the modularisation of qualifications and curricula to benefit retraining and upskilling;
• clarify that Foundation Apprenticeships, as a school only senior phase qualification, will no longer be treated as a post-school qualification, and ensure that work to enhance and redesign that qualification results in its design, name, funding and delivery arrangements being treated in the same way as the equivalent subject-based senior phase qualifications;
• explore how the National Occupational Standards Strategy can be prioritised and adequately resourced, so that occupational standards are updated and can be used with confidence to underpin relevant qualifications; and
• consider how existing skills frameworks can be condensed into a single national framework, agreed with providers and industry to ensure that there is a consistent language which captures the common skills and knowledge required for the workplace.

Qualifications and awards that more clearly contain work-integrated learning or employability-related skills development

4.62 I've already set out very clearly that we need to move beyond characterisations of any 'golden pathway', but equally that the current dichotomy between academic and vocational is inherently problematic and false. I've also noted my reluctance to simply recommend more investment in apprenticeships as a solution, given the current culture of a divided learning system alongside the challenges that current structures of funding and delivery, and indeed of qualification design and development, create.

4.63 However, assuming that the agency structures are better defined, that the pathways are clear and well-articulated, then I am comfortable making the clear assertion that we need all qualifications and courses to enable learners to develop relevant skills, as well as knowledge, that they will use when they enter the workplace. Therefore, as many as possible should contain work-integrated learning opportunities.

4.64 This doesn't just mean 'more apprenticeships', which are excellent for the opportunities they offer to 'earn while you learn' but aren't the only form of work-integrated learning out there. These could be modules that are co-developed with businesses, degree programmes or college-courses than include sandwich-years in industry or skills learned through coursework. Whatever the solution, I believe those designing and delivering qualifications need to ensure that the acquisition of knowledge and skills is not taking place without an eye on the purpose that most people will be undertaking that learning – to get a job that represents a positive destination for them. Learning in the workplace will not only assist with current and ongoing workforce shortages, but it will provide experience and learning that simply cannot be replicated in the 'classroom'.

4.65 The greater presence of work-integrated learning opportunities should be coupled with a mechanism for learners to track the development of technical and meta skills, as well as qualifications, throughout their careers. In her interim report on qualifications and assessment in the senior phase Professor Louise Hayward has suggested that there should be a broadening of the evidence collected to include skills and other competencies i.e. that qualifications could comprise three elements – subject, personal pathways and learning in context^[27]. She has also suggested digital approaches that enable learners to gather and present achievements consistently regardless of the educational setting within which they were based, and the introduction of a senior phase leaving certificate as a means of drawing together more aspects of learning into a single form. I would fully support these ideas and suggest that the methods developed for school leavers should be expanded to enable people to carry a digital record of their qualifications and skills throughout their working lives.

4.66 In operationalising this, it will be important to ensure that post-school qualifications and their assessment are also designed to capture the breadth of learning across skills and experiences that a person will need to take forward into further learning, or into the workplace. These should be appropriate to the subject and type of qualification, but should be tied to consistent language, including categories of meta-skills and technical skills, to enable learners to evidence their learning towards the competencies for employment. This isn't to say that every person leaving education will be ready for work from day one. Employers will still be expected to train and support new entrants in specific roles, but it should encourage curriculum providers to rebalance the emphasis between theoretical and practical learning in course content, and will enable individuals to demonstrate a more-rounded picture of their experience and skills.

Recommendation 10

Following on from the direction of Professor Hayward's interim report:

• The Scottish Government, with relevant partners, should scope and commission the design of a digital training record which learners can use throughout their lives to build and evidence their development of different skills, competences and qualifications gained through learning. In time, with digital capability increasingly expanding, this record could directly link to careers services and highlight career pathways opened by the skills, competencies and qualifications held in the digital record. Developments in this area beyond Scotland, such as the European Digital Credentials for Learning, should be considered in terms of alignment to support labour mobility.

