Response to the Scottish Funding Council Proposals for Implementing College Regionalisation: Putting Learners at the Centre

Transcription

1 Response to the Scottish Funding Council Proposals for Implementing College Regionalisation:

2 Introduction The City of Glasgow College s Board of Management and Executive firmly embrace and endorse the Scottish Government s Reform Agenda. Indeed as a successful pathfinder merger we have much to share with our colleagues both from governance and from a merger/ transformational change management perspective. Beginning with the end in mind, we consider that unhelpful competition wasteful duplication and silo structures will be avoided if there is an agreed vision of Glasgow as an integrated Glasgow City region. 2

3 Planning Further Education Provision Regionally We support the proposal to plan further education provision regionally. The College is of the view that to achieve the advantages listed in the consultation document will normally require the integration/ merger of colleges within each region. Anything less than full scale integration will not maximise efficiencies nor remove unnecessary duplication of further education provision within a region. The regionalisation and integration of colleges will allow regions to become stronger partners with their regional stakeholders (employers, local authorities, universities and SDS) and potentially lead to improved regional planning and more effective deployment of public funds. Defining the Regions The key criteria set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 are reasonable. We would have preferred a stronger emphasis on travel-to-work factors within the criteria. We are strongly of the view that student choice in terms of which college to attend should not be curtailed as a result of regionalisation. Some regions, such as Glasgow, provide employment opportunities for a large proportion of people who are not residents. It is likely that employers within these regions would wish to establish meaningful links with the regional college/ entity to develop training opportunities for their workforce as well as draw on the available pool of trained students. We broadly agree with the regional groupings of colleges as set out in paragraph 10 of the consultation document. We would, however, wish the following points to be considered: In terms of Glasgow, significant efficiency savings will be gained from removing unnecessary duplication of the further education curriculum across the city as a whole. These efficiency gains are more likely to be delivered through an integrated Glasgow City region. If full integration is delivered for Glasgow, then it is possible that around 75m of efficiency savings could be reinvested in the student experience over a 5-year planning period. We would suggest that prospective students from West Dunbartonshire would be better served as part of the Glasgow region. The natural travelto-work route for people from Clydebank is the Glasgow region. SFC statistics for would suggest that around 31% of Clydebank College s wsums are linked to students with a Glasgow postcode (e.g. Drumchapel). The position of Cumbernauld College in terms of regionalisation is complex as the travel-to-work and travel-to-study patterns might not be strongly linked with the rest of North Lanarkshire. Cumbernauld College also delivers a significant amount of wsums activity in East Dunbartonshire. 3

4 Ensuring Regional Boundaries Are Visible We welcome the proposal in paragraph 15, which indicates that student choice will not be restricted and that they will be free to attend a college outwith their own resident region. This is vital if the further education sector is to play its part in encouraging a flexible and mobile labour market. The College finds the proposal in terms of marketing set out in paragraph 15 unhelpful and probably unworkable. Marketing is moving ever more towards digital marketing via websites, mobile technology and social networking, therefore, geographic boundaries become less meaningful. The College strongly supports the proposal to identify national specialisms. These could be based on three factors: A college offers unique course provision, which has demonstrably in the past attracted students from a wide geographic area. A college delivers a significant proportion of the national total for a particular subject area, which has demonstrably in the past attracted students from a wide geographic area. A college has unique and/or significant amount of course provision at HE level, which has demonstrably provided progression routes for students from other regions. The College agrees that travel-to-study data is a good proxy for taking account of cross region student flow. This, however, could be augmented by travel-to-work data if this is available from the Scottish Government s statistical office. 4

5 Estimating Regional Need The list of socio-economic indicators set out in paragraph 17 is reasonable. Consideration should, however, be given to the use of additional sociodemographic indicators, which recognise the wider challenges arising from social deprivation e.g. poverty, health and mortality. There should also be a factor that takes accounts of the training and development needs of people in employment. Meeting the further education needs of this group was highlighted in the Putting Leaners at the Centre as one of the fundamental purposes of the further education sector. We recognise the need to take account of the S3- S6 population. However, to give prominence to this group in the list contained in paragraph 17 of the consultation document might be misunderstood. Greater emphasis should have been placed on those other groups that currently or traditionally do not participate in further education or training. We would welcome some recognition in terms of funding regarding the additional pressures placed on those colleges that strive to meet the training and development needs of asylum seekers and EU economic migrant workers. This cohort of students might not surface in the indicators set out in paragraph 17 as the majority of this group will not qualify to register as unemployed. We support the proposal for an annual rebasing of regional allocations. Courses We fully support the emphasis on delivering and funding courses that lead to a recognised qualification. We would prefer if this priority was given more emphasis. Paragraphs 22 and 23 appear to open the door to funding courses that do not lead to a recognised qualification. 5

