The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: MODELS OF DELIVERY

3.1 This chapter examines the four delivery models identified via telephone surveys and case-study visits to six partnerships. The first section presents the main delivery models and some sub-models, while the subsequent section outlines the strengths and challenges associated with each of these. The final section of this chapter then goes on to examine the extent to which the different delivery models were adopted by the 20 delivery centres contacted as part of the final survey and also those ten which only got involved in the second year of the pilot.

OVERVIEW OF DELIVERY MODELS

3.2 The first telephone survey helped to identify four delivery models, which included:

• College or training provider delivery off-site (i.e. not in schools)
• College or training provider delivery in school
• Joint delivery (courses delivered by college or training provider staff and school staff)
• School-only delivery.

3.3 The six case-study partnerships were purposefully chosen to explore each of these four models and helped to identify some additional sub-models of the fourth one (school-only delivery), including:

• Joint delivery between two schools
• School-only delivery with employer(s) support.

3.4 Table 1 provides an overview of the delivery approaches adopted in the six case-study areas. It shows that some partnerships were using more than one delivery approach - in some cases, this was a result of arrangements with different Local Authorities, in others, variable approaches were adopted for different courses. In one school, for example, the Early Education and Childcare course was delivered jointly with another school (whose staff had experience of teaching the child development unit), while the Financial Services course was taught by the school's staff only, with the support of an employer (Partnership 2). As can be seen the 'delivery in college' model was present in three of the six case-studies - this reflected the fact that this model is most widely adopted nationally. Case-study areas were also chosen to ensure that as many of the different pilot courses were explored.

Table1 Delivery models used by case-study partnerships

3.5 The following section explores each of the four main delivery models in greater detail, and describes their strengths and challenges.

STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF MODELS

3.6 College or training provider delivery off-site (i.e. not in schools): This was the most common delivery model in the first year of the pilot ( SQA, 2006) and was used by ten of the 20 partnerships contacted as part of the first telephone survey. As can be seen in Table 1 above, three of the six case-study partnerships had adopted this approach. All three involved a college working with several schools within a fairly large geographical area.

3.7 Interviewees, both within colleges and in schools (including staff and students), suggested that attending college can motivate students and make them more mature. As one college lecturer, who delivered the Construction Crafts course to students both in college and in schools (with dedicated facilities), stated:

"I think the advantage of the in-college model is that they are taken out of their school environment and get to see a more mature environment, which I think is good for them as part of this growing up thing. That's one of the things they miss if they are just in the school."

3.8 In addition, colleges usually have existing facilities for other courses, which can be used for SfW courses. This was found to be of particular benefit for Construction Crafts and Practical Experiences: Construction and Engineering courses, which require fairly expensive equipment and resources. Another potential strength of this delivery model is that it can ease some students' transition to college-based courses after leaving school (rather than going into a job without training), which supports the findings of other research studies (Golden et al., 2005). A Guidance teacher in a school also suggested that travelling to college can "challenge some young people's fears of travelling outside their own area", enabling them to consider more options once they leave school.

SCHOOL A - IN-COLLEGE DELIVERY
School A is a denominational school that serves a socio-economically mixed community, but is generally an academically focused school. The make-up of the local community has changed over time and, according to the headteacher, the school is changing to meet students' needs and the changing agendas within education:
"In the past we had a few vocational courses but not much - mainly because of the make-up of the school. That make-up has changed and so has society and youngsters need different skills."
The school had eight S3 students doing the Construction Crafts and the Early Education and Childcare course (four on each course) at Intermediate 1 in the first year of the pilot. The courses were presented as a free option to all students, which meant a range of ability-levels were represented. Students replaced one Standard Grade to go to college, but also sacrificed some of their free time as their session at college finished at 4.30pm and they did not get back to school until nearly 5pm. They travelled to the college in small groups by taxi.
Timetabling was reported to be a "big challenge for this school". The SfW coordinator said that they had chosen to replace a Standard Grade rather than expecting students to miss core subjects like other schools were doing, because "we feel the core curriculum and RE in particular are central to what we do. No one subject is more important than the other - they are all important and it is hard to timetable for that reason".
However, the school was very positive about their involvement in the pilot and reported that students had got a lot out of their experience at college: "It has been very successful this year and we have increased numbers applying for next year".

