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 11th May 2009 at 11am
Scottish Government
Europa Building
450 Argyle Street
Glasgow G2 8LG

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
Robin Ashton (RA)	SC (Langside College)
Robert Quinn (RQ)	SQA
Andrew Brawley (AB)	HMIE
Wendy Burton (WB)	STUC
Iain Ferguson (IF)	CBI Scotland
Mhoraig Green (MG)	COSLA
Rose Tweedale (RT)	Secretariat

1. Welcome and Introductions
ER welcomed everyone to the meeting and welcomed back Andrew Brawley from HMIE to the Panel. Andrew will be replacing Anne Pia who is retiring in the summer.

Apologies
Apologies were received from:
Andy Willox, FSB
Douglas Guest, EHRC
Philippa Clark, Unison
Nina Ivashinenko, Learner
Anne Simpson, CLDMS
Jayne Stuart, Learning Link Scotland
Anne Pia, HMIE

2. Minutes of meeting on 9th February 2009
RA asked for an explanation of the wording at paragraph 9 for the description of the funding reserved by Scottish Government. It was agreed that the wording should be clarified as follows:
SG - 10% for national development and technical support.

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

3. Matters arising
Two action points are outstanding from the previous meeting.

CE has contacted Anniesland College to ask for the document they produced showing learner progression. CE will pursue this and RQ will contact Margaret Allan to ask if she has this document.
AW was unable to attend the meeting today and has not provided his paper on Workplace ESOL as yet.

RA noted that he had received a lot of positive feedback about his Initial Assessment pilot in Glasgow, including endorsement in HMIE’s Shawlands Academy report. He felt that it was important that the initial assessment tools were progressed as soon as possible.

RA also stated that Panel members had been asked at the last meeting to email suggestions for the allocation of funds reserved for national developments. He had put forward a proposal from Scotland’s Colleges, suggested in conjunction with SQA. He informed the Chair that he had not received any acknowledgement or reply to this. RA asked if his proposal had been successful. CE suggested that it had not been successful as his suggestion is part of core SQA business.

4. Report and Discussion on 22/4 joint Meeting of Working Parties and National Panel – implications for follow-up commissioned work
ER advised that the presentations from the working parties had received positive feedback. It was agreed that the work completed to date, with some amendments, could be presented on 29 May 2009.

After the Discussion Day on 29 May 2009, the National Panel will have to consider how many of the recommendations they are going to accept and put into action. There will be a web-based discussion after the event.

Comments from the National Panel:

RA noted that the Funding Principles Working Party started later than the other groups and he did not want them to be disadvantaged because of this at the Discussion Day;
MC noted that the Funding Principles findings would be a work in progress. She felt that this was not an issue as long as it was highlighted that it would be an open discussion on the day;
ER noted that it would be helpful if the working party could provide some options;
MC said that she found the newly published document, A New Approach to ESOL by DIUS, useful;
ER agreed that this document could be cross-referenced but the group should also look at the comparative elements in other countries, for example, Canada and Australia;
RQ felt that the Funding Principles Working Party could present in a different way from the other 2 working parties who have had longer to prepare their recommendations. This would allow a genuine discussion of funding and priorities;
ER agreed that this would allow a good discussion on 29 May 2009 and the working party may get some good suggestions;
CE asked if the National Panel would be providing support on 29 May 2009; and
ER advised that the working parties would present and organise their own discussion groups. National Panel members will attend the discussion groups.

5. Update on the Discussion Day Event on 29 May 2009
Covered in item 5 above.

6. Circulation and Feedback on Working Party Recommendations Post 29 May 2009
IR advised that she will put the working party reports on the ESOL Scotland website after the working parties have had a chance to amend them following the Discussion Day on 29 May 2009. Feedback will be requested from practitioners and learners.

