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 7th September 2009 at 11am
Scottish Government
5 Atlantic Quay
150 Broomielaw
Glasgow G2 8LU

MINUTES

Attendees

.
Euan Reid (ER)	Chair
Peter Beaumont (PB)	SG/LLD
Clare El Azebbi (CE)	SG/LLD
Isabel Russell (IR)	SG/LLD
Morag Campbell (MC)	SFC
Robin Ashton (RA)	SC (Langside College)
Robert Quinn (RQ)	SQA
Iain Ferguson (IF)	CBI Scotland
Anne Simpson (AS)	CLDMS
Jayne Stuart (JS)	Learning Link Scotland
Jennifer MacDougall (	SQA (Guest Speaker)
Rose Tweedale (RT)	Secretariat

1. Welcome and Introductions
ER welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that Jennifer MacDougall from SQA would attend the end of the meeting to give a presentation on the new qualification structure in Scotland.

Apologies
Apologies were received from:
Andy Willox, FSB
Douglas Guest, EHRC
Philippa Clark, Unison
Nina Ivashinenko, Learner
Andrew Brawley, HMIE
Wendy Burton, STUC
Mhoraig Green, COSLA
Jackie Borge, SG/LLD

2. Minutes of meeting on 11th May 2009
The last sentence of part 3 of the minutes should be changed to, "CE suggested that his proposal had not been successful as his proposal was considered to be part of core SQA business". The first bullet point in part 9 of the minutes should be amended to show that ideas were requested from the National Panel in the past rather than have been requested from the National Panel in the past. The second bullet point at part 10 should be amended to, "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 a year".

Bullet point one of part 10 should include the sentence, "RA and MC supported this position".

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

3. Matters arising
3.1 One action point is outstanding from the previous meeting.

• PB will draft a paper on the Best Practice Framework in time for the meeting in December

3.2 CE supplied copies of the Anniesland College documents with examples of progression routes for learners. RA stated that he had also produced his own version.

3.3 RQ provided stats on the number of SQA ESOL units for the period August 2008 to August 2009.

The stats show the entries split between national courses and units. National courses include, for example, highers and advanced highers and units are more targeted units of learning. RQ said that the figures had been expected to show that the entries had been maintained this year but they actually show significant growth in terms of both courses and units. Encouragingly, 6 new colleges, 45 schools and 2 training providers (not college or schools) who had not previously entered candidates for courses provided returns.

There was 34% growth in units with 171 centres presenting. This consisted of 119 schools, 39 colleges and 13 training providers / community learning organisations. The main growth came from four colleges, Stevenson, Langside, Aberdeen and Glasgow Metropolitan College. The other main provider is Anniesland College. When looking at Entries by Level, the biggest growth area was at Access level.

Comments from the National Panel:

• RA noted that the Access 2 Literacies units are being used as pre-Access 2 courses of study as there is no level 1 award on the SCQF (Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework). He stated that it had involved a massive amount of work from college sector staff to consistently increase the number of unit entries by such a large amount each year. His own experience at Langside College is that learners have responded very positively to these awards and that it has increased learner progression. He also noted that as staff now acted as both assessors and teachers, a greater understanding of learners' development is possible. Drawing attention to the number of entries from the CLD sector RA asked if the Panel was satisfied with the low rate of entries from this sector;
• RQ noted that Community Learning and Development (CLD) work in partnership with colleges;
• AS also said that the college figure did not just reflect college students as CLD often routed their accreditation through colleges;
• CE reiterated the point that CLDP work in partnership with colleges. Community based ESOL and literacy core skills are often presented via colleges. SQA has undertaken a lot of marketing with alternative sets of providers to reach non-formal settings. CE said that it would be interesting to see a breakdown between sectors of how ESOL literacies in particular were being picked up;
• RQ noted that further analysis is possible;
• ER thanked RQ and said that it would be interesting to have further analysis whenever it was ready. ER asked if all Scottish Universities were now accepting higher ESOL; and
• RQ replied that they were in principle but there were still some on-going issues.

