ESOL Scotland

The Adult ESOL Strategy for Scotland

The National Panel

Learn English

Professional Development

Evaluation Guide

Resources

Funding for Learners

CLD Partnership Area

College Area

ESOL Practitioners' Network and E-news

Research

Events

ESOL Conference

ESOL and Citizenship

ESOL Challenge Fund

Useful Links

Feedback and Enquiries

NATIONAL ESOL PANEL

Meeting on Monday 9th February 2009 at 11am
Scottish Funding Council
Donaldson House
97 Haymarket Terrace
Edinburgh EH12 5HD

MINUTES

Attendees

.
Euan Reid (ER)	Chair
Peter Beaumont (PB)	SG/LLD
Clare El Azebbi (CE)	SG/LLD
Jackie Borge (JB)	SG/LLD
Isabel Russell (IR)	SG/LLD
Morag Campbell (MC)	SFC
Nicola Lynch (NL)	SFC
Robin Ashton (RA)	ASC (Langside College)
Robert Quinn (RQ)	SQA
Jayne Stuart (JS)	Learning Link Scotland
Anne Pia (AP)	HMIE
Anne Simpson (AS)	Aberdeenshire Council
Joanna McPake (JMcP)	CILT, Convenor of Curriculum Framework Working Party
Rose Tweedale (RT)	Secretariat

1. Welcome and Introductions
ER welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Joanna McPake, convenor of the Curriculum Framework Working Party and Nicola Lynch from SFC. Euan also welcomed back Anne Pia from HMIE and asked for his thanks to be passed on to Andrew Brawley who had covered in Anne’s absence.

2. Apologies
Apologies were received from:
Iain Ferguson, CBI Scotland
Andy Willox, FSB
Douglas, Guest EHRC
Philippa Clark, UNISON
Wendy Burton, STUC
Nina Ivshinenko, Learner
Mhoraig Green, COSLA

3. Minutes of meeting on 10 November 2008
CE noted that bullet point 5 at paragraph 6a should read: CE advised that a project to collect examples of effective practice in work based ESOL learning is being undertaken and should be contracted in March 2009.

Action: Secretariat to update minutes and put the final version on the website.

4. Matters arising
All Action Points from the Minutes had been completed.

5. Updates from Working Parties (WP)
a. Professional Development (PD)
The members discussed the latest minutes and update from the Professional Development Working Party (PDWP) (see annex 1). ER pointed out that the section in red at the end of the paper was a summary of competencies which describe the profile of a qualified Australian TESOL practitioner.

Carey Normand had provided an expanded version of the ESOL Qualification Framework. ER noted that columns 2 and 3 refer to a potential SQA certificate in TESOL. The National Panel –as of course SQA itself - would have to be convinced that this was a useful addition to what is presently available for this qualification to be considered. Comments from the Panel:

CE felt that there was no need for column 3 as Local Authorities (LA) and Community Learning and Development (CLD) should be on the same route;
JS pointed out that not all voluntary sector workers go through CLD e.g. Citizen Advice Bureau and Mental Health organisations;
RA felt that the diagram could show more clearly the different routes into the qualification and how they link to other qualifications; and
RQ thought it should be shown as one qualification framework which indicates all the different ways that people can link into it.

ER asked RQ to explain the process for considering a new SQA award;

RQ advised that the first stage is to establish a need for the qualification and convince key stakeholders that the requirement exists.

A scoping study is currently underway led by Jennifer MacDougall from SQA. This consists of desk research, a survey of practitioners and focus groups with key stakeholders. The rationale for a separate Scottish qualification will be considered and the potential for co-operation between SQA and Cambridge and Trinity will be looked at. The survey is being finalised and should be ready to go out within the next week or so. The focus groups are planned for the end of February and the start of March. The scoping study should be completed by the end of March and the findings will be presented to the National Panel.

Comments from the Panel:

ER suggested that the PDWP were moving in the direction of recommending the development of a new Scottish qualification;
RQ noted that people could study individual units which gives it wider focus but that recognition and uptake of a new award would have to be considered;
AP was concerned that the framework did not show clearly enough what teaching skills could be gained from it; and
RA noted that CELTA and DELTA (and their Trinity equivalents) were the classic qualifications. Young teachers often want to work abroad for a period, so a purely specific Scottish qualification may not be suitable for them, but useful at a later stage in their careers.

Summary of recommendations from PDWP
The panel agreed with recommendations 1 and 2 but wanted to see the full report from the working party before agreeing to recommendation 3. The panel also requested a revised framework diagram to show more clearly the professional development entry routes (perhaps along the lines of the one used for the scoping study undertaken by SQA).