Comments from the National Panel:

ER advised that learners will not be invited to the Discussion Day but they will be encouraged to feedback on-line;
IR noted that the feedback would be sent to the individual working parties to take into account for their final recommendations;
ER hoped that most of the feedback would be received by September so that the Panel could discuss it at the next meeting. This should also allow at least 2 of the working party reports to be finalised for the conference in November;
IR said that she would welcome suggestions on how long the electronic discussion should last;
RA thought that that the e-newsletter could be used with a reminder issued at the start of term. He also asked if the reports should be put on before the Discussion Day;
MC felt if they were put on before the Discussion Day everybody would be commenting on the same reports;
ER felt that the working parties should be given a week after the event to tidy up the reports; and
It was agreed that the on-line discussion would run from early June until early September.

7. Dissemination and Consultation of Panel business by National Panel members with colleagues
ER asked the group to advise how they consulted with their colleagues on National Panel business and how they fed back the information from the meetings.

RA said that he had written to all of his colleagues when he was appointed, explaining his role and providing his contact details. He liaises with and provides feedback to colleagues when required.

Comments from the national Panel:

ER asked if he received much correspondence; and
RA advised that he received more feedback on his Initial Assessment pilot and his paper on Citizenship than on his role on the National Panel.

MC noted that she has periodic conversations with her colleagues on the funding side and the Strategic Migration Group but there is nothing formal in place.

IF also noted that he had nothing formal in place but he updates progress through his normal communication channels and provides matters of interest.

Comments from the National Panel:

ER asked IF whether workplace ESOL was something that his members were interested in;
IF advised that it was specific to sectors, not across the board. At present businesses are surviving on a week to week basis;
PB asked if Workplace ESOL was less of an issue for employers now due to lower numbers of migrant workers;
IF said he hadn't seen any figures to show a reduction but had seen press reports suggesting this was the case;
ER noted that there are conflicting reports about the number of migrant workers decreasing. He felt that it would be good to have some data;
MG stated that COSLA were doing a lot of work with Fresh Talent and GRO Scotland so they may have some figures on the numbers of migrant workers;
MC said that there is data on the number of people coming into the country through National Insurance number applications and the Home Office’s Worker Registration Scheme but this does not give a full picture;
CE said that student data could also be used;
MG felt that they should look at as many sources as possible to get a full picture; and
RQ said that there had not been a noticeable drop in demand for ESOL qualifications but there had not been significant growth either.

WB said that she fed information back to the STUC through strategic groups and forums. MG advised that she flagged up issues from the National Panel as appropriate and would highlight specific issues to the appropriate person. The minutes and associated papers from the meetings are posted on the internal systems so that they can be accessed by all staff. She also considers whether wider stakeholders should be informed and considers the political input.

RQ said that his primary method of communicating with colleagues was the SQA ESOL Cross-Cutting group. This group has representation from Scottish Government. He also feedbacks the minutes to managers who have ESOL as part of their portfolio.

AB said that he worked with partners on ESOL issues. The New Scots Group is looking at language issues in the schools sector. There is a different focus for the college sector as they look at all of the different subjects. Practitioners get together through Scotland’s Colleges to see how improvements can be made. AB said that the Panel could consider whether they would like HMIE to carry out an ESOL aspect review in 2010/11.

Comments from the National Panel:

PB thought that an HMIE review would be very helpful. The Scottish ESOL strategy and action plan proposed a Best Practice Framework. Although work was started on this it has not been completed. PB felt that HMIE should have a key role in finalising the proposed Framework;
AB noted that HMIE carry out annual visits to each college. If excellent provision is identified it is highlighted as good practice;
PB suggested that it would be useful to highlight innovative practice on the ESOL Scotland website; and
CE thought that it would be useful to have a standing item on the agenda for good examples of how to disseminate good practice.