Embedded careers education and work experience

4.67 The importance of having the right information, advice and guidance for learners and the necessity for that advice to be in tune with the needs of the current and future labour market have been constant themes that have arisen in my engagement. Indeed, if we are to have a successful post-school learning system that arms the individual with informed choices and provides the learning opportunities to make those options a reality, then careers advice and education are pivotal. What is more, balanced and high-quality careers services have an important part to play in achieving the parity of esteem between learning choices that I want to see embedded in the fabric of the system.

4.68 With this in mind, I have some reservations about whether the term 'careers' fully represents or captures the varied journeys that individuals will have in their working lives. There can be a perception that, when we refer to a career, we are talking about some linear trajectory of ever-increasing job responsibilities and remuneration; that somehow, a career journey is a description for the "high flyers". In the context of this Review and my perspective on how the future post-school learning system must be built, I want to define 'career' as encapsulating the entirety of a person's working life, irrespective of what form that takes or at what stage it occurs. This is critical to ensure the language used reflects the idea that all learning is of equal value and that Scotland needs a wide diversity of roles fulfilled.

4.69 At present, SDS delivers careers information, advice and guidance nationally in Scotland's secondary schools and through a network of public touchpoints, with more than half of its employees supporting delivery, while colleges and universities largely take responsibility for its delivery in those institutions. The third sector also plays a vital role in specialist provision, particularly for those who face additional barriers to access learning or employment. This includes MCR Pathway Coordinators who support young people who face 'disadvantage', ENABLE Group who help individuals with additional support needs, the Prince's Trust and many more. Sector skills councils also bring their own specific expertise to delivery. This plurality of provision is largely to be welcomed and it is important if we are to reflect the needs of different cohorts of learners. In particular, it is vital that equality, diversity and inclusion continue to be core outcomes of a careers system. It is also worth noting here the steps that have already been taken to make careers advice more coherent most clearly through the focus on career management skills and the development of the Careers Education Standard^[28].

4.70 The beginning of an individual's development of skills starts at a young age and can be determined by the advice they receive and their own experiences. Therefore, to achieve more experiential and quality careers services, it is absolutely critical that employers are willing to support the education of potential future workers, whether that is through the provision of work experience and volunteering opportunities or via engagement with local secondary or tertiary education institutions. Industry has a key and unique role to play in shaping the work experiences and career choices of learners. The Developing the Young Workforce (DYW) programme^[29], jointly owned by COSLA and the Scottish Government, has been in place since 2014 with a focus on providing support to young learners, and has played a role in connecting industry with education. Building on DYW and the Young Person's Guarantee (YPG), I want to see more work experience and "taster" experiences in schools and colleges and the opportunity for business to be more fully engaged in showcasing the work they do to its future workforce. Although the school curriculum is not strictly within my remit, in the context of careers, I am strongly supportive of learners, including those in early years, building knowledge of different workplaces and work-related experiences and believe that there should be concerted efforts across all institutions and businesses to support this ambition.

4.71 More recently, this has included the introduction of DYW school coordinators aimed at increasing the opportunities for young school learners to be exposed to work experience and employer offers at a local level. Whilst the introduction of school coordinators is clearly well intended and welcomed by many, I have heard in some cases that there is a lack of clarity in the landscape about the purpose of DYW and, specifically, the distinction between the school coordinators and SDS careers advisor posts. Having spoken to some of those involved I believe that these are distinct, yet complementary, roles. The former focuses on career education and experience and the latter on professional advice and guidance. This interplay will be an important fulcrum of how the system can work together to support young learners in their journeys. As such, to create cohesion, avoid confusion and ensure that there is a holistic approach to careers advice and education, along with, critically, the necessary capacity to deliver it, I believe that both roles should continue to work closely together in individual schools and ultimately, structurally, be part of the same organisation.

4.72 If, as NSET states, investment in skills over people's lifetimes is critical to our future productivity and success and a 'career' encapsulates the entirety of a person's working life, it is clear that we cannot solely focus on young people or those in school or college. More is needed to ensure all learners, regardless of age - whether that be for those who face additional barriers, the armed forces community and veterans or those looking for a career change –have access to high quality, impartial support to move closer to, and through, the workplace. I believe that this support must extend beyond information or advice received in schools, further and higher education settings. Instead, it should become a structural part of the learning system, and an embedded resource within local communities. Indeed, through my engagement, I heard the important role communities can play in supporting those removed from educational settings and beyond. The Community Learning and Development sector (CLD) is an important aspect of this. By supporting all individuals to make positive changes in their lives and in their communities^[30], CLD can help support the lifelong journey of acquiring skills and knowledge.

