Post-School Education and Skills Reform legislation: consultation analysis

Governance of the Scottish Funding Council

This section considered proposed changes to SFC governance arrangements, focused on removing the time limit on appointments, restriction on reappointments, and updating the skills, knowledge and experience requirements for new members.

Removing restrictions on SFC Board appointments

Question 5. Should the 2005 Act be amended to remove the restrictions in respect of Board appointments?

Nearly half (48%) of those answering the question wished to see amendment to remove restrictions in relation to both term and reappointments. A small number favoured removal of restrictions only for term or reappointment, and 46% had a different suggestion. Local authorities were most likely to support the removal of restrictions, while fundable education bodies were least likely to support this.

Note: 60 respondents (31% of the total) did not answer Question 5. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Around 105 respondents provided further comment at Question 5.

Support for removing restrictions for both term and reappointments

Of the 64 respondents who wished to see amendment to remove restrictions in relation to both term and reappointments (48% of those answering the question), 35 provided written comment. Key points from these and other respondents who did not select a preferred option are summarised below.

There was general agreement that greater flexibility would create the opportunity to broaden Board membership and ensure that Board members have the skills, knowledge and experience required to understand a complex, changing landscape. This would give the Board the ability to adapt quickly to challenges and allow for more effective and agile succession planning. A need for understanding of, and expertise in, apprenticeship provision was highlighted including by training provider, local authority, and sector/business representative respondents. There was also support for greater inclusivity and diversity on the Board, and for Board members having the knowledge and experience of wider policy issues such as child poverty and the climate emergency.

However, several respondents caveated their support, with concerns from a few sector/business representatives that long-term Board membership could stifle innovation. Other comments included the need for sufficient turnover in membership with mechanisms allowing for the removal of Board members where necessary. Other suggestions related to the need for regular training and skills updates for Board members, with evaluation to ensure they were performing effectively.

Support for removing restrictions for term or reappointment only

Within the small number of comments made in support of removing restrictions for term only, it was observed that this would reduce risk and that the current term is too short. However, it was also suggested that the term should not be for too long, as changes in leadership and strategy can be effective.

Only one comment was made in support of removing restrictions for reappointments only, which was that it should be at the Chair's discretion.

Alternative suggestions

Of the 62 respondents who selected "I have a different suggestion" (46% of those answering the question), 58 provided written comment in support of their view. Some of the comments made were focused on the need for change, or on the other options set out, rather than outlining an alternative proposal. Key points from these and other respondents who did not select a preferred option are summarised below.

It was noted that the issues raised were not unique to the SFC, with a few respondents suggesting that clearer justification for changes to the current restrictions was required. It was also observed that the Board structure would depend on its future role and remit.

Several respondents commented that flexibility could enable more effective governance, including the ability to respond quickly to challenges as well as creating greater expertise and stability in Board membership. However, it was stressed that membership should not be open-ended since this could lead to overly long appointments.

Some respondents – including individual educators, training providers, fundable education body, and other public sector – did not support potential changes and thought the current arrangements should remain in place. These were seen as allowing a refresh of Board members on a regular basis, seen as important for bringing in new thinking and ideas. It was also suggested that tenure limits help ensure Board members retain independence from management and facilitate the appointment of members with new perspectives and from diverse backgrounds.

Several respondents, including fundable education bodies, expressed concerns that the proposed changes did not align with the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland. It was suggested that this would make SFC an outlier in public sector governance when it should be complying with the same arrangements as other public bodies.

Other issues or concerns included that:

• The current limits on the length of terms and reappointments follow principles of governance and were in line with other regulated public appointments. Existing guidance on membership of statutory board should be followed.
• Current arrangements allowing for up to eight years of Board membership seemed adequate for succession planning, which should be possible within current legislation.

