Support for part-time study and disabled students: consultation analysis - technical annex

Appendix B: Student consultation per question analysis

Appendix B supplements the main report, providing a full breakdown of the closed question results for each question in the student consultation, including a breakdown by each type of respondent answering, and a qualitative analysis of open comments made in response to each consultation question.

Respondent profile

In total, 524 people responded to the student consultation^[1]. This sample comprised the following types of respondents. Please note that there is overlap between these groups, as a respondent could belong to multiple categories, e.g. they could be a former, part-time, FE student and not have a long-term condition.

Respondent type	Number of respondents	% of student consultation sample
Current student	442	84
Former student	43	8
Prospective student	26	5
Parent/carer of student	11	2
Further Education	51	10
Higher Education	466	89
Part-time or distance learner	459	88
Not a part-time or distance learner	63	12
Long-term condition	298	57
No long-term condition	222	42
Part-time/distance learner AND long-term condition	248	47

Are you responding to this consultation as a student or as a parent/carer of a student?

Respondent type	n=	% Current	% Former	% Prosp-ective	% Parent/Carer	% No answer
All respondents	524	84	8	5	2	<0.5
All answering	522	85	8	5	2	n/a
Further Education	51	78	6	6	10	n/a
Higher Education	464	86	9	5	1	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	457	87	7	5	1	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	63	67	19	5	10	n/a
Long-term condition	296	85	8	4	3	n/a
No long-term condition	222	84	8	6	1	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	246	89	7	4	1	n/a

Background Questions

Q1. At what level are you currently studying, planning to study, or have previously studied?

Respondent type	n=	% Further Education (up to SCQF[2] 6)	% Higher Education (HNC / HND / undergraduate or postgraduate degree)	% No answer
All respondents	524	10	89	1
All answering	517	10	90	n/a
Current student	438	9	91	n/a
Former student	43	7	93	n/a
Prospective student	24	13	88	n/a
Parent/carer of student	10	50	50	n/a
Further Education	51	100	0	n/a
Higher Education	466	0	100	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	455	9	91	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	62	16	84	n/a
Long-term condition	295	11	89	n/a
No long-term condition	220	9	91	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	246	10	90	n/a

Q2. Are you currently studying, planning to study, or have studied a part-time or distance learning course?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	88	12	<0.5
All answering	522	88	12	n/a
Current student	440	90	10	n/a
Former student	43	72	28	n/a
Prospective student	26	88	12	n/a
Parent/carer of student	11	45	55	n/a
Further Education	51	80	20	n/a
Higher Education	466	89	11	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	459	100	0	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	63	0	100	n/a
Long-term condition	298	83	17	n/a
No long-term condition	222	94	6	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	248	100	0	n/a

Q3. Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	57	42	1
All answering	520	57	43	n/a
Current student	438	57	43	n/a
Former student	43	58	42	n/a
Prospective student	26	46	54	n/a
Parent/carer of student	11	73	27	n/a
Further Education	51	63	37	n/a
Higher Education	464	57	43	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	457	54	46	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	63	79	21	n/a
Long-term condition	298	100	0	n/a
No long-term condition	222	0	100	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	248	100	0	n/a

Support for part-time and distance learning study questions

Q4. What benefits of part-time or distance learning study attracted you or would attract you to learn in this way?

A. Cost is more affordable than full-time study

B. I have a disability and part-time study offers more flexibility

C. It allows me to balance study with caring responsibilities

D. It allows me to balance study with parental responsibilities

E. It allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments

F. It allows me to meet benefit eligibility criteria

G. My chosen subject is not available as a full-time course

H. I can study my chosen subject regardless of geographical location

I. Other

At Q4, respondents were presented with multiple options and asked to select all that applied to them. Almost all respondents (95%) selected at least one answer option, while 5% did not answer. For consistency, the table below is therefore based on the respondents who provided at least one answer to Q4. Please note that percentages do not add to 100% as multiple options could be selected.

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% E	% F	% G	% H	% I
All respondents	524	33	35	19	21	51	8	6	35	14
All answering	498	35	37	20	22	54	8	6	37	14
Current student	423	35	37	19	22	54	8	6	37	13
Former student	41	37	34	34	22	61	7	5	44	22
Prospective student	26	35	27	23	27	46	15	15	27	23
Parent/carer of student	6	33	67	0	17	33	0	17	50	33
Further Education	46	33	43	26	15	37	9	15	30	24
Higher Education	447	36	36	19	23	56	8	5	38	13
Part-time or distance learner	450	36	34	20	23	56	9	7	38	13
Not a part-time or distance learner	48	27	63	19	15	35	2	2	27	25
Long-term condition	278	35	63	22	17	42	12	6	38	15
No long-term condition	218	35	3	18	29	69	3	6	36	13
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	242	36	61	22	16	43	14	7	39	14

Among those answering Q4, the most frequently selected benefit of part-time or distance learning was that ‘It allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments’ (54%). This was followed by relatively similar proportions selecting ‘I have a disability and part-time study offers more flexibility’ (37%), ‘I can study my chosen subject regardless of geographical location’ (37%), and ‘Cost is more affordable than full-time study’ (37%).

The view that part-time or distance learning study ‘allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments’ was most selected across many respondent types, in particular, those with no long-term condition (69%). Conversely, 63% of those with a long-term condition selected ‘I have a disability and part-time study offers more flexibility’ as the most beneficial reason for part-time pr distance learning study.

One fifth of student consultation respondents left a comment at Q4a. The most prevalent theme was the recognition of the benefits of part-time or distance learning as a means of managing workload. Some respondents emphasised that these flexible study options could allow them to progress at their own pace, easing their transition into academic life. Respondents also felt that this approach could create space to maintain a healthy balance between study and personal interests, including time for hobbies and non-academic pursuits.

Another theme, highlighted by some, was how this style of learning offers flexibility, particularly for disabled students, which was felt to be essential for many to access and maintain their education. This was more likely to be mentioned by parents or carers of students. Respondents felt the ability to study from home could allow learners to manage fluctuating symptoms, attend medical appointments, and avoid environments which could worsen their health. For neurodivergent students, it was felt that online learning reduced sensory overload and supported better focus. Parents and carers also noted that distance learning helped their children continue studying during periods of ill health and called for more flexible options in traditional institutions to avoid disadvantage.

The benefit of part-time or distance learning in making education more affordable was another theme mentioned by some respondents. Respondents noted that full-time study was often considered financially out of reach due to tuition fees, living expenses, or the loss of income from leaving work. Studying part-time could, therefore, allow them to continue earning while learning, spread costs over a longer period, or access funding that was only available to part-time students. Some respondents noted that distance learning helped them avoid the costs of relocating to university. Others highlighted restrictions in funding eligibility, such as age, previous study history, or government student support rules, that made part-time study the only viable and affordable option. For respondents within this theme, affordability was a key factor in determining whether they could pursue their education.

Some less common benefits of part-time or distance learning study, each mentioned by a few respondents, included:

• Balancing work and study: Respondents value being able to continue other roles while pursuing education, whether in employment, caring roles, or volunteering. They felt better able to manage other responsibilities and maintain stability alongside their studies.
• Improved mental health: Reduced stress and anxiety by allowing students to study in calmer, more manageable environments, avoiding overstimulation, public settings, and pressures that can negatively impact mental wellbeing.
• Reducing travel: Removing the need to commute, which was especially important for those with mobility issues, limited transport options, or who lived in remote areas far from educational institutions.