6 Subject-based Element We are strongly of the view that some subjects (e.g. construction & engineering) are significantly more expensive to deliver not only in terms of materials but more importantly in terms of the number of students that can be taught safely within the learning environment and the additional demands on space and related infrastructure. We recognise that the average funding weight for large multi-disciplinary regional colleges will probably balance out. However, the absence of a higher subject weighting could potentially lead to institutions gradually displacing more expensive subject areas with less expensive provision, particularly during a period of budget restraint. We are concerned that if key science & technology subjects are not given proper weight in terms of funding then there could be a wider economic impact if colleges reduce provision in these areas. These are areas of economic activity that generate above average gross value added and reductions could result in local employers finding it difficult to recruit and/or train existing employees. Additional Support Needs Element We support the move away from DPG18 funding. Large regional colleges should have a similar population mix in terms of people with additional support needs and, therefore, core subject funding should be sufficient to allow each college to develop the capacity to meet the needs of this category of student. Paragraph 27 makes mention of social deprivation. We would suggest that this factor is taken into account in regional funding allocations rather than embedded in the proposed additional support needs element. Rural and Remote Element We support the proposal for a rural and remote element in terms of funding. 6

7 Funding for Student Support We are disappointed that the Funding Council is proposing little change in paragraph 29. It is recognised that bursary is means tested and, therefore, will only go to those students that meet the set national criteria. Given that the demand for bursary support will probably outstrip supply, SFC should give consideration to an allocation methodology that recognises the variability of socio-economic factors between regions. Funding for Capital Maintenance We support the allocation of capital maintenance grant based on building condition only in the short term. Once all colleges have benefited from the Government s investment in renewing the FE college estate throughout Scotland, then SFC should not reward those colleges that have failed to maintain their new estate by allocating special capital grant. Counting Student Numbers We are of the view that the existing funding methodology is reasonably transparent and not overly complex. We would, however support the proposal to replace wsums with FTEs. We are strongly of the view that there should be that no distinction made between FE and HE provision in terms of funding. to ensure that course provision is based on demand rather than income potential. We fully support the use of SCQF. We would propose that a full-time equivalent FE or HE student should be based on 640 learning hours or 64 SCQF credit points. 7

8 Retention We would prefer that the existing retention rule continues to be used in terms of funding and performance measurement. It could, however, be simplified in the first instance by applying it to fulltime students only. The argument for narrowing the 25% target attendance to full-time only is based on the greater investment of public funds in fulltime students both in terms of teaching grant and student support funds. It would also ensure that there would be no differential treatment in terms of funding between full-time FE and HE students who withdraw early from a course. This is made on the assumption that SAAS will continue to withhold fees for those full-time HE students who withdraw from their course early. 8

9 Regional Structures & Accountability We note the proposal in the College Regionalisation paper that Glasgow should be one region, and we will look forward to working with our colleagues in partner colleges, and other relevant institutions and organisations in Glasgow and beyond, in a collaborative spirit to establish new structures which will be best suited to meet the needs of learners and employers within the proposed city region of Glasgow, across the Greater Glasgow conurbation and the college s existing student catchment area within the surrounding rural counties. While we note the four possible models for regional reorganisation outlined in the College Regionalisation paper, we feel that rather than advocate any one model at this stage, it is important that the partners involved in any proposed Glasgow City region and other regions, jointly agree the most appropriate model for their region. We share the Government s desire that the College sector in Scotland delivers high-quality learning opportunities that meet the needs and aspirations of the students and employers that we serve. Students and employers should have a real choice about how and where learning is carried out. This should be an important consideration for the SFC in drawing up regional funding allocations, and also increasing expectation from employers who may have to make a greater contribution to the training costs through upfront contributions (i.e. Full Cost Recovery). Furthermore policy makers and funders need access to the very latest census data especially socio-demographics metrics of students and employers within any FE reform. For example it is important to recognise that 50% of all students at City of Glasgow College come from out-with Glasgow travelling to the city for specialist provision. Broader challenges will include managing the regional curriculum offer within a new regional funding model, while addressing the aforementioned complexities of productivity, employment and skills. There are many issues that surround this including clear information about what is offered, by whom, in what format, and with what employability currency. With this in mind, the evolution of various models for Glasgow may require different approaches. In developing appropriate models it will be necessary to consider: current recruitment trends of further and higher education students; volume of activity; subject specialism; connectivity with regards transport links for students; skill needs of city centre based employers; and opportunities to draw on existing strengths. An idea for consideration is that funding could be made directly to all Glasgow colleges in line with the development of localised strategies for tackling unemployment, which has risen consistently over the past few years from 18,400 (6.4%) in December 2008 to 36,000 (12.3%) in December 2010, with specific focus on linked funding to the youth unemployment agenda, workforce development and community need. 24% of Glasgow s total population are year olds, which is significant with regards challenges faced by youth unemployment, and changes that will be needed in both curriculum development and curriculum delivery. Different approaches to training, qualifications structures and getting young people job ready and into work are required. It may also be worth be exploring, in tandem with other colleges, the creation of a model for higher education provision and its associated funding within Glasgow City Region. A confederated model could provide opportunity for an agreed Higher Education Regional Plan for all colleges in Glasgow to ensure de-cluttering at SCQF level 7, curriculum non- duplication, and targeted growth pipelines for key growth sectors. We recognise that College reform is necessary to facilitate raising economic productivity, increasing employment rates and improving national economic performance. Scotland requires nothing less than a dynamic, sustainable international economy which competes on the basis of knowledge, advanced technology and an excellent quality of life for all. Scotland s Colleges need to rise to the challenge of reform, placing the needs of the twenty first century learner at the centre of a national vision where regionalised models can improve productivity, grow markets and grow the size and capability of the workforce. Colleges will have to work hard over the next three years to ensure that new emerging regional models are fit for purpose achieving growth in economic output (GVA growth). Productivity drivers will include: skills; innovation; enterprise; competition; and investment from alternative income streams. 9