3.9 The evaluation revealed some potential challenges for this delivery model. In particular, transport between schools and college can be a real issue especially within large authorities where schools are often far away from the provider sites. This has consequences both for the cost and sustainability of provision and on timetabling within schools. An Assistant Principal in a college identified transport as a big issue in his local authority:

"We're swallowing up thousands of pounds each year for transport. It's almost prohibitively expensive. It is particularly a big issue because of the rurality of the local authority with some pupils having to travel one to one and a half hours to college."

3.10 To save costs, schools in this area had decided only to select pupils with a good record of behaviour to attend SfW courses who could be trusted to travel to and from college without supervision.

3.11 Interviews also suggested that this delivery model can also lead to a more 'detached' experience for students as teachers tended to be less aware of what they were doing on their courses. One Construction Crafts student attending college for four periods each week, for example, complained that: "my teachers have no idea what I'm doing in college just that it's construction". Similarly, teachers in areas adopting this delivery model were found to be much less aware of the course details. As illustrated in Chapter 4, this issue can be alleviated by organising teacher visits to college.

3.12 Another challenge identified by several schools is that colleges are usually only able to offer limited places to each school (mainly due to capacity issues), which means that pupils' demand for attending SfW courses cannot always be met. It also means that schools are not able to offer the course as a genuine free option choice, but have to limit the offer to just a few places (as discussed in paragraph 7.41, seven of the 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey had been significantly affected by such a restriction).

3.13 College or training provider delivery in school: This approach was taken by one college visited (Partnership 4), which had links with schools in two local authorities. In one authority, schools had adopted the in-college delivery model. However, the other authority had equipped some of its secondary schools with on-site vocational facilities, so that SfW (and other vocational) courses could be delivered on-site. Another case-study (Partnership 3) consisted of a training provider delivering the Early Education and Childcare course in a school, although delivery was shared with school staff (this latter approach is discussed in greater details in 3.20-23).

3.14 The main strength of this approach appeared to be that students' experiences were more closely integrated into the rest of their school life. Schools adopting this delivery model were more likely to offer the courses as free-option choices and were less likely to report timetabling problems. The depute of one of the schools using this approach explained that the courses are "listed in the same way as any other subject, so the students make an open choice". Staff awareness of the course was said to be very high in the school.

3.15 A college lecturer teaching the Construction Crafts course in schools in this authority commented on some of the advantages of this approach:

"From the school's point of view there are advantages because it fits into their time-table; the bell rings and boys leave their maths class and they put on their overalls and their boots on and start their work; and at the end of the class before the bell rings the lecturer gets them to clear up, put their tools away, wash their hands and change into their blazers before going into their geography lessons."

SCHOOL B - COLLEGE IN-SCHOOL DELIVERY
School B is a comprehensive school with a high proportion of less able students, serving quite a deprived community. The school has a history of offering a more flexible curriculum and has offered vocational courses for a number of years. While such provision was in the past seen as targeted at disengaged pupils only, it was now seen as relevant to all pupils. As the school depute contended:
"I see the courses as being of value to anyone who wants to do them. I refuse to get drawn into the idea that these courses are suitable for folk who are not quite so bright."
In Year 1 of the pilot, there were 15 boys in S3 doing the Construction Crafts course in the first year of the pilot in a specially-designed construction area in the schools, financed by the local authority. The students had replaced a Standard Grade and the SfW course appeared on the options list:
"They are listed in the same way as any other subject, so the students make an open choice. We then look at those who have chosen it and if there is space they will get to do it."
The school was very satisfied with the delivery model. Communication with the lecturers coming into the school was said to be good and they were glad not to have to contend with any travel issues. School staff felt that there were major advantages to in-school delivery and said that they had not really experienced any challenges. The school was planning to expand provision in Year 2 of the pilot, offering two classes in the following year in construction and hairdressing.

3.16 One of the schools which adopted such a school-based model also emphasised that they favoured it because they wanted to be able to make SfW courses be delivered in the school itself just like all other courses. As a SfW school coordinator explained:

"I think there can be a sense of rejection when kids are sent to college and we wanted to try and make the provision within the school and have someone come here to deliver the course."