In terms of suggested alternatives or changes to the options set out in the consultation paper, suggestions included:

• Appointing Board members for three terms of three years (but with no automatic renewal, unless under exceptional circumstances and with a recommendation by a Committee or equivalent).
• If recruitment was an issue, reviewing current methods. For example, review of selection tools to increase commercial representation.
• Undertaking an annual review of each Board member's effectiveness, with an evaluation of why they should be retained.
• Enabling co-opted members, with any additional skills needed, to be brought in.
• Rotation of a certain percentage of Board members each year. It was suggested that this would avoid significant loss of experience at any one time by staggering when Board members were replaced and retaining continuity.
• Removing restrictions but not for all members – maintaining the term and reappointment restrictions to one or two senior Board appointments, so that their experience could be retained.

Additional skills, knowledge and experience for Board members

Question 6. If SFC takes on responsibility for all apprenticeship funding, what additional skills, knowledge and experience should be considered for Board members?

Around 140 respondents provided comment at Question 6.

Several respondents, including fundable education bodies, highlighted that Board membership should reflect the skills and expertise required for new functions. Comments included the need for a broader awareness of relevant developments across the UK, and international perspectives on skills, higher education, research and funding.

Board members understanding the structure, delivery and value of apprenticeships and work-based learning was seen as important by a range of respondents. This included local authorities, sector/business representatives, third sector/charitable organisations, fundable education bodies and training providers.

Others focussed on the necessity of Board members having experience of vocational education and an appreciation of how colleges and apprenticeships fitted into the wider skills development landscape. Comments were also made on the need for parity of esteem between vocational learning and higher education and the need for a balance between industry and academia on the Board.

Specific suggestions for the apprenticeship-related skills, knowledge and experience required on the Board were that the following would be beneficial:

• Knowledge of work-based learning, vocational and apprenticeship pathways, apprenticeship models and frameworks, and models of provision.
• Experience of working with employers and apprentices, direct experience of being an apprentice or delivering apprenticeships.
• Understanding how training providers operated (highlighted by fundable education bodies and training providers).
• Understanding of commissioning, funding and financial management in vocational training, and the Apprenticeship Levy. This was mentioned by individual managers/employers and individual educators, as well as training provider and fundable education body respondents.
• Awareness of education and skills frameworks such as the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), SQA vocational qualifications, National Occupational Standards, and Sector Skills Councils.
• An understanding of current and future skills needs, workforce development issues, labour market analysis, data and projections, skills demand forecasting, and population demographics.
• Skills in cost-benefit analysis, evaluation, data collection and analysis, performance management and reporting, and data-driven decision-making.

Several other respondents – including local authority, fundable education body and private business/employer respondents – focused on the need for Board members to have knowledge of and expertise in key industry sectors. Health, social care, rural industries and manufacturing were given as examples. There was reference to engagement with employers, from large corporations to small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Some respondents highlighted issues relating to inclusion and diversity which should be considered and understood by the Board, outlined below.

• Place-based representation, and understanding of different social contexts, to ensure inclusivity from all parts of Scotland, and including areas covered by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.
• Appreciation of the difficulties of delivery in remote rural areas and challenges of rural employment and population decline.
• An understanding of social mobility and inclusion, and intersectionality. Protected characteristics (including race, gender, disability and age), care experience, and neurodiversity were also highlighted.
• Dual language issues (Gaelic was specifically highlighted).
• Engagement with equalities organisations and the communities they represent.

Respondents also commented on who should be included or represented on the SFC Board. For several this involved thinking more widely than their own sector or interests. For example, respondents from third sector/charitable organisations and fundable education bodies supported employer and industry representation on the Board. Similarly, student or learner involvement was suggested by sector/business representatives, third sector/charitable respondents, local authority or school respondents and fundable education bodies.

