« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 13: Efficiency of Colleges
As a result of the financial difficulties some colleges were experiencing in the late 90s, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council (now the Scottish Funding Council ( SFC)) concentrated on increasing or maintaining (in real terms) the rate at which it funded colleges and ceased funding any expansions in student activity.
However even with this, college staff have been deployed more efficiently during this time. Comparing college activity through SUMs delivered to staff numbers shows that when considering all staff, the ratio has increased from 181 WSUMS30 in 2001-02 to 187 in 2004-05.
This means that every member of staff is delivering more SUM activity. There was a much more marked increased in efficiency if we consider the level of activity delivered by each member of teaching staff: that rose from 339 to 368. During the period, the ratio of students to teaching rose slightly from 17 to 18. The ratio of students to all staff remained at 9.
The increase in support staff reflects higher-level student services, which is an impact of colleges' policies to be more inclusive, and of greater administrative burdens such as Education Maintenance Allowances and Individual Learning Accounts.
| 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 |
|---|
Teaching Staff full-time equivalent ( FTE) | 6,675 | 6,512 | 6,430 | 6,278 |
|---|
Support Staff FTE | 5,825 | 5,898 | 6,030 | 6,053 |
|---|
Total Staff FTE | 12,500 | 12,410 | 12,460 | 12,331 |
|---|
College Activity ( WSUMs) | 2,261,847 | 2,292,854 | 2,325,776 | 2,307,854 |
|---|
Student FTE31 | 111,323 | 111,995 | 112,420 | 110,554 |
|---|
Activity to Teaching Staff ( FTE) | 339 | 352 | 362 | 368 |
|---|
Activity to All Staff ( FTE) | 181 | 185 | 187 | 187 |
|---|
Student ( FTE) to Teaching Staff ( FTE) | 17 | 17 | 17 | 18 |
|---|
Student ( FTE) to All Staff ( FTE) | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
|---|
College Indicators (where parcticable the indicators exclude UHIMI)
Colleges Working Together
Across the sector colleges face differing circumstances in which they deliver their provision. Colleges recognise, though, that there is merit in comparing practice across the sector and adopting or adapting the good practice that exists. This approach of self improvement helps the sector to be efficient and effective by:
- guarding against unnecessary duplication of effort and allowing sharing of services;
- encouraging colleges in similar circumstances to compare how provision is delivered and how it can be delivered most effectively and efficiently; and
- bringing colleges together to work as one sector, which is not competing with itself internally but is still competitive within the market it operates.
An example of this practice is the strategic partners of Scotland's Countryside Colleges outlined in the case study overleaf Other examples of practice that drive efficiency and effectiveness include:
Rural College Network: This has been looking at good practice comparisons and efficiencies in rural colleges for several years. It has resulted in closer collaborative links between many colleges in areas such as curriculum planning and sharing of teaching materials. These colleges are continuing to work together to develop and implement collaborative approaches to improve provision for students from remote, rural and island areas.
Sector wide cost benchmarking: This project essentially evolved from the work that the Rural College Network had been doing and was identified as one of the elements of SFC's financial security campaign. The initial purpose of the project was to allow college boards and managers to evaluate and improve college financial performance by sharing and learning from the practices of others. Colleges have put a great deal of effort into this project and the latest development has been the establishment of several benchmarking clubs across the sector where colleges in similar circumstances can discuss in detail how to improve and compare relative performance. This work will help with improvements in the usefulness of the benchmarking information provided and ensure the long-term sustainability of this project.
Financial performance indicators: SFC publishes figures annually that show a series of financial performance indicators for individual colleges and the college sector as a whole. Coupled with the cost benchmarking this gives colleges access to comprehensive information on financial results. It allows colleges to see how they compare to the rest of the sector, discuss the reasons for any particular differences and whether this might indicate an opportunity for improvement in practice leading to greater efficiency.
Other college groups: In addition to the benchmarking groups mentioned above other college groups already exist to support collaboration (for example the Edinburgh and Lothian Colleges group, Biotechnology group and Microelectronics group). The activity of these groups include practices such as sharing of services and rationalising curricula to ensure that there are no overlaps in provision and that the colleges are providing an efficient and competitive service to their students.
Comparisons with other Funding Bodies
In 2001 the then Funding Council and its sister funding body in England conducted an exercise to compare funding levels in colleges. It was recognised that this was difficult because of different structures and funding systems in the two countries. However, the analysis performed showed that funding in Scotland was about 13% below England.
Case Study: Scottish Countryside Colleges: A Strategic Partnership
As The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland explains, a key driver of economic development that will be given priority is "managing public sector resources more effectively: improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are deployed in the provision of public services".
Elmwood, Oatridge and Barony Colleges work in strategic partnership to ensure that the skills shortages in land-based industries are addressed in a positive and cost-effective way. The partnership ensures unnecessary duplication and competition within the college sector is eliminated and expensive resources are put to best use. It provides a 'national structure' for Scottish land-based education and training. Its key features are:
- strategic, collective approach to marketing;
- strategic, collaborative approach to provision planning,
- development and delivery;
- collective approach to land-based Higher Education articulation;
- collective approach to facilities development;
- collective approach to industry links and student work placements; and
- collective approach to Quality Assurance.
The three colleges formerly operated independently to plan, develop and deliver land-based training. Some land-based provision is popular and viable at all levels across all colleges, however other, often more specialist provision, produced low numbers in some colleges, particularly at HE level.
The colleges assign a 'lead' college for areas of specialist provision where one college dominates the market in higher education. The lead college is then supported to develop facilities and curriculum in a way that ensures that the full progression needs of students are addressed along with the needs of that particular industry. At the same time, the non-lead colleges continue to provide FE level provision in that particular subject, enabling students who wish to study at their nearest college to do so, before having the opportunity to progress to HE study at the designated lead college.
The 'lead' colleges are:
- Golf Industry - Elmwood College
- Equine Industry - Oatridge College
- Animal welfare - Barony College.
« Previous | Contents | Next »