3.17 Another strength of this model (compared to the school-only delivery model) is that college lecturers "bring experience and expertise into the school and this is seen as important for the students". This view was reflected in interviews with students, who generally appreciated being taught by lecturers with recent experience of working in the vocational area. Finally, because courses are delivered on-site there are no transport costs. However, this is only the case if delivery is not shared with other local schools (as was found to happen in some of the final survey schools - see paragraph 3.31 below).

3.18 The main disadvantages of this delivery model are that students miss out on possible benefits derived from attending college (see paragraph 3.7 above) and the cost-implications of setting up purpose-built facilities in schools. Some schools may not have the space for such facilities - as a teacher in a school currently using the in-college model pointed out:

"In an ideal world we would like an area in the school where you could teach plumbing and stuff like that, so you could cut down on travel time and allow more young people to get involved. But you'd need the physical space and there are constraints in that area in this school."

3.19 This model is likely to limit the choice of courses available to students in individual schools, as it would be too expensive to set up facilities for many different vocational areas in each school in an authority. It is also not clear whether one school would on its own be able to make sufficient use of the vocational facilities, but would have to link up with other local schools to deliver courses. This again would necessitate transport to the school with the facilities and would negate one of the main rationales for adopting this model.

3.20 Joint delivery (courses delivered by college or training provider staff and school staff): This approach was only undertaken by one of the six case-study partnerships (Partnership 3) and involved a training provider working with one school to deliver the Early Education and Childcare course. Most of the lessons were delivered by the external trainer but with the help of the school Principal Teacher in Home Economics. It is worth noting that school teachers are required to be present in the classroom when a private training provider teaches in school, unless the instructor holds a teaching qualification and is General Teaching Council ( GTC) registered. However, in this case, the school had actually chosen to adopt a joint teaching approach as they saw this as a more effective, though costly, way of delivering the course.

3.21 This model shared all the strengths of the in-school delivery model. However, because school teachers were actually involved in the delivery, staff awareness of the course was even higher and so the course was even more integrated into the school. The training provider was also able to draw on many existing links with employers to help organise visits to local nurseries.

3.22 The main challenge for this partnership was reported to be its long-term sustainability. The case-study school used Determined to Succeed (DtS) funding to support the delivery of SfW courses during the pilot, but the headteacher reported that the training provider was finding that it was not really covering their time and the school also had to invest a lot in terms of staff time as well. He concluded that: "This model is quite costly to run in its current form and is not really sustainable in the long term despite the success of the course". He felt that in the long term they would have to look at trying to resource the course in a more cost-efficient way - perhaps having school staff teach other aspects of the course.

3.23 This issue would not be the same for a joint delivery approach involving a school and a college, as colleges would be able to access funds in the normal way from the Scottish Funding Council ( SFC) for this purpose (unlike a private training provider). It is worth noting that schools delivering SfW courses (or sending students to college) do continue to receive mainstream funding for those pupils participating in such courses. However, the cost of funding the delivery and resourcing of SfW courses and/or paying a training provider to do so was often seen as not sustainable.

SCHOOL C - JOINT-DELIVERY MODEL
School C is delivering the Early Education and Childcare course using an accelerated model of delivery in partnership with a private training provider - students complete the course at Intermediate 1 in the first year in S3 and at Intermediate 2 in S4. The school is a state comprehensive school serving two distinct communities - about 40 per cent of pupils come from advantaged backgrounds but the school also serves a more deprived area.
There were 12 S3 girls on the course in the first year of the pilot, all at general/credit level. The course was presented within the course options booklet against two column options and the school replaced two Standard Grades in order to accommodate the course on their timetable. A trainer comes into the school to teach the majority of the course, although she has the assistance of the Home Economics Principal Teacher ( PT). The students have eight 40-minute periods a week and are covering the Intermediate 1 course in one year, and will move onto Intermediate 2 next year.
The main challenge of delivering the course has been the time and cost of having the course taught across eight sessions with two members of staff. The trainer and the PT Home Economics teach the course together and there is a lot of preparation time needed.
The PT Home Economics said the whole experience had been very positive and their involvement in the pilot had helped to raise the profile of the school within the local authority and her department within the school. She felt the course had helped to boost students' confidence and they had really matured and become more motivated as a result of taking part.

