7/29/2019 THE POST-16 EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL:

1/4

Summary

There is an absence of an overarching strategyfora reformedpost-16 education system. Theplansforcollegesare much more specific than thoseforuniversities. Strategy fortheuniversity sectorappears tobeemergingonanadhoc basis as

outcome agreements arenegotiated and agreed.

The Billprovides ScottishMinisters withsignificantpowersto determineprinciples of governance ormanagement in relationto universities. Theinclusion of management is notable. It is notclear astohow management is tobe definedand applied.Oversight of management effectivenessis oneof theprincipalfunctionsof each institutionsgoverning body andwe seeno justification forits inclusion in thepresent Bill.

The fundamental right andneed foruniversitiesto enjoy autonomy in their strategies andoperationsis notbeingsufficiently recognised. While they haveto be accountable to funders for theoutcomesdue,the Bill seeks to change the balance in ways we feelwill be damaging to the vitality of the universitysector. Examples abound internationally wherebythe efficiency of universities in reacting toopportunity and needare dramatically inhibitedbecause of toodirect an accountability togovernment.

We strongly supportmeasures to ensurethataccess to higher education is based on ability andpotential, rather than other personal or financialcircumstances. Widening accessto highereducationis a complex issue. Weremain to be convinced thatrequiring universities to comply with terms andconditionsimposed by Scottish Ministers for thepurposes of widening accesswould add value.There is a risk this legislative provisionover-simplifieswider accessby failing toacknowledge the complex underlying causesof under-participation many of which cannotbe addressed by highereducation institutionsalone, but require collaborationacrossthe fullspectrum of Scottish education.

Regionalisation, for most colleges, seems to beaccepted as the best way forward to preserveservices to learners in the context of reducedresources, and to further enhance servicesthrough a coherent approach to identifyingandmeeting regional priorities. We are concernedabout the extent to which the college sector canimplement this scale of change andfulfil thewide-rangingeducation, trainingand life-longlearning roles expected of it in the face of thesubstantial funding reductions it is experiencing.The ScottishGovernment must therefore ensurethat thecollege sector is given sufficient resourcesto enable it to meet local and national needs.

Given that the regional boards will receive anddistribute funding for the region and plan college

provision across the region, their relationship withthe SFC must be clear. Care will need to be takento minimise the potential for duplication and thecreation of an additional costly layer ofadministration.

With the consent of Scottish Ministers, the SFCmay review the extent to which fundable furthereducation or fundable higher education is beingprovided by post-16 education bodies in a coherentmanner. We are very concerned about the potentialimplications the proposals may have for institutional

autonomy. It is one thing for the SFC to reviewfundable further and higher education provisionwith a view to making recommendations, it would beentirely another for Scottish Ministers or the SFC todictate the types of programmes or courses to beprovided by post-16 education bodies or thatinstitutions should merge. It is the institutionsthemselves that are best placed to determinesuch matters depending upon their individualcircumstances.

A d vice Pa p erJan u ary 2 0 1 3

1

THE POST-16 EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL: a response tothe Scottish Parliaments Education and Culture Committee

(1301)

7/29/2019 THE POST-16 EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL:

2/4

2

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 1

Background

1 Through its Education Committee, the Royal Societyof Edinburgh (RSE), Scotlands National Academy,identifies and promotes priorities for educationin Scotland, and at all stages. The EducationCommittee comprises individuals with expertiseand experience in and across the school, college anduniversity sectors. We welcome the opportunityafforded by the Scottish Parliaments Educationand Culture Committeeto comment on theprovisionsof the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill. We wouldbe pleased to discuss further any of the commentsmade in ourresponse with members of the Committee.

2 The changes being proposed for post-16 educationin Scotland are the most extensive revamping of thestructure, funding and governance of further andhigher education in a generation. The pace at whichproposals are emerging is quickening and it is

crucial that arrangements will be made for on-goingconsultation. The aspirations of the ScottishGovernment were set out in Putting Learnersat theCentre Delivering ourAmbitionsforPost-16Education, to which the RSE Education Committeeresponded1. The proposals in the Post-16 Education(Scotland) Bill seek to implement that agenda.A number of other publications and consultationsare relevant. Not least, the reviews carried out byProfessor Griggs and Professor von Prondzynskiinto the governance of further and higher educationinstitutions, respectively. The RSE also responded tothese separate reviews.2

3 In our previous responses we drew attention tothe following concerns which we do not feel havebeen sufficiently addressed in the Bill.

The absence of an overarching strategy for areformed post-16 education system.

While institutions should be accountable forthe funding which they receive, institutionalautonomy for strategy and operation, particularlyin the universities, is not sufficiently recognised.

The absence of a rationale of how the legislativeproposalswill improve the existing arrangements

for governance in the universities.

4 In December 2012 the SFC published its strategicplan3 2012-2015. This sets out a programme ofchange and reform with a view to delivering theambitions for post-16 education of the SFC and theScottish Government. The plans for colleges aremuch more specific than those for universities.The SFC website reveals a recent reorganisationof the structure of the SFC with the establishmentof a Group for colleges and post-92 universitiesand a Group for research intensives and SSIs.