8. ESOL Best Practice Framework
The ESOL Strategy document and action plan suggested the development of an ESOL Best Practice Framework. This has not been done as yet. There are 4 parts to this:

The framework – this will look at models in different sectors and will involve HMIE;
Good quality learning tools – this is on-going and many of these are on the website;
Research – some research has been carried out but we need to review this and identify gaps; and
Seminars to share effective practice – Learning Connections run network meetings and we have also arranged the Discussion Day and the ESOL National Conference.

PB feels that the Framework needs wider discussion. He will draft a paper for the panel to look at in more detail in September. This will consider what we said we would do, the current position and the way forward. PB would like to consult with AB and HMIE.

Comments from the National Panel:

RA commented that it is good to look at the strategy and be clear in terms of objectives. We need to say how we’ve met the objectives in terms of the National Panel and what else we need to do.

Action: PB to draft a paper on the Best Practice Framework to discuss at the next National Panel meeting.
Action: PB to consult with AB and HMIE.

9. Allocation of ESOL Funds reserved by the Scottish Government for National Developments
RA stated that the College Sector had concerns about how the 10% of additional ESOL funds retained by Scottish Government for national developments and technical support is spent. He felt that the National Panel should have more input in the decisions made and that proposals should be explicitly linked to the Strategy’s objectives.

RA noted that, as the Panel has not been directly involved in the allocation of this budget or received any financial information on how it was spent, it has not been able to lead co-ordination of the work or to ensure accountability for the use of this public funding. He said that it is essential, in the view of the College Sector, that the use of this funding reflects the Panel’s agreed priorities for ESOL in Scotland and that clear auditable processes are put in place to support this.

RA requested that details of how the national development funding has been used is provided to the Panel in order to ensure that it is used to maximum effectiveness in the current financial year.

RA also had concerns about the procurement process, citing as an example a tender for case studies showing effective practice in ESOL. This tender contained the attached sentence which suggested that it referred only to Community Learning and not ESOL provision elsewhere, (“The main outputs of the project will be public documents intended to clarify the role, purpose and value of community learning and development to a diverse audience.” (Schedule 4)).

In conclusion, RA formally requested that financial information relating to the 10% spend from 2007 to present was provided to Panel members as soon as possible.

Comments from the national Panel:

PB noted that ideas were requested from the National Panel in the past and that he was happy for the Panel to be involved. He agreed that more regular, systematic and advance discussion by the panel of the scope and priorities for national development allocations would be helpful. He said that Scottish Government officials had always tried to be open and accountable and that there was nothing to be gained from being otherwise.
JB advised that the tender RA had highlighted had contained the sentence he referred to in error. She said that this has not precluded colleges and other sectors from bidding for the tender.
CE noted that the tender specifically stated that they were looking for case studies from each sector in both urban and rural areas. The concept is to have a diverse and full batch of case studies.
RQ suggested that funding for national developments could be a standing item on the agenda and this was agreed by the Panel members.

10. Update from COSLA
ER noted that the disbursement of the additional ESOL funding had been decided at a meeting on 4 February 2009. At this meeting it was agreed that the current system for allocating funds should continue for 2009/10 and 2010/11.

MG stated that the COSLA position was that ESOL is key in supporting communities and it is important that there is more community control of ESOL money. COSLA feel that there should be strategic oversight and Community Learning and Development Partnerships (CLDP) are best placed to do this. This would align the funds with the Single Outcome Agreements. If all sectors agreed the most effective use of money it could be put to best use at a local level for learners.

COSLA had asked for 100% of the budget to be routed through local authorities to CLDPs at the funding meeting on 4 February 2009. Scottish Government had agreed on the status quo of 60% to Colleges and 40% to CLD (with 10% allocated to national developments) but had agreed that partnership working should be further developed. COSLA had recently met with Scottish Government officials to see how this could be progressed, with a further meeting planned.