Specific suggestions for representation on the Board included:

• Employers, including those contributing to the Apprenticeship Levy.
• Industry including SMEs and micro businesses, and industry representatives and trade bodies.
• Trade unions.
• Third sector organisations.
• Student/learner representation including young people undertaking apprenticeships at various levels.
• People with non-traditional routes through education and/or into employment – such as adult returners to learning, Community Learning and Development (CLD) and careers services.
• Expertise in intersectional structural discrimination across all protected characteristics.
• University/college leadership, lecturing staff, further and higher education sector representatives.
• Training providers and qualified assessors.
• Awarding bodies and Skills Sector Council leads.
• Renewable energy sector and rural/nature-based sectors, to ensure funding decisions align with polices supporting the transition to Net Zero, tackling climate change, biodiversity loss issues etc.

There were also suggestions for specific organisations that should be represented including the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board, Scottish Training Federation, Scottish Qualifications Authority, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES), and OECD or an equivalent for an international perspective.

Other comments or suggestions

Question 7. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for governance of the SFC Board or other aspects of SFC governance?

Around 80 respondents provided comment at Question 7. A number of respondents made comments or gave suggestions for how the SFC Board could be structured, and how it should operate (including in its communications). There were also comments on funding, membership, and diversity and inclusion.

Structure and operation

Some respondents, including from fundable education bodies, suggested that a Research Committee should be set up, with the Vice-Chair of the Board as Chair. There was also support for creating advisory groups as a means of ensuring SFC is attuned to the diverse needs of stakeholders. Another option put forward was a core governance group supported by representatives from relevant bodies acting as "consultants" to the main Board.

The need for a transparent and robust performance review framework, with metrics for success, and regular assessment of individual and collective Board performance was also highlighted.

Co-design and collaboration were seen as being important for SFC Board governance, as was exhibiting openness, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability. Other respondents stressed that decision-making processes should include diverse voices from across a range of industries, business sizes and educational backgrounds, with controls to ensure all stakeholder interests are balanced.

It was suggested that formal systems should be set up to enable delivery staff (lecturers, trainers, apprenticeship co-ordinators) to provide insight, drawing on their day-to-day experiences, directly to the Board. It was thought that this would support more responsive and impactful governance.

With reference to Board communications, suggestions included that:

• Regular feedback mechanisms should involve key stakeholders – including students, educators, industry and trade bodies.
• Board decisions, including those relating to apprenticeship programmes, should be communicated to stakeholders.

Funding

Some respondents took the opportunity to give their views on how the Board should act in respect of funding, with key points set out below.

• There should be transparency in the processes for funding and in how funds were allocated across education and training sectors, with robust and consistent arrangements across training providers and colleges.
• Funding should be allocated in consultation with key stakeholders including academia and industry, to ensure skills needs were addressed. The employer voice should be considered when shaping how skills funding was used.
• SFC could explore regional allocation of funding, with mechanisms for agreeing the local distribution of regional amounts, which would encourage collaboration.
• Several respondents expressed concerns about whether the current funding models were sustainable.

Membership

General points made were that appointments should be open and inclusive with broad sector representation from institutions, balanced with members from industry, training providers, and both public and private sector representation.

Additional suggestions included:

• Creating the ability for the Board to co-opt members for a short period of time, so it can respond to the need for specific skills sets.
• Increasing the number of Board members with direct experience in key industries.
• Appointing a student representative or rotating student members, or the NUS Scotland President, as an ex-officio Board member.
• Appointing Board members with knowledge and experience of wider social policy agendas, including to help remove barriers to participation in education and training.
• Considering key stakeholder nominations for some Board places.
• Ensuring that the Board and its governance arrangements reflect that delivery in rural areas required a different approach.

Diversity and inclusion

Comments included that it would be important to support a culture of inclusion to enable colleges' role in supporting marginalised and disadvantaged groups. There were calls for Board membership to be diverse and representative of the Scottish population, with regional disparities identified and addressed.

In relation to learners, there was a suggestion that the perspectives of part-time learners should be considered. Also, that there should be clarification on how the post-school learner voice (of all ages) would be part of the structural process of SFC, SDS and SAAS.

Finally, it was noted that guidance and legislation arising from the consultation should recognise and complement other legislation and reforms, for example the Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill.