Implementing Inclusiveness Realising
Potential
| "Funding is a major barrier and is
variable across different areas of
Scotland. There is an apparent lack of
rationale in the resources available to the
different groups ........... In training,
output based funding is another barrier."
(SKILL: National Bureau for Students
with Disabilities)."Lack of funding and retrospective
funding inhibits expansion and leads to a
shortage of suitable places. Adequate
funding structures need to be identified to
improve physical access to some buildings
and to ensure that appropriate equipment is
available to meet student needs."
[Association of Scottish
Colleges]. | |
10. Improving Provision: Funding
The Issue
10.1 The Committee has examined the current funding
arrangements for further education and training. There has
been an almost unanimous view from our consultation
responses that the current funding regime in both sectors
does not adequately recognise the diverse and complex needs
of young people who have additional support needs, whether
those needs arise from disability or educational or social
disadvantage.
The issue is how to adapt and develop funding
systems which recognise and meet the range of learning and
support needs among young people with additional support
needs. This is an essential part of promoting and
developing a range and continuum of learning
opportunities.
The Committee's View
10.2 The findings of the FE survey have shown
considerable variation in the application of funding for
special programmes (group 18) and Extended Learning
Support. The Committee has also received a substantial
number of representations about the barriers to funding
appropriate training for young people with low basic
skills, poor educational attainment and social and
behavioural problems. Skillseekers funding is primarily
geared towards the achievement of vocational
qualifications. There are other examples of projects around
Scotland which all point to the need to rethink our funding
arrangements and provision for the most vulnerable young
people as they come to the end of their compulsory
education.
10.3 The Committee has examined 3 main areas:
- funding within Skillseekers;
- further education funding;
- the possibility of a national support fund.
Funding Arrangements within
Skillseekers
10.4 The Skillseekers funding regime is an output based
system geared towards the achievement of a qualification
(SVQ Level II and above). Payments are made on the basis of
starts, progress or milestones stages and the final
outcome. Skillseekers also funds young people on Special
Training Needs (STN) programmes which lead to
pre-vocational qualifications or SVQ Level I. Funding for
STN training is mainly based on attendance although some
LECs have introduced an element of output based funding
e.g. for units towards a qualification or to reward
achievement of "soft" goals. There have been strong
representations from special training providers and others
including careers service companies that the system is too
inflexible to meet the needs of young people who have
additional support needs. A significant number of those who
are "endorsed" Skillseekers need support to improve their
literacy and numeracy skills and their personal skills e.g.
self-confidence, motivation and reliability, before they
can pursue a vocational qualification or meet the
requirements of an employer. The probability is that some
of these young people will also need help with housing,
health issues (possibly drug or alcohol problems), social,
emotional and behavioural problems. They are also likely to
have financial difficulties. While Skillseekers funding is
available to young people who have physical or learning
disabilities, sensory impairments or mental health
problems, in practice this group of young people account
for less than 5% of Skillseekers in training. This is
another aspect of funding which needs to be considered.
10.5 Our consultation exercises identified a number of
other problems arising from the current funding
arrangements:
- young people who have a low level of personal and
social skills and poor basic skills find it difficult
to sustain attendance at a training centre (or employer
placement). Voluntary bodies and specialist training
providers believe that the funding arrangements should
recognise achievement of learning goals based on the
"soft" skills e.g. reliability, positive attitude,
willingness to learn; and allow for "regression" as
well as progression;
- the current funding arrangements include penalties
for non-attendance (abatement). This causes financial
difficulties for training providers. They argue that
young people may need time to sort out housing and
health problems and this may reduce attendance. For
some young people, the nature and extent of their
problems is such that they cannot sustain attendance
for 5 days a week, while 2 or 3 days may be
manageable;
- there are a number of specialist training providers
who offer training in different parts of Scotland.
There are no standard national funding agreements
between LECs and training providers. This can lead to
variations in the quality of training delivered by the
same provider in different areas;
- performance monitoring of STN training should place
greater emphasis on the "input", the quality of
training received. This is on the basis that a
supportive training environment will contribute
significantly to improving the personal skills and
attributes of the young person.
10.6 These are important issues
both for the training providers and the LECs. The output
based funding system introduced in the Skillseekers
programme has enhanced the value and effectiveness of the
young people's training programme. The enterprise networks
will wish to maintain a rigorous and effective funding
regime which achieves the best value for money and the best
outcomes for the young people. The Committee believes that
the personal profile and action planning system set out in
Chapter 7 meets those objectives. It offers the basis for a
more flexible funding system and, at the same time, sets
agreed measurable goals designed to encourage progression.
