OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE STRUCTURE OF LEARNING CONNECTIONS AND THE DELIVERY OF ITS WORK
The Options
In considering the potential future structure of Learning Connections, the review team have considered its work as three distinct elements:
- The policy functions related to CLD
- Practice development and implementation
- The CLD Standards Council
The following is a list of the potential options considered for Learning Connections. Some options relate to all three elements, whilst others deal with only one. It was anticipated that any agreed way forward would likely involve a combination of more than one option.
OPTION 1 - Learning Connections remains as it is currently
This option is the "Status Quo" and involves all Learning Connections staff and functions remaining within the LL Directorate of the Scottish Government as a separate division.
OPTION 2 - The functions of Learning Connections are dissolved
This option would involve either immediately, or over a period of time, deleting the functions of Learning Connections and transferring staff as appropriate to other civil service functions within the Scottish Government.
OPTION 3 - The policy aspects of CLD are brought together into a CLD Policy Team
This option involves bringing together the core functions of CLD policy into one CLD Policy Team. This team would have direct responsibility for the core policy area of CLD, whilst also linking to other relevant policy divisions such as Third Sector, community regeneration, MCMC, etc.
OPTION 4 -The CLD policy functions are transferred to other relevant teams
This option would involve the policy functions and consequently staffing and resources, being transferred to existing relevant policy teams such as MCMC and FAED.
OPTION 5 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to GTCS
This option would involve the CLD Standards Council, including all staff and resources, being transferred to the General Teaching Council for Scotland ( GTCS).
OPTION 6 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to LLUK
This option would involve the CLD Standards Council, including all staff and resources, being transferred to the sector skills council for lifelong learning ( LLUK).
OPTION 7 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to another body for a period of three years
In this option the CLD Standards Council would be transferred to another body, such as LLUK, Scotland's Colleges or GTCS, for a period of three years. This would allow the CLD Standards Council to fully develop and ensure the adopting organisation saw the importance of its development. At the end of this period there would need to be a formal review of the CLD Standards Council to ensure that it is placed finally in the most appropriate agency. This could be undertaken in conjunction with options 3 or 4 above.
OPTION 8 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to LTS
This option involves the strategic review of LTS confirming that its role and purpose is to support CLD in addition to its core function. All staff involved in policy implementation and practice development in Learning Connections would transfer to LTS.
OPTION 9 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to Scotland's Colleges
This option would involve all staff involved in policy implementation and practice development being transferred to Scotland's Colleges. Scotland's Colleges would establish a representative advisory board to oversee its work in this area.
OPTION 10 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to a partnership between LTS and Scotland's Colleges
This option would see staff involved in policy implementation and practice development transferring to one of these organisations under a partnership agreement between them. An advisory board would be established to oversee the units work.
OPTION 11 - The practice development and implementation functions and the CLD Standards Council are transferred together to a single receiving organisation.
This option would be as one of the above, but with the staff and resources of the CLD Standards Council and policy implementation and practice development both transferring to the same organisation.
The Assessment Criteria
The following criteria were considered for all options:
Strategic considerations
1. It maximises the potential for effective delivery of:
a) policy advice and policy development,
b) policy delivery/ national implementation of SG policies and
c) practice development and local and subject based support for practitioners.
2. It is likely to be able to deliver at least as strong or greater impact on SG's national outcomes and developing ministerial policy objectives & priorities
3. It will result in a greater clarification of roles and remits around the CLD/ ALN/ ESOL landscape for stakeholders (internally & externally).
4. It does not lead to any increased duplication of provision in the landscape.
5. It is compatible with/supports the Concordat & SG's relationship with Local Government.
6. It enables the CLD Standards Council to be seen as an Independent organisation able to perform its functions.
7. It does not involve the establishment of a new organisation.
Support for option(s)
8. It has the support of:
a) the majority of LC Staff
b) the majority of SG colleagues
c) the majority of external Stakeholders
d) the Unions
e) SGHR
f) any proposed recipient organisations who would be taking on the remit and
staff of any particular aspects of LC.
9. Governance arrangements achieve ownership from the CLD sector
Budgetary issues/ Financial implications
10. It is affordable within the current and future planned budgets of Learning Connections.
11. It will not have a negative impact on the drc budget of LL Directorate.
12. The majority of any changes are likely to be achievable within the current financial year 2009/10 - to reduce the state of limbo and period of uncertainty for staff and stakeholders.
Pensions/ staff issues
13. If the plan is to transfer staff out to another body - there is a strong likelihood of this being achievable - in terms of TUPE & pension issues.
Options Appraisal
The detailed options appraisal for each of the options above is available in Appendix 5.
