Review of further education governance in Scotland

C. Background

The current structure and governance of the FE Sector in Scotland was set up as a straight Scottish parallel to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in England and Wales. The rationale for that change was political and it was not justified, as far as we can determine, on the basis of any evidence that this was the correct way to structure or govern the sector in Scotland at that time.

Basically the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 backed Colleges out of the Local Authorities they were part of, made them independent entities with charitable status, gave them some governance requirements by statute, and then told them to be free, independent and create their own future. The political justification was that this independence would make Colleges better placed to focus on and respond to the needs of business. There was other feeling at the time, especially by the trade unions, that this Act was also an attempt to generate some interest in the failing Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 which had only persuaded a very small number of schools to leave Local Authority control. Whatever the reason for the 1992 Act it is clear that there were no wider strategic forces at work.

Annexes D and E set out the processes around the 1992 Act as well as the governance structure from the Act . All this did was to make independent the municipal structure already there, which, when viewed from a national perspective, was itself a piecemeal development. It could be argued that the structure and governance of FE has never been examined or challenged effectively, and this is not simply an omission over the last 20 years or so since the 1992 Act, but before it as well.

Since 1992, again as far as we can determine, no individual, group or part of Scottish Government has gone back and re-examined if the FE Sector we have was or is fit for purpose, or indeed has established what the sector needs. There have been specific reviews on governance in terms of what Boards do, usually subsequent to a Board not performing well, but none across the FE Sector as a whole.

Currently we have 37 Boards of Management of incorporated Colleges which look after in excess of a hundred and fifty buildings across Scotland. There are 4 further Colleges which are not incorporated in statute but which are publicly funded.

It is clear, as has been said to us by many of those we have consulted, that the structure of the College sector and specifically of College Boards is 'odd' or 'peculiar' compared with other formats. Those that audit the sector, for example, find it difficult to compare it readily with others.

In many ways FE governance is self forming and regulating. Each College can itself appoint new Board members through advert and then select their own Chair from within without any real reference to any other body or source if they do not wish to do so.

Governments of all kinds and colours since 1992 have also not been overly specific until last year in making clear to the College Sector exactly what it wants from it.

Any sector needs a set of overarching guiding principles and policies within which to operate. Without those it is likely to become fragmented with individual parts deciding what these should be. The FE Sector in Scotland currently does not have these.

The consultation paper entitled 'Putting Learners at the Centre' does set out, for the first time, the future policy direction for the sector which Ministers are minded to consider. It would be foolish for us not to take this policy direction into account so Annexe F sets out the specific sections of the consultation paper which we have used as reference points for our thinking. At the heart of those is that the College Sector has to give more emphasis to economic need and employment, while at the same time being fair socially and widening access to all who could and should use it. FE and individual learning access points ( LAPs) need to continue to be at the heart of their community, responding to the social and vocational needs for that community, and beyond where appropriate.

We also believe that the outcomes set out in Annexe F are those that operate in any fiscal environment so are key overall outcomes.

A point of contention with one of those outcomes is that employers and indeed industries ought to know what skills they need into the future. However experience from Scotland and indeed many other parts of the world proves they do not always have this knowledge. This is especially true at a time when we are moving into a new economic environment which will be distinctly different in many ways from that which existed before the current economic crisis. Trying to forecast which industries, and in what form, will shape this new and differently managed and run economy will be difficult for those industries themselves so we should not expect the FE Sector to be any better than anyone else in doing this.

Also, while Sector Skills Councils ( SSCs) are also supposed to do this, their performance is inconsistent and patchy in what they contribute, and this may become less over time as devolution impacts further. That many SSCs also want now to be deliverers of training in their own right does not help, or may be highly inappropriate, as poachers and gamekeepers seldom walk the same path happily together. Current FE institutions and major companies within key sectors will also say that SSCs can be a hindrance for the learner as well as imposing rules, levels, or levies that are inflexible or take no account of how specific industries have moved on from where they were. While it is not in our remit to make specific recommendations for SSCs other than in terms of any impact they have on the FE Sector as a whole, there is a strong argument for examining whether SSCs any longer serve a purpose and whether the public funding they use or channel would be better used for the learner elsewhere.