Q5. Do you think that support for part-time and distance learning study needs to be simplified? Can you please explain further the reasons for this?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	48	44	8
All answering	481	52	48	n/a
Current student	404	51	49	n/a
Former student	42	64	36	n/a
Prospective student	24	54	46	n/a
Parent/carer of student	9	56	44	n/a
Further Education	49	61	39	n/a
Higher Education	427	51	49	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	437	52	48	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	44	59	41	n/a
Long-term condition	267	58	42	n/a
No long-term condition	212	45	55	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	233	57	43	n/a

Mixed views were recorded regarding whether support for part-time and distance learning study needs to be simplified. Just over half (52%) of those answering Q5 indicated that it needs to be simplified and just under half (48%) felt it does not. A majority of most groups felt it should be simplified, with the highest level of support recorded by among former students (64%) and those in FE (61%). Only those with no long-term condition recorded a majority in favour of no simplification being needed (55% ‘no’).

Three fifths of student consultation respondents left a comment at Q5. The most prevalent theme was complexity of the application forms and process. It should be noted that these comments were made by respondents who answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at the closed question. Several respondents felt the current system was unnecessarily complicated, with confusing forms, repetitive paperwork, and unclear guidance. Respondents described the process as time-consuming and challenging to navigate, especially for first-time applicants, disabled students, or those with poor mental health. The need to apply separately to multiple organisations and resubmit similar information each year was highlighted as burdensome. Other issues included the SAAS website being unnecessarily complicated to use and a perceived mismatch between the systems used by funding bodies and institutions. Respondents noted the complexity was a barrier to accessing support in general, leading to missed deadlines, dropped courses, or applicants giving up on applications.

Conversely, another prevalent theme was respondents commenting positively on the clear and straightforward support available for part-time and distance learning study. Several respondents felt that the application process and available support were already clear, accessible, and easy to navigate. They described their experience with SAAS and course providers as straightforward, with well-signposted information and minimal difficulty completing forms. While these respondents acknowledged that others may face challenges depending on their circumstances, their own experiences were largely positive and hassle-free.

Several respondents expressed the view that there is a lack of information and clarity around eligibility for support for part-time and distance learning study. Comments highlighted confusion over what funding is available, who qualifies, and how eligibility is determined, particularly for those with existing qualifications, disabilities, or studying at different levels. Respondents highlighted difficulties in finding clear guidance on course eligibility, credit requirements, and the differences between full-time and part-time study support. It was also noted that universities and funding bodies often provided inconsistent or incomplete information, leaving students unsure whether they could access support. Others raised concerns that they only discovered they were eligible after speaking directly with institutions or support services, and suggested that clearer, more accessible information could help prevent missed opportunities and reduce stress during the application process.

Having insufficient financial support was frequently mentioned by respondents, in particular prospective students. While not directly answering the question, several respondents called for the financial support for part-time and distance learning study to be expanded. Respondents felt that current funding options, such as the Part-Time Fee Grant (PTFG), were either too limited in value or inaccessible due to rigid eligibility criteria, particularly income thresholds that had not kept pace with inflation or the cost of living. Respondents noted that even small salary increases could disqualify them from support, despite their ongoing financial hardship.

Other respondents highlighted gaps in support for specific groups, including disabled students, carers, and postgraduate learners. Respondents described experiences of having to self-fund substantial costs, take on debt, or delay their studies due to the lack of financial support, highlighting a concern that current financial support does not adequately reflect the realities faced by part-time students and distance learners.

Several respondents expressed the view that there is insufficient support for part-time and distance learning study more generally. These respondents emphasised a need for more support to ensure parity with full-time or on-campus learners, and suggested more inclusive and equitable support for part-time and distance learners. Respondents felt that current systems unfairly differentiate between modes of study, despite students pursuing the same academic outcomes. It was also noted that part-time and distance learners often face additional challenges – such as caring responsibilities, disability, or geographic isolation – yet receive less financial, academic, and pastoral support. Concerns were also raised about a lack of maintenance loans, limited access to childcare funds, and reduced institutional engagement, which could leave students feeling excluded or disadvantaged.

Q6. If you self-funded or are planning to self-fund your course fees, can you tell us why that is?

A. Not eligible due to residency requirements

B. Not eligible due to the type of the course

C. Not eligible due to earnings

D. I didn’t know a fee waiver was available

E. My employer is funding my course

F. I am funding my course through financial support from others (family / friends)

G. I have taken out a loan to fund my course

H. I am using savings to fund my course

I. I am using a combination of sources to fund my course

J. Other

At Q6, respondents were presented with multiple options and asked to select all that applied to them. Just over half of all respondents (56%) selected at least one answer option, while 44% did not answer. For consistency, the table below is based on the respondents who provided at least one answer to Q6. Please note that percentages do not add to 100% as multiple options could be selected.

Among those answering the closed question element of Q6, the most frequently selected response was ‘other’; the analysis of comments left by these respondents is presented below. Beyond this, the most common reason for why students are self-funding was ‘Not eligible due to earnings’ (23%), while the most selected ways of self-funding were ‘I am using a combination of sources to fund my course’ (25%) and ‘I am using savings to fund my course’ (18%). A broadly similar pattern of responses was recorded across each respondent type.

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% E	% F	% G	% H	% I	% J
All respondents	524	2	5	13	5	3	3	7	10	14	19
All answering	295	3	9	23	8	5	6	12	18	25	34
Current student	240	4	10	24	8	6	5	13	19	26	32
Former student	32	0	6	25	9	6	3	13	13	19	41
Prospective student	18	0	6	11	11	0	11	11	17	28	56
Parent/carer of student	4	0	0	50	0	0	50	0	25	0	0
Further Education	30	10	7	20	7	7	10	7	23	27	33
Higher Education	262	2	10	24	8	5	5	13	18	25	34
Part-time or distance learner	262	3	10	26	8	6	5	11	19	27	33
Not a part-time or distance learner	33	3	3	6	12	3	9	21	12	12	39
Long-term condition	156	3	8	18	8	3	5	15	17	26	37
No long-term condition	138	2	10	29	8	8	7	9	20	24	30
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	133	3	8	20	8	3	5	14	17	29	36

One quarter of respondents left a comment at Q6A. Even though the question was aimed at those who are self-funding, by far the most prevalent theme was about funding from SAAS. Several respondents noted that they were either fully or partially funded through SAAS, including support via the Part-Time Fee Grant (PTFG), student loans, or bursaries. Respondents also described combining SAAS support with personal contributions or other sources such as charity grants or family assistance. Others stated that while SAAS covered part of their fees, they had to self-fund the remainder because course costs exceeded the available support. Concerns were raised about changes in eligibility over time, such as increased income or postgraduate study, which could affect access to SAAS funding.

The next most prevalent reason was the need to self-fund due to being ineligible for some or all of the available funding options. Several respondents described falling outside the eligibility criteria due to factors such as age, income level, existing qualifications, course type, or mode of study. Respondents noted that small increases in salary or receiving certain benefits pushed them just above funding thresholds, despite ongoing financial hardship.

Other respondents highlighted perceived gaps in support for postgraduate, part-time, or distance learning courses, particularly where institutions or programmes were not covered by SAAS or other funding schemes. Respondents described how they had exhausted their funding entitlement or were excluded due to complex personal circumstances, such as being a carer, disabled, or a military spouse. Respondents commented that these experiences often left them with no choice but to self-fund, delay their studies, or rely on family support.

Another view, expressed by some respondents, was that insufficient financial support is available. This was more likely to be raised by prospective students, and parents or carers of students. Respondents described struggling to cover course costs due to gaps in available funding, such as limited bursaries, partial fee coverage, or a lack of support for specific groups, including military families, disabled students, and those in part-time study. Respondents felt that current funding policies failed to reflect the realities of low-income households, rising living costs, or the financial demands of retraining, leaving them feeling unsupported and unable to pursue or complete their studies.

