I have been to my fair share of report launches - from government-commissioned ones setting out major reform to ones written by charities or academics highlighting shortcomings in a particular part of the sector.

So the launch in Glasgow last week of the Cumberford-Little Report on the economic impact of colleges was not particularly remarkable. It was well attended, the canapes were excellent, and both authors and the minister spoke well.

There was one moment, however, that gave me pause for thought. It came during the question and answer session, when a representative of one of Scotland’s ancient universities stood up to say she was “disappointed”.

She was concerned about the recommendation that the imbalance between the Scottish Funding Council’s college and university strategic funds be revised and the historical balance between the SFC’s university and college core funding streams be revisited.

Of course, it is not surprising that a university representative would not be keen on seeing a system reviewed that, arguably, has served the HE sector well. She also most likely felt that what the authors of the report were in fact calling for was a rebalancing of funds in favour of colleges - a move that might come at the expense of higher education institutions.

One of the things that sets the Cumberford-Little Report apart is that it was written by two principals running large FE institutions. They see, day to day, the impact colleges have on the economy but also where the challenges and pitfalls are. They were also always going to make the case for the college sector; that, after all, is their job.

The reason that the intervention stuck with me is that it cuts to one of the core issues of the Scottish education system. In a system where money is limited, the different parts of the system have somehow become competitors, trying to ensure their slice of the funding pie does not get smaller.

A few weeks ago, Dundee and Angus College principal Grant Ritchie wrote in Tes about some of the factors impacting college success rates - making precisely that point: schools were keeping more students until the sixth year, and meanwhile, more school-leavers were heading to university.

The Cumberford-Little Report’s title is “One tertiary system: agile, collaborative, inclusive”. And that is exactly it. If we ever want to be able to truly speak about a “learner journey”, if we ever want for that to be a reality, that is what we need to focus on. Everyone has to stop thinking in what Audrey Cumberford at the report launch called “silos” and consider the entire system and every learner.

That requires system change - whether the “rebalancing” the report talks about or any of the other many ideas floated in the last few years. What if, for example, every learner had a virtual amount of funding in an account that could be spent on whatever route they chose? And what if institutions did not have delivery targets to meet and success rates to report, so that institutions working together to make moving on from one to the other easier for young people did not come at a cost for institutions?

But also, importantly, it requires cultural change. The system will never fully line up in the way that best benefits learners if the primary focus for each part of the sector remains protecting its part of the pie. Everyone, from school teachers to college lecturers and institutional management, needs to think more about what the economy needs and what employers require. They may even find that that in itself leads to system growth and a bigger pie to share around. For example, research investment for a university could also lead to technician jobs for college leavers in the area.

But, most importantly, they need to put the learner first - even if it does mean a “rebalancing” of the money in the system.

@jbelgutay

This article originally appeared in the 21 February 2020 issue under the headline “A learner’s journey is easier when we break down educational silos”