Skip to main content

Scottish Government Statement on Student Support: Good in Parts.


The announcement today is broadly welcome as a step in the right direction.

 But the ‘sting in the tail’ is that the changes will only kick in from 2019/2020.





The Scottish Government finally responded to the independent report for the Scottish Government: “A New Social Contract for Students - Fairness, Parity and Clarity” [1] that was delivered to them in November of last year.  Since then, the Scottish Government has come under increasing pressure to produce a response.

This afternoon, Shirley-Anne Sommerville, Scotland Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science finally presented a statement on ‘Student support’ to the Scottish Parliament. This was scheduled in at a late stage.

The full statement is here (15 minutes):


TEFS welcomed the independent report “A New Social Contract for Students - Fairness, Parity and Clarity” back in 2017 as a step in the right direction [2]. This is because it set out the basic needs of an individual student. That being at least £8,100 per year. It also made no distinction with regard to support for the individual between Higher and Further Education.

The statement today at least goes some way to acknowledging the recommendations. Increasing the minimum household income for bursary support is long overdue and will help many.  The full support for students with a care background is also welcome. But it is still likely to be the case that many of these people will never reach a university. It would be interesting to see some details of the overall cost it is expected to be.

The recommendation of the report that those in receipt of benefits should not lose out if transferring to full time education was kicked into the long grass and will be subject to further review.

The Minister stressed indicated that £8,100 per year that would be offered – as a bursary to students from a care background and a mixture of bursary and loan for others – on the basis of the living wage in Scotland.  The review last year calculated this on the basis of £8.45 per hour that was the figure in October 2017. Now it is £8.75 per hour and it seems that the Minister failed to recalculate.   There is an assumption in the original report that students will work up to 10 hours per week to make up a deficit. This was not indicated today but if the support remains static then only the number of hours worked can increase from 10 hours.

This might give some the impression that this statement was rushed out with reluctance. Questions that reminded them that the situation was still worse than when they formed the government stung somewhat.

The ‘sting in the tail’ is that the changes will only kick in from 2019/2020.

This is very disappointing and it leaves room for backsliding next year.  It is the case that many students need more help now.  Indeed, it might not be too late for some students to contact their university to seek to defer their entry to next year to take advantage of a better situation then.  I hope those that do this are not disappointed ultimately.

Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years  teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics.

References

[1] The independent report for the Scottish Government: “A New Social Contract for Students - Fairness, Parity and Clarity”
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00527875.pdf

[2] TEFS Blog Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Can Scotland afford to be brave with student support and fees?
https://studentequality.tefs.info/2017/11/can-scotland-afford-to-be-brave-with.html


Comments

Post a Comment

Constructive comments please.
Did you have a free Higher Education?

Popular posts from this blog

Ofqual holding back information

Ofqual has responded to an FOI request from TEFS this week. They held a staggering twenty-nine board meetings since March. Despite promising the Parliamentary Education Committee over a month ago they would publish the minutes “shortly” after their meeting on 16th September, they are still not able to do so. They cite “exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future” for minutes that are in the “process of being approved for publication” . More concerning is they are also citing exemption under the “Public Interest Test”. This means they might not be published, and Ofqual will open themselves up to legal challenges. If both the Department for Education and Ofqual are prevented from being more open, then public interest will lie shattered on the floor and lessons will not be learned.  Ofqual finally responded to the TEFS Freedom of Information (FOI) request to publish the minutes of its board meetings on Tuesday. It should have been replied to by 17th Septembe
1 comment
Read more

COVID-19, SAGE and the universities ‘document dump’

The recent release of several documents by SAGE all at once was described by one observer as a “dump of docs”. They relate to returning to education this autumn and are somewhat confusing as they illustrate the complexities of the challenges still to be tackled. But there is much not fully addressed. Outbreaks of COVID-19 at universities spilling into local communities might also trigger city-wide lock-downs and a bad reaction from the locals. The mass migration of students to their hometowns will spread the chaos wider afield as there seems to be little evidence of planning for this inevitability. Less advantaged students in poor accommodation or crowded homes will be at greater risk along with their vulnerable peers coping with health conditions. While students may be asked to ‘segment’ or form ‘bubbles’ staff might not have the same protection. Asking vulnerable lecturers and other staff with ongoing health conditions to move from classroom to classroom, contacting differen
Post a Comment
Read more

Research and Teaching: The price of researchers not teaching

Has the emphasis on research and REF damaged the teaching and support for students by front-line academic staff? "Your teaching is trivial, anyone can do it”.   After 35 years of academic life as a scientist teaching Microbiology and Biochemistry in a Russell Group university, this is exactly what a ‘senior’ manager told me as I negotiated my ‘smooth’ career exit when I decided to retire early. I left at the end of 2016 after spending a year working part-time whilst winding down my research group. I offered to continue with some teaching over that time simply to help out colleagues. But that was the response to my offer and my teaching ended more abruptly than expected in the summer of 2015.  How had things come to this?  The remark was probably a careless throw away comment but it was made by someone more ‘senior’ to me who had comparatively little experience of teaching undergraduate students. It betrayed an attitude that had been gaining ground for some time. I wondered
Post a Comment
Read more