It also ensures that there is regular monitoring and
review. In our view, a personal profile and action planning
system would promote a more inclusive training programme
and encourage a more flexible training market.
We therefore recommend that the enterprise networks
work together to develop a more flexible funding mechanism
for training which is based on an individual profile and
action planning system and is responsive to the needs of
learners with additional support needs.Further Education Funding
GROUP 18 and Extended Learning Support
10.7 Within the recurrent funding methodology used in
the FE sector (based on Student Units of Measurements
(SUMS)), Group 18 funding is provided for special
programmes in colleges e.g. extension courses for students
with learning difficulties.
10.8 Colleges may provide specialised and intensive
support for students who have difficulties in gaining
access to a mainstream curriculum which is suited to their
abilities and aspirations. Extended Learning Support (ELS)
applies to provision which is sufficiently costly to
require additional funding from the Scottish Executive eg
technological aids, sign language interpreter. The current
funding regime for extended learning support pays money
retrospectively (2 years later) to colleges. The money
payable to colleges for providing ELS is included in the
overall funding for colleges and is not ring-fenced.
10.9 The FE survey indicated that some colleges had
rejected applications from at least one student because
they would have been unable to offer the appropriate
support. This may have arisen because the existing
infrastructure (buildings, staffing) was unable to meet the
need but it may have been a funding issue. This is a
specific area where an Inclusiveness policy would require
colleges to review such cases and examine both their
approach to young people with support needs and the
constraints of their infrastructure.
10.10 The Committee has identified a number of
disadvantages in the present method of funding colleges for
special courses:
- Evidence from the FE survey suggests that there are
variations both within the interpretation and the
application of Group 18 funding;
- Group 18 and extended learning support funding is
at one level i.e. it is not based on the type and level
of individual student need. This can be a disincentive
to colleges to take on students with a greater level of
support need;
- Group 18 funding requires colleges to identify
particular programmes as "special programmes". This can
lead to students being categorised and discourages more
imaginative ways of providing a curriculum and support
suited to the individuals;
- The retrospective nature of ELS funding may make
colleges reluctant to commit resources to extra staff
or other support. There are also implications for
planning of provision when the resource may not be
allocated to ELS in the subsequent years;
- Colleges cannot claim both extended learning
support
and group 18 funding. However, there
may be students who are on special programmes and who
require extended learning support e.g. a student on a
special programme may require a sign language
interpreter.
10.11 The Committee acknowledges that not all colleges
will be able to provide the same level of extended learning
support. Some will have particular areas of expertise. It
may not be cost effective for several colleges within an
area to purchase expensive equipment on an individual
basis. This is an area where colleges can collaborate to
provide a better level and quality of support. This
approach would be in the spirit of "Opportunities for
Everyone - The Strategic Framework for Scottish Further
Education" which encourages local collaboration between
colleges.
Disabled Students Allowance
10.12 The Committee has considered the case for
introducing a Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) into
non-advanced further education (NAFE). Currently students
on a NAFE course do not receive DSA, whereas students on
full-time higher education courses do receive DSA. The
allocation is based on the estimated cost of the services
and equipment as identified by an approved assessment
process. Higher education students both in Universities and
FE colleges can then use the allowance to purchase a piece
of equipment or employ a personal assistant. However, it
should be noted that DSA does not help all students who
have additional support needs e.g. those with mental health
problems and those who require flexibility in the
curriculum, smaller teaching groups and special exam
arrangements.
10.13 The main characteristics of a DSA model are:
- Learners purchase services and equipment from a
personal allocation of funds;
- a flexible central block of funding;
- body to develop/operate application and award
procedures;
- eligibility criteria;
- a mechanism for transferring funds to learners and
for purchasing;
- controls over expenditure;
- approved assessment procedures.
10.14 A DSA model would target funding directly target
at individuals. It would, therefore, satisfy one of the key
principles of Inclusiveness. There are other factors,
however, which might indicate that a DSA model would not
offer the best use of resources within non-advanced further
education:
- non-advanced further education lasts for a shorter
time compared to higher education;
- young people may not be ready or have the skills to
administer an allowance such as DSA;
- support to individuals for the purchase of
equipment would need to be supported by the college
with regard to the upkeep of the equipment and training
on how to use the equipment. The purchase of equipment
by individuals would have to be supported by the
college offering advice and training on how to use the
equipment.
