Change is on the horizon for the college sector in Scotland

If there is one issue politicians can agree about it is colleges. Debates on the subject in Parliament or at party conferences tend to follow a similar format: politician after politician standing up to proclaim how valuable the college sector is to Scotland and what wonderful work their local college is doing.

At the SNP’s March conference, Mike Russell struck a different note.  Prefacing his comments with a warning that the principals in the room might not like everything he was about to say, the Education Secretary set out his stall for reform.

“What we have to do in a nation is to take the responsibility to make sure that we invest in our collective future.  But that doesn’t mean that things have to or should stay the same,” Russell told the Scotland’s Colleges meeting at the pre-election party conference. 

“Because I think we need to have a new foundation for our relationship with the colleges.”

The Cabinet Secretary took no prisoners.  He proceeded to set out his vision for the future of the college sector, step by step, from funding to staff to course provision.  He acknowledged the enormous contribution colleges make to Scotland’s economy and society, and the 10.4 per cent funding cut they have sustained in this year’s budget, whilst maintaining student numbers.  But, using words like “radical change”, he left no one in any doubt that he believed the current situation was not sustainable - and that he meant business.

In its manifesto, the SNP pledged to take this reform forward through a Green Paper on the future of the sector.  And now, re-elected with an overwhelming mandate, there is nothing standing in its way.  Holyrood understands that this initiative is likely to be brought forward sooner rather than later and could take the form of a consultation rather than legislation, though this remains undecided. 

Efficiency was a key word in Russell’s opening gambit.  And that means rationalising provision.  With 41 colleges across Scotland, he warned that there was “a great deal of duplication” going on and “not nearly enough sharing of services and resources”.  A “map of provision” is needed to identify what is delivered in each college and where overlap exists. 

The Cabinet Secretary paid tribute to colleges for maintaining their service to students, despite a 10.4 per cent cut to their funding. But he stressed that this commitment will be easier to keep if they accept his plan for reform.

“We know that the efficiencies that we can get in the system have not nearly been considered strongly or radically enough,” he said.

“We asked [colleges] for the commitment that they would maintain the core number of student places...

“And they gave that promise and they’re honouring that and they will honour that. But I believe that in honouring that commitment it will be easier for them if they now accept the radical programme for change that we have to have.”

So will colleges take up that challenge?  The initial reaction to the Green Paper idea from principals’ group Scotland’s Colleges was decidedly cool.  In April, John Spencer, Convener of Scotland’s Colleges’ Principals’ Convention told Holyrood he was not convinced that then it was “the right step”.  However, with the SNP Government back in office and the review a more realistic prospect, the body seems to be warming to the notion.   

“We will participate fully in the work surrounding the Green Paper on colleges,” says Spencer.

“The sector has a strong commitment to change and [will] adapt in order to continue to deliver the best possible service to our learners.”

But caution has been aired.  Sue Pinder, principal of James Watt College in Greenock and a former Convener of the Principals’ Convention, welcomes the review as an opportunity to improve the sector.  But she would not use the word ‘reform’ to describe what’s needed.

“[Russell] talked about reform of the sector and to me, reform suggests that there’s something wrong. So I hope that it’s looked at through a positive lens and I hope it’s about a review and an improvement of the sector,” she says. 

Much of the duplication in the sector is there for good reason, the principal argues.  Colleges deliver education at the heart of local communities, which many students could not otherwise access. 

“Do I think that things are duplicated? Yes, I do, but I think that if you look at the core post-16 provision that is offered in 41 colleges across Scotland and in many different sites - because colleges have satellite sites in local communities – that core provision of essential skills at the intermediate level and below is necessary for the communities that the colleges serve and it’s done on the basis of demand,” says Pinder.  

“So I think there is some duplication but I think a lot of it is legitimate duplication.”

NUS Scotland President Liam Burns is equally cautious about talk of cutting duplication. 

“The important thing to remember with colleges is that they are local provision,” says the student leader. “So when we talk about universities, to some extent, students would be willing to travel to an institution so it’s easier to have distinct portfolios in a wider geographical context. With colleges, that’s really difficult because the whole point of going to college for some people is that they can’t travel because they have caring responsibilities and others because of financial reasons can’t move away from home.