The following diagram is an overview of the option appraisal. The numbers across the top of the table refer to the criteria. The colours indicate the level of agreement with the criteria:
- Green fulfils the criteria
- Amber demonstrates some level of fulfilment but also some disagreement
- Red demonstrates that this criteria has not been met
- Blue shows that this criteria was not relevant or information has still to be sought.
Key to colours used:
Options for further consideration
From the options appraisal, some options are clearly ruled out whilst others can be considered as worthy of further development. Each of the latter category is explored in more depth below.
OPTION 3 - the policy aspects of CLD are brought together into a CLD Policy Team
This option received strong support from both internal and external stakeholders. It is designed to bring coherence to the development of CLD policy itself and to the contribution CLD can make to other policy drivers. It is designed to reduce confusion amongst stakeholders about who to approach for advice about all aspects of CLD. It supports the concept of CLD, which is an important issue for the delivery partners in CLD and particularly local authorities. It would involve bringing together the core policy interests in CLD across Positive Futures, FAED and Learning Connections. This would create a CLD Policy Team, headed by a Team Leader. It would be staffed by mainstream civil servants. It would then link with other relevant Government policy divisions, such as Third Sector and MCMC.
However, this recommendation came from the review and specifically from stakeholders. In practice it is relatively easy to bring together the policy responsibilities that exist with LL Directorate, but not so easy to bring together policy responsibility across Directorates. Hence the key issue will be to provide clarity to stakeholders in terms of the way CLD Policy is addressed across Scottish Government and to establish a formal process for bringing together the core CLD policy functions as described in WALT across the relevant sections of Scottish Government.
Hence this will involve bringing together policy interests currently in FAED and Learning Connections into one division with Lifelong Learning Directorate and establishing formal arrangements with the Youth Work team in the Positive Futures Division of Children Young People and Social Care Directorate to ensure that effective links are developed and maintained. This division will need to ensure necessary arrangements for effective policy development in building community capacity. It will also require some amendment to the existing Divisional structure in LL Directorate but it provides an opportunity to clarify and strengthen the way the Scottish Government supports the development of a "single learning system" and its commitments to widening participation in lifelong learning, to greater equality and to combating poverty.
OPTION 5 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to GTCS
There is a synergy between learning in schools and in the community. Key Government policy drivers, particularly Curriculum for Excellence, recognise that learning in and out of institutions contribute to a young persons overall achievement. The attainment of young people is directly related to the educational levels of their parents / carers and their interest in education. Hence ALN and Community Based Adult Learning ( CBAL) work with adults is an important contributor. The Early Years Framework recognises the importance of family learning and has as one of its key objectives building the capacity of communities to support learning. The GTCS has considerable experience in registration and advocates very effectively on behalf of teachers.
However, the GTCS is currently a very teacher-focused organisation. It maintains rigid rules for registration and on the nature of teaching, which limit the ability of anyone other than registered teachers to practice. The registration scheme for CLD will have to maintain a degree of flexibility to ensure that it encompasses the wide range of professionals and sessional staff and volunteers, involved in this work. This may create problems for GTCS if they took on this role. It is likely that GTCS will remain a teacher focused organisation, with CLD only being a small concern within it. Whilst the GTC accredits initial teacher education programmes and two specific CPD programmes (Chartered Teacher Programme and The Scottish Qualification for Headship) the course approval and CPD functions are not generally replicated for teaching in GTCS. GTCS is currently reviewing its status and governance arrangements. They have indicated a level of interest in taking this forward, but also indicated that timescales would likely be outwith the ideal parameters set within the choice framework. It is also unclear how the GTCS Council would react to this proposal.
OPTION 6 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to LLUK
LLUK is the Sector Skills Council ( SSC) for Lifelong Learning. As such it represents employer interests. CLD practitioners sit within the LLUK footprint so developing skills solutions for the workforce is a part of their core remit. This should be delivered in partnership with the sector. The CLD Standards Council would retain an independent identity within the wider LLUK family. In Scotland, there is a representative CLD Advisory Group which is well established. This considers the Scottish dimension to LLUK policy developments. They are the guardians of national occupational standards.
There are existing synergies between Lifelong Learning UK and the Standards Council for Community Learning and Development in Scotland which would support the relocation of the Standards Council within the family of Lifelong Learning UK companies. There is already a shared vision and collaborative action between the CLD Standards Council and LLUK with a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) recognising the shared interests of the two organisations in increasing the skills of the community learning and development workforce in Scotland. The MOU sets out an agenda of collaboration between Lifelong Learning UK and the Standards Council for Community Learning and Development over a three year period (2008 to 2011). Lifelong Learning UK's Scotland Team is responsible for implementation of the MOU in Scotland.