Comments from the National Panel:

PB advised that the intention is to undertake a joint strategic review. A meeting has been arranged between Councillor Harry McGuigan, COSLA's Community Well-Being and Safety spokesperson and Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to progress this. PB also noted that It is absolutely critical that colleges are involved and kept on side. There is a serious risk that the ESOL strategy could be jeopardised if this doesn't happen; RA and MC supported this position;
RA did not wish to revisit the February decision but noted that 'review' suggests discussion and this would be more useful than just having one or two meetings per year;
AB noted that a report on how the Adult Literacy and Numeracy (ALN) funds are disbursed by CLD is due to be published in the summer. This may be useful for comparison purposes with ESOL; and
CE noted that ALN money is not ring-fenced but we anticipate that ESOL will be, for at least one more year.

11. ESOL National Conference – Update
ER advised that the second planning meeting was taking place after the National Panel meeting. The main updates at present are:

Stirling Management Centre has been booked for 24 November 2009.
Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, is unable to attend but Keith Brown, the Minister for Schools and Skills, has advised that he is happy to attend.

12. Workplace ESOL – FSB Position
Andy Willox was unable to attend the meeting to present his paper.

13. Any Other Business

PB advised that the National Panel is approaching the end of its 2 year lifespan. He undertook to draft a discussion paper before the next meeting outlining the achievements of the National Panel and the Working Parties and looking at what still needs to be done.
He noted that the Panel has made good progress especially in the areas of professional development and the curriculum framework but more needs to be done with regard to identifying gaps in monitoring and developing real partnership working.
PB will propose the next steps for the Panel and would welcome any input or suggestions from Panel members.
ER noted that he would be stepping down from the Chair at the end of the year. If the Panel continues, a new Chair will be required and the scope of the Panel will have to be considered.
Action: All Advise Peter and Euan of any suggestions on the way forward for the National Panel.
RQ noted that Jennifer MacDougall has analysed the feedback in relation to the level 9 PDA award. The feedback shows that two thirds of the practitioners who responded feel that there is a requirement for a new qualification. Even those who do not feel that a new qualification is appropriate would welcome additional units.
RQ stated that there is a strong enough case from an SQA perspective to at least design additional units.
ER said that the National Panel need to decide how to take this forward after looking at the feedback from the Discussion Day and the electronic discussion. He thanked RQ for the report and asked that his thanks be passed on to Jennifer MacDougall.
Action: RQ to send Jennifer MacDougall’s report to the National Panel.
RA asked if the Panel could get stats on the number of entries for SQA's NQ ESOL units for this academic year for the meeting in September. RQ said that he would try to get this information for the next meeting.
Action: RQ to provide stats on the number of SQA ESOL units for the next meeting.
RA noted that there had been more problems with ESOL and Citizenship because the legislation still shows that 2 ESOL units are required. He felt that this would continue to be a problem as long as the legislation remains unchanged.
IR noted that she had liaised with United Kingdom Borders Agency (UKBA) and guidance had been re-issued to staff. She also noted that she has been assured that a minute will be sent to the Home Office Minister to get the legislation amended. IR advised that she is happy to help with any future problems as she has copies of the guidance.

ER closed the meeting.

Summary of Action Points

Action	Responsible
Update minutes and put final version on the website	Rose Tweedale
Email the Anniesland College document to the National Panel	Clare El Azebbi
Provide a paper on Workplace ESOL – FSB Position	Andy Willox
Draft a paper on the Best Practice Framework to discuss at the next National Panel meeting	Peter Beaumont
Consult with AB and HMIE with regard to the ESOL Best Practice Framework	Peter Beaumont
Advise Peter and Euan of any suggestions for the way forward for the National Panel	All
Send Jennifer MacDougall's report on the feedback for the proposed level 9 PDA to the National Panel	Robert Quinn
Provide stats on the number of SQA ESOL units for the next meeting	Robert Quinn

For information and to note diaries
Dates of National Panel Meetings
7 September 2009, Glasgow
7 December 2009, Edinburgh

Return to the National Panel minutes page.