Some respondents commented on using a combination of sources to fund their course. Respondents described piecing together funding from SAAS, personal savings, family support, bursaries, charity grants, and work contributions to cover tuition fees and related costs. As mentioned above, in some cases, SAAS funding only covered part of the fees, requiring individuals to find additional sources to make up the shortfall.

Q7. If you required financial support to undertake your studies, which of the following would be available to you to access?

A. Benefits

B. Paid employment

C. Personal loan or credit (including a credit card)

D. Savings

E. Other

At Q7, respondents were presented with multiple options and asked to select all that applied to them. Four fifths of all respondents (81%) selected at least one answer option, while 19% did not answer. For consistency, the table below is based on the respondents who provided at least one answer to Q7. Please note that percentages do not add to 100% as multiple options could be selected.

Among those answering the closed question element of Q7, the most selected type of financial support that students could access was paid employment (45%). This was most commonly selected by most types of respondents, ranging from 62% among former students to 29% of FE students. One third (35%) would be able to access benefits, with the highest likelihood of accessing this support among part-time or distance learners who also have a long-term condition (49%). A similar proportion (34%) indicated they could access savings, while just over one quarter (28%) indicated they could access a personal loan or credit.

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% E
All respondents	524	28	37	23	27	13
All answering	426	35	45	28	34	16
Current student	355	35	43	28	34	15
Former student	39	28	62	28	36	28
Prospective student	22	36	50	27	41	18
Parent/carer of student	8	38	38	38	25	13
Further Education	45	47	29	29	31	22
Higher Education	376	33	47	28	34	16
Part-time or distance learner	379	34	45	29	33	16
Not a part-time or distance learner	47	38	45	23	43	19
Long-term condition	252	48	39	28	32	16
No long-term condition	173	15	54	29	37	16
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	216	49	38	28	31	16

Just under a fifth of student consultation respondents commented at Q7A. Most commonly, respondents reported that SAAS financial support was available to them, noting that they relied on this funding, including the PTFG, to make studying possible. These respondents included former, current, and prospective students. Many stated that without this support, they would not have been able to afford their course, highlighting its importance in enabling access to education.

Whilst not directly answering the question, the next most common theme from many respondents was requests for changes to financial support and individual challenges with funding. These respondents expressed frustration at the lack of living cost loans for study, limited access to benefits, and the absence of flexible funding options for those with caring responsibilities or are disabled. There were also calls for parity with full-time students, with respondents advocating for loans and grants to be available for all modes of study to prevent financial hardship and dropout. Other respondents highlighted the insecurity of the financial support.

The next most common themes were more aligned to the closed question, but each was mentioned by a few respondents. These included, in order of prevalence, relying on:

• Paid employment, including part-time jobs and freelance work. Challenges in balancing employment with study were highlighted, particularly when limited hours or childcare constraints made it difficult to cover tuition and living costs.
• Benefit payments, such as Universal Credit, disability payments, or carer support, to manage living costs while studying. Respondents noted that these benefits were insufficient to cover education expenses, leaving them financially vulnerable and potentially unable to fully fund their studies.
• Family and friends, including parental contributions, spousal support, and loans from relatives. This support was often used to supplement gaps left by limited funding or personal income. This theme was more likely to be mentioned by parents and carers of students.
• Government-related sources, such as pensions, government loans for postgraduate study, and Self-Directed Support funding from social work to cover essential needs such as personal assistants for college attendance. Other respondents highlighted additional measures, such as tax allowances or transport-related support, as part of their financial arrangements. This theme was more likely to be mentioned by parents and carers of students and FE students.
• Loans or credit cards, with a few noting concerns about long-term debt. Others mentioned taking out loans during periods of financial strain, such as unpaid breaks or due to rising living costs, and highlighted that loans were often the only option available to continue their studies.

Q8. Has the financial support available to you from Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS), or from your college or university, helped support you to complete your course?

Can you explain in what way it has or has not helped you?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	74	21	4
All answering	501	78	22	n/a
Current student	426	79	21	n/a
Former student	41	68	32	n/a
Prospective student	25	76	24	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	43	57	n/a
Further Education	47	68	32	n/a
Higher Education	450	78	22	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	448	78	22	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	53	74	26	n/a
Long-term condition	285	78	22	n/a
No long-term condition	214	78	22	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	244	79	21	n/a

Among those answering Q8, over three quarters (78%) felt the financial support available from SAAS, or from their college or university, helped support them to complete their course, while 22% did not. At least two thirds of all groups left a positive response, except for the very small number of parents who answered Q8, of whom only 43% were positive.

Almost three quarters of respondents left an open comment in response to Q8. By far, the most prevalent theme was respondents highlighting that, without financial support, they would not otherwise be able to afford their course or undertake their studies. These respondents often described how the support enabled them to overcome significant personal, financial, and logistical barriers – such as disability, low income, or caring responsibilities – that would have otherwise made HE inaccessible. Others commented more generally on their study being funded, with respondents expressing gratitude for the financial support they received. They reported that it made their studies possible or significantly more manageable, and many noted that without this funding, whether full or partial, they would not have been able to pursue or continue their education.

Another prevalent theme was general positive comments from respondents, which did not elaborate on the impact of the funding but reflected general satisfaction. Respondents often noted that tuition fees were covered and expressed appreciation for the ease and helpfulness of the process.

Conversely, the next most frequently mentioned theme was comments from respondents who felt they had been unable to access financial support from SAAS or their institution. These respondents often reported feeling overlooked or unfairly excluded from funding opportunities, expressing the view that rigid eligibility criteria failed to consider their individual circumstances.

Several respondents commented that the financial support available was insufficient and needed to be expanded. Former or prospective students were more likely to raise this issue. These respondents frequently noted that while some support was available, it was inadequate for their circumstances. While some expressed appreciation for the support they did receive, they felt it only partially met their needs.

Being concerned about funding was frequently mentioned by some respondents, who described experiencing financial strain due to gaps in available support, with the funding they received not fully covering tuition fees or living costs. Having to self-fund part of their studies, often relying on savings, taking on additional work, or facing delays in their education due to affordability, was also mentioned. Others expressed frustration at eligibility thresholds, particularly where small increases in income led to the loss of support despite ongoing financial hardship. Respondents shared that they had to pause or withdraw from their studies altogether due to a lack of funding, while others worried about the long-term impact of student debt or their ability to continue their course under current financial pressures.

Q9. Further Education students can get their fees paid (this is called a fee waiver) or can get some support towards fees depending on their circumstances.

Access to this support is subject to eligibility criteria which can include a means-test (where your household income is assessed to decide if you’re eligible).

What are your views on this approach?

Over four fifths of respondents provided a comment at Q9. The most prevalent theme, by a large margin, was positive comments about access to support being subject to eligibility criteria, including a means-test. Several respondents felt this approach was reasonable, fair, and appropriate, as it ensures the support is directed at those who need it most and removes a key barrier to education for people in financial hardship.

The next most common theme was a concern about the eligibility criteria being based on a household’s income rather than an individual’s income. Several respondents noted that household means-testing could unfairly exclude learners who do not have access to the income of others in their household, for example, their partners or parents. Respondents highlighted issues around financial independence, complex family situations, and cases of controlling or abusive relationships as reasons why household income should not be considered an accurate measure of ability to pay. Respondents felt that means-testing based on a household’s income could create barriers for those seeking education and called for assessments to reflect personal circumstances instead.

Another prevalent theme, commented on by several respondents, was that the eligibility criteria threshold is too low. These respondents called for the threshold to be raised to reflect the current cost of living, inflation, and rising wages. It was felt that the current limit excludes individuals who, despite earning slightly above the threshold, still struggle to afford course fees alongside essential expenses such as rent, childcare, and bills. Others highlighted that the threshold has remained unchanged for years, making it increasingly out of step with economic realities.