Both organisations are also demonstrating their commitment to partnership working by ensuring appropriate, reciprocal representation on committees, working groups, advisory groups, etc. For example Lifelong Learning UK's Director, Scotland is a member of the CLD Standard's Council Executive Committee. Also the Chair of the CLD Standards Council was (until March 2009) the Lifelong Learning UK Council Member for Community Learning and Development as well as being part of many advisory groups and panels for LLUK.
With regard to membership schemes, there are examples in the SSC world - for example IMI/Automotive Skills, who have a membership scheme for those operating in the motor industry. In the non SSC world, we have the likes of CIPD and the Chartered Institutes. With regard to registration schemes, there are again examples in the SSC world. The Scottish Social Services Council (part of Skills for Care and Development) has responsibility for registrations in the care sector in Scotland, while CITB - Construction Skills and ECITB have responsibility for schemes validating building site safety, so no precedent is set by transferring this function to LLUK. A body which manages statutory registrations may in itself have to be a statutory body, such as the examples given above. There may be issues at a later stage arising from a non statutory body i.e. LLUK, operating a statutory function i.e. registration, even where that function was carried out by a distinct part of the organisation i.e. the CLD Standards Council. However at present the plans for the delivery of the CLD Standards Council does not involve the practitioner registration being a statutory requirement, but a voluntary option for the sector. The issue of regulation will need to be addressed at a later stage should the Standards Council wish to pursue this option.
SSCs have no locus in approving qualifications in Scotland. While there is no problem with this in principle, it is an issue which has arisen in the context of discussions about "skills academy" developments in Scotland, in particular resistance from the colleges and universities to SSCs/Academies providing the kite marking to courses they deliver. This resistance has been explicitly about additional layers of bureaucracy. The CLD Standards Council is in a slightly different position in that it is carrying on an existing function from CeVe. Therefore the focus is on any shift, real or perceived, in responsibility for the function. For training approval to work under the LLUK umbrella, the CLD Standards Council would have to retain its independence and partnership dynamics i.e. it would be the CLD Standards Council providing the approval, not LLUK.
LLUK represents the interests of all lifelong learning providers, including colleges. CLD could find itself as a small interest in the work of LLUK. Stakeholder interviews suggested that the relationship between LLUK and Scotland's Colleges is not currently working well with Scotland's Colleges believing that LLUK does not adequately represents their Scottish interests. More importantly, LLUK are currently subject to assessment by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills ( UKCES) with a view to either extending or revoking their licence to operate. All 25 SSC will go through the same process. We expect recommendations from the UKCES on LLUK in June. While LLUK may well be relicensed, there is no guarantee of that and the possibility exists that they may not continue in their current format in the longer-term. There is significant risk in committing to place the CLD Standards Council under the LLUK umbrella until the outcome of the assessment is known.
Lifelong Learning UK Scotland is well placed to work with the Scottish Government in the relocation of the CLD Standards Council. They are keen to take this function forward and have capability and infrastructure, including office space and support systems, in place which would support it. The UKCES, who are concerned with funding and performance managing SSCs, have no objections in principle to this move.
OPTION 7 - The CLD Standards Council is transferred to another body for a period of three years
The CLD Standards Council is in an early stage of development and will need considerable amount of time to establish clear systems. A fixed term transfer of the organisation would ensure that a formal review of hosting arrangements could be undertaken, thus ensuring that any changes to the policy landscape at that time could be taken into account. It would also establish the relationship as a clearly nurturing one, with an objective of establishing a fully functioning CLD Standards Council by the end of the agreement.
However, this may not be an attractive option to a hosting organisation. It would take time to integrate the functions of the CLD Standards Council and the host organisation may feel that it was not worth them putting effort into this when it may be taken from them after a relatively short period. It is also in effect putting off making a final decision for a further period, which increases uncertainty and would introduce a further period of time in the future where staff were concerned and stakeholders keen to see the situation resolved. This may not be in the best interests of a fledgling organisation, although Scotland's Colleges have expressed an interest.
OPTION 8 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to LTS
This option clearly supports the policy direction of joining up learning and encouraging recognition of all learning experiences. Key Government policy drivers, particularly Curriculum for Excellence, recognise that learning in and out of institutions contributes to a young persons overall achievement. The attainment of young people is directly related to the educational levels of their parents / carers and their interest in education. Hence ALN, ESOL and CBAL work with adults is an important contributor. The Early Years Framework recognises the importance of family learning and has as one of its key objectives building the capacity of communities to support learning. This synergy also extends to being in line with HMIE inspection activity, which joins learning in the community with learning in school. Joining with LTS would promote greater integration of cross-cutting learning themes, such as leadership, citizenship and enterprise. Colleges in Scotland have a key strategic role at a local level and are actively engaged in activities and initiatives that supports this policy driver and resulting practice development.