4.73 It is encouraging to see the changing nature of careers advice, and how it will be delivered in the future, acknowledged within the Careers Review^[31]. That work has brought together the range of partners who are involved in delivery of careers services into the Careers Services Collaborative and has recently set out its plans for implementation alongside a proposed national governance model for careers services. Clearly, the Collaborative will play a key role in the future delivery of careers services, some of which I have already mentioned, and as such, will be pivotal in helping to meet the challenges of the future that I have outlined.

4.74 Indeed, the representation of so many partners in the Careers Services Collaborative is a welcome recognition that learners will need advice at all stages of their journeys and through a variety of institutions. It also aligns with what I have heard in my engagements – that we must draw upon the full range of people who support learners, including parents and carers. This will continue to be an important area and I hope that the Collaborative will give due consideration to how the all-age offer for different cohorts can be further strengthened to support their individual needs and the skills shortages we are currently facing.

4.75 Similarly, I do see the need for greater consistency of approach on careers development across all organisations and initiatives that has been highlighted by the Careers Review. Only through achieving this will we ensure services are delivering for all users of the system including, critically, those who are already committed to pursuing further study to ensure that they make well-informed choices. However, if services are to expand to capture groups not already receiving routine advice then, in the context of constrained finances, there will need to be consideration to how people access information and advice differently. In my discussions with users, it was clear that the way information was presented and who it was presented by was an important factor in shaping their decision-making.

4.76 One of the ten recommendations (recommendation seven) from the Careers Review outlined the importance of enhanced digital services and online tools being developed that present information about the world of work in an inspiring and accurate way. I think this is critical. My World of Work, developed by SDS, equips learners with some digital tools to support their career progression, but could continue to be adapted to provide impartial information about the pathways towards an intended profession or, what occupations an individual might be able to do with their existing skills set. However, I do not underestimate the importance of 1-1 advice and, as such, in-person support must be a central facet to how services are delivered. I recognise that future services and delivery of information will have an increasing digital focus. That is welcome and it is important that learners are able to access information in a way that suits their own needs and requirements. However, digital vehicles should be seen as tools, not comprehensive delivery solutions.

4.77 In coming to recommendations on careers I have been acutely aware of my ToR, the work of Professor Hayward on a new model for Qualifications and Assessment, and not looking to re-do the detailed work of the Careers Review. However, I have also been asked to make recommendations on the roles of national public bodies, and specifically on the future remit and functions of SDS within the wider delivery landscape, of which careers is an integral part. Such is the importance of getting this right and the potential for embedded careers education to be instrumental in transforming the prospects of the entire post-school learning system, I believe that there should be a body that has a singular focus on this part of the system with a focus on advice at all stages of a learners journey. Such a body should support the Careers Services Collaborative, working with and across key partners in schools, colleges, universities, workplaces and communities to ensure that careers education and experience (not just advice and guidance) is an integrated part of people's lives; helping them to make informed choices about learning and training.

4.78 My previous recommendations to this point have largely focused on rationalising functions that are currently undertaken by SDS with respect to 'skills' into a landscape of public bodies supporting an integrated post-school learning system which has skills development embedded throughout. This would leave the remainder of the body, currently known as SDS, to take up this important careers mission. Indeed, there are strong foundations from which to build in the organisation's existing services, alongside a real opportunity to drive careers services towards future business needs and equip learners with all the skills they need to develop and thrive. In doing so, it will be critical that services are designed and built around the needs of the individual, the potential learner, and that the advice and services offered are impartial; reflecting the variety of pathways available to that person.

Recommendation 11

Skills Development Scotland should be substantively reformed and recast as the national body for careers education and promotion with a focus on providing impartial advice, guidance and information to people in Scotland of all ages about careers, jobs and learning and training pathways and available support.