Several respondents called for extending fee waivers to other courses and for students to access the same support regardless of mode of study. They argued that part-time and distance learners should have equal access to financial assistance as full-time students, especially when their study intensity or placement requirements are similar. They believed the current system disadvantages those who cannot study full-time due to work, caring responsibilities, or disability, and pointed out gaps in support for postgraduate courses and longer programmes. Respondents stressed that education should be accessible to everyone, regardless of the mode of delivery, and that funding rules should reflect this.

The next most frequently mentioned theme, raised by several respondents, was other suggestions for how financial support could be administered. Respondents proposed a range of ideas, including introducing a tapered system instead of a strict income threshold, offering assessments for exceptional circumstances, and creating set allowances to encourage lifelong learning. Other suggestions included regional adjustments to reflect higher living costs in rural and island communities, as well as calls for employer contributions where the study is job-related. A few commented that that education should be free or fully government-funded.

Q10. Higher Education part-time tuition fees charged by colleges, universities or private providers of Higher Education can vary.

Part-time Fee Grant (PTFG) is a grant towards tuition fees for eligible Higher Education students through Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS).

If you are studying a part-time or distance learning course of Higher Education in Scotland or have studied a part-time or distance learning course of Higher Education, how did you pay for your tuition fees?

A. I was eligible for PTFG which covered the full amount of the tuition fees charged

B. I was eligible for PTFG which covered more than half of the tuition fees charged

C. I was eligible for PTFG which covered less than half of the tuition fees charged

D. I was not eligible for PTFG

If you were not eligible for PTFG or PTFG did not cover the full cost of tuition fees charged, how did you pay the remaining costs?

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% No answer
All respondents	524	48	14	5	18	15
All answering	443	56	16	6	22	n/a
Current student	376	57	15	6	21	n/a
Former student	35	46	20	3	31	n/a
Prospective student	24	42	29	8	21	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	100	0	0	0	n/a
Further Education	39	59	13	5	23	n/a
Higher Education	399	57	16	6	22	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	417	57	17	6	20	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	26	42	8	4	46	n/a
Long-term condition	244	61	14	5	20	n/a
No long-term condition	197	51	20	6	23	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	223	62	14	5	18	n/a

Among those answering Q10, over half (56%) were eligible for PTFG covering the full amount of the tuition fees charged, 16% for PTFG covering more than half of the tuition fees charged, and 6% for PTFG covering less than half of the tuition fees charged. Conversely, over one in five (22%) were not eligible for PTFG. A broadly similar pattern of eligibility was recorded by type of respondent, including 57% of part-time and distance learning students and 61% of those with a long-term condition indicating they were eligible for PTFG covering the full amount of the tuition fees charged.

A third of student consultation respondents commented at Q10. Most commonly, respondents reported using savings to either pay for their tuition fees in full or to cover any remaining costs. This included comments from a mix of students who were and were not eligible for the PTFG. Several respondents described drawing on personal savings, redundancy payments, or pension income to cover fees, noting that this required years of saving or using ISAs. Others highlighted that savings were often combined with credit cards or loans to manage any shortfalls.

Self-funding in general was the next most commonly mentioned theme. Several respondents reported paying all or part of their tuition fees themselves, often using personal income, savings, or payment plans arranged with their institution. Within these comments, respondents described covering shortfalls after grants or scholarships, while others highlighted paying per module or using instalment arrangements to keep costs manageable. Respondents also mentioned relying on paid employment, such as part-time jobs or freelance work, to fund their studies, though balancing work and study was described as challenging. Rising living costs and limited eligibility for funding were cited as reasons why self-funding, supplemented by earnings, was the only option available.

Another prevalent theme was using loans or credit cards to pay for tuition fees or outstanding costs. As above, these responses included a mix of students who were and were not eligible for the PTFG. Some reported relying on personal loans, credit cards, or postgraduate loans to cover shortfalls where grants or fee waivers did not meet the full cost. Respondents described spreading payments through instalment plans or using 0% interest credit cards to manage affordability, while others raised concerns about the long-term burden of debt and interest repayments.

Some respondents noted that their institution covers some or all of their tuition fees, which topped up the remaining balance of their course fees after the PTFG. Others reported that their university fully funded their studies or provided subsidies to make courses accessible.

Other ways of paying for all or part of tuition fees, each mentioned by a small number of respondents, included:

• Through support from others, such as family and friends.
• Through bursaries, scholarships, or grants.

Through employer contributions, where fees were covered by an employer, separate from regular salary payments.

Q11. The Scottish Government has focused support for students on low income to access Higher Education through the PTFG, which is accessible for those with personal incomes of under £25,000.

Do you feel the current eligibility criteria for the Part-Time Fee Grant (PTFG) work on focusing support for students who need it the most?

Can you please explain further the reasons for this?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	52	35	13
All answering	456	59	41	n/a
Current student	384	61	39	n/a
Former student	39	49	51	n/a
Prospective student	25	44	56	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	71	29	n/a
Further Education	42	62	38	n/a
Higher Education	409	59	41	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	421	61	39	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	35	40	60	n/a
Long-term condition	251	63	37	n/a
No long-term condition	203	56	44	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	224	66	34	n/a

Three fifths (59%) of those answering Q11 felt the current eligibility criteria for the PTFG are effective at focusing support for students who need it the most, while 41% did not. The same proportion of current students (61%), part-time/distance learners (61%), and those with a long-term condition (63%) were supportive of the current eligibility criteria, as were 66% of respondents who are part-time/distance learners with a long-term condition. Former and prospective students were less positive, with 49% and 44% respectively answering yes.

Three fifths of respondents left an open comment in response to Q11. The most prevalent theme was that the threshold for the eligibility criteria is too low and should be raised. This was a prevalent theme across many types of respondent. These respondents felt the current £25,000 income threshold for the PTFG no longer reflects the cost of living or rising wages, potentially excluding those still facing financial hardship. Respondents suggested raising the threshold or introducing a more flexible, graduated system to better support those in need.

Conversely, a recurring theme mentioned by several respondents was that the current system works well and helps the right people. These respondents felt the income-based criteria were fair and effective, ensuring support is directed to those with the greatest financial need. They appreciated that the system enables access to education for lower-income individuals who might otherwise be excluded. Some felt the current approach was fair and ensured equal access to education for all, promoting opportunity for individuals from diverse backgrounds and income levels. Some respondents expressed gratitude for the PTFG, noting they could not have studied without it due to low income, caregiving duties, or personal circumstances.

The next most frequently mentioned theme was comments related to groups of people that respondents felt the eligibility criteria do not currently work for. There were two main strands of comments in this theme. One strand, mentioned by some respondents, highlighted that the criteria exclude individuals with complex financial situations, such as mature students, carers, disabled people, and those just above the income threshold, who still face significant barriers to accessing education. The other strand saw a few respondents comment that they felt the system fails to account for household dynamics, higher living costs, or non-traditional circumstances, making it inequitable for many who need support.

Some respondents commented on what they felt should be included and excluded from the means-test. They felt the means-test should better account for individual circumstances like caregiving, disability costs, location, and disposable income.

Q12. Currently full-time higher and Further Education students are eligible to apply for living cost support while they study.

Would the introduction of living cost support (which could include bursaries and/or student loans) for part-time or distance learning study affect your learning and study habits?

If ‘yes’, can you please tell us how it might affect your learning and study habits?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	50	40	10
All answering	470	56	44	n/a
Current student	396	55	45	n/a
Former student	40	60	40	n/a
Prospective student	25	52	48	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	43	57	n/a
Further Education	47	34	66	n/a
Higher Education	418	58	42	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	433	56	44	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	37	54	46	n/a
Long-term condition	261	58	42	n/a
No long-term condition	207	53	47	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	232	58	42	n/a

Among those answering Q12, over half (56%) indicated that introducing living cost support for part-time or distance learning study could affect their learning and study habits, while 44% felt it would not. A similar proportion of between half and three fifths of most groups indicated they could be affected. Conversely, 66% of FE students indicated that they would not be affected.

