Seòmar agus comataidhean

If I might interrupt—I am sorry, Joanna—I am referring to the results from this year, which are relevant to the operating conditions. Is there an indication that there is any form of resource, or expectation of support, for the cohort that is leaving school this year, who have just received their grades and are coming into college, starting this week or last week? Are you making up for their loss of learning? Is that being quantified or measured by the SFC? Is it appreciated that the SQA expects you to do that work? Is there no such indication?

Ann, do you have any comments on that?

Is it your expectation that the documents that you are producing, critical as they are, will inform the reform process that the SFC is undertaking?

I think that we hear that.

I want to go back to the statement of intent. It strikes me that that is in response to the review of coherent provision and sustainability in the tertiary sector, but a plethora of other documents have been produced and a plethora of suggestions have been made in recent years. Have any of the four of you been involved in discussions about what the statement of intent might include?

That would be a no. That is useful and interesting.

It is my understanding that a group of in excess of 20 civil servants is working on that in St Andrew’s house or some Scottish Government office somewhere, but there is also another group of civil servants in the Scottish Funding Council that is working on the same issue to try to produce something. You are all leaders, and you all bring experience to the table. Do you have any insight into the process that those civil servants might be following or into how the Government is making those strategic decisions?

I see that the answer is no. That is quite concerning.

Going back to the previous panel, we heard from the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College pretty concerning evidence, to say the least—in fact, I thought that it was quite devastating evidence—that he was projecting the loss of a quarter of his workforce as a result of the cuts that are being brought in. Have you had the opportunity to feed those kinds of headwinds—if I can use that euphemism—into the process? Have you had the opportunity to input those kinds of issues into the process?

A yes or a no would be useful.

I may bring in Sue Macfarlane, in a second, if she has further comments. The information that we have indicates that an increase in non-completion is related to the pandemic. There would seem to be a problem. It is great to hear that there may be some evidence that those things are being tackled. However, it would seem that the non-completion rates have remained high—I would go as far as to say that they have remained very high—for a very long time. It is quite difficult to draw a comparison, but the best information that we have indicates that the completion rate in England is far higher. Does the sector recognise that?

The current operational context is very important when we are reflecting on this. In our previous meeting, we took evidence from the SQA regarding outcomes. I was keen to understand the issues relating to lost learning. Students have had a reduced curriculum and have not had the experiences that they might have had. Referring to what the college sector could do in relation to lost learning, Robert Quinn from the SQA said in response to one of my questions:

“I feel strongly that it should be well placed to provide support.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 7 September 2022; c 12.]

Has the SFC asked you to give any indication of what additional support you can provide to make up for lost learning at any point?

That is useful and specific.

I have a question on the widening access agenda, which connects to Sue Macfarlane’s comment about how we measure success. My understanding is that the widening access agenda is judged by inputs—in essence, the number of students who are recruited rather than those who complete. Would we have been better talking about the number of those who complete, at least in addition to the number who are recruited?

I have talked about non-completion sitting at 27 per cent but, for students in the widening access cohorts—those from the lowest SIMD areas—that soars to 36 per cent. Collectively, we understand some of the reasons for, and challenges around, that situation but, on how we understand success, would reporting on completion figures for the widening access cohorts be an appropriate metric to add?