Post-School Education and Skills Reform legislation: consultation analysis

Summary

This report presents findings from an analysis of responses to the Post-School Education and Skills Reform consultation on legislation. This report presents findings from an analysis of responses to the Post-School Education and Skills Reform consultation on legislation conducted by Craigforth on behalf of the Scottish Government. The consultation sought views on proposed changes to the role of public bodies, with the aim of simplifying responsibilities in relation to apprenticeships and student support. Views on specific proposals and the main themes raised by respondents are summarised below.

Apprenticeships and student support

The most commonly preferred of proposals to streamline funding was proposal 2; SFC managing all provision funding and SAAS all student support funding. This was preferred by 44% of respondents. There was also support for other options: 35% preferred proposal 3 (all provision and student support funding is consolidated with SFC) and 21% preferred proposal 1 ("business as usual"). Key themes raised in relation to proposed reforms are summarised below.

Key themes

Differing views on the need for reform shaped support for these proposals. There was comment in favour of reform objectives set out in the consultation paper, but some of those supporting "business as usual" wished to retain current strengths of the system and saw proposed reforms as incurring unnecessary resource and opportunity costs.

Others were of the view that significant reform was required to address challenges facing the post-school skills system. It was suggested that consolidating funding for provision and student support could enable a more holistic and consistent approach across skills sectors and models of provision. This included some who felt that a wholly centralised approach with a single funding body would be necessary to deliver these benefits.

Concerns around equity of funding were reflected in comments supporting a more coherent and consistent approach. Equity was highlighted in terms of ensuring fair access to funding support across learner groups, and access to provision funding for different provider types. This included concern that prioritisation of colleges and universities could adversely impact access to funding for other providers.

There was also support for proposed reforms as enabling greater clarity of purpose for funding bodies. Respondents supported the proposed separation of provision and student support as enabling funding bodies to focus on their respective roles and sectors. This was seen as simplifying the landscape while retaining the expertise of both SFC and SAAS, and reducing potential for confusion.

The responsiveness of the skills system also emerged as a common theme for those who saw a need for a more streamlined and coherent approach. It was suggested that greater consolidation of funding would enable a more responsive skills system, for example through a more coordinated approach to information and advice for learners, and ensuring skills provision can better meet the diverse needs of learners. In this context, respondents wished to see reforms place learners at the centre of the skills system.

Securing efficiencies was highlighted as a key positive for proposed reforms, including by those who supported a move to a single funding body (proposal 3). These respondents suggested that a more streamlined and centralised funding system could deliver significant resource savings, reflecting a view that overlapping roles and duplication of effort across agencies is an issue for the system. However, it was also suggested that efficiency savings could take time to be realised.

Other challenges were raised for implementation of reforms, particularly around ensuring access to sufficient resources. There was concern that Scottish Government must not underestimate the investment of time and resources required to successfully implement reforms. This was seen as a key issue in the context of current financial challenges across skills sectors, and there was concern around potential to divert SFC's energy and focus at a critical time for the skills system. Ongoing operational concerns were also raised for a single funding body around retention of knowledge and expertise, the diversity of roles, and ensuring an equitable approach across sectors and provision models.

The potential for disruption associated with implementation of reforms was a common concern amongst respondents. This was raised as an issue for learners, employers, institutions, providers and other users of the skills system. There was reference to the potential scale of change required to current roles and responsibilities, to operational issues such as technical and staffing changes, and to challenges in achieving the required change of culture across funding bodies.

Governance of the SFC

Around half of respondents wished to see reform of SFC governance arrangements to remove time limits on Board appointments and restriction on reappointments. This included 48% who supported removal of restrictions in relation to both term and reappointments, and 6% only for term or reappointment. The remaining 46% indicated that they had a different suggestion – although most of these respondents were focused on the need for change or on the other options set out. Key themes raised in relation to proposed reforms are summarised below.

Key themes

Support for the removal of Board appointment restrictions reflected a view that this would provide greater flexibility to broaden membership and ensure the Board has the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. This was seen as important in enabling the Board to adapt quickly to challenges and to allow for more effective and agile succession planning. Others disagreed, referring to current restrictions as a positive in terms of refreshing Board membership and enabling more effective governance. However, there was a common view that ensuring the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience is key for the effectiveness of the Board.

In terms of ensuring sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge, there was a view that membership should reflect the skills and expertise required by SFC functions – including the new responsibilities being proposed. There was a perceived need for awareness of developments in skills, higher education, research and funding.

Some sought to ensure an understanding of both academic and vocational learning for Board members. This was linked to comments on the need for parity of esteem for vocational learning and higher education, and calls for a balance of industry and academia members. Understanding the specific structure, delivery and value of apprenticeships and work-based learning was also seen as important, including an appreciation of how this fits into the skills development landscape.

Wider representation was a key theme. Suggestions included membership places on the SFC Board, advisory groups or co-options, and reference to industry/employers, learners and teaching staff as important voices to be heard. A range of inclusion and diversity considerations were highlighted. There was reference here to place-based representation (including remote rural communities), social mobility and inclusion, intersectionality and protected characteristics.

Discussion of Board membership also included reference to the value of co-design and collaboration for SFC Board governance. Respondents wished to ensure that decision-making processes include input from a diversity of stakeholder interests.

Enhanced functions for SFC

The largest group of respondents (46%) saw a need for new duties on all organisations in receipt of public funding to provide better information to SFC. The majority of respondents (66%) also saw a need to strengthen existing data collection and reporting systems and processes. Key themes raised in relation to proposed reforms are summarised below.

Key themes

Comments on the importance of data collection and reporting included ensuring best value and evidencing impact, supporting SFC oversight and governance, and enabling prospective learners to make more informed choices. Respondents also highlighted the role of accurate and meaningful data in enabling the system to respond to skills needs. This included reference to shaping improvement in skills provision, and informing forward planning to ensure programmes align with wider economic needs and policy priorities.

There was support for consistency of information requirements, with a single system applying to colleges, employers and training providers. However, views differed on whether and how a single system should apply across all stakeholders. Some also expressed a view that data collection and reporting for the FE and HE sectors currently works well, although there was perceived scope to make better use of this data. It was suggested that there may be a need for better data collection and reporting for private skills providers.

Discussion of specific information to be collected included a particular focus on: financial information including the level and profile of funding awards, and financial sustainability; the profile and uptake of funded provision; information on capacity and governance for funded organisations; and delivery of outcomes. There was also a perceived need for more agile data systems that can reduce the lag in reporting timelines and provide real-time data. Respondents referred to potential for integration of datasets to support a more joined up approach, and comparability across sectors and internationally was highlighted.