Half of respondents left an open comment at Q12. The most prevalent theme was respondents highlighting how introducing living cost support for part-time or distance learning study would improve focus, motivation, and enable students to achieve and learn more. Respondents in this theme described how financial and external pressures, such as working long hours, caregiving responsibilities, and managing health needs, limit students’ ability to concentrate, engage fully, and perform well academically. With living cost support, respondents felt students would be better able to focus, study effectively, and reach their academic potential.

The second most prevalent theme was comments on how introducing living cost support would allow students to either reduce or stop paid employment. Respondents described how juggling full-time or part-time jobs alongside study often leads to exhaustion, stress, and limited academic engagement. Many of these respondents felt that financial support would enable them to cut back on work hours and dedicate more time and energy to their studies, ultimately improving their attainment and wellbeing.

Several respondents commented on a similarly prevalent theme: introducing living cost support could reduce student stress. Some reported that financial support would ease the pressure of juggling personal life, study, work, and living costs, leading to a holistic improvement in mental health and wellbeing. A few respondents commented on how this would prevent burnout and allow students to have healthier routines and a balanced life overall.

The next most mentioned theme was respondents suggesting that living support costs could open up other opportunities to study. Within this theme, there were two main strands. Some respondents highlighted that financial support could enable them to access full-time or more intensive study options, which they currently cannot afford. Another strand, mentioned by a few respondents, was the impact on disabled students or those with caregiving responsibilities, noting that these factors limit their ability to study full-time and that additional support would allow them to participate more fully.

As the open question was directed at respondents who answered ‘yes’ at the closed question, little detail was provided by those who felt they would not be affected. However, one respondent noted that it would be beneficial to provide dedicated financial education, guidance and support to bursary and loan recipients on how to manage their money. They felt this could prevent students from unknowingly misusing their funds or not meeting criteria, and minimise stress.

Q13. To be eligible for living cost support (bursary and/or student loan), full-time higher and Further Education students must meet eligibility criteria relating to their course choice and residency.

This also considers the household income of the student and any previous study supported by public funds.

The introduction of living cost support for part time or distance learning study would mean the same eligibility criteria being used as it is for full-time study.

Do you agree with this?

If ‘no’, can you tell us why you think eligibility criteria between full-time and part-time or distance learning study should be different?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	64	26	10
All answering	472	71	29	n/a
Current student	399	71	29	n/a
Former student	40	75	25	n/a
Prospective student	26	69	31	n/a
Parent/carer of student	6	83	17	n/a
Further Education	46	78	22	n/a
Higher Education	421	70	30	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	430	70	30	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	42	83	17	n/a
Long-term condition	265	75	25	n/a
No long-term condition	205	66	34	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	233	74	26	n/a

Seven in ten (71%) of those answering Q13 agreed that living cost support for part-time or distance learning study should use the same eligibility criteria as full-time study. At least two thirds of each respondent type agreed with this approach.

Three in ten student consultation respondents commented at Q13. The most prevalent theme, raised by several respondents, including a mix of those who answered ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the closed question, was that the eligibility criteria would still need to consider additional challenges faced by part-time or distance learning students. Respondents pointed out that these learners often have very different life circumstances from full-time students, such as caring responsibilities, employment, health issues, and managing household bills. It was believed that applying identical criteria could overlook these realities and risk excluding those who need support the most. Suggestions included creating more flexible rules and accounting for additional costs, such as technology, equipment, and longer course durations.

The next theme, also raised by several respondents, was that there should be no means-test as part of the eligibility criteria for part-time or distance learning students, with comments and alternative suggestions. All respondents commenting under this theme answered ‘no’ to the closed question. It was felt that means-testing creates unnecessary barriers and fails to reflect individual circumstances, particularly for those who are disabled, have caring responsibilities, or have complex financial situations. Respondents argued that previous study should not automatically disqualify someone from support, as life circumstances often change significantly over time. Others suggested alternative approaches, such as universal access to tuition support, pro-rata funding for part-time students, or systems that focus solely on course completion. Concerns were also raised about the impact on benefits and the assumption that household income equates to available funds.

Some respondents felt that using the same approach as full-time study for part-time study or distance learning was fair. All respondents in this theme answered ‘yes’ to the closed question. These respondents expressed the view that living costs do not change based on mode of study and that applying consistent eligibility criteria ensures fairness and simplicity. It was noted that part-time students may face similar or even greater financial pressures than full-time students, particularly when health issues or caring responsibilities limit their ability to work, highlighting the importance of parity in access to support. Others felt that universal rules would prevent discrimination and make the system easier to administer.

Q14. Are there any non-monetary improvements relating to support for part-time and distance learning students, not already asked in this consultation, that you would like to comment on?

Two fifths of student consultation respondents answered Q14. Most commonly, respondents felt there were no further non-monetary improvements needed relating to support for part-time and distance learning students.

The next to most common themes, both raised by some respondents, did not directly answer the question and expressed mixed views. On the one hand, some respondents highlighted perceived gaps in funding for part-time and distance learners, particularly for those earning slightly above eligibility thresholds, single parents, and individuals needing to retrain. Others noted additional costs, such as equipment, childcare, and placements, and called for more flexible options, like grants, loans, or monthly allowances, to make study more affordable.

Conversely, however, some other respondents left positive comments about the support available and the support they had received. This included praise for the assistance provided by a particular university and SAAS, which was described as excellent and life-changing. Others highlighted the value of resources such as study skills, careers services, and accessibility support, noting that financial help such as the PTFG made studying possible.

The next most prevalent theme, highlighted by some respondents, was the need for mental health support and improvements in wellbeing. These respondents felt that part-time and distance learners could often experience isolation and unique pressures that require tailored support. Suggestions included free or extended access to counselling, regular wellbeing check-ins, and specialist services for conditions such as autism or ADHD. Others called for improved access to college wellbeing resources, mentoring, and flexible support for students balancing health issues with study.

Some respondents highlighted communication challenges and called for improvements, such as clearer guidance on funding processes, deadlines, and eligibility criteria. Suggestions included improving direct access to SAAS staff to support completion of applications, greater transparency about course structures for part-time learners, and timely feedback on assessments. Respondents also emphasised the need for personalised advice from knowledgeable staff rather than generic online forms, enhanced responsiveness from institutions, and clearer information about mandatory sessions and scheduling.

A similar number of respondents proposed actions to reduce isolation among distance learning students. These respondents emphasised the importance of more opportunities to engage with peers and tutors, such as face-to-face meetings, online forums, and virtual study groups. Suggestions included reinstating in-person tutorials, enhancing communication and outreach from institutions, and organising networking events with travel support for low-income students learners.

Some respondents suggested broader improvements to make part-time and distance learning more accessible. Ideas included allowing time off for exams and assignments, introducing tax and credit incentives, and providing better financial support for older learners. Respondents also called for more quiet study spaces, paid placements for social work students, and improved evening access to university facilities. Other suggestions included recognising lived experience in eligibility processes, offering more support for evening and distance learning, and creating alternative entry routes beyond traditional qualifications.

Other, less mentioned themes, in order of prevalence, included calls to:

• Simplify application processes, making complex forms easier to complete and providing more support during applications.
• Provide support for those with caring and parental responsibilities, recognising the additional challenges faced by students with dependants.
• Ensure access to digital resources, including the necessary IT equipment, software, and connectivity.
• Provide transport-related assistance, such as support with travel costs for those who need to attend in-person sessions.

