FEI Forest School Scotland Subgroup Meeting

FOREST SCHOOL TRAINERS SCOTLAND NETWORK MEETING MINUTES

Wednesday 20th June 2012

Forestry Commission Scotland, Silvan house, Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh

1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
2. PRESENT

ATTENDING:Penny Martin, Mike Brady, Karen Boyd, Sally York, Chris Childe (now freelance EE), Clare Nugent, Ryan Reed (Guest speaker, SCQFP)

APOLOGIES:Aline Hill, Kate Hookham, Claire Warden, Chris Miles, Julia Mackay, Leigh Shearer, Simon Harry, Karen Yearsley

1. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING 17 January 2012

Link provided.

Minutes approved

AP1: Penny M hasn’t got feedback on non-attendance reasons

AP: Avoiding acronyms in meeting minutes

AP: No good practice examples have been shared by trainers. Penny M has visited Karen Yearsley’s FS programme in Blackford Primary. Planning to build up case studies

AP: Trainers are sending info re. FS training courses to Penny- she has a list she circulates to enquiries

AP: First Aid course info more ad hoc – shared on FEI FB group. Dependent on First Aid providers contacting Penny. Latest is ITC First Aid Ltd –planned opening new HQ in Brora Sutherland later 2012 (contact is Ian Moore). Looking at possible development of a common first aid course suitable for FS practitioners. Currently support an SCQF5 outdoor First Aid qualification delivered by their Centres.

AP2: Ryan to check whether this First Aid link is on the SCQF database

First aid info on FEI website to be revisited. First Aid provision not necessarily linked with training courses.

AP: For Penny to develop regionally based guidance notes on local contacts – pending. MB suggested most trainers have local contacts. It is a 2-way process of information sharing.

AP: Mike Brady has sent guidance note on organising networking days to Penny and she has uploaded to FEI website

AP: Penny has written Parental Guidance note with input from Karen Boyd –now uploaded to the FEI website. SY has contacted Jason O Flynn re interest and to contact PM

AP: Penny has invited Ryan Reed to this meeting

AP: Penny has circulated suggested wording for trainers when corresponding with Forest School trainees on 30/5/12 with request for all to circulate this to their existing Forest School contacts in order to address Data protection issues with your client Forest School trainees. Still to fwd. request for contact details from trainee client list.

Also Call-out for FS trainee contact details sent 4/6/12 to the Scotland trainers’ network.

No feedback from trainers received.

AP3: Penny still to circulate a spreadsheet template to trainers – pending

AP4: Penny still to carry out follow up survey of FS trainees under the Gov. funded programme. Busy with wider data collection in progress.

AP(s): This meeting venue rearranged for Edinburgh due to webinar facilities…technology needs a computer IP address. FC can’t use Skype – security issues and bandwidth.

AP: Penny has arranged this meeting for 20/6/12 via Doodle.

AP5: All/ Chair - Chris C. noted that he felt this previous meeting was too wide ranging meeting and requestedthat we stick to agenda more closely in future.

1. RYAN REED, PROJECT OFFICER, Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership

Ryan R.gave an overview of the SCQF - the partnership that manages the qualifications framework. See

The SCQF Partnership is a registered charity. Since 2006it has been an independent impartial organisation managing the SCQF on behalf of the Partnership. Partners are Scottish Ministers, QAA Scotland, Scotland’s Colleges, Universities Scotland, and the SQA. The SCQFPalso has a director representing employers. The most senior person from each partner organisation sits on the SCQF Board of Directors. The SCQF is supported through income from Government block grant, and some income from other sources.eg Scottish Funding Council. The Independent Chair of the Boardis Sir Andrew Cubieand the Chief Executive is Aileen Ponton.The Framework aims to improve access to appropriate training, and help employers and others understand what is suitable training i.e. helps people understand what they are learning and the next steps needed.

Ryan R. showed the Framework diagram. Key terms used arelevel (complexity and demand) and credits (size e.g. number of contact hours and self-directed learning hours, where the balance of each will depend on course needs). In the diagram, school based information is on the left hand side, moving across to progression awards designed by SQA. SVQs are on the right of the diagram. Not visibleon this diagram is @ 420 programmes that have gone through credit rating. The diagram makes it possible to make comparisons with other programmes .This provides opportunities for organisations offering training to bring unrecognised programmes into this framework and give credibility to their training programme. The diagram gives comparability but not equivalence.

Credit rating has a cost demand. It is carried out by credit rating bodies which charge for the process: e.g. universities, colleges, SQA, some other bodies and costs @ £3000 -£6,000. Those owning a training programme enter into dialogue with credit rating bodies.

Penny M asked Ryan R on behalf of Aline Hill if the FS qualification was mapped to the English qualifications framework (as in the NGB proposals). Would this be easy to convert to the SQCF, or does the whole process need to start from scratch? Ryan R. explained that the background work to place this on the QCF won’t be wasted, as it will provide programme credit values, but in Scotland it is a different process to get a programme to be credit rated.In England, LANTRA is the route to the QCF and this is appraised by Ofqual (the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation which regulates qualifications, examinations and assessments in England and vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland). Ofqual’s regulatory framework is entirely different but these initial steps would help to ease the process. The SCQF uses a much more flexible system which doesn’t dictate the size of a learning programme and there is no need to make a business case for the content of the programme. To have a programme placed on the QCF only certain organisations can develop units and they have to work with Sector Skills Councils to do so. This is not a requirement of SCQF credit rating as the aim of the framework in Scotland is to provide recognition of programmes of all types rather than as a tool to rationalise the type and amount of learning being offered.

As long as the NGB/ Forest School body own the qualification, their programme can be submitted for credit rating. This credit rating process means that you don’t need an awarding body.

Qualifications can cross boundaries. See SCQF information leaflet

AP6: RR to email the relevant leaflet info to PM.

There are 4 basic criteria which must be met for a programme/qualification to be suitable for credit rating:

1. It must be based on clear learning outcomes
2. There must be formal assessment of the learning outcomes – this can take many different forms
3. It should be subject to quality assurance
4. It must involve at least 10 hours of learning

System of Quality Assurance – assessment is consistent, secure etc. and checked by someone outside of delivery. Plus there is external quality assurance on the systems in place. This is done annually. This checks that the provider is maintaining quality assurance and that the programme has not changed significantly – a report is submitted to the credit rating body.

Because the SCQF is descriptive rather than a regulatory framework like the QCF public funding isn’t necessarily attached to programmes that are credit rated.

The group discussion compared this to OCN as an awarding body with external moderatorsrequired to mark course work. Changes have taken place within OCN. A year ago the different OCN bodies were not linked and driven by separate commercial interests. Now OCN are setting up independently and attempting to get a national FS programme on this national OCN and NOS.

If anyone decides to develop a programme and submit to credit rating, it can be sold/ marketedto others.

There is a cost for the yearly QA of the programme and procedures in place.

There is no requirement to use the credit rating body (CRB) for external QA but if somebody else is appointed then they must be approved by the CRB. This means that you could reduce cost by using existing partnership to source QA if this is appropriate.

Other on-going costs include a periodic review of the programme. The credit rating body will set the review date period which will depend on the course content (usually a 3-5 year interval) and there is a cost associated with this review.

Sally Y. raised the issue of links to qualifications for teachers as another step in the ladder. The General Teaching Council Scotland (GTCS) is looking at professional standards. The Professional Development Award (PDA) is an independent award developed by SQA in response to a particular need. It is an automatically credit rated onto the SCQF as an SQA qualification.

This is linked to the issue of recognition of prior learning, where credit is sometimes transferable between different organisations, which need to check whether the course content of qualifications matches. If credit from a credit rated FS qualification was to be used to gain exemption from other awards, such as a PDA, then the content would need to be relevant and a discussion would need to take place with SQA and the users of the PDA. This is not an automatic result of credit rating.

S.York said the ideal would be for Forest School training providers to be able to tell teachers that their course is credit rated and will contribute to a PDA. The process will need to be worked through with SQA and the users of the qualification.

AP7: Sally Y. to check this with contacts at GTCS.

For Forest School in Scotland in future, having an SCQF credit rated programme would make the process easier. It will be necessary to look at what else is out there in terms of common content.

The process would be made easier by breaking down a programme to different units each with their own credits. See the characteristics of SCQF levels. This enables comparisons between different programmes where the same set of descriptors are used. It is a flexible learner led system. For example the FS qualification could offer a range of units. Each unit needs to be internally assessed. This matches well with existing FS levels.

SCQF run free day long workshops run on this for those applying for credit rating, called ‘Would you credit it?’ It will be necessary to identify in the first place who is responsible for the Forest School programme and who would be submitting for credit rating.

We need to answer the basic question – who owns the current Forest School qualification? It’s important to be clear who the programme belongs to.It could be a collaboration of bodies. The credit rating body will need to know. At the moment it is owned by OCN.

Chris C. asked whether there is a need to directly contact the SQA? Ryan R. replied only if there is a need to use them as a credit rating body. SCQF can provide the relevant information. Forest School providers wouldn’t be developing SQA qualification, but SQA could be the credit rating body. SCQF can advise on range of credit rating bodies available.

All information can be found on the SCQF website. Ryan R. shared some documents with the group.

AP8: Penny M. to circulate documents to those who sent apologies for this meeting today.

AP9: All. Forest School Scotland need to clarify proposals on ownership of the FS qualification, intentions south of the border, and proposals to place the FS qualification on the QCF.

1. FOREST SCHOOL NGB

Link provided to the Forest School Business Plan for all to read before meeting

Penny M. shared information on the launch of the new Forest School professional organisation for the UK on 7th July at Elvaston Castle Country Park, Derby.The organisation will employ a development officer once it has been constituted. It will be a social enterprise and company limited by guarantee operating as a charity with the following objectives.

1.To improve the quality and standards of all those involved in the delivery of Forest school and training of practitioners for the benefit of the Forest School community and the learners involved.

2.To support the development of Forest School across the UK

3.To provide a professional voice for Forest School practitioners and trainers.

4.To formulate National Occupational Standards and establish a qualification on the national qualification framework.

5.To share best practice amongst Forest School practitioners.

6.To provide research opportunities.

7.To explore funding opportunities for Forest Schools.

There has been consultation on the name, shape of and representation of the strategic body.

Penny M. circulated info to the FS network in Scotland in May 2012, and has responded to questionnaire surveys.

Penny M., Sally Y., Aline H. are going and aim to engage positively with the wider network.

There was some question over whether the individual £50 membership will include organisations. The FSTN will need to join.

Mike B. thinks this offers plus points as the FEI partnership organisation itself has no teeth. A separateorganisation can offer with quality assurance and may take ownership of the FS qualification. Mike B. suggested that with FEI in England becoming now the Forest Education Network (FEN), the new NBG should focus on setting up FS networking groups. Sally Y. noted that the Learning Outside the Classroom (LOTC) groups established in England can subsume the FS network.

There was debate around who does own the FS qualification. There is a Welsh framework so the group members were unsure whether the English and Welsh FS qualification is congruent. Three frameworks operate in England, the NQF, the QCF (vocational), and the HEQF.

The group discussed Scottish FS representation on the new national FS body. Some Trustees have already been nominated on the basis of consultation. Penny M. has applied to be a Trustee of the new body to help represent FEI FS Scotland. Aline H. may also be planning to stand as a Trustee.

Mike B suggested that we should invite someone from the NGB to Scotland network meetings as physical or virtual presence to aid networking in Scotland.

AP10: Any comments/ issues on FEI FS trainers network Scotland, send to Penny M/ Aline H. before the launch date.

AP11: Penny M to ask wider FS Scotland network for comments

1. FOREST SCHOOL TRAINING NETWORK (GB)

The Group briefly discussed the relationship between the Scottish and GB network groups. Clare Nugent had provided earlier feedback form attending the Forest School Training Network General Meeting 9th March 2012. The next meeting is 6 July 2012, also at Elvaston, Derby, before the launch event.

Aline H. has says she plans to attend the launch event on 7th July.The group discussed who could represent Scotland at the next trainer’s GB meeting. This had also been raised by Jon Cree. Sally Y.suggested FCS could help support Aline’s travel costs to attend the 6th July meeting.

AP12: Penny M./Sally Y to discuss with Aline H.

The situation faced by the Scotland FS network and their relationship with a new national body mirrors other bodies that have a Scotland/ National representation. Will the group will be subsumed into the new body and lose its distinctiveness?

The discussion came back to the issues facing the FS qualification.

Ryan R noted the value of establishing a distinct Scottish group/ but also noted that other groups that have tried to continue/ compete alongside a successful UK group have struggled, where a Scottish qualification has been set up in competition with an English model. It makes sense to establish a qualification as a Scottish aspect of a national qualification.

Sally Y. noted that this group has a role in terms of exploring credit rating, but in future might not need to exist if the NGB works well. Mike B. felt we can’t make decision until we see what happens with the NGB. The group could share responsibility for attending and feeding into meetings, and share work and roles and equal responsibility. It was agreed by those present that the FS trainers’ network in Scotland is still useful. Penny M. pointed out that at the last FEI FS working Group meeting it was agreed that she steps out of taking responsibility for organising and running these meetings. The Group needs to resolve how and when to meet.

Group composition was discussed. Chris Miles had asked Penny M. to check whether the group still needed her presence. It was agreed that the group should be inclusive and welcomed her continued input to the group, along with any other supporters of FS in Scotland. Penny M. also noted Simon Harry’s suggestion that any meeting should be combined with an active hands-on day. Sally Y./ Karen B. suggested that FCS could help with providing a venue.