The programme board for the Scottish Funding Council’s landmark review of the coherence and sustainability of FE and HE institutions is not lacking in education expertise. It includes a former college principal, a former college board member, the director of advance learning and science at the Scottish government, along with a number of other leading education figures.
The board will oversee the review, chaired by chief executive of the SFC Karen Watt. Ms Watt told Tes the board included both internal SFC staff and a number of external experts.
It is expected the review will lead to wide-ranging recommendations on the future of colleges and universities in Scotland.
Scottish colleges: College network to commission 'thought leadership'
SQA results U-turn: College places to be made available
SFC: Colleges told to 'deprioritise' work with young pupils
Challenging and holding to account
“The role of the board is to make sure the whole project is objective, we ask ourselves the difficult questions and are consulting properly,” Ms Watt said. “And, importantly, that we are making it clear where decisions lie for the SFC’s own board, where we might want to make recommendations to ministers and where we might want to make further comment and recommendations for the sectors themselves.”
She added: "They are going to be in the role of both challenging us and enabling us to hold ourselves more to account."
The SFC was asked to carry out the review by the Scottish government earlier this year. It is meant to consider how best to achieve coherence and sustainability in the delivery of further and higher education during the Covid-19 crisis, EU exit transition, and beyond, while “maintaining and enhancing quality”.
Ms Watt said: “The main issue is we are in the middle of a pandemic and a crisis, and we know universities and colleges face particular challenges. Now more than ever we need to know: ‘How can FE and HE weather the current crisis and how best should they adapt so we have a more resilient and keep our world-class system?’ What we know is that not just in response to the Covid and economic challenge, we know universities and colleges are an engine for jobs and ultimately human flourishing.”
She explained the review should answer not just how the post-16 education system could weather the storm, but also how it should adapt and change. “We have a brilliant opportunity just now to really answer these questions, but we also need to focus on getting through 2020-22, which is a significant crisis.”
Immediate and long-term
The review would therefore have two “parallel tracks”, she said, so it could look at dealing with the immediate crisis, “but that second track is making sure that we have enough time to deal with the more complex, long-term issues so we can make sure we have universities and colleges that can still do the things we need them to do”.
“We are in phase one of three phases,” she explained, with this phase asking “some really big questions – including what people think matters about the HE and FE system, what should colleges and universities stop doing, how do we sustain the research base and how do we see collaboration going forward”.
Analysis had been commissioned, she said, and a broader consultation had been launched. “We are hoping we will have an update by the end of August," she said, with phase two then expected to take until the end of the year.
She said: “We anticipate some form of report, but that will not be an end in itself. We want to start a conversation. This isn’t about one final product. This is a review which has a longer life and needs to have an iteration and that needs to go through a number of phases, because there is no one answer and there will be no one solution to the complex challenges we face.”
Ms Watt added: “It would be easy to suggest we could do a quick six-week report and answer all the questions, but the questions we are dealing with will not be tackled in one fail swoop. This entire review is predicated on the fact we will get the best outcome if colleges and universities and stakeholders work with us to shape the conversation and bring forward and shape suggestions for us.”
Although there were financial challenges, Ms Watt stressed the review was less about efficiencies and more about sustainability. “We are a long term investor in the sector and we will be asking questions on what could be done better and what should we stop, but also where should we look at growth. We will need to think about the shape, the scale, the nature of provision. We will need to ask ourselves whether better collaboration could lead to better outcomes – not just for institutions, but first and foremost for students. This is about what is going to give us the best high-quality learning experience and what is going to equip them with the right pathway to flourish.”
“Obviously, we need to ask ourselves whether those ambitions are sustainable both in the short- and long-term. Ultimately, we need to make practical choices. We will need to come up with practical suggestions on how to move things forward and we have decisions to make about funding, outcome agreements, sustainability, collaborations and incentives for change that will take some time to work through.
"Because this will only work if it is working with the sectors and partners, and things are not yet clear. There are many uncertainties and complexities. We still don’t know who is going to walk through a virtual or a real campus door. So it will be foolish to say we will have answers by the end of August, but we will have a debate going.”
External experts on the review’s programme board:
- Sarah Davidson, chief executive of the Carnegie Trust
- Grant Ritchie, former principal of Dundee and Angus College
- Petra Wend, former principal of Queen Margaret University
- Scott McLarty, vice-chair of the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board and former college board member
- Richard Armour, former secretary-general of the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong
- Lorna Gibbs, director of advance learning and science, Scottish Government