Support for disabled students questions

Q15. Do you think that support for disabled students in further and/or Higher Education needs to be simplified?

Can you please explain further the reasons for this?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	49	29	22
All answering	409	63	37	n/a
Current student	342	62	38	n/a
Former student	38	74	26	n/a
Prospective student	16	50	50	n/a
Parent/carer of student	11	64	36	n/a
Further Education	42	67	33	n/a
Higher Education	364	62	38	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	351	61	39	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	58	74	26	n/a
Long-term condition	274	68	32	n/a
No long-term condition	133	52	48	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	226	66	34	n/a

Among those answering Q15, over three fifths (63%) felt that support for disabled students in FE or HE needs to be simplified, while 37% did not. Between half (50%) and three quarters (74%) of each respondent type felt simplification was needed, including 68% of those with a long-term condition.

Just over half of student consultation respondents commented at Q15. The majority of these comments highlighted challenges and barriers in existing processes that respondents felt disabled students face when accessing support, as well as suggestions to address and simplify these processes.

Several respondents described the current application processes, including application forms, as overly complex and confusing and with too many forms using complex language, which they felt can be challenging to complete with certain conditions, such as dyslexia, and can require support to complete. Several respondents highlighted how the process for students can be burdensome, stressful, and overwhelming. A few raised concerns about students not applying or not continuing with their applications due to the associated stress and complexity.

Some respondents mentioned challenges with each of the following issues:

• A lack of awareness of the support available to students and how to access support, leading to them not applying, along with a lack of clear information on eligibility criteria to apply for and receive support. A central hub for support information was suggested by one respondent.
• Issues with timescales, including the time it takes to get evidence from doctors, and slow timescales resulting in receiving support later than required.
• Administrative barriers, such as receiving and paying for doctors’ evidence, and payment challenges.
• The importance of providing needs-driven and individualised support.
• Challenges with, and the need for, accessible communication and supportive staff.
• Duplication of effort and inconsistency in information and support in education institutions and with relevant agencies, e.g. SAAS.
• A need for greater financial support to continue studies and receive the support required, and wanting support but being ineligible.

A few respondents each described a general lack of support and staff, and challenges in accessing support for certain conditions, such as neurodevelopmental conditions. Other suggestions for support that were each noted by individual respondent included free assessments for conditions and improving the accessibility of buildings.

Positive comments on the existing process, its simplicity and the support it provides were left by several respondents. This includes that the current system works and that no improvements or simplifications are needed. Some felt that accessing support is already clear and straightforward.

Q16. Colleges and universities are required to review the support required for their disabled students and students with additional learning needs.

If you have discussed your needs with a Needs Assessor or Disability Advisor, what support did they recommend for you?

A. Adjustments to support classroom-based learning

B. IT hardware and/or software

C. Support from student support staff/other university staff

D. Peer support, such as student union or representatives

E. None

F. Other

At Q16, respondents were presented with multiple options and asked to select all that applied to them. Just over two thirds of all respondents (68%) selected at least one answer option, while 32% did not answer. For consistency, the table below is based on the respondents who provided at least one answer to Q16. Please note that percentages do not add to 100% as multiple options could be selected.

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% E	% F
All respondents	524	24	33	33	10	16	13
All answering	355	36	48	49	14	23	19
Current student	299	35	48	49	14	22	20
Former student	35	46	51	46	11	31	14
Prospective student	11	36	55	45	36	36	18
Parent/carer of student	8	38	25	50	0	25	13
Further Education	37	35	30	41	19	30	11
Higher Education	314	36	51	49	13	23	20
Part-time or distance learner	298	32	44	46	13	27	20
Not a part-time or distance learner	57	60	72	65	21	7	14
Long-term condition	256	42	56	62	16	14	17
No long-term condition	98	20	28	15	8	48	24
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	209	37	53	59	15	15	19

A range of recommendations was selected by those who answered Q6. Most commonly, respondents indicated that support from student support staff/other university staff had been recommended (49%), closely followed by IT hardware and software support (48%). Just over one third (36%) had been recommended adjustments to support classroom-based learning. Among those with a long term condition, the same recommendations were indicated, but at a higher rate: 62% had been recommended support from student support staff/other university staff, 56% IT support and 42% adjustments to support classroom-based learning.

While Q16 did not have a follow-on open question, one in six respondents left a comment in response to the ‘other specify’ option provided at the closed question. Most commonly, respondents detailed the type of support that was recommended to them. Some detailed adjustments to study and exams, primarily having additional time to complete exams and assignments. The provision of mentors was mentioned by a few respondents, along with various course materials, which included a personal reader, study tools, scribes, proofreaders and tutoring. A small number of respondents mentioned receiving laptops and technology training, equipment such as specialised desks and chairs, accessible spaces, wellbeing support, and one mentioned tutor communication support.

A range of other comments on support recommendations from Needs Assessors or Disability Advisors were each made by a few respondents, including:

• That unhelpful recommendations had been made, such as insufficient support being recommended, a lack of course-specific tailored support, and the provision of poor-quality support.
• That no support had been recommended or provided.
• Two respondents who stated they had been recommended to pause or suspend study until conditions improved.
• Comments on individual financial benefit comments, such as rent adjustment and tuition support.

A few respondents commented that they received good support, along with a few expressing negative experiences of support.

Q17. Have the adjustments mentioned in Q16 been made available to you from your college or university?

If ‘no’, can you please explain further the reasons for this?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	45	18	37
All answering	332	71	29	n/a
Current student	284	74	26	n/a
Former student	30	57	43	n/a
Prospective student	9	33	67	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	86	14	n/a
Further Education	37	76	24	n/a
Higher Education	291	70	30	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	278	69	31	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	54	80	20	n/a
Long-term condition	249	75	25	n/a
No long-term condition	82	61	39	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	204	73	27	n/a

Seven in ten (71%) student consultation respondents answering Q17 indicated that adjustments had been made available to them from their college or university, while 29% did not. At least half of all respondent types indicated that adjustments had been made available, except for among the small number of prospective students who answered (33%). Three quarters (75%) of those with long-term conditions who answered had adjustments made available.

Almost one in five respondents commented on Q17. While the question asked for explanations from those who answered ‘no’ to the closed question, a range of respondents commented. Most commonly, some stated that the recommended adjustments had not been made due to procedural issues, such as it currently being in process, delays, a lack of support being available, not knowing why adjustments were not made, and needing a doctor’s evidence for their application.

Some respondents commented positively on colleges being helpful and providing the adjustments needed. A few respondents highlighted positive experiences of study adjustments and IT provision being made, along with challenges, such as support adjustments not being followed in the classroom and software issues.

A few respondents detailed only partially having adjustments being put in place by their college or university, noting funding limitations, support being put in place late, and only signposted support being provided. One respondent described how this resulted in disabled students sourcing the remainder of the support they require.

Other points, each raised by a few respondents, included:

• That support and funding had been received through SAAS rather than their college or university, or from other external agencies.
• Students wanting support but facing barriers, such as being ineligible for support despite wanting it and delays in the healthcare system delaying diagnosis to access further support.
• A lack of information clarity around disability criteria and what to do once funding is received.
• Negative experiences of support, particularly difficulties with college or university support staff being unhelpful.

Q18. How long did it take for your support package to be put in place at your college or university?