The members discussed recommendation 4 regarding LLUK Standards:

AP felt that it glossed over the pedagogical issue. It is good as a statement of intent but needs more direction;
JS felt that a competencies framework was required;
ER noted that the WPs have a short lifespan and if elaboration of their findings is required it may be necessary to commission the work;
CE advised that the LLUK standards break down the competencies and it was also suggested at the PDWP meeting that reference would be made to the CLD standards framework;
RQ advised that if the qualification was accepted by SQA a design team would be set up.

b. Funding Principles (FP)
MC gave an update on the progress of the FPWP (see annex 2). The working party had identified that they needed assistance in terms of data-gathering and that there had initially appeared to be different interpretations of their terms of reference. MC had discussed this problem with the National Panel Chair and the working party’s terms of reference had now been clarified. MC will email the Panel with the terms of reference as now understood.

The working party has had assistance from JB who has issued a questionnaire to providers asking about funding. This will give the working party clearer information about sources of funding and how it is used for both providers and learners. Replies have been requested by 23 February 2009.

The working party have agreed to set up a framework for sector comparative case studies. This will feed into a comparative cost benchmark for the public sector.

Action: MC to email the revised terms of reference for the FPWP to the National Panel.

Comments from the Panel:

RA asked if there would be a quality description related to the cost;
MC agreed that they would have to make it robust and that they would look at the quality of provision in addition to the cost. MC noted that it was important to try to produce a document that would be relevant over a period of time;
ER asked if the question of financial support for learners had been investigated e.g. was the WP considering Canadian or Australian approaches where ESOL learners are given entitlement to a specific number of hours of free tuition, in some cases dependent on the level of English already achieved;
MC advised that the FPWP had not considered this as yet but it might be interesting to debate it with the other working parties at the meeting on 22 April 2009;
ER noted that if the working party had not reached a recommendation on this issue by summer, follow up work would have to be commissioned;
AS noted that in Aberdeenshire the CLD Partnership provided 20 hours of free ESOL provision and then learners were encouraged to move on to colleges or other providers; and
ER noted that any recommendation would have to be pragmatic as there was a cost involved to giving an entitlement to free ESOL provision.

c. Curriculum Framework (CF)
Joanna McPake was present at the meeting and gave a progress report to the Panel (see annex 3). She noted that the working party was not writing a curriculum but defining parameters. The CFWP felt that SQA had undertaken a lot of work in this area but at present there were 3 different sources that had to be looked at and they were trying to bring it all together. The working party are aiming for a curriculum framework that is clear and simple with a high impact and relevant to the sector. A balance is required between being comprehensive and clear and simple.

Joanna broke down the work of the CFWP into 4 key areas:

Starting Points. It is important that all students and providers are included.
Key Principles. There are 5 key principles that underpin the ESOL framework as outlined in the WP’s report. The first principle which relates to the outcome of provision is based on the Curriculum for Excellence framework which is simple and attractive.
Assessment, Progression and Accreditation. The spiral at the bottom of the diagram represents progression. It highlights that progression does not have to be linear. The watermarks in the background show the formal qualifications, other means of progression and recognition of achievements. The Common European Framework referred to in the paper covers all languages learned in Europe. This Framework is gaining considerable validity and many countries benchmark against it. This is important for mobility as employers will recognise what the qualification means.
Format. The CFWP decided that a website would be better than a handbook as a website is easier to update and has a wider circulation. It was noted that there were implications for administering and updating the website.

Comments from the Panel:

AP asked if vocational training referred to professional qualifications. JMcP noted that the watermarks in the diagram of section 3 of the paper needed to be expanded;
AP noted that there is a problem with confining ourselves to the Curriculum of Excellence which is more relevant to young learners. She would be more reassured if reference was also made to the Adult Literacy Framework (ALF) as a means of designing both a curriculum and a delivery model which meets the needs of adult learners. AP also noted that the CFWP should provide direction to methodology for teaching and learning. This methodology should draw from the best foreign language teaching and that of ALN teaching. JMcP noted that the working party had initially strongly rejected the ALF but she felt that they would need to go back to revisit this framework and make comparisons;
AP stated that you can’t talk about a curriculum without looking at delivery. There is no information about delivery in the paper but comparison with the ALF would be useful as this has a lot of information about delivery;
JMcP felt that the meeting on 22 April 2009 would be useful to get other views.
JB advised that the Curriculum Wheel developed as part of the ALF is a very useful tool. She offered her help to the working party as had CE;
JS felt that it was important to retain the distinctiveness of an ESOL framework;
RA noted that he liked the paper and the presentation but he felt that the diagram at part 3 did not highlight progression sufficiently;
ER advised that progression is an issue which was highlighted in the ESOL Strategy document. The curriculum framework should be accessible to learners as well as to teachers; and
RA said that there are not many documents that explain to learners about where they are and how they can move on. CE noted that Anniesland College have produced a document of this kind and agreed to email this to the Panel.

