|
Schools-Colleges Review
A debate on motion
S2M-2793, in the name of Peter Peacock,
on The Schools-Colleges Review.
The
Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2793, in
the name of Peter Peacock, on the schools-colleges review.
The Minister for
Education and Young People (Peter Peacock):
It is my pleasure to open this debate on school-college partnership. We know
that many pupils already benefit from the learning opportunities that
colleges bring to the school curriculum. We want to increase and enhance
those opportunities throughout Scotland in order to open clear, new
opportunities for pupils; to tailor learning to suit individual students; to
offer more choice to pupils; and to ease pupils' transitions into further
learning, training or employment. That is why we have today published the
document "Lifelong Partners", our strategy for school-college partnership,
and the guide to partnership that accompanies it.
The strategy outlines how we will deliver on our partnership agreement
commitment to enable 14 to 16-year-olds to develop vocational skills through
college courses. It has been developed in the context of our national
priorities in education, our lifelong learning strategy and our
comprehensive agenda for action and change, which is set out in the document
"ambitious, excellent schools". The partnership approach recognises the
breadth that we advocate in our curriculum review, "a curriculum for
excellence", which was published last year — a breadth of learning that
schools will be able to deliver more fully through working together with
colleges. The strategy that has been published today also acknowledges that
existing school-college activity will grow over the coming years. That
growth, to which we commit ourselves in our strategy, represents a
significant realignment of the school and college sectors.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: I call Allan
Wilson to wind up. Minister, I can give you about 12 minutes.
The Deputy Minister
for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
That is generous of you, Presiding Officer. I shall use the first of those
minutes to apologise profusely again for the delay in getting the document
to members. As our national bard said:
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley."
This is one of those occasions. We have asked for a report from officials
and we shall make that report available to you, Presiding Officer. We shall
have to reflect on its contents, as will the rest of the Parliament, I
suspect.
It has been a useful debate, nonetheless, and I am grateful to members for
their constructive contributions — with one notable exception, to which I
will not refer. We all know the benefits that pupils derive from the
learning opportunities offered by colleges, and I think that everyone in the
chamber genuinely wants to increase and further enhance those opportunities
for pupils across Scotland. They are opportunities that give pupils valuable
vocational skills that will help to grow Scotland's economy. That is why our
approach differs from that of the nationalists, whose amendment we will not
be accepting, although we will accept the Conservative amendment.
Christine Grahame said that there was nothing new in what was proposed, but
I beg to differ. We began our schools-colleges review by examining existing
collaboration between schools and colleges in Scotland. That collaboration
has worked well for us until now and we wanted to build on the good work
that was already taking place. Collaboration is about joint working on joint
projects, but what we propose, on the other hand, is partnership.
Partnership is much more than collaboration. It means building a
relationship in which organisations work together for a common purpose. I
believe that it is indicative of the depth and maturity of existing
school-college links that we now embrace a partnership approach across the
country that is founded on mutual respect and trust. That is the type of
approach that will deliver a successful strategy. It is clearly not a
short-term initiative, but a major realignment of both sectors. That is what
is new. Something else that is new is the funding that goes with that, and
Christine May was right to point out that that funding must be sustainable
in the long term. In addition to the existing resources of £19 million — a
not insubstantial sum, as I am sure members would agree — an additional £35
million was put in by the 2004 spending review.
That funding will support, among other things, more pupils to benefit from
college learning and stable funding arrangements that do not disadvantage
colleges in providing courses to pupils. It will also support training for
college staff — as mentioned by Sylvia Jackson — and college activity to
implement the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act
2004, which other members mentioned. It will also support enhanced careers
advice to inform pupils of school-college options.
Robert Brown:
I would like to sound a cautionary note. On our visit to Glasgow yesterday,
members of the Education Committee learned that a considerable amount of
European funding was going into supporting initiatives. As 2006 approaches
and as that funding diminishes, there is a question as to how we can replace
that funding and sustain the initiatives. Does the minister have any
comments on that?
Allan Wilson:
One of my pleasant tasks in this new job has been to dispense large amounts
of European structural funding to further education colleges the length and
breadth of the country. Structural funds make an important contribution, as
does the social fund, to further education college learning. We have to take
those factors into account in our response to Commission proposals on the
future of such structural funding.
Fiona Hyslop:
The point that Robert Brown was making was that we know that that funding
will be withdrawn in 2006. We also learned that the determined to succeed
money is very much part and parcel of current funding. I would be interested
in the minister's thoughts on whether the new money that he is announcing
today will displace that current funding, or whether we can expect it to
continue so that we have added value rather than circulation of funding
pots.
Allan Wilson:
This is neither the time nor the place to get into a debate on the
contribution that structural funds make to the block grant, but the basic
premise of the question is not correct. We do not know that structural
funding will cease to exist after 2006, although there will undoubtedly be a
reduction in our entitlement to the said structural funds, which we will
have to factor into our budget considerations. In the next spending review,
we must consider how we can build upon the additional resource that we have
made available in the current spending review. In addition to all that, we
have today announced an additional £6.5 million allocation from within the
Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department budget, and the
funding council will ensure, through strategic oversight, that colleges aim
towards equitable access to provision for pupils across Scotland.