Reshaping and broadening the work of the existing Skills Development Scotland's careers services, the body should:

• focus on building high quality local partnerships to support employability and education services, including continuing the Scottish Government's PACE service
• have a core mission to embed careers support and information within communities, educational settings and workplaces to benefit those of all ages and stages seeking to access learning and training opportunities, including those who are in work and looking to upskill or retrain;
• Support the Careers Services Collaborative to improve the quality of careers advice and provision in Scotland;
• Incorporate responsibility for the School Coordinators, currently part of DYW and introduced by the SG under the Young Person's Guarantee, to encourage and boost work-experiential learning; and
• Ensure a continued focus on learners with barriers to the workplace through managing the relationship with third sector organisations, sector skills bodies, and partnerships who support their needs (e.g. MCR Pathways, Lantra, ENABLE, the Princes Trust).

The body should have a status and constitution which is appropriate to retain independence and objectivity in the delivery of careers services, but which offers clear accountability. It is my view that this should be a different status to Skills Development Scotland as presently constituted which does not have any founding legislation and is a Public Company Limited by Guarantee as this would not be the appropriate status for the agency with its redefined focus on careers.

The Scottish Government may also wish to consider, whether there are functions currently undertaken by the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership with respect to promotion of the framework that could be merged into the reformed careers body to reduce the potential for duplication and reinforce the important role of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications at the centre of learner pathways.

Clear, consistent opportunities for employer engagement and leadership

4.79 Throughout my engagement, I have heard that the system is difficult for businesses to access and influence. Businesses have likewise been critical of how "work ready" learners are when they complete their courses of learning and employers feel they are not always getting what they need in terms of skills. I maintain that industry is key to all aspects of skills development from identifying regional and national needs to informing provision, shaping the content of standards and qualifications, investing in workforce development and providing careers advice and opportunities so people can make more informed choices. Industry must have a role to play throughout the system and the Scottish Government should consider and define how best industry can support all these different functions of post-school learning development and incorporate this into the processes and governance structures underpinning the different functions, and into ethos of all of its national bodies.

4.80 There are, of course, already examples of employer leadership in parts of the system. The SAAB, for example, has done excellent work in influencing the shape of apprenticeships in Scotland ensuring that they are valued by employers. However, SAAB has a narrow focus on apprenticeships. There are many more opportunities for this type of employer-centric process and leadership to be embedded more widely as part of our post-school learning system. We need industry to have a clear route to influence provision in every part of the system, not just apprenticeships. I have already highlighted above how I think the work that SAAB has done with SDS to design a process for the development of standards and frameworks through TEGs is a good example of an employer-centric approach developed for apprenticeships that could be widened to encompass all occupational standards and technical qualifications.

4.81 To ensure that there is a consistent vehicle for employer engagement and leadership, and that businesses are able to speak with a collective, representative voice at a national and local level, I think the infrastructure of the DYW employer-led regional groups, who already act as a strong conduit between industry and education, offers an unrealised resource. Given my recommendation on greater flexibility to plan for and invest funds based on regional circumstance and need, the business voice within regional structures is going to be critical. My view is that the DYW groups are a vehicle that could be further strengthened, refocused on wider workforce issues and aligned to Regional Economic Partnership structures, therefore becoming an embedded resource in each region, supporting businesses to connect with providers and learners. These groups already have their own budgets and aligned performance indicators as well as established relationships with business and are well placed to develop truly employer-led activity. With input and direction from their employer boards, they have the potential to provide a conduit for businesses to input into regional skills planning and careers services, thus driving investment and advice towards areas of need.

4.82 With the regional groups and boards creating important employer-led infrastructure at a local level, the DYW National Employers Forum, using intelligence from its regional boards, could then be positioned to offer a mechanism for employer and industry advice in relation to national skills priorities and strategic policy direction. Responding to the complex nature of existing entry-points and the sometimes duplicative requirements on businesses, there were multiple calls in my engagement for a national Employer and Industry Advisory Group or Workforce Board, which could provide a single vehicle for industries to feed in their views directly to Government. Linked to NSET Delivery structures, it is my view that the DYW National Employers Forum could be repositioned to fulfil this function; taking learning from the experience of SAAB but widening its remit across all aspects of skills and workforce development to strengthen the role of employers in the whole, rather than a single aspect, of the system.