This would appear to indicate a specific role forthe post-92 universities within the frameworkof regionalisation but this is not made clear in thenew strategy. Universities have prepared outcomeagreements for the first time but they have done sowithout there being a clear framework. Strategy forthe sector appears to be emerging on an adhoc basis

as outcome agreementsare negotiated and agreed.

COMMENTS ON THE MAIN PROVISIONS

INTRODUCED BY THE BILL

University governance & management

5 Section 2 of the Bill provides Scottish Ministerswith significant powers and latitude to determineprinciples of governance or management, withthe power to determine what constitutes goodgovernance or management resting with ScottishMinisters, rather than the SFC. The inclusion ofmanagement in addition to governance is alsonotable. The reason for its inclusion is not setout in the documentation accompanying the Bill.It is not clear as to how management is to bedefined and applied. Oversight of managementeffectiveness is one of the principal functions ofeach institutions governing body and we seeno justification for its inclusion in the present Bill.

6 The fundamental right and need for universities toenjoy autonomy in their strategies and operations isnot being sufficiently recognised. Of course there

has to be accountability to funders for the outcomesdue, but the Bill seeks to change the balance inways we feel will be damaging to the vitality of theuniversity sector. Universities vary in the degree towhich they are reliant on Government funding, withsome institutions receiving only a minority of theirfunding from Government sources. Examplesabound internationally whereby the efficiencyof universities in reacting to opportunity and needare dramatically inhibited because of too direct anaccountability to government.

7 Prior to any legislative proposals on university

governance ever being introduced, it should havebeen set out whether, and where, there is anaccountability and governance deficit for theScottish universities. Fundamental questionsremain as to why a review of HE governancewas initiated and what public concern was itdesigned to address. As such, there has beenno explanation of how the proposed changeswill improve the existing arrangements forgovernance, and we are concerned that theproposals are in danger of putting at risk thesignificant gains which have been made.

1 RSE response to Putting Learners at the Centre (December 2011) http://www.rse.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/2011/ad11_17.pdf

2 RSE response on the Governance of Higher Education in Scotland (September 2011) http://www.rse.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/2011/ad11_13.pdf

RSE response on the Report of the Review of Further Education Governance in Scotland (February 2012)http://www.rse.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/2012/AP12_02.pdf

3 http://www.sfc.ac.uk/about_the_council/corporate_plan/about_strategies_corporate.aspx

7/29/2019 THE POST-16 EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL:

3/4

3

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 1

8 The SFC has played an important two-way rolein relation to the universities. On the one hand,it has been the mechanism for the annualtransmission to the universities of a governmentalview of priorities that it wishes to see reflected inuniversity work, but in a way that goes with the

grain of universities capability and function.On the other hand, it has been the route throughwhich accountability for the use of publicfundshas been managed, although messages fromGovernment appear to have triggered a morereactive response than those transmitted to it.

9 The Cabinet Secretary for Education and LifelongLearning has asked the committee of the Scottishchairs of higher education institutions to lead agroup to develop a new Scottish code of good highereducation governance. While it would be reasonableto legislate to ensure that institutions pay due heed

to the code, the legislation should not go beyondthis. The code should therefore operate on a complyor explain basis. This is the approach adopted bythe existing UK-wide governance code of practice4

developed by the Committee of University Chairs(CUC), to which we understand all HEIs in Scotlandvoluntarily adhere.

Widening access10 Section 3 of the Bill allows for Scottish Ministers

to impose terms and conditions to increaseparticipation by groups which are currently under

represented. We strongly support measures toensure that access to higher education is basedon ability and potential, rather than other personalor financial circumstances. How to achieve this isnot straightforward. Widening access to highereducation is a complex issue. The SFC has had along term programme of working with institutionson access and inclusion (Learning forAll) and has,within the first year of working with institutions onoutcome agreements, achieved further progress onwider access on a consensus basis, throughstrategic allocations of resources. We look forward

to the continued development of this approach.

11 We remain to be convinced that direct interventionby Scottish Ministers to require compliance wouldadd value. There is a risk that it would lead to amechanistic approach rather than the developmentof creative responses to lowering barriers toparticipation. There is also a risk that this legislativeprovision over-simplifies wider access by failing toacknowledge the complex underlying causes ofunder-participation many of which cannot beaddressed by higher education institutions alone,

but require collaboration across the full spectrum

of Scottish education. School education has aparticularly important role to play in this regard.

College regionalisation12 We recognise that college regionalisation is seen

as a means of providing for greater collaborationbetween colleges and addressing duplicationof provision and unnecessary competition inthe sector. In turn, there is the potential to createlarger, stronger, more influential institutions.Regionalisation, for most colleges, seems tobe accepted as the best way forward to preserveservices to learners throughout Scotland in thecontext of reduced resources, and to furtherenhance services through a coherent approachto identifying and meeting regional priorities.The Scottish Government and the SFC are workingwith colleges to implement the arrangements.