Respondent type	n=	% Up to 1 month	% 1-2 mths	% 2-4 mths	% 4-6 mths	% Over 6 mths	% No answer
All respondents	524	23	13	5	5	8	46
All answering	283	42	24	10	10	14	n/a
Current student	242	43	24	11	9	13	n/a
Former student	25	28	28	0	12	32	n/a
Prospective student	7	29	43	14	14	0	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	43	29	0	29	0	n/a
Further Education	35	37	26	14	9	14	n/a
Higher Education	244	43	24	9	10	14	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	230	45	22	10	9	14	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	53	28	34	8	15	15	n/a
Long-term condition	227	41	24	9	10	15	n/a
No long-term condition	55	44	25	13	9	9	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	183	44	21	10	9	16	n/a

Two thirds (66%) of those answering Q18 indicated that their support package had been put in place within two months; 42% reported it was in place within one month, and a further 24% within one to two months. A further 10% waited up to four months, and another 10% up to six months. A wait of over six months was experienced by 14%. Having a package in place within a month was common for most respondent groups. However, the small number of former students reported having to wait longer, with 32% of this group waiting for more than six months.

Q19. If your support package was not in place within the first month of your course, what were the reasons for this?

A. I was not aware of support that was available

B. Awaiting needs assessment

C. I had not applied for support

D. Recommended support package had not been agreed at that time

E. Awaiting delivery of IT or specialised equipment

F. Other

At Q19, respondents were presented with multiple options and asked to select all that applied to them. Over two fifths of all respondents (43%) selected at least one answer option, while 57% did not answer. For consistency, the table below is based on the respondents who provided at least one answer to Q19. Please note that percentages do not add to 100% as multiple options could be selected.

Respondent type	n=	% A	% B	% C	% D	% E	% F
All respondents	524	12	14	11	5	8	12
All answering	226	28	31	27	12	18	27
Current student	189	30	30	29	12	17	24
Former student	22	9	36	14	9	23	50
Prospective student	9	44	44	33	0	22	33
Parent/carer of student	6	17	33	0	17	0	50
Further Education	27	30	22	26	22	11	30
Higher Education	196	27	32	27	10	19	28
Part-time or distance learner	183	30	28	31	10	15	25
Not a part-time or distance learner	43	21	47	9	16	30	37
Long-term condition	175	27	34	26	13	21	26
No long-term condition	50	28	22	30	8	8	34
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	139	29	32	29	12	18	24

Those answering the closed question element of Q19 indicated a range of issues had led to their support package not being in place within the first month of their course. Three in ten (31%) indicated they were still awaiting their needs assessment, 28% were not aware support was available, and 27% had not applied. Those with a long-term condition represented more than three quarters of those answering Q19, and recorded a very similar pattern of reasons.

While Q19 did not have a follow-on open question, just over one in 10 respondents left a comment in response to the ‘other specify’ option provided at the closed question. Most commonly mentioned were challenges with support packages being put in place. Some respondents highlighted issues with application processes taking a long time, resulting in delays to support being provided, and other administrative barriers, such as staff making errors regarding applications. A few respondents described negative experiences, such as wanting support but not being eligible or support being refused, communication difficulties, complex application processes, and a lack of awareness of the support available.

A small number of respondents made positive comments, including that support was put in place quickly. A few stated that they were awaiting support to be agreed upon and provided. Comments relating to specific types of support were made by a few respondents, such as challenges with technology support, and staff or institutions not providing agreed-upon in-class adjustments. Comments were made by individual respondents about support not being provided in time for the start of courses, being unable to find someone to provide parental support, and unclear reasons for delays in resource provision.

Q20. Once your support package was in place, did you find that the agreed plan was followed?

If ‘no’, please tell us how that impacted on your experience as a student.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	39	13	48
All answering	273	75	25	n/a
Current student	234	78	22	n/a
Former student	24	58	42	n/a
Prospective student	8	50	50	n/a
Parent/carer of student	6	67	33	n/a
Further Education	33	67	33	n/a
Higher Education	236	76	24	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	224	76	24	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	49	71	29	n/a
Long-term condition	219	74	26	n/a
No long-term condition	53	79	21	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	179	75	25	n/a

Three quarters (75%) of those answering Q20 indicated that their support package plan was followed once it was in place, while 25% felt it was not. Around two thirds to four fifths of most respondent types felt this was the case.

Just over one in 10 respondents commented at Q20, although not all of these respondents had selected the ‘no’ option at the closed question. Most commonly, some respondents left negative comments about adjustment to study supports not being provided. This included challenges with staff not providing adjustments for students. Some respondents highlighted technology-related difficulties, such as challenges getting the recommended software, IT training that was inaccessible or not provided, and technology failures. General negative comments were left by some respondents, including that support had not been provided despite requesting it, that there was a lack of awareness of support being available, and that staffing shortages and communication challenges hindered provision. One respondent commented that waiting times to talk to disability advisors are too long.

Some respondents described the onus being too much on individual students to seek and apply for the support they require, creating additional stress and hassle for students. One respondent noted that it can be more challenging for disabled students to advocate for themselves due to their disability.

Some respondents left positive comments where they reported feeling respected and fully or mostly supported, with adjustments being put into place.

Q21. Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) is administered by Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) and is based on the recommendations of the Disability Advisor at an institution and the student’s needs assessment.

If you have received DSA or are currently receiving DSA, would you make any changes that would improve your experience? If ‘yes’, please provide details on what improvements you would like to see and why.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	17	28	55
All answering	237	37	63	n/a
Current student	201	37	63	n/a
Former student	23	39	61	n/a
Prospective student	7	29	71	n/a
Parent/carer of student	5	40	60	n/a
Further Education	28	32	68	n/a
Higher Education	207	38	62	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	192	35	65	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	45	47	53	n/a
Long-term condition	186	43	57	n/a
No long-term condition	50	16	84	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	149	42	58	n/a

Over three fifths (63%) of those answering Q21 indicated that they would not change their experience of receiving DSA, while 37% indicated that they would. A majority of all respondent types felt they would not make changes, including 57% of those with a long-term condition. However, 43% of this group indicated that improvements could be made.

One fifth of respondents left an open comment at Q21. As the open question prompted respondents to suggest improvements, the most prevalent themes were suggested changes to address challenges with DSA. In order of prevalence, some respondents suggested simplifying the application process, improving the timescales for applications and payments, and ways to reduce student stress arising from the process, such as removing responsibilities for purchasing support. The first two of these themes were prevalent across all respondent types.

Further suggestions, each raised by a few respondents, included: addressing barriers to accessing support, such as providing evidence of diagnoses to be eligible for support or being on a waiting list for a diagnosis and unable to access support; improving specific supports, such as mentoring; and tackling administrative barriers, such as a lack of staff. A few respondents suggested improving communication, being more flexible and learner-driven, improving students’ awareness of the support available through greater publicity, and the need for additional supports for people with certain conditions, such as dyslexia and autism. Inconsistent support between education providers, a lack of clarity about the eligibility criteria, and insufficient financial support were each highlighted as challenges by one or a few respondents.

A few respondents raised challenges arising from specific support provisions. They detailed issues with suppliers and a lack of student choice regarding IT and software, the need for greater student choice, and challenges with funding caps for equipment. A few respondents emphasised the need for improved course materials and transport options. A few positive comments were made that no improvements were needed and that needs were being met.

Q22. DSA is currently administered under 3 separate allowances (equipment, software and accessories/consumable items/Non-Medical Personal Help) with different limits applying to each component.

In the other devolved nations across the United Kingdom, DSA is administered as a single allowance to be used for study support as required by the student.

In your opinion, is it helpful for students to have different allowances and limits or do you think that a single DSA allowance limit would better support students?

Can you please explain why this is your preferred option?