4. Working Parties – Update on on-line Discussion
RT advised that the on-line discussion on the 3 working parties’ reports has now closed.

There was very little response to the electronic discussion, possibly due to the good turnout to the event in May where many practitioners were able to contribute their views.

Learning Link Scotland responded to all 3 papers and their suggestions are summarised below.

Funding Principles

• Consider non-financial contributions, e.g. volunteer support to new learners;
• Financial contributions to be developed on the basis on ILA giving a clear indication of the level of contribution from government. Further contributions would come from the learner and/or employer; and
• It is important that publically supported ESOL provision should be prioritised and learner centred.

Professional Development

• Learning Link agree with the recommendations;
• There should be a framework for all practitioners and continuing professional development (CPD) for paid and volunteer practitioners in the voluntary sector – especially with regard to funding to undertake professional development;
• The framework should be linked to appropriate professional standards and to LLUK standards; and
• It is important to create incentives to ensure training opportunities are taken up across Scotland. This could include making resources available for practitioners to access training and ensuring training is delivered locally throughout Scotland.

Curriculum Framework

• Learning Link welcome the social practice model for the curriculum framework which gives broad access for practitioners and learners;
• They agree it should be developed electronically for best dissemination; and
• A comprehensive range of tools and resources will make it usable. Ideally a web based facility allowing for growth and development over time.

Comments from the National Panel:

• JS said that they had circulated the papers to their members along with a paper from Learning Link, They subsequently collated the views from their members and submitted their response collectively;
• MC, the convenor of the Funding Principles working party, agreed that non financial contributions should be included;
• JS said that, with regard to financial contributions, a number of models could be looked at and adapted rather than starting from scratch. ILA is a good example;
• MC advised that she would contact the team in Scottish Government who deal with this area; and
• IR advised that she would give MC the name of an ILA contact in Scottish Government.

Action: IR to send MC the name of an ILA contact in Scottish Government

5. Working Party Reports – Preliminary Discussion of Next Steps
ER noted that follow up action would be required to develop the recommendations of the working parties. At present, the developments required to progress curriculum development and professional development are clearer than for the funding principles as that working party started later. Professional development has moved forward as SQA has completed the scoping study on the proposed level 9 qualification. With regard to curriculum framework, the website, or other on-line resource, will have to be developed and it may take some time for the model to permeate and be interpreted in different contexts.

ER advised that Scottish Government had held money back for the working party developments but they have not reached the point as yet where finance for the work can be considered. Hopefully there will still be enough resources to take the recommendations forward. Between now and December he will write to the working party convenors to start putting specific developments in progress. This should allow us to move forward before the December meeting.

Comments from the National Panel:

• RA agreed that the Professional Development working party was some way down the line. He asked if more work was required for the background papers for the curriculum framework. RA stated that he felt these were important as a model and should be circulated to help practitioners understand what it means for them;
• JS asked if the intention was to launch the 3 working party’s recommendations at the conference in November;
• ER advised that he would give an overview of the recommendations at the conference. All 3 working parties will provide workshops for the afternoon session;
• JS noted that this gave them a deadline for tangible outputs;
• ER noted that as the Financial Principles working party started later the final recommendations may not be available. An alternative for this working party is for ER and MC to work together to give provisional endorsement to the recommendations or to circulate the recommendations electronically to the National Panel members;
• RA said that he was unclear what the Financial Principles paper is proposing. He has serious concerns regarding the paper and was unclear what the recommendations were. He stated that prioritisation was not listed in the remit of the working group. RA said he wanted to know how prioritising students will work in reality. He felt that every student could come under one of the priority groupings. RA asked who we are prioritising;
• ER asked MC if she could sharpen this up so that the priority groups are clear. He also said that the recommendations would not be endorsed before November if there were serious concerns;
• RA noted that he felt it should be more about providing information and guidance rather than making recommendations as to which groups should be prioritised;
• JS said that we were being given the opportunity to influence future policy. The Cabinet Secretary will decide on policy but we were able to make recommendations. JS said we should consider if the recommendations should be made privately or publically to government. If they were made publically it means that the government has to respond publically. She felt that the paper should be succinct in terms of key principles and recommendations for future funding policy for ESOL;
• RA said that he was concerned about excluding people. He stated that he felt the Panel should discuss fully any recommendation to prioritise particular groups;
• IR noted that when funds were limited tough decisions have to be made; and
• MC felt that the document should set out the principles but acknowledge that local situations vary. There should be a framework for local policy showing what priorities should be considered. Each local authority may have to include this in their Single Outcome agreements.