4.83 It will, of course, be important that these groups are representative of the range of employers in the Scottish economy. Like the majority of actors within the landscape, a large proportion of employers remain unaware of who to interact with and how to influence the system. This is a particular challenge for smaller businesses who may not have the capacity or time to engage proactively. It is not feasible nor reflective to rely on a select group of employers, many of whom are large businesses, in a country predominantly made up of SMEs. It is important that a range of business views, including SMEs and start-ups, are able to influence the shape of services to support their needs. A lack of meaningful engagement with a broad sample of Scotland's businesses risks a consistent mismatch between skill and employer needs.

4.84 The evidence I received pointed to the role of representative groups and bodies, including the ILGs, industry boards, Trade Unions and the underutilised, but important role of professional and membership bodies in this respect. These bodies exist to promote and oversee the needs of their professions and are involved in learning and training through continuing professional development, in setting standards for their members, and work with providers with respect to accredited course provision. They seem well placed to act as the collective voice of the businesses that make up their occupations. I would also highlight the importance of Trade Union bodies in ensuring that 'industry' voice takes account of not just the needs of employers, but employees.

Recommendation 12

Having paved the way for wider employer leadership in the system, the existing Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board should be wound down in its current form, and a network of regional employer boards and a national employers forum should be established building on the employer-led infrastructure of the Developing the Young Workforce Network, with a refreshed and expanded remit.

At a regional level, the Network should:

• be aligned with the existing Regional Economic Partnership structures, with a remit for providing critical insight into regional skills planning and provision and supporting businesses to connect with education and training providers and learners;
• identify priorities, delivery and performance indicators based on collective challenges and insights, rather than exclusively focussing on young people; and
• be supported by regional groups which should continue to administer budgets provided directly by the Scottish Government to support employer-led activity with autonomy to work independently with local and regional partners.

At a national level, the National Employers Forum should:

• continue to have oversight of the regional structures;
• be constituted to provide an important conduit for feeding employer insights and perspectives into national strategic policy and delivery; and
• be led by a Chair and Vice-Chair appointed by Ministers with explicit responsibility for ensuring that there is a representative voice amongst their members.

The network should be open to employers that adhere to the fair work principles. The secretariat function for the National Employers Forum should be managed by the Scottish Government to ensure that it can adequately influence wider national strategy across all parts of the system.

Businesses as partners in workforce development

4.85 From my own career experience, and indeed from my discussions with industry, it is clear that businesses have a key role to play not just in advising government on current and future workforce needs, but supporting the development of, and investment in, a talented work-pool, particularly as we face demographic and labour market challenges. To do this effectively, it is essential that all businesses, regardless of scale or maturity, are thinking about learning and workforce development as an integrated part of their business planning processes and committing resources to developing this aspect of their strategies.

4.86 Each year, businesses invest hundreds of millions of pounds into workforce training and development and this has benefits for their own organisations and by extension their workforce. Many large-scale employers are required to pay the UK Government's Apprenticeship Levy. There is no doubt that the Levy has tainted the view of some large businesses in Scotland in relation to post-school learning due to a lack of transparency about where the money goes and how it is utilised. I have sympathy with the Scottish Government in this respect as it is a tax which was imposed upon businesses in Scotland despite the devolved nature of the apprenticeship system. However, I can also see how some businesses feel that they are losing out or paying twice for the costs of training apprentices. In this respect, I would hope that that my proposal at Recommendation 6 with regard to how funding is prioritised across learning provision could deliver reassurance to businesses that the investment that they are making through the UK Levy is being reinvested here in supporting workforce and learner development that will directly benefit them.

4.87 Notwithstanding that, the support from Scotland's business community to the learning agenda is hugely welcome and shows recognition of the benefits of investing in skills development. Businesses have also shown their willingness to commit and support at times of acute need. For example, business support for the YPG outlined a willingness to commit to the creation of job opportunities and training for young people during and beyond the pandemic. Over 800 organisations of all shapes and sizes signed up to deliver the Guarantee^[32]. In return, businesses were able to access future talent bringing fresh ideas and innovation to their workforce. It is that partnership approach that I would like to see embedded more widely where Government, its stakeholders and businesses can work towards a common ambition with shared reward.

