Strategic Board for Teacher Education minutes: January 2016

Attendees and apologies

Present

• Clare Hicks - Scottish Government (Chair)
• Teresa Moran - STEC
• Susan Quinn - EIS
• Gillian Hamilton - SCEL
• Alan Armstrong - Education Scotland
• John Edward - SCIS
• Seamus Searson - SSTA
• Tim Wallace - AHDS
• Ken Muir - GTCS
• Michael McGrath - SCES
• Michael Wood - ADES
• Kathy Cameron - COSLA
• Fiona Robertson - Scottish Government
• Rachel Sunderland - Scottish Government
• David Roy - Scottish Government

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

1. Clare Hicks welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Strategic Board for Teacher Education (SBTE). Apologies were received from Jim Thewliss, Barrie Sheppard and Christine Stephen. John Edward had substituted for Margaret Lannon for the purposes of the first meeting.

Remit and frequency of meetings

2. The Board discussed the remit and in particular discussed the relationship between the Strategic Board for Teacher Education and other governance structures currently in place. The relationship between SBTE and forthcoming work to take forward the recommendations of the OECD Report was also discussed. It was felt that the role of the SBTE was distinct and its existence was reflective of the importance of this area of work. Fiona Robertson confirmed that mapping out the developing governance arrangements around education was already underway. A small amendment to the remit was agreed to reflect that the quality indicators mentioned on page one of paper SBTE/01/02 referred to the Teacher Professionalism and School Leadership drivers in the National Improvement Framework.

3. The Board agreed to meet quarterly. Clare Hicks also encouraged members to come forward with agenda items they wanted the Board to discuss.

SBTE workplan / possible future agenda items

4. David Roy introduced the workplan and future agenda items papers. It was explained that the workplan contained a mixture of new projects and activity, such as the Evaluation of TSF, that had been carried over from the National Implementation Board that last met in June 2015. These papers were agreed by the Board. A small amendment to project 3, Framework for Masters in Education, was agreed to reflect the fact that SCEL also had an important role in this area of work.

MyProfessional Learning / Professional Update

5. Ken Muir updated the Board on GTCS plans to merge MyProfessional Learning (MyPL) with Professional Update (PU). Currently MyPL and PU have been operating as two separate projects with the former focusing on the development of a national e-portfolio to record teachers learning. Ken Muir explained that piloting of MyPL was expected to take place with 6-8 local authorities in August 2016. As the projects have developed they are increasingly seen as being very closely related and as a result GTCS intended merging them and forming a single steering group to manage the work. This was in the process of being agreed with the existing working groups for MyPL and PU.

6. This Board was supportive of this proposal. It was also confirmed that a single sign-in would be possible from MyPL to Glow and that the GTCS was working to link MyPL with the learning records of student teachers. It was agreed that the Board was to be kept updated on this area of work over the coming months. Ken Muir also offered to provide the Board with a visual update on the project at a future meeting.

National Improvement Framework

7. David Roy introduced a paper on the National Improvement Framework drawing out key drivers relevant to the work of the Board. It was agreed that it was appropriate for the Board to take responsibility for taking forward the Teacher Professionalism and School Leadership drivers and that the Board will be asked to provide advice to a future National Improvement Board on these issues. This role would be reflected in the remit of the Board.

Workforce planning

8. Rachel Sunderland introduced a paper on the workforce planning process explaining that teaching was a controlled subject, that the most recent census data was used in calculating need, that the process was based on partnership working across the sector but that the process had become very time pressured. Clare Hicks suggested that there was a sense at authority and university level the existing workforce planning process did not reflect local needs. It also noted other countries, notably England, were experiencing similar issues in recruitment into certain subjects.

9. The Board agreed that ensuring the approach to workforce planning operated effectively was a key issue. The Board discussed the key issues including how best to attract students to become teachers, potential flexibility in GTCS registration procedures and the distribution of places and the need to involve the local authority/university partnerships established further to the publication of Teaching Scotland’s Future. Further issues briefly discussed included setting the universities student recruitment targets that could not be met, bursaries/wiping of student loans, targeting leavers from other industries including the energy sector and existing teachers, particularly in STEM subjects, playing a role in recruitment.

10. Given the workforce planning timetable and shortages in some parts of the country it was agreed that improving the process was an urgent task. It was agreed a working group should be set up tasked with recommending improvements to the workforce planning process including how regional needs can be better met. This group would be charged with reporting recommendations by June 2016.

Action – SG to request nominees for a Working Group to discuss workforce planning.

Equality and diversity issues in the teaching profession

11. David Roy introduced a paper on equality and diversity of the teaching profession. Issues highlighted in relation to the gender balance included the well-known female majority in the primary sector but also the steady increase in the percentage of women working in the secondary sector, 63% in 2015. When compared to the overall Scottish population black and minority ethnic groups were underrepresented with the number of BME staff in promoted posts also being very low.

12. The paper asked for the Board’s views on how these issues could be tackled. It was felt that discussions should be held with organisations such as BEMIS and SAMI? It was also suggested that these issues could be included as part of a future discussion on workforce planning. It was also felt worthwhile more closely investigating the number of BME students that applied to join Initial Teacher Education (ITE) courses.

Action – SG to engage with BEMIS and teachers’ representatives to consider the issue of under-representation of the BME ethnic community in the teaching profession. SG to consider with STEC the number of students applying to enter ITE courses.

AOB

13. None intimated.

Date of next meeting

14. Secretariat will canvass for dates for the rest of 2016.

Action – Secretariat to canvass for dates for the rest of 2016.

Summary of Actions

	Action	Deadline	Owner
01/01	SG to request nominees for a Working Group to discuss workforce planning.	12/02/16	Scottish Government
01/02	SG to engage with BEMIS and teachers’ representatives to consider the issue of under-representation of the BME ethnic community in the teaching profession. SG to consider with STEC the number of students applying to enter ITE courses.	27/04/16	Scottish Government
01/03	Secretariat will canvass for dates for the rest of 2016.	27/04/16	Scottish Government