3.24 School-only delivery: Two of the six case-studies used this delivery model (Partnerships 1 and 2), but for different reasons. One school was a considerable distance from its local college and had no other option than to adopt this approach, while the other school had made a positive decision to do so. The school coordinator described their reasoning in the following way:

"There are issues with (...) kids travelling to college and not getting back to school, or needing staff to accompany them, so we felt we would try and make the provision here."

3.25 Partnership 1 was only delivering the Construction Crafts course and was working with a local employer. Partnership 2 had developed similar links with a retail bank in order to deliver the Financial Services course. For the Early Education and Childcare course it had taken a different approach, linking with another local school to share delivery. This arrangement was outlined as follows by the school coordinator:

"We arranged that we would work with [other school] and we drew up an agreement. [Teacher] from [other school] comes here to do the child development part of the course and one of our staff - the outdoor education teacher here - goes to [the other school] to do the health and safety aspects of the course."

3.26 The main advantages of this approach are that the courses can be more easily integrated into the schools' curriculum and timetabling, there are no travel issues, as long as there is no need to share facilities with other schools and to set up and coordinate arrangements with an outside organisation.

3.27 Interviewees in both partnerships identified funding additional resources needed to deliver the courses as the main challenge for the in-school delivery model. Partnership 1 had received a lump sum payment of £20,000 from its local authority to deliver the Construction Crafts course, but had not received any continuation funding. As the school headteacher pointed out:

"We didn't get any additional funding this year and we have concerns about the long-term sustainability because there are consumables that are needed for the course and funds are needed on an on-going basis."

3.28 Other disadvantages associated with this model, include that students miss out on the benefits of attending college and that schools do not have the same facilities or resources to deliver courses as colleges.

SCHOOL D - SCHOOL ONLY DELIVERY
This island school is many miles away from its local college and serves a socio-economically mixed, largely rural community. It decided to deliver the Construction Crafts course on its own, because of its geographical location. The school got a lump sum from the council to run the course in the first year of the pilot "as a kick-start for vocational development". They are supported by a local business man, who runs a DIY store and building supplies firm. The SfW coordinator pointed out that "on a day-to-day basis he isn't part of the course, but it's his overall assistance and the advice and the support and his knowledge of the building trade that are so useful".
The course is delivered over six periods per week and students have the opportunity to complete the course either at Intermediate 1 or 2, depending on their ability and progress over the year.
In the first year of the pilot 14 S5 students started the course and seven completed it (most of those not completing it left to get jobs before the end of the academic year). Of the seven students that finished the course at the end of the first year of the pilot, two stayed on at school, one had got a job, and four were working in the construction industry doing an apprenticeship. In the second year, 36 S5 students had chosen the course. It was offered as a free option and included all types of students: "Some really want to go into construction, but others just enjoy it. We have some very able pupils and we have some girls doing the course which is great and we have one boy who has support needs".
The main challenge has been that the school did not get any funding for the second year of the pilot to cover additional expenses arising from delivering the course themselves. However, the school was very eager to continue providing the course and, maybe, offer it at S3 and S4 as well in the future.

YEAR 2 OF THE PILOT

3.29 Interviews carried out as part of the final survey revealed that delivery centres were increasingly adopting more diversified delivery models in response to local needs or circumstances. Of the 20 delivery centres contacted as part of the final survey:

• Six continued to use the in-college delivery model;
• One continued to use the in-school delivery by a training provider model;
• One continued to use the joint delivery model;
• Two continued to use the school-only delivery model;
• Ten had adopted two or more delivery models.

3.30 The most common diversification was to move from a college-only delivery approach to delivering the course both in-college and in-school. Seven of the 20 delivery centres were doing this by the time of the final survey - only one of these had done so from the start of the pilot. The main reason for offering an in-school delivery model was to overcome transport issues. One college had decided to send lecturers out to two of its partner schools:

"The main reason was because SfW needed to go in column choices and these need to be considered as a whole, so timetabling for schools in relation to travelling time to and from college was proving rather difficult for some schools. For example, one school's travel time to the college was an hour, so two hours add-on. So we've provided materials in school and are sending college lecturers to school who are delivering the course at school premises."

3.31 In some cases, this approach was also seen as a way of overcoming lack of college accommodation to expand provision (see Chapter 7). As one college manager explained: "we also get an advantage of delivering out of the campus because of capacity limitations. We're looking at Construction next year out of school as well because we just haven't got the capacity now within the college". Some colleges were also planning to support schools to deliver the courses themselves while taking on a mentoring and quality assurance role.