10.15 We are particularly aware of the potential
differences in the purpose of the funding. In HE, the
purpose of DSA is to assist the student to meet the demands
of the course. In NAFE, we are actively promoting the idea
that courses should be designed or adapted to meet the
needs of the young people. We are inclined to the view that
there may be greater benefit to a greater number of young
people if the additional funding was made available to
colleges. Colleges could then apply for funding on behalf
of the young person based on the individual's assessed
needs. There would be scope for colleges in an area to work
together to apply for funding for specific assistance eg a
sign language interpreter, scribe, whose services might be
available to a number of young people (whose attendance at
college may be only 2 or 3 days a week).
10.16 This is similar to the approach to additional
support funding for learners in colleges in England. The
Further Education Funding Council for England assesses need
and allocates funding within 8 different bandings. Funding
is made available for equipment or other kinds of personal
support.
10.17 The issue of how to
allocate funding most effectively to young people in
colleges who require additional support is an important one
but difficult to resolve. There may be merit in the
introduction of a specific funding mechanism, such as DSA,
but further work needs to be done to agree the most
effective approach. The Committee has also given specific
consideration to ideas about improving access to equipment
earlier in this section. In addition, we have considered
the idea of a broader national fund to support all young
people with additional support needs. However, this would
be a longer-term exercise. Some action needs to be taken in
the immediate future to target funding more effectively to
the needs of the individual.
We, therefore, recommend that the SFEFC should
examine ways to direct funding towards learners with
additional support needs, paying particular attention to
the model of the Disabled Students Allowance, and develop
funding methods which target individual needs.National Support Fund
10.18 At the Consultation Workshops a proposal emerged
from a number of the discussions that there should be a new
model of funding to assist all the providers of post-school
education and training to access funds for additional
support needs. The aim was to set criteria for funding
which would cover both specialist equipment or personal
support e.g. sign language interpreter
and the kind of support which might be
needed by "disaffected" young people e.g. intensive staff
time or perhaps a "coach".
10.19 The idea behind this proposal is that education
and training providers should be allocated core funding but
should also have access to a separate fund or "pot" of
money for the additional support. The assessment process
would be integral to the arrangements since it would have
identified the type and level of learning and support
needs. The application for funding would be based on the
assessment and the outcome would be an "individualised
package of funding".
10.20 This funding model would require:
- a flexible, central block of funding;
- a body to develop/operate application and
allocation procedures (possibly by historical core plus
in-year adjustment);
- eligibility criteria;
- controls over expenditure;
- approved assessment procedures;
The characteristics of this funding model would be:
- providers apply for funding (real-time for
colleges) to central pool;
- and can do so in collaboration with other
providers;
- to cover costs of additional services/support;
- for any students/trainees who need it;
- as identified by an approved assessment
process;
- based on an estimated cost;
- and confirmed in an individual action plan.
10.21 This model may be more straightforward to operate
in a college setting because colleges already have core
funding and access to additional funding through Group 18
or ELS. It may be more difficult to develop within the
training sector since providers operate on a contractual
basis with the LECs and the funding which reflects the
value of the qualification is attached to the young person.
To take this model forward the enterprise networks would
have to examine the funding structure with a view to
identifying core funding, taking full account of the core
needs of STN trainees, and what potential additions would
be reasonable and appropriate for "individualised packages
of funding".
10.22 The views offered to the
Committee on the proposal for a national support fund have
been based on the idea that the application for funding is
more likely to be made by the provider than the individual.
There is a link here with the discussion on the merits of a
Disabled Students Allowance. There are also links to the
proposal for an equipment loan/fund. We believe that the
principle behind the idea of a national support fund is
worth further consideration
. We, therefore recommend that SFEFC and the
enterprise networks should work together to review the
ideas discussed in this chapter and examine the feasibility
of a national support fund.Summary of Recommendations
The Committee recommends that:
The enterprise networks work together to
develop a more flexible funding mechanism for training
which is based on an individual profile and action
planning system and is responsive to the needs of
learners with additional support needs. (Paragraph
10.6)
SFEFC should examine ways to direct funding
towards the learners with additional support needs,
paying particular attention to the model of the
Disabled Students Allowance, and develop funding
methods which target individual needs. (Paragraph
10.17)
SFEFC and the enterprise networks should work
together to review the ideas discussed in this chapter
and examine the feasibility of a national support fund.
(Paragraph 10.22)
Back to Top