10 Regional Structures & Accountability cont.. Local and sub-regional needs should be considered within regional models, addressing specific community and labour market issues. New regional models need to be powerhouses of skills development at apprenticeship, technician, associate professional and higher professional levels, with the links to technician and associate professional status being made much stronger as part of progression pathways that feed skills shortages and enduring skills gaps. We see the value in a strategic approach to both commercial and international development for the college sector in Glasgow to ensure that we are optimising opportunity for all colleges within the region but also to ensure that both the brands of Glasgow and Scotland are maximised to the full and that international students, new foreign business opportunities and in-country developments can be won for the city and for Scotland. Supporting the Cost of Change We acknowledge that the availability of additional grant to support change will be limited. We, therefore, support the proposal to fund change with a balance of grant and loans. SFC support should, however, only be given to proposed developments that wholly embrace the outcomes set out in and not other proposals that are merely designed to offer limited change that protect the existing status quo or do not deliver an optimum solution. 10

11 Outcome Agreements We support the proposal for outcome agreements. However, consideration should be given to using a different terminology given that only one of the proposed three broad areas within the agreement relates to outcomes. The College would support the use of a Balanced Scorecard Approach linked to SMART objectives and regionally agreed outcomes. We would suggest that paragraph 44 could benefit from including statements/indicators linked to equality & diversity. Paragraph 46 makes reference to universities and efficient progression of learners. We would argue that not all of the barriers to efficient progression rest with FE colleges. SFC should, for example, more robustly challenge those universities that have resisted working in genuine partnership with colleges to achieve improved articulation and progression from FE to HE and reinforce the acceptance and use of the SCQF. Paragraphs refer on some occasions to regional outcome agreements but reference is made to colleges in other parts of these paragraphs. It would be beneficial to have clarity as to whether outcome agreements are to be set at a regional level and not at a college level, particularly for those regions that will contain more than one college. Paragraphs are silent on what role, if any, Education Scotland will play in terms of setting and monitoring outcome agreements. Education Scotland s possible role is hinted at in paragraph 51. SFC and Education Scotland should avoid taking different approaches to assessing the work of a region/college and streamline their approaches to performance monitoring. Ideally not all aspects of the outcome agreement should change or be assessed on an annual basis. It would be preferable if the overall success or otherwise of each region s/college s outcome agreement could be assessed on a 3-yearly basis rather than annually as proposed in paragraph 51. Paragraph 51 relates to assessing performance and is written in terms of a regional review process with no mention of individual college reviews. Paragraph 52 does make mention of colleges but only in the context of failure to achieve targets. A clearer explanation of the interaction of regional and college reviews would be beneficial. Phasing of Reforms We would strongly urge that reforms are phased at a sensible speed and that appropriate transitional arrangements are in place as outlined in paragraph

12 College Contacts: Paul Little Principal and Chief Executive Alex Craig Vice Principal Learning and Teaching Glasgow Metropolitan College known as City of Glasgow College Scottish Charity Number SC036198