LTS develops practice materials for the schools sector. It has already developed practice materials for CLD, through developments such as youth work and schools. They have employed a full-time secondee from HMIE to take this forward over the past 18 months. There are significant opportunities to build on the support mechanisms for schools, particularly in ICT. The expansion of GLOW and CPD Find for example would significantly enhance the contribution of CLD, without resorting to building new infrastructure. There are clear benefits to building on current LTS expertise and thus maximising economies of scale. All of this would help to enhance the status of CLD professionals with those working in formal education and thus make it easier for the contribution of CLD to be realised. Overall, it would ensure that CLD is seen as an important part of the educational aspirations for Scotland.
There are benefits to LTS itself and the formal education sector more widely. It would help develop a more inclusive approach to the concept of learning and of the contribution of a range of other interventions on learning. This would help LTS to develop more inclusive resources, which in turn would promote more integrated provision at a local level. LTS is currently under review which presents a good opportunity to amend its remit. A requirement of this option would be that LTS is given the role of policy implementation and practice development for CLD as part of this review. This would help to ensure that support for CLD was proportionate to the support LTS gives to schools. In addition, the link between LTS and the CLD infrastructure would have to be developed. The Youth Work infrastructure - Youthlink, Young Scot, Scottish Youth Parliament and the membership organisations - may already be in place. It is less strong in relation to capacity building and adult learning, although this is also the case currently. This option should seek to build on and replicate good practice and effective infrastructure that supports, informs and empowers users and professionals in a clear and transparent manner at both strategic and operational levels. There may be a negative reaction from the College sector, particularly in relation to ALN and ESOL, which would have to be managed. This could be done through consultation and involvement in an Advisory Board to oversee this aspect of work. This cross sector collaboration via an Advisory Board would also be an important feature of other areas of work where CLD approaches and methodologies are adopted by colleges.
However, there are also a number of risks and issues associated with a transfer of staff and functions to LTS. As Ministers are aware, LTS is under review. At present LTS's agenda covers a client group of age 0-18 i.e. from the point at which a person can enter nursery to the point by which they will leave school. Learning Connections' agenda has a far broader and less well defined client group. Learning for that client group is by its nature less formalised and runs at a different pace. The engagement between practitioners and their clients is quite different to that of teacher and pupil. It is difficult to quantify whether there would be significant added value to the system by transferring these tasks (and posts) from Learning Connections into LTS. Having said that, whilst not ideal, from the viewpoint of the Schools Directorate it is recognised that this recommendation may represent the best option available for the practice development and implementation tasks.
OPTION 9 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to Scotland's Colleges
Scotland's colleges play a major role in the delivery of Adult Literacy, Numeracy and ESOL and other community based programmes with an emphasis on Access/Pre-Access work. Considerable partnership working also takes place with Scottish Wider Access Forums who also have a significant footprint in CLD activity. They have previously and also in this review, shown an interest in taking the lead in this area. There is considerable support for this option from the College sector, but not from the majority of other stakeholders consulted.
If the review was proposing the transfer of only the ALN and ESOL policy implementation and practice development then this could be seen as a natural home, However the review is seeking to transfer all CLD policy implementation and practice development and colleges only account for some of this provision in this wider CLD landscape.
The current organisation is established as an organisation owned by the Colleges. This means that the Ministers could not direct the policy priorities for any function within Scotland's Colleges. This could have a longer term impact on CLD policy implementation and practice development if Ministers wish to change this in line with any developing policy priorities.
OPTION 10 - The practice development and implementation functions are transferred to a partnership between LTS and Scotland's Colleges
A partnership would help to ensure that a "cradle to grave" approach to learning was promoted. It would make bridges between schooling, informal and non formal learning and further education. It could promote greater co-operation and joint working. It would also ensure the buy-in from both groups: those that support the LTS option (as the best of the available options) and the college sector that supports the Scotland's College option.
However, as the staff and resources would have to be transferred to one host agency, likely LTS, CLD could feel that it had no home, or conversely was "really" based within one agency. The partnership could add no more than existing arrangements. It is also founded on both partners being equally committed to the partnership, which may not be the case. It complicates and potentially delays the transfer of staff and budgets. Lastly, the CLD identity could be lost as it was seen to be a unit overseen by schools on one side and colleges on the other. This would also require close working relationships with YouthLink Scotland.
However the need to adopt a solution which gains buy-in from the majority of stakeholders could require a reporting arrangement to an Advisory Board which is representative of the sector.