Action: ER to contact PD and CF working party convenors to arrange a meeting to take forward their recommendations.
Action: ER to summarise progress on recommendations for the December meeting.
Action: IR to send background papers for the Curriculum Framework working party to the National Panel.
Action: MC to send final paper to RT by 30 September 2009
Action: RT to send Funding Principles paper to the National Panel – responses required by 21 October 2009.

6. COSLA – Scottish Government ESOL Review
IR advised that on 4 June 2009, at COSLA's request, Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, met with Councillor Harry McGuigan, COSLA's, Community Wellbeing and Safety spokesperson, and COSLA and Scottish Government officials. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the next steps in encouraging better ESOL partnership working to ensure a strategic overview of ESOL provision.

As a result, COSLA and Scottish Government officials are undertaking a strategic review to consider how resources can be used efficiently and effectively to provide ESOL in Scotland. The review, which is due to be completed by October/November, will focus on 6 areas:

South East Glasgow;
North Glasgow;
Scottish Borders;
Moray;
Perth and Kinross; and
Falkirk.

Scottish Government and COSLA will meet separately with both referrers and providers in each area to discuss:

Demand and referral;
Assessment/qualifications;
Progression;
Funding; and
Partnership working.

IR advised that the first meeting would be on 10 September in Scottish Borders.

Comments from the Panel:

• RA asked how the areas were chosen. He noted that there were 2 areas in Glasgow but none in Edinburgh;
• IR explained that the areas have been selected based on diverse geographical locations (urban and rural) and approaches to ESOL delivery. She noted that RA had done a lot of good work in South East Glasgow with his Initial Assessment project;
• RA asked why the review had to be completed by October; who had set this date;
• IR and PB advised that this was the timescale requested by COSLA;
• RA felt that it was important that we looked at the quality of ESOL provision and suggested that the Panel should ask HMIE to bring forward their review of ESOL;
• PB noted that the HMIE schedule tends to be fixed some time in advance; and
• AS said that she thought that HMIE may have already started their review as they had been visited by inspectors.

Action: IR to check if HMIE have started their review of ESOL provision.

7. Update on funding for National Developments

2007/2008 and 2008/2009
PB said that 100% of the budget retained by Scottish Government was spent on national developments in 2007/08. A smaller percentage, 21% was spent in 2008/09 as funds had been retained for development work from the working parties but they had not reached the stage where work could be tendered by the end of the financial year. However, almost all of the balance had been allocated to providers to support additional ESOL provision.

Comments from the National Panel:

• RA said that he had asked for this information as he wanted the papers on public record. He said that only 46% of the money had been spent on national developments over the 2 years and that this was a missed opportunity. He asked why this had happened;
• ER said that the Panel doesn't disperse money but can give advice. During 2008/09 money was held back for the working parties but they did not get to the stage where tenders could be issued to develop the recommendations. Rather than have this money clawed back it was allocated to ESOL provision; and
• PB noted that the pace of development had been slower than anticipated. All of the money in 2007/08 was spent on national developments, less in the second year. Given that we were not in a position to spend it on national developments, it made sense, in his view, to use it to support additional provision.

2009 /10
PB noted that there are ideas for current spending but he would welcome suggestions from the Panel. He advised that there was a potential underspend of £140,000. Some of this money could be used by SQA to develop the new SQA Level 9 PDA in TESOL recommended by the Professional Development working party.