Action: CE to email the Anniesland College document to the National Panel.

6. Upcoming Events
a. The National ESOL Strategy – A Discussion Day
It has been agreed that the National Panel will meet with the 3 working parties on 22 April 2009 to discuss the current position and identify common themes. This will help prepare for the Discussion Day on 29 May 2009 where the recommendations of the working parties will be looked at with practitioners and learners. The meeting will take place at Stirling Management Centre. (This meeting was originally called the Consultation Event and had been scheduled for 30 April 2009).

b. The ESOL Conference 2009
The conference will take place on 24 or 25 November 2009. CE distributed a draft programme (see annex 4). Professor Jo Lo Bianco, of Melbourne University, has agreed to speak at the conference and the Cabinet Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, has also been invited to attend.

The Panel agreed that learners could contribute significantly to both the discussion day and the conference.

ER asked the Panel pass any comments they have on the Conference Draft Programme to Clare or Jackie.

Action: All Pass on any comments for the Conference to CE or JB.

7. Workplace ESOL – FSB Position
AW was unable to attend the meeting. RT to ask Andy to submit a paper to add to the Workplace ESOL discussions.

Action: RT to ask Andy to submit a paper on Workplace ESOL.

8. SE Glasgow ESOL Initial Assessment, Advice and Placement Service
RA gave a presentation on the pilot study he is running in South East Glasgow (see paper and presentation attached). RA advised that the background to the pilot was to try to develop ways to reduce ESOL waiting lists.

Before this pilot, a learner was not assessed until a course became available. Now initial assessment is available at the beginning of the process which removes the bottleneck the old system created. Learners are referred to the most appropriate provider and know where the vacancies are.

Comments from the Panel:

ER thanked RA for the huge amount of work he has put into this project which is beginning to get promising results;
AP noted that it was excellent practice;
JS asked if Learn Direct might be a useful vehicle in terms of referring learners into provision at a national level. RA advised that as the pilot was confined to South East Glasgow he didn’t want to cross boundaries;
MC advised that this method parallels practices for placing medics in hospitals and for teacher placements; and
JS noted that a similar system had been used for linking up referrals to GPs.

South East Glasgow Community Planning Partnership English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Initial Assessment, Advice and Placement Service - download Word document

South East Glasgow Community Planning PartnershipESOL Initiative - download Powerpoint presentation

9. Any Other Business

PB noted that a decision had been made on the additional ESOL funding from 2009-11. It was agreed that the current funding distribution would be retained for the period 2009-11 as follows:
SG 10% for national development and technical support
SFC (60%) and CLDP (40%) of the remaining budget
RQ asked if we were looking at priorities on how the 10% would be spent, e.g. is there anything that we should be looking at from a professional development point of view;
CE gave an update on the ESOL National Strategy Action Plan showing how the budget had been spent in 2008/09 and the proposals for 2009/10 (see below). CE advised that there is a meeting to look at how the funds should be allocated for 2009/10 on 23 February 2009 and asked if the Panel or the Working Parties have any ideas on how the budget could be used, they should advise CE before the meeting. An example would be any commissioned research which would be required as a result of the Working Party recommendations.

Action: All to advise CE by 23 February 2009 if there are any projects which require funding.

Update on ESOL Development Plan 2008-09 - download Excel document

ER closed the meeting.

Summary of Action Points

.
Action	Responsible
Update minutes and put final version on the website	Rose Tweedale
Email the revised terms of reference of the FPWP to the National Panel	Morag Campbell
Email the Anniesland College document to the National Panel	Clare El Azebbi
Pass on any comments on the content of the conference to Clare	All
Ask AW for a paper on Workplace ESOL	Rose Tweedale
Notify CE of any potential budget requirements by 23/02/09	All

For Information and to note diaries

Dates of National Panel Meetings
Wednesday 22 April 2009 Edinburgh
Monday 11 May 2009 Glasgow
Monday 07 September 2009 Edinburgh
Monday 07 December 2009 Glasgow

Return to the National Panel minutes page.