3.32 It is worth noting that two of the seven colleges offering such a mixed approach were delivering courses in hub-schools, which other local schools accessed. In both cases, this hub-school was much closer to the local schools than the college was. One college, for example, had set up a mock hairdressing salon in one of its partner schools and delivered the Hairdressing course to local schools on that site.

3.33 Colleges did not always offer this option to schools for all of its courses. In some cases, the in-college approach was, for example, used for Construction Craft (because of the need for college facilities), but the Early Education and Childcare course was offered either in-college or in-school. Several colleges were also delivering the Hairdressing course in schools.

3.34 Two partnerships had adopted three different delivery models by the time of the final survey. One of these, for example, was offering the Hairdressing course in college and in one partner school and had adopted a joint delivery approach with a school to teach the Early Education and Childcare course.

3.35 Five delivery centres indicated that they were planning to adopt different delivery models in the following year. Again, the most common planned change was to offer in-school delivery by college lecturers. One school, which was a delivery centre, was planning to use various delivery models in their third year of offering SfW course. The planned models were all seen as best suited to the four courses they had chosen:

"We're going to be using various delivery models next year - for [Education and Childcare] it's going to be joint delivery between college and the school; [Financial Services] will be a block of lessons in school and the rest in college, Engineering will be one-third in school and two-thirds in college, while Construction [Crafts] will continue to be just in college."

3.36 Even though in-school delivery was seen as the way forward by many schools and colleges, respondents on both sides were aware of challenges associated with this. These included lack of in-school resources and facilities, persuading college staff to deliver courses in schools (as discussed in Chapter 7, some staff were afraid of becoming isolated and not being able to access the support available in college), and the time costs for college lecturers to travel to schools. Some interviewees also noted that in those schools already adopting this model, it was sometimes difficult to ensure sufficient numbers of students on courses. One college said that it was unable to use its normal selection process when delivering in schools:

"As soon as you do that you're limiting your selection because they tend to be smallish groups in schools and if you're trying to get a reasonable number to make it viable you're into taking who you can as opposed to selecting."

3.37 The Survey of Year 2partnerships (involved only in the second year of the pilot) revealed a similar pattern as in those delivery centres involved from the start of the pilot. Thus, five of the six school-college partnerships started off adopting the standard in-college delivery model only. One school was using the in-school delivery by college staff model because of its distance from colleges. The remaining four delivery centres were all single schools working either on their own (two schools) or with local employers (two) - in all four cases this was due to very particular local circumstances. One school, for example, was a special school, while another was an island school. As in the case of the main survey, some of the Year 2 partnerships were considering adopting more diversified delivery models in the following years. This suggests that while most partnerships start with the assumption that SfW courses are best delivered in colleges, other more flexible approaches are developed in subsequent years to respond to some of the challenges associated with this model. It is interesting to note that a similar development was observed in England with regard to the Increased Flexibilities Programme (Golden et al., 2006).

KEY FINDINGS

• The study revealed four delivery models adopted across the SfW pilot partnerships, of which the in-college delivery model was the most common one.
• The main advantages of the in-college delivery model were found to be the motivating and maturing effect of attending courses in an alternative environment and the potential of easing students' transition to post-16 college courses.
• The main challenges of this model were the monetary and time cost of transporting students between schools and colleges, and that this approach can sometimes lead to a more detached experience for students if teachers are not aware of the content of courses.
• The in-school delivery model (by college or training provider staff) was found to alleviate most of the challenges associated with the in-college delivery model. However, it meant that students missed out on the potentially beneficial effects of attending college and some courses were reliant on the funding of purpose-built facilities in schools.
• The joint-delivery model, involving school and college or training provider staff, and the school-only delivery model enabled the SfW courses to be more integrated into school timetables, while also benefiting from greater school staff awareness of the course.
• The main challenges of these two models were the funding challenges for consumables and facilities and the ability of school staff to deliver elements of SfW courses to the same level as college or training provider staff.
• Delivery centres were increasingly moving towards adopting more diversified delivery models towards the end of the second year of the pilot. Some delivery centres had adopted two or more models. Other colleges already had or were planning to start delivering courses in schools or in vocational centres as a way of overcoming transport barriers and lack of college accommodation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »