The Scottish Government

Listen

ISBN 0 7559 1094 X (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (108k)

FFED/7300/0300

Aileen McKechnie
Head of Further and Adult Education Division

16 March 2005

School/college review

Following the considerations of the school/college review funding working group please find enclosed its report on developing a funding model for school pupil enrolments at colleges.

Riona Bell
Director of Funding

School/college review funding working group

Report on funding school pupil enrolments at colleges

1. This group was set up in response to a request from the Scottish Executive for SFEFC to chair a working group which seeks to develop a funding model for school pupil enrolments. The group met twice and also considered issues by correspondence outwith meetings. Membership of the group was as follows:

2. Riona Bell (Chair)	SFEFC
   Tom Kelly	ASC
   Tony Jakimciw	Dumfries and Galloway College
   Ronnie Knox	North Glasgow College
   Jason McDonald	COSLA
   Colin Brett	Dumfries and Galloway Council
   Frank Green	North Lanarkshire Council
   Peter Hancock	Scottish Executive
   Aileen McKechnie	Scottish Executive
   Colin Baird	Scottish Executive
   Laurence Howells	SFEFC
   Martin Smith	SFEFC
   Gordon McBride	SFEFC
   Gordon Craig	SFEFC

2. The outcomes of the group's considerations are set out below under four headings:

• SFEFC funding proposals
• base information
• weighted activity; and
• funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities

SFEFC funding proposals

3. The Scottish Executive has confirmed that funding will be available for growth in school/college collaborative activity for academic year (AY) 2006-07 although the exact amounts are yet to be confirmed.
4. Colleges have a record of delivering on Ministerial priorities without the need for ring fencing of funding. The group therefore agreed that the funding approach should be based on a general increase in funded activity across the sector and an indication of the desires of ministers to see an increase in school/college collaboration. It will be up to colleges, schools and local authorities to work together to ensure that they take account of the Scottish Executive's strategy for partnership between schools and colleges to be published in spring 2005.

General funding model

5. On top of the funds available for school/college collaboration (including that available for funded growth) there may also be funds available for general growth in activity in AY 2006-07. When growing funded activity for colleges consideration will have to be given to the need to target some growth on strategic priorities. These may be college, subject area or geographically specific. SFEFC will decide on the balance between targeted and sector wide growth in discussion with colleges.
6. The group suggested that in providing any general increase in funded activity for AY 2006-07 we alert colleges to the Scottish Executive's report on collaboration between schools and colleges stating that increased provision in this area should be seen as a priority. We will therefore have to ensure that, in the balance between targeted and sector wide growth, the amount of sector wide growth is sufficient to allow colleges to engage with schools and local authorities to decide on an appropriate increased level of school pupil activity without displacing other college activity.
7. SFEFC will monitor school pupil activity in the sector annually, reporting back to Ministers on what we hope will be an increase from the agreed baseline. If a college is planning to use the increase in funded activity to increase provision for school pupils but needs to work up to this and perhaps put an infrastructure in place we will allow them up to three years to meet their intended increase in activity.
8. There may be cases where:

• the desire to increase learning opportunities for school pupils is being met in an area without the need for significant collaboration with a particular college;
• the amount of school/college collaboration is already at a level for a particular college where there is no need to increase significantly activity to take account of the Scottish Executive's strategy for partnerships between schools and colleges; or
• local partnerships are seeking to enhance and develop existing provision for example with new qualifications or curriculum delivery models. The priority is for service improvement rather than an increase in volume.
• In such circumstances colleges would rightly have other priorities for funded growth. However, we would expect the colleges to be able to demonstrate that the priority attached to school/college collaboration had been taken into account in discussions with schools and local authorities.

9. In cases of difficulty in reaching agreement between schools, colleges and local authorities on the amount and type of school/college collaborative activity, local planning fora would have a role to play in identifying local needs and priorities. In order for college activity to be eligible for funding, local authority proposals would have to be in line with the priority purposes of school/college collaboration as set out by Ministers.

Base information

10. In order to take forward the general growth approach suggested above we need to ensure that we have the following information:

• An agreed baseline on which we will measure the population of school pupils undertaking college activity; and
• the amount of funding available for growth in AY 2006-07.