4.88 Yet, I still believe that that more can be done for industry to play a consistent role alongside the public sector in ensuring that Scotland's people have the skills and experiences that they need to be successful members of the workforce and that the system itself is financially sustainable. This is both about ensuring that there are high-quality opportunities for learners to engage in work-integrated learning, including in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related occupations, as they progress on their journeys to work, and that there is sufficient investment in learning provision that meets national and regional needs.

4.89 On the latter, with public funding under enormous strain and the business community facing a more volatile trading environment, now is the time to look again at how funding can be best leveraged into the system to support economic growth ambitions. In my view, we must think creatively about how we secure the sustainability of the system through increased, business investment, in particular from businesses that stand to gain most from prioritisation or direct public investment. For instance, Government grants and contracts now rightly mandate Fair Work practices. This approach could be expanded, requiring relevant grantees or loan recipients to demonstrate how they are actively supporting workforce development through the provision of learning opportunities or match-funding, and how they are building workforce planning into their business plans, in a manner that is proportionate to the size and maturity of the enterprise.

4.90 Going a step further, I would also encourage the Scottish Government to work with the relevant agencies and partners to consider how business investment in the post-school landscape can be culturally embedded into the development and expansion of key sectors and supply chains. I'm also thinking, in particular, of areas like ScotWind where the Scottish Government is hoping to play a major role in the reduction of not just Scottish but also UK and European emissions through the exporting of renewable electricity by leasing Scottish waters. What is to stop those consenting and licensing regimes including a requirement, as through the land-use planning system, for investment to support post-school learning provision to deliver the people that will be needed to make this ambition a reality?

4.91 A barrier to developing approaches like this, in my view, is that the responsibility for supporting the economic growth of key sectors and development of Scotland's businesses sits with the Scottish Government and its three enterprise agencies^[33], but the responsibility for engagement with businesses on workforce planning and skills sits with SDS. Given the nature of my ToR, I am coming to this issue through the lens of skills development and the changes that are required to make roles and responsibilities clearer. To my mind, we need to reunite these important issues by bringing those functions together within the same body so that conversations about economic and business development, particularly in areas which are being shaped nationally by government policy and ambition, don't happen in isolation from consideration of the potential workforce requirements, and resulting asks, of the post-school learning system.

4.92 In more clearly integrating these functions, I believe that there would be scope to better support businesses to feed in their intelligence to inform future requirements (which in turn can ensure that funding is prioritised to support those needs), and for innovation in how we leverage funding back into the learning system to ensure those industries that are profiting from government prioritisation pay that forward to support the next generation of businesses. As the Regional Economic Policy Advisory Group (REPAG) report highlights, NSET sees the enterprise agencies as playing a key role in strategic national development. In this respect, it would make sense for them when providing advice on economic growth and investment, and supporting businesses with their development plans, to also be helping and encouraging those enterprises to plan for their future workforce by identifying their needs, and ensuring that they are aligning investment towards skills development.

4.93 To be clear here, I do not think it would be helpful for the enterprise agencies themselves to have a role in funding skills programmes or interventions as this would cut across and undermine the role of the single national funding agency. Instead, it is my contention that if national and regional skills planning functions are working effectively, there should be little need for sticking plasters. Aligned to this, there is no doubt that current workforce shortages are a huge strain and cause of concern for the business community. The new Skills Recognition Scotland process to validate the skills of migrants to Scotland^[34], and the Military Skills and Qualifications tool developed by SDS and SCQFP to help veterans enter the civilian workforce^[35], model innovative thinking on how to recognise and value the transferrable skills these groups already possess and can help to alleviate some of the pressures in the current labour market. However there is still much that needs done to consider short term pressures, not least engagement at UK Government level on issues of immigration policy.

4.94 It is also important that we distinguish between labour shortages and skills shortages. The reality is that in a tight labour market, businesses will need to be creative and courageous in building the attractiveness of job offers and conditions in sectors that are struggling to find employees. I have indicated before that this can't always be for national government to do, so how businesses use the employer infrastructure I am recommending at regional and national level to work in partnership with local actors and other employers will be critical to their success.