Decisions on the type and scale of provision will be taken locally, on the
basis of agreements between colleges, schools and local authorities, and the
community planning partnership process is absolutely vital to that outcome.
Funding will include the usual funding supplements for pupils in rural or
deprived areas. Again, those are important aspects of the additional
resource. The funding methodology will also take account of those pupils
requiring extended learning support.
That point was made during the course of the debate.
I take the points that have been made about capacity and ethos. Given that
there is an inevitable limit on capacity, as Peter Peacock said, and to
maintain colleges' central ethos as centres of voluntary learning for
adults, due regard will have to be paid to the pupils who will benefit most
from activities that enhance their prospective life chances. School and
college partnership is obviously not the only way in which vocational and
other learning opportunities can be made available to pupils. In the short
to medium term, it will be the principal means of delivering many skills for
work courses, but other modes of delivery will need to be explored fully.
We know that it is important that school-college partnership does not alter
the fundamental characteristics of colleges.
Their central ethos as centres for voluntary learning for adults needs to be
retained. The partnership must be managed carefully so that adult learners
are not dissuaded from returning to education. Moreover, the presence of too
many pupils
would undermine their experience of adult centres of learning, as Christine
Grahame and others have said. The need to maintain colleges' distinctive
contribution to pupils' education is reflected in all aspects of the
strategy.
Elaine Smith:
Will the minister clarify whether college lecturers will require to have
teacher training and to be GTC registered, and whether their salaries will
be similar to those of school teachers? How will the Executive ensure that
school pupils are not dumped into college, which Peter Peacock mentioned?
Allan Wilson:
The member has raised a number of points. I will not be able to cover every
point that is made by every member, although I will do my best. I will
obviously write to members about points that I do not deal with during the
debate. I will come on to the GTC requirements in due course, so I ask the
member to let me make progress.
First, I will deal with rural areas. By 2007, all secondary and special
schools in Scotland will have effective, meaningful and appropriate
partnership with at least one college, for pupils in S3 and above. Even the
most remote school can have a successful relationship with a college. For
example, we outline a likely new role for learndirect Scotland-branded
learning services. There will be funding supplements for pupils in rural
areas and we will examine transport costs further. We have asked the GTC to
confirm new, more flexible arrangements for lecturers who teach pupils in
schools. As has been mentioned, we want online and distance learning to be
explored locally; that will include the use of videoconferencing.
Several members have spoken about careers advisers, whose role is set out in
the advice. One of the main findings of the research into the attitudes of
school pupils to further education courses was that there was a need to
improve the information, advice and guidance that we give to pupils when
they are considering their college options. In the interim report, we
explained that Careers Scotland had been asked to prepare a business case
for its enhanced engagements. No decisions have yet been taken and we have
asked Careers Scotland to discuss that case with the school and college
sectors before funding decisions are made.
A number of members discussed pupil welfare and support. Schools and
colleges have a duty of care to pupils. We recognise that pupils who attend
colleges enter what is essentially an adult environment. We will ensure that
advice to schools and colleges on important matters such as pupil welfare
and support is provided in the guide that accompanies the strategy.
Other issues that will be dealt with include the employment of appropriate
risk assessment strategies, the disclosure of college staff and maximising
campus safety arrangements.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the disciplining of disruptive pupils.
Although education authorities and schools have formal responsibility for
the disciplining of pupils, colleges determine who can go on particular
courses and can withdraw the relevant provision. At the outset, colleges and
schools need to agree on the process whereby a college can withdraw a place
because of a pupil's behaviour.
On sport and recreation, which is one of the key pilot areas, I agree with
practically all of what Brian Monteith had to say. A number of colleges are
already engaged in sports excellence. Two examples spring immediately to
mind — James Watt College in my area of North Ayrshire and Falkirk College.
In addition, many colleges deliver courses on sports management, coaching
and advanced coaching. All that is to be welcomed and I hope that it can be
built on in the report.
During the debate, every political party in the Parliament has tried to
claim political ownership of the strategy; I suspect that some of them were
not serious in doing so. References have been made to local authorities that
have collaborated with colleges for many years, such as Glasgow City
Council, Fife Council and North Ayrshire Council, which all share the
distinction of being Labour councils. Of course, that is no coincidence.
Who could forget the new Labour mantra of education, education, education
with which our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, swept to power in 1997 for the
first of his three terms? Ever since, Tony Blair and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Gordon Brown, have been building on the philosophy of James Keir
Hardie, the founder and pioneer of the Labour Party, who recognised that
education was the route out of poverty and into employment, and that
equality of educational opportunity was inseparable from his vision of a
more egalitarian society. There is not a primary school, a nursery school, a
secondary school, a further education college, a learning centre or a
university in this country that has not benefited from that philosophy over
the past eight years and we intend to continue with it.
To read
the entire debate,
Click Here
|