Comments from the National Panel:

• RQ asked if the panel should make suggestions on how to spend the £140,000 potential underspend;
• CE noted that the Curriculum Framework and Professional Development working parties would have to be given priority. The SQA bid would be considered as part of the Profession Development working party's recommendations. The difficulty faced is in the timescales for procurement. Grants can be reasonably quick to disperse but awarding contracts, for example for graphic design of a website, take time;
• ER suggested that we should meet with the working party convenors and SQA to spend some of the money this year;
• RQ noted that, given the timescales, some of the developments would fall into next year;
• CE suggested that a planning meeting with Panel members and the working party convenors is organised for October to look at professional development and curriculum framework;
• RA said that if suggestions were being requested for the underspend, he would like to re-submit his proposal for SQA support materials for practitioners. He said that this would help transform ESOL through achievement rates and raising quality; and
• RQ noted that timing is an issue. This is something that SQA would want to look at but he did not know if it would be possible to do it this year.

Action: RT to arrange a meeting in October to consider proposals for spend of the national development budget.
Action: RA to liaise with SQA with a view to re-submitting his proposal for support materials for practitioners.

8. Update on Funding for Colleges and CLDP
RA and AS provided a paper detailing a survey of the views of ESOL managers and practitioners on the impact of the additional funds and the challenges which remain to meet the adult ESOL strategy objectives. AS advised that this was a snapshot in time and showed where we are at present on ESOL implementation. RA also gave a presentation to the Panel summarising the findings of the survey. The paper did not show how the funds had been spent.

RA and AS Survey Paper - Challenges to Meeting AES objectives (Word, 62Kb)
RA and AS presentation - Survey of ESOL Practitioners and Managers (Powerpoint, 367Kb)

9. ESOL National Conference Update
CE advised that the conference programme had been finalised. CE also said that it is hoped that the conference keynote speaker, Professor Joe Lo Bianco, will give a practitioners seminar at Stevenson College on 25 November 2009 (to be confirmed).

Comments from the Panel:

• RQ asked how many workshops would be available; and
• CE advised that there would be 12 workshops to choose from at the conference. The workshops will run twice in the afternoon so participants will have the chance to attend 2 workshops.

National Conference 2009 - Draft Programme (Word, 34Kb)

10. Future of the National Panel
PB had provided a paper on the future of the National Panel to be considered by members before the meeting. He started by reminding us of the reason that the Panel was set up and looking at the Adult ESOL Strategy for Scotland action plan. He advised that the Panel has completed most of the tasks it was set up to do. Not all of the actions have been completed, for example, an annual report has not been completed for Scottish Ministers. PB was also unsure how effective the Panel had been in terms of representation.

PB noted that the panel had to assess its achievements and look forward.

The 3 options for the Panel are:

• To keep going in the current format;
• To discontinue the Panel; or
• To review, the remit, membership and way of working.

PB advised that Scottish Government had an open mind and would consider all possibilities. He would like the Panel’s views so that he could firm up the issues in paragraphs 13 – 17 of his paper before the next meeting in December.

Comments from the National Panel:

• ER thanked PB for laying out the alternatives. He realised that it was not possible to come to a decision but he would like to get some views today. He would like the Panel to focus on the questions and options that PB outlined;
• RQ felt that although a lot has been achieved much is still to be done. There may only be one year after this of additional funding and he felt that it would be appropriate to tie in the lifespan of the National Panel with the period of expected funding. He said that there is an issue in terms of membership and suggestions could be made for reworking the remit;
• AS said she does not want the status quo. There are issues in terms of sustainability as the additional funding may only available until 2011. How do we deliver beyond that? The Panel has to look at the bigger picture and she feels that the suggestion of working groups is more appropriate;
• IF stated that he did not have strong views but liked the idea of tying in with the expected period of the additional funding. CBI has a limited resource and they have to review their commitments every year. IF felt that CBI would be better used as a communication channel for ESOL issues rather than providing membership for the National Panel or working groups. They would be happy to promote ESOL and seek opinions from the business community;
• RA agreed that he would like a smaller panel along the lines of a working group with closer working relationships;
• MC also said that she would like a smaller more focussed Panel and liked the idea of continuing until 2011 as the additional funding is available until then. She said that Scottish Government has done a lot of work but she felt that the main purpose of improving the quality and quantity of ESOL provision has not been achieved. She felt that this remit was probably not appropriate for a committee. She would like the reconstituted panel to have a higher profile and have influence with the Cabinet Secretary;
• PB said that the comments had been helpful and that there was consistency running between them; and
• ER summed up by saying the preference seemed to be for a reformulated body for the remainder of the special funding period.

