Review of further education governance in Scotland

J. Other Issues

Much is always made of the need for the FE Sector to provide people for industry, and indeed one of the new focuses in the recent consultation Paper is on Colleges' prioritising learning opportunities which lead to jobs. On the other hand there is much evidence that industry is actually not very good at forecasting what it needs any distance into the future, in terms of how it should respond rapidly to changes in the economy. We suggest that the need for Colleges to promote dynamic change is likely to get greater not less over the coming years as the world adjusts to a new economy and its implications.

We refer at the beginning of this report to questions around the continuance of SSCs in their current form in Scotland due to the very mixed and often negative views that are expressed about them today. These views come from a wide variety of people and organisations including academic institutions of all kinds, public bodies that interface with them, and from industry itself. Some SSCs have moved with the times and others have not, while others want to provide the training as well as advise on it. Given the amount of funding provided to them by Government they cannot be immune from consideration of whether they remain fit for purpose as well.

It is clear that in some parts of Scotland it is easier to respond to local industry needs than in others. Some have key large employers or sectors which dominate, and will continue to dominate that geographic area. Supporting their skills requirements must continue to be a key part of what that community needs. However in large parts of Scotland that is not the case. The majority of the companies involved in those communities are small and look on training even, sometimes, as a competitive threat (in the sense that losing well trained staff to others may present a risk).

We do not believe therefore that there is a single national solution to this interface. That is why we have suggested that a key outcome for each region should be, in terms of its strategy, to stipulate and be judged against how they will interface with and react to local industrial and employer needs. While we accept that the national Industry Advisory Groups ( IAG) may well help frame some of that thinking for the future, the only real way to manage that interface on a day to day basis is geographically. It also has to be accepted that in some areas local industry may not want to play a part in that interface as it does not see it as a priority.

Where IAGs can be helpful is in planning new areas and development for the future and deciding where best to focus resource within the FE Sector for maximum impact. This again reduces the burden on individual Boards which may spend, and often have spent, time on looking at new areas uninformed by the evidence that Colleges in truth have, with no real locus or impact.

Finally we believe that the FE Sector has not been used as it could by Government and the wider public sector to be part of the Continuing Professional Development ( CPD) process of sectors with which we should expect Colleges to work in partnership. This is especially true of Local Authorities and NHS Boards, for which Colleges could provide and deliver large parts of the CPD which those sectors contract to others at present. Indeed many Colleges tell us they have found it difficult to engage with their local partners in these sectors even as far as getting onto the tender list.

Given the state of public finances and also now with the larger regional Colleges having a larger footprint across Local Authority and NHS regions we can see no reason why the FE Sector should not be 'first choice' where appropriate for public sector CPD.