Independent Review of Community Learning and Development: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

This report presents analysis of responses to the call for evidence on the Independent Review of Community Learning and Development (CLD) in Scotland.

Background

The independent review of CLD in Scotland began in December 2023 and is due to report to Scottish Ministers in June 2024. The purpose of the review is to provide advice and recommendations on delivery of CLD services. An overarching policy driver is the need for a well-functioning system which benefits the most marginalised by providing educational opportunities and supporting the ambition for a wellbeing economy supported by a skilled workforce as set out in Scotland's National Strategy for Economic Transformation.^[1] The focus of CLD services on people with low or no qualifications, who may require support to engage in learning and may face personal, social, or systemic barriers, illustrates the critical role these services play.

The review is taking place against the backdrop of broader reform of education and skills, outputs from which have already highlighted the contribution of CLD. Recent studies and allied reports on career advice, education, qualifications, and skills acknowledge the importance of community learning. These include recommendations for continued support for the CLD Standards Council from Professor Ken Muir as part of his comprehensive review of Scottish education. While reporting on the Skills Delivery Landscape Review, James Withers highlights the benefits CLD can bring to lifelong learning beyond time spent in school or higher education, and not confined to young people. Professor Louise Hayward's Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment includes the concept of a personal pathway, offering scope for a more tailored approach that provides for broader learner interests that may align with social, cultural, and other community-based activities. Each review also emphasises learner experience and the need for skills development and related support for practitioners delivering learning.

The call for evidence

The call for evidence involved five interrelated and overlapping phases:

i. A consultation aimed at CLD practitioners, decision-makers, budget-holders and other stakeholders, comprising 16 open questions under four main themes: (i) awareness and visibility, (ii) access and availability, (iii) support and learning, and (iv) pathways and progression. The call for evidence opened on 22 January and closed on 3 March 2024. A total of 423 responses were received. The public page can be found on the Scottish Government consultation portal.^[2]

A consultation aimed at learners or potential learners comprising 12 open questions and broadly mirroring the themes covered by the practitioners’ exercise. The learner/potential learner call for evidence opened on 22 January and closed on 3 March 2024. A total of 717 responses were received. The public page can be found on the Scottish Government consultation portal.^[3]

ii. A series of 22 online events with practitioners and stakeholder organisations, conducted during February and March 2024.

iii. A series of 17 online and in-person focus groups with learners and potential learners, conducted across the country during February and March 2024.

iv. A total of 45 one-to-one discussions between the Independent Reviewer and stakeholders, conducted between February and April 2024.

Material submitted

Practitioners, learners, and other stakeholders submitted a diverse set of material to the call for evidence. This included written responses that directly address consultation questions, other written evidence seen as relevant to the overall focus of the call for evidence, and qualitative feedback from those involved in one-to-one discussions, online events and regional focus groups.

Key points of note are:

• The focus of written submissions varied. For example, responses from practitioners included some (primarily from organisations) particularly concerned with the definition and role of CLD in the wider policy agenda, and others (primarily from frontline practitioners) providing detailed account of local CLD activities and associated outcomes. Learner respondents were typically more focused on their personal experience of learning, although some also commented more widely on the strategic role of CLD.
• Written submissions included a mix of respondents identifying themselves as an organisation or individual. Closer analysis of responses suggested that some of those identified as organisations appeared to be from individuals who work for or are otherwise affiliated with the named organisation.
• Learner survey responses included some based on feedback from multiple learners, where this feedback had been collated by a CLD provider and submitted as a single response. Some learner responses also appeared to be from young people, based on analysis of written comments and organisation names included along with individual responses.
• Group participants came from a wide range of backgrounds and geographic locations including in urban, rural, remote and island communities. The groups were organised via CLD delivery organisations, sometimes bringing together people who already took part in group learning together or people who attended classes or groups in the same location but were doing different things. Some of the groups brought together learners studying different topics, while others were focused specifically on one issue (e.g. an ESOL group in a local library). The youth work groups involved in the exercise tended to be focussed on a specific issue, or set up for those with particular characteristics, such as LGBT young people, although young people also took part in the mixed groups.
• One-to-one discussions with stakeholders were broadly structured around the four main consultation themes, but varied in terms of focus dependent on participants’ specific activity and experience. Participants included providers working across different sectors within and associated with CLD, professional and representative groups, other public bodies and individuals with specific expertise around CLD.

Analysis and reporting

Analysis of materials submitted to the call for evidence has been structured around the four main themes of the call for evidence: awareness and visibility, access and availability, support and learning, and pathways and progression. Across these themes, the report presents a question-by-question analysis of written responses to the practitioner and learner consultations, with summaries of feedback received through stakeholder events, regional focus groups and one-to-one discussions presented under each of the four themes.

Analysis and reporting of written consultation responses and one-to-one discussions has been undertaken by Craigforth. Analysis and reporting of feedback received through focus groups with learners has been undertaken by researchers within the Scottish Government Advanced Learning and Skills Analysis team.

The call for evidence collected limited information on respondents. This was sufficient to distinguish between learners and practitioners or other stakeholders, but for example not including location, CLD sector or protected characteristics. This design choice reflected the remit and focus of the review across the CLD sector as a whole, and that the exercise was a consultation (rather than piece of research) which sought to minimise potential barriers to participation.

As a result, there has been limited scope for disaggregation of responses by sector and/or respondent characteristic. The analysis presented in this report distinguishes the views of learners, practitioners and other stakeholders, and highlights points raised in relation to specific CLD sectors (i.e. youth work, ESOL, etc). However, the primary objective of the analysis has been to provide an accurate account of the balance of views across all of those responding to and participating in the call for evidence, and this is reflected in the report.

Presentation of findings includes direct quotes from written submissions, group and one-to-one discussions. These have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

As with any public consultation exercise, it should be noted that those responding generally have a particular interest in the subject area. Therefore, the views they express cannot necessarily be seen as representative of wider public opinion.