Action: RT to request the views of the other Panel members
Action: PB to put together a specific proposal for the meeting in December

11. Any Other Business
RA mentioned that UKBA are currently reviewing citizenship requirements and wondered if the Panel members would be given the opportunity to respond. IR advised that Scottish Government had responded to the consultation. RA stated that he was concerned about the different qualifications in Scotland being taken into account if it was agreed that the language level should be increased. English qualifications only require speaking and listening skills where Scottish qualifications also include reading and writing.

Action: IR to give feedback on citizenship issue at the meeting in December

12. New Qualifications Structure
JM gave a presentation on the scoping study SQA carried out in respect of a new PDA in TESOL at level 9.

Jen MacDougall's Presentation (Powerpoint, 3.33Mb)

Comments from the National Panel:

• ER thanked JM for her presentation and noted that the findings were useful and encouraging;
• RA commented that there was still a lot of work to be done and the qualification had to be seen as credible;
• JM said that this was the reason that a piloting stage was required to ensure that we get it right first time. She suggested that the centres that are already using the ITESOL PDA at level 6 could pilot it;
• AS said that she was positive about it and that it was a good way forward;
• PB asked if Cambridge and Trinity would be happy to liaise in the creation of an alternative qualification;
• JM advised that the Cambridge and Trinity qualifications would still be recognised and people could take additional units from the level 9 award. She added that Scotland is a small market for Cambridge and Trinity and the diploma is still recognised for TQFE;
• CE said that she was very much in favour of the development of a trainer award. It is important to develop ESOL teachers and trainers of ESOL;
• RQ said that the case for unit development was clear. In terms of the group award he felt that it was important to look at the long term strategy and not just develop a bolt on to the qualifications that are already there. He felt that the National Panel should seriously consider developing this qualification; and
• ER asked the Panel to consider making a formal recommendation that the PDA in TESOL at level 9 is developed.

Action: The National Panel to consider making a formal recommendation that the PDA in TESOL at level 9 is developed

ER closed the meeting.

Summary of Action Points

.
Action	Responsible
Update minutes and put final version on the website	Rose Tweedale
Consult with AB and HMIE and draft a paper on the Best Practice Framework to discuss at the next National Panel meeting	Peter Beaumont
Send MC the name of an ILA contact in Scottish Government	Isabel Russell
Contact PD and CF working party convenors to arrange a meeting to take forward their recommendations.	Euan Reid
Summarise progress on recommendations for the December meeting	Euan Reid
Send background papers for the Curriculum Framework working party to the National Panel	Isabel Russell
Send working party final paper to RT by 30 September 2009	Morag Campbell
Send Funding Principles paper to the National Panel – responses required by 21 October 2009	Rose Tweedale
Check if HMIE have started their review of ESOL provision	Isabel Russell
Arrange a meeting in October to consider national development funding	Rose Tweedale
Liaise with SQA with a view to re-submitting the proposal for support materials for practitioners	Robin Ashton
Request the views of the other Panel members on the options outlined for the future of the National Panel	Rose Tweedale
Draft a specific proposal for the future of the National Panel for the meeting in December	Peter Beaumont
Feedback on citizenship issue at the meeting in December	Isabel Russell
The National Panel to consider making a formal recommendation that the PDA in TESOL at level 9 is developed	All

For information and to note diaries
24 November 2009, ESOL National Conference, Stirling Management Centre
07 December 2009, National Panel Meeting, SFC, Edinburgh

Return to the National Panel minutes page.