11. The group agreed that it was difficult to produce an accurate picture of the level of school/college collaborative activity in the sector. This is because:

• there has not been a consistent approach across colleges when it comes to filling in the relevant fields in the further education statistics (FES) return (as this information has not been used for funding purposes other FES fields have taken priority when seeking to improve accuracy); and
• we need to be clear on the precise details of the population we should be measuring.

12. The Scottish Executive has confirmed that the population we should be measuring is all activity for school pupils who engage with colleges as part of their school curriculum. This includes school pupils who may attend colleges full-time either because it is not appropriate for the pupil to attend school or they are still technically of school age but have started a full-time college course. The population will not include activity undertaken by school pupils which is independent from their school curriculum.
13. For AY 2003-04 we have used FES fields which we know to be accurate to attempt to gauge the amount of school/college collaborative activity in the sector. We have taken steps to ensure that the fields indicating school/college collaboration will be more accurately returned in FES from AY 2004-05 and have introduced new codes from AY 2005-06 to capture information by year at school down to first year at secondary school. For the small number of pupils in primary school undertaking activity at colleges we will be able to determine the level of activity using information on date of birth and type of course.
14. We will check our AY 2003-04 estimates with colleges to obtain an agreed measure of the amount of activity in the sector but more reliable information will not be available until the AY 2004-05 data is returned and processed (around December 2005).
15. Regarding the amount of funding available for growth we need to know this so that we can calculate indicative programme fund budgets for AY 2006-07. We also need to discuss with colleges how we should manage any balance between general growth and growth strategically targeted for specific objectives. This will be taken forward in preparations for the 2006-07 funding round.

Weighted activity

16. The group considered whether an additional weight should be applied to school pupil activity for funding purposes and whether the Council's funding methodology should take into account the difference between college lecturers undertaking teaching in schools and school pupils attending college.
17. The Group agreed that it was not appropriate to make recommendations on this until the implementation of the strategy for partnership between schools and colleges and the nature of provision across the sector became clear. If colleges were constrained into delivering expensive provision then there might be a case for recognising additional costs. It was also noted that the proposal to introduce automatic eligibility for fee waiver for school pupils undertaking college activity would help to address any shortfall. SFEFC will keep this under review.

Funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities

18. Although this is not an area for which SFEFC has responsibility, in order to inform discussions between ASC and COSLA, the group considered the need for a national model for the funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities in addition to the activity funded by SFEFC.
19. The group agreed that the need for local authorities to use colleges to assist in the delivery of education for school pupils and provide activity in excess of that funded by SFEFC will not be consistent across the country. Creating a national funding model on top of existing arrangements would add an additional layer of bureaucracy.
20. Therefore the group suggested that a flexible approach is adopted for the funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities. It should be up to colleges and local authorities to agree an appropriate level of this type of activity provided that they are made aware of:

• the need to take into account the Scottish Executive's report on collaboration between schools and colleges; and
• the fact that Ministers do not want to prevent education authorities from having the option to fund additional enrolments for school pupils in their area if that is their local priority.

21. The group suggested that the amount of funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities in addition to the activity funded by SFEFC could be calculated along similar lines to SFEFC funding.

Annex A School/College review funding working group

Remit

Purpose

1. This paper outlines the membership and proposed remit of the school/college review funding working group following comments received at its first meeting on 25 January 2005.

Membership

2. Membership of the group consists of representatives from the following:

• SFEFC
• ASC
• COSLA
• SEETLLD
• SEED

Proposed remit

3. The general remit of the group is to provide recommendations on the general funding approach for school pupil activity at colleges. It will also provide thoughts on the type of activity at colleges that should be classified as school pupil activity for funding purposes.
4. The group should:

• provide recommendations on how to fund an expansion in the volume of school pupil activity at colleges;
• consider whether there should be an additional weight applied to school pupil activity for funding purposes; and
• consider the need for a national model for the funding of school pupil activity at colleges by local authorities in addition to the activity funded by SFEFC.

5. The group is not required to provide a detailed and costed funding model and should therefore concentrate on key principles rather then underlying figures.

Timescale

6. The Group is required to report its recommendations to the Scottish Executive by mid-March 2005. Because of this timescale it is likely that the Group will only meet twice.