Respondent type	n=	% Prefer allowance limits for each element of DSA	% Prefer a single DSA allowance	% Other	% No answer
All respondents	524	25	21	10	44
All answering	292	45	38	17	n/a
Current student	246	46	37	17	n/a
Former student	28	32	39	29	n/a
Prospective student	11	45	45	9	n/a
Parent/carer of student	6	50	50	0	n/a
Further Education	31	39	39	23	n/a
Higher Education	257	46	37	17	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	240	44	39	18	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	52	50	35	15	n/a
Long-term condition	227	47	40	14	n/a
No long-term condition	64	39	31	30	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	185	46	41	13	n/a

Among those answering Q22, there was a slight preference for having allowance limits for each element of DSA (45%), while 38% preferred a single DSA allowance and 17% suggested another approach. A similar pattern was evident across most types of respondent.

Three in ten student consultation respondents left a comment explaining their preference for either different DSA allowances and limits or a single DSA allowance limit to best support students. In addition, one in 10 respondents commented on the ‘other specify’ option in the closed question. However, most of the comments provided by this latter group aligned with the themes evident at the open follow-up question and have therefore been included in the analysis below.

Most commonly, respondents explained why they supported retaining the current system of different DSA allowances and limits. Several respondents raised a range of reasons, including that the current system:

• Allows for greater flexibility for students.
• Is better able to meet individual needs as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Provides better support for students to learn.
• Ensures fairness by preventing some students from being disadvantaged by a single DSA allowance limit.
• Is easier to understand and administer than a single DSA allowance limit.
• Helps students budget more effectively

A small number of respondents who favoured the current system suggested that a single DSA allowance could be more costly and potentially result in some students getting more financial support than needed.

Reasons for supporting a single DSA allowance limit included several respondents who felt a single payment would be simpler, more efficient, more flexible, and easier for students to understand, manage and apply for. In turn, this would be better for students and mean they no longer face funding limits on the areas where they most need support, because funding would be based on a total rather than specific categories.

Some respondents thought a single payment would be fairer and would work better for individual needs. A few respondents suggested a single payment would give students greater freedom to choose how funding is used based on their needs.

In terms of other approaches, a small number suggested a single payment that is supplemented with additional grants or funding for additional needs, or that there is a base allowance with additional payments.

Q23. In most circumstances financial support for disabled students in Further Education is currently managed by the colleges.

Would you prefer that financial support for disabled students in Further Education continued to be managed by the colleges or would you rather funding was paid directly to the student, and for the student to manage additional costs?

Can you please explain why this is your preferred option?

Respondent type	n=	% Colleges should deliver and pay for all aspects of support for FE disabled students	% FE disabled students should receive a dedicated allowance to support with their disability/ impairment	% Other	% No answer
All respondents	524	24	29	9	38
All answering	323	38	47	15	n/a
Current student	268	38	49	14	n/a
Former student	32	31	47	22	n/a
Prospective student	13	38	46	15	n/a
Parent/carer of student	8	88	0	13	n/a
Further Education	36	44	42	14	n/a
Higher Education	283	37	48	15	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	271	38	49	13	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	52	40	35	25	n/a
Long-term condition	244	36	50	14	n/a
No long-term condition	78	44	38	18	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	202	36	53	11	n/a

Among those answering Q23, 47% indicated that they would prefer funding to be paid directly to the student, and for the student to manage additional costs, while 38% preferred it to be handled by colleges, and 15% favoured another approach. Having the student manage their financial support was preferred by most respondent types, especially part-time/distance learners who also have a long-term condition (53%). Conversely, those who are not part-time/distance learners and those who do not have a long-term condition marginally preferred colleges to manage support. It should also be noted that the small number of parents who answered Q23 were strongly in favour of college management (88%).

Three in ten student consultation respondents left a comment at Q23. Reflecting the closed question results, views were split between financial support being managed by colleges, managed by students, and then suggestions for a combined approach.

Several respondents suggested that colleges should continue to manage financial support for disabled students because they felt it helps to minimise student burden and stress, which they felt some students may find challenging to manage. This view was more likely to be expressed by respondents with a long-term condition compared to those without. Some respondents supported this approach as they felt it could minimise misuse of funding, and because they felt that colleges have the best understanding of the needs of their students and what is required for their courses. Some respondents raised other points, such as colleges having pre-approved providers of resources. One respondent noted that, while they felt colleges should manage financial support for disabled students, training and processes to ensure accountability would need to be in place

Conversely, some respondents felt that students should manage their financial support. Reasons for this included that it empowers students by giving them independence, choice and flexibility, as well as reducing stress due to simpler administration and increased efficiency. Some respondents commented that students have the best understanding of their own needs. Other less mentioned points included the view that the financial support belongs to students and that college disability support teams are under-resourced, underfunded and overworked, leading to challenges for students in accessing support.

Some respondents proposed a mix of colleges and students managing financial support for disabled students, frequently noting that the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Two respondents suggested that students choose whether to manage their financial support.

Q24. If you have studied a Further Education course, did the financial and other practical support that you received from your college regarding your learning needs help with your studies?

If ‘no’, can you please tell us why?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	524	40	12	48
All answering	273	77	23	n/a
Current student	229	79	21	n/a
Former student	27	67	33	n/a
Prospective student	9	67	33	n/a
Parent/carer of student	7	57	43	n/a
Further Education	31	55	45	n/a
Higher Education	238	79	21	n/a
Part-time or distance learner	228	77	23	n/a
Not a part-time or distance learner	45	73	27	n/a
Long-term condition	205	79	21	n/a
No long-term condition	67	70	30	n/a
Part-time/distance learner and long-term condition	168	79	21	n/a

The student consultation asked those who had studied an FE course if the financial and other practical support they received from their college helped with their learning needs. Over half (55%) of those who identified as FE students felt it did. However, this question was answered by other respondents, some of whom may have studied an FE course in the past. Among all those who answered, 77% felt the support they received was helpful. The few parents who answered Q24 were also less positive than other groups (57% ‘yes’).

Around one in ten student consultation respondents commented at Q24. Despite the prompt at Q24 for reasons why support did not help, the most prevalent theme was positive comments left by some respondents. This included comments that good support had been provided, that it is vital, helpful, and reduced student stress.

A range of challenges impacting financial and practical support from colleges was raised by a few respondents. This included: instances where people wanted support but were not eligible; calls for improvements to support, such as having peer support and lecturers following learning plans; and the quality of communication with colleges lacking transparency and depending on which staff are involved. A few respondents called for learner-led choices, staff training, improved application processes, and clarity on eligibility and what support is available. Comments on the need for increased staff understanding of hidden disabilities, the timeliness of support resources being provided to students, and the need for increased financial support were each made by individual respondents.

A few made general negative comments, such as support not being provided or being unhelpful. Others expressed a desire for more support, such as childcare funding, for example.

Q25. Are there any non-monetary improvements relating to support for disabled students, not already asked in this consultation, that you would like to comment on?

One in five student consultation respondents answered Q25. However, respondents most commonly stated that they had no further comments.

Specific types of support and resources were suggested by the remaining respondents. Some respondents called for adjustments to study and exams, such as improved marking processes that do not disadvantage disabled students, students being given the choice of support providers, more time being allowed for assignments, more personnel support and improved course-specific access.

A few respondents suggested:

• Peer support, mentoring and support groups for disabled students.
• Increased mental health and wellbeing support, such as counselling.
• Putting in place accessible technology, with training where needed.
• Improved campus and facilities accessibility.
• Additional transport support, such as funding, insurance support and accessible carparks.
• Recognition of family and childcare support needs.

Respondents also highlighted process and staff-related improvements that could be made to better support disabled students. Some suggested:

• Training for staff at education institutions, in particular teaching staff, to increase their awareness of the variety of disabilities and support needs.
• Improving support for funding applications, with simplified application form and timelier support.
• Ensuring advisory support for students that is consistent, individualised, accessible and with good student communication.
• Increasing awareness of and information on support available to students.
• Considering the definition and use of the term disability.