Post-School Education and Skills Reform legislation: consultation analysis

Feedback on the consultation process

Several concerns or queries for the consultation process were raised by respondents in their response to specific consultation proposals. As is noted at Question 1, some of those expressing support for the "business as usual" option indicated that this was at least in part due to a perceived lack of detail on how alternative proposals would work in practice. These respondents felt unable to form a clear view on proposed reforms without further information on how proposals would generate the anticipated benefits. There were also calls for further detail on proposals relating to governance of SFC, for example to clarify that proposals would not result in SFC governance diverging from the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland.

Respondents were also asked for their view on the consultation as a whole. As the table over the page shows, around half of those answering the question (51%) indicated that they were satisfied with the consultation; this group was split between those describing themselves as "very" satisfied (35 respondents) and those who were "slightly" satisfied (38 respondents). In total, 25 respondents (17% of those answering the question) were dissatisfied with the consultation.

A minority of respondents (41 of the 143 answering the question) provided further comment on the consultation process. Most of these had expressed some dissatisfaction with the consultation and used the opportunity to raise concerns or suggest improvements. This included some reiterating comments noted above, for example a view that further detail is required to form a considered view on proposals. Concerns were also raised around whether the consultation would have a genuine impact on future reforms, linked to a perception that the consultation document and questions implied a preference for a specific proposal.

Other comments related to the consultation paper and process. There was a view that the consultation document could have used more accessible language, including specific reference to accessibility for young people. It was also suggested that parts of the consultation (especially those relating to SFC governance) would only be understood by a small minority of potential respondents.

In terms of the consultation process, it was suggested that the consultation exercise could have been better promoted. The timing of the consultation over the summer was also noted as a challenge for some membership organisations, who might have lacked the time to consult properly with members before responding.

Note: 51 respondents (26% of the total) did not answer the question. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.