Recommendation 13

Responsibility for supporting businesses with skills and workforce planning should clearly sit with the three enterprise agencies as an embedded and integrated part of business and economic development support.

The enterprise agencies should:

• provide a clear message to all businesses looking for help to identify their skills needs that the first point of contact on workforce planning issues is your enterprise agency;
• work closely with the Scottish Government's new skills planning function and Regional Economic Partners including the network of employer-led boards, to ensure that, businesses with identified workforce needs that are not readily being met through existing services, are able to feed these in through national and regional skills planning processes to inform provision; and
• consider how existing programmes like Skills for Growth should be adapted to better support SMEs and start-ups to identify their workforce needs.

To deliver on this important remit, the enterprise agencies may need to broaden their approach, which could also require additional resource. Relevant resources currently in Skills Development Scotland involved in supporting new and emerging enterprises with skills planning should be redeployed to the enterprise agencies to support this function.

Recommendation 14

The Scottish Government's new national skills planning function should work with the enterprise agencies and other relevant partners to ensure that public sector growth investment for priority sectors (e.g. through seed investment or licensing and consenting regimes) becomes conditional on business investment in their current and future workforce. This should include a focus on business providing opportunities to embed work-based learning into school, college and university subject courses as well as direct investment back into the system.

Simple, well-signposted engagement routes

4.95 In taking forward my engagement I heard from a range of businesses up and down the country, from multinational companies to SMEs, almost all of which a felt that navigating the range of interventions available and the different stakeholders or potential sources of information, was challenging, overwhelming and disempowering. This uncertainty was also picked up by CIPD in research that indicated most businesses are unaware of what funding options and offers that were available to them^[36]. Whilst it was acknowledged that Find Business Support and other similar initiatives had helped signpost the range of interventions available there was still confusion over where to go to for advice and guidance.

4.96 Likewise, from my conversations with learners including young people and apprentices, it is apparent that they there is an abundance of information available - through platforms like My World of Work, Apprenticeship.scot, the YPG website, the Green Jobs Academy, university and college websites - but not a single touch point which could support the navigation and interpretation of the material in a way that is meaningful for each individual. Careers services were not seen as a universal entry point, ultimately creating challenges for learners trying to make informed choices.

4.97 Key to the future success and smooth operation of the delivery landscape is better communication and clarity for users of this system about where they need to go for advice, information or to make their views heard. In my various recommendations I have set out: how new national and regional skills planning processes, supported by a network of employer-led boards, should be underpinned by business intelligence, and strategic policy ambitions, to inform the prioritisation of funding for provision; how the new qualifications body with a clearer focus on post-school qualifications should devise clear processes for employers, alongside providers and learners to shape the development of standards and qualifications; how a new national careers body should act as first point on contract for any potential learner seeking information about available learning pathways and the funding support available to them; and how the businesses looking for workforce planning advice, regardless of size or maturity, should be routed through the enterprise agencies.

4.98 With these processes established, it will be for the Scottish Government to ensure that all learners and businesses looking for advice or information are aware of the different routes into the system. My perspective is that although businesses often say they want a single door or 'one stop shop' the reality is that they want to know which door they need to knock on and then they want tailored and high-quality advice to follow. This shouldn't be difficult to do. Using digital platforms, either aligned to the Scottish Government's own website, or through the new careers body, the different entry-points for different system users should be set out clearly and updated regularly.

4.99 Engagement routes are equally important for learners already in the system to ensure that their wellbeing is supported and they can influence the shape and quality of provision. I am particularly conscious of the dual status of apprentices in this system, where they are both student and employee. I heard from apprentices how they struggled to have their voices and opinions listened to within the system. Although there are currently various initiatives for apprentices including the SAAB Apprentice Engagement Group, the National Society for Apprentices and the Apprenticeship Fair Work Coordinator funded by the Scottish Government in Unite, I think there is scope for clearer mechanisms to support the needs of apprentices and to encourage them to share experiences and feed in views.

Recommendation 15

Having set out its plans for reform, the Scottish Government must clearly map, communicate and promote the entry points for different system users.