“So that makes what looks like duplication - because 30 miles up the road a college is doing the same course in engineering - actually not, because they’re not going to be able to travel if you cut that provision.”

When it comes to higher end skills, however, Pinder believes there is room for rationalisation.  Here she sees the potential for colleges to develop specialisms in specific areas.

“Where I think we need to look carefully at what we offer across Scotland is when we get to higher level skills and that would be at SCQF Level 5 and above and particularly Level 7 and above, where I think we could have specialisms within certain colleges in certain areas,” she says.

Next on Russell’s list is likely to be funding.  The Cabinet Secretary has described the current funding arrangement as a “mysterious Byzantine system” that is long overdue an overhaul.  He believes the complex system - through which colleges receive money based on Standard Units of Measurement of student activity – is due an overhaul. The SNP manifesto promises a “simpler, more outcome-focused approach to further education funding” and the Scottish Funding Council is already at the early stages of reviewing the funding model. 

As part of this process, many will be hoping the review looks at the distribution of funds between colleges.  A number of stakeholders claim the current formula is based on outdated demographics resulting in major inequalities between different areas of Scotland.  The principal of South Lanarkshire College, for example, argues that despite having roughly similar populations, for every two units of funding Lanarkshire colleges receive, Glasgow colleges get five.

Also on the agenda are some contentious staffing issues.  More than 41 different sets of terms and conditions for college staff exist across Scotland – a situation Russell refers to as “madness”.  He proposes moving to one national set of terms and conditions and towards collective bargaining for the sector. 

Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary went further in March, and called on colleges to introduce a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies.  But not knowing what their budgets will be after this academic year, principals have said they are in no position to give any guarantees.  If they were given a two or three-year budget, however, Pinder believes it could be doable.

“I think the Cabinet Secretary’s desire to have a situation where nobody in the public sector was forced out of a job is absolutely laudable and it’s one that personally I have no difficulty with.  But as a Chief Executive of a £40m business that doesn’t know from one year to the next what their income is going to be, it’s not an easily achievable goal,” says Pinder. 

“But if we have an SNP government that has a very strong mandate for the next five years, if they were to give us, for example, a two or a three-year budget, I think that could be more achievable in the longer term.”

In a review of the sector, the question of how colleges are run is sure to arise.  It is certainly an issue staff and student unions want to see on the agenda.  The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), which represents 6000 FE members, is calling for a shake-up of college management to make it more democratically accountable. At present, fewer than half of the members of college boards of management are elected, the union argues, with others appointed by the board itself.  This governance arrangement “could give rise to allegations of cronyism”, says David Belsey, EIS National Officer for Further and Higher Education, “as membership is self-selecting”.  What’s more, it makes for a disparate sector, he argues.

“You’ve got 41 colleges out there, which are independent islands of self-governing FE provision with charitable status – which are sometimes technically within the public sector and sometimes technically outside the public sector. Some which are very well run, some which are less so; some which are very happy places for staff to work in and some which seem to be less than happy,” Belsey says. 

“So despite the fact that the Scottish Government funds one FE sector with one set of policies and priorities, what is delivered varies from college to college, and that’s down to the fact that the FE governance including choosing which courses to deliver is down to each college’s board of management, which of course is accountable to no one.”

The EIS wants the Further Higher Education Act (Scotland) 1992 amended to have more board members elected from the staff, student and local communities.

Likewise, the NUS President believes that as colleges strive to manage budget cuts, there is a “huge, huge patchwork of decision making” going on across the country.

“Because of the cut in funding, some colleges are reducing teaching weeks; some colleges are reducing the amount of contact hours and going far more towards virtual learning environments; some are restricting their portfolios,” says Burns.

“I think Mike Russell is right to look at how we do governance in a far more systematic way… I want to see what that looks like but I am convinced that there is just such a range of decisions being made, going from the absolutely right decisions, with learners’ best interests at heart, right through to horrific decisions that really penalise students. We’ve seen the full range over the last three years, specifically in student support.”

Pinder is not convinced by these claims, however.  After working in the college sector for “more years than I care to remember”, the principal believes the standards of governance “would bear scrutiny against any other sector, anywhere, private or public”.  She would want to see “hard evidence” to the contrary before even entering that debate.  