13 We are however concerned about the extent towhich the college sector can implement this scaleof change and fulfil the wide-ranging education,training and life-long learning roles expected ofit in the face of the substantial funding reductionsit is experiencing. In a recent report5 the DavidHume Institute has shown that the sector iscost-efficient and crucial in economic and socialterms. It also reaches parts of society that otherelements of the education system find difficult toreach. The Scottish Government must therefore

ensure that the college sector is given sufficientresources to enable it to meet local and nationalneeds. This will help support the Governments aimof sustainable economic growth for Scotland.

14 College mergers are expected to deliver circa 50million in annual savings. Whilst this may beachievable in the longer term, mergers will incursignificant upfront costs. Implementing mergerswith the over-riding aim of saving money may put atrisk the educational benefits of mergers.

15 The college regions are heterogeneous, with somemergers and some federations and some singlecollege regions. They vary in size from very large(Glasgow will be a very large multi-college regioncombining the already merged City of GlasgowCollege and several other colleges) to small(West Lothian has one small college). They willhave varying scope to achieve savings and provideservices to learners. There is yet to be clarity aboutwhat students and employers may expect from thenew landscape, apart from the promise of a moreefficient system. It will be important to ensure thecollege regions are well connected with the fabricand infrastructure of the regions in whichthey operate.

4 Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2009/200914/

5 Further Education, theScottishLabourMarket andtheWider Economy;The David Hume Institute; November 2012

7/29/2019 THE POST-16 EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL:

4/4

Additional Information and ReferencesThis Advice Paper has been prepared by the RSE EducationCommittee and signed off by the General Secretary.

In responding to this call for evidence the Society would like to draw attention to the following Royal Societyof Edinburgh publications which are relevant to this subject:

The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Commission on School Reform,Schooling in ScotlandanditsFitness for21st Century Purpose (May 2012)

The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Scottish Government, Report of the ReviewofFurtherEducationGovernance in Scotland (February 2012)

The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Scottish Government, Putting Learners at theCentre(December 2011)

The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Review of HE Governance, TheGovernance ofHigherin Scotland (September 2011)

Any enquiries about this Advice Paper should be addressed to the RSE Consultations Officer, Mr William Hardie(Email: evidenceadvice@royalsoced.org.uk). Responses are published on the RSE website (www.royalsoced.org.uk).

TheRoyalSocietyof Edinburgh(RSE) isScotlands National Academy. It is an independentbodywitha multidisciplinary fellowshipof menand womenof international

standingwhichmakes ituniquely placedto offer informed, independentcomment onmattersof nationalinterest.

TheRoyal Societyof Edinburgh,ScotlandsNational Academy,is ScottishCharityNo. SC000470

4

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 1

Governance arrangements16 It will be necessary to create a statutory basis

for regional boards in multi-college regions and todetermine the relationships between colleges,regional boards and the SFC. However, as currentlydrafted, the Bill appears to have taken some of the

powers and duties of the SFC and applied theseto regional boards, creating the potential forduplication, confusion or even conflict. Given thatthe regional boards will receive and distributefunding for the region and plan college provisionacross the region, their relationship with SFC mustbe clear. Care will need to be taken to minimise thepotential for duplication and the creation of anadditional costly layer of administration.

17 Bringing greater transparency and rigour to theappointment of chairs and members of regionalcollege boards would build on the steps already

taken by many colleges to open up boardappointments through good recruitment andselection processes. The Bill clarifies ScottishMinisters role in appointing (and removing) chairsand members of regional boards. While boardmembers should be accountable, in the caseof removal, it will be important that the legislationprovides appropriate safeguards to ensureconfidence in the process. This should include aright of appeal.

18 Care will need to be taken to ensure that boardswithin multi-college regions operate efficiently and

fairly e.g. the proposed reduction in size of collegeboards which are not a regional college suggeststhey have the potential to be less representative andless independent than existing boards.

19 The Bill makes provision to require regional boardsand regional colleges to pay their chairs suchremuneration as Scottish Ministers may in eachcase determine. This recommendation that chairsof boards should be remunerated is contentious, ashas been demonstrated by the review of governancein universities, where this issue prompted a minority

dissention. Much greater consideration of theimplication of such a step is required in both sectors.

Review of fundable furtherand higher education

20 Under section 14 of the Bill and with the consent ofScottish Ministers, the SFC may review the extent towhich fundable further education or fundable highereducation is being provided by post-16 educationbodies in a coherent manner. The scope of mattersthat can be reviewed is broad, as set out in section

14(2). This includes provision to review the numberof post-16 education bodies and the types ofprogrammes of learning or courses, as well asreviewing funding and provision in particular areas.

21 We agree that institutions must deliver an appropriatelevel of accountability given the level of public fundingwhich they receive. However, we are very concernedabout the potential implications the proposals mayhave for institutional autonomy. It is one thing forthe SFC to review fundable further and highereducation provision with a view to makingrecommendations, it would be entirely another for

Scottish Ministers or the SFC to dictate the types ofprogrammes or courses to be provided by post-16education bodies or that institutions should merge.It is the institutions themselves that are best placedto determine such matters depending upon theirindividual circumstances.