It seems that after conducting a Green Paper review of universities, and launching a debate about the future of school delivery, Russell is turning his attention to FE.  And so the sector often referred to as the “Cinderella” of the education system, is due to come under the spotlight.  But before that reform process gets off the ground, some institutions are choosing to take the initiative.

In a bold move, two of Edinburgh’s three colleges - Stevenson and Jewel & Esk – have decided to join forces to create a new college for the city.  After three and a half years of discussions between the capital’s three colleges, the two institutions are planning to come together by the summer of 2012.  And with a combined student body of 20,000, 1000 staff and a turnover of nearly £50m, the new college is set to be the second largest in Scotland and one of the largest in the UK.

The merger will reap efficiencies, as the organisations share services and combine their curricula, the principals behind it believe.  But the rationale is first and foremost educational.  

“Essentially, the curriculum mapping work that we did… showed a really strong level of complementary activity between ourselves and Stevenson particularly,” says Mandy Exley, principal of Jewel & Esk College. 

“We saw that we could fit together… and hopefully therefore be providing a far better single-door access in terms of the spectrum of offer to industry and business and students than we were doing separately.

“And obviously out of that, we hope to gain a level of efficiency that means we can reinvest that and then grow more quickly, do more and get it out there more quickly. So really, the rationale was about growth and growing more quickly than we could individually.” 

By bringing their curricula together the colleges believe they can offer students broader choice and through a clearer, single prospectus. They could also develop greater specialisms in areas like the service sector, combining Stevenson’s strength in tourism and retail with Jewel & Esk’s specialism in hospitality. And by making savings, they will be better able to protect frontline services, and student places in particular. 

Added to the educational benefits is the economic advantage, says Brian Lister, principal of Stevenson College Edinburgh.  Having that concentration of expertise in one organisation will make it easier for the college to engage with business, he believes.  And set to contribute more than £100m a year to the city’s economy, he sees the new institution as integral to the economic development of the capital and the Scottish Government’s cities agenda.

“I would say [the driver] was also the emergence down south of things like City of Nottingham College, City of Newcastle College.  These organisations were beginning to grow into something quite astronomical. You were really seeing in the UK, and internationally in the States, colleges coming together within a city dimension,” says Lister.

Rather than seeing the merger as a threat to their positions, both principals say they are embracing it as an opportunity to grow and improve their offering to students.

“We’re up for getting this right. Efficiency and effectiveness is important and so is opportunity. I’m not looking at this as half-empty stuff. This is half full to me; this is opportunistic,” says Lister.

Indeed new city chief, Sue Bruce is just as positive about the development and its potential for the capital.  

“It’s a great move and I think what they’re looking to develop between them is a menu of opportunities, a range of opportunities and there’s probably an opportunity here to develop strength and depth in specific areas rather than each college having to cover everything,” says the City of Edinburgh Council Chief Executive.

And in the wider context of public sector reform, Bruce feels the colleges have played a clever hand by being proactive and not waiting for change to come to them.    

“At the moment we’re all waiting for the outcome of the Christie report and without looking to pre-empt that, I think everybody in the public sector is aware of the need to look at how we can work more closely together to make sure that the customer is at the centre of our considerations and deliver services which are best value for the public purse and best value in terms of the offering.

“So I would guess that the colleges are like the rest of the public sector, looking at the Christie report to see what opportunities arise out of that. But also not necessarily waiting for others to bring the opportunity to us but looking for our own ideas for innovation and change.”

In doing so, Bruce believes the principals have shown real leadership.

“I think what you’ve seen here is these two principals showing leadership and demonstrating that we don’t have to wait for others to set the agenda for us. We can make our own way, obviously, with the corporate buy-in from our organisations. And I think that is about showing leadership in our sectors.”

And having led Aberdeen City Council out of a period of financial difficulty and taken on the top job at Edinburgh amidst the trams crisis, Bruce knows a thing or two about that quality.

Delivering reform against a backdrop of reduced funding will be no small challenge for the sector. However, as the Edinburgh partnership demonstrates, through collaboration comes opportunity.  And if change is coming, it is best led by those at the centre and not forced from the outside.