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

Appendix C: Stakeholder consultation per question analysis

Appendix C supplements the main report, providing a full breakdown of the closed question results for each question in the stakeholder 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, 57 responses to the stakeholder consultation were received. This sample comprised the following types of respondents:

Respondent type	Number of respondents	% of stakeholder consultation sample
A member of the public	6	11
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	12	21
An organisation/institution	39	68
- University	11	19
- College	7	12
- Third sector organisation	7	12
- Private education provider	6	11
- Public sector body	3	5
- Sector representative body	2	4
- Other	3	5

Background Questions

Q1. If you represent or work for an education provider, do you provide Further Education courses (up to SCQF level 6) or Higher Education (HNC / HND / undergraduate or postgraduate degree)?

Respondent type	n=	% Further Education	% Higher Education	% Both	% No answer
All respondents	57	4	25	33	39
All answering	35	6	40	54	n/a
A member of the public	1	0	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	6	0	33	67	n/a
An organisation/institution	28	7	39	54	n/a
- University	11	0	73	27	n/a
- College	7	0	0	100	n/a
- Third sector organisation	1	100	0	0	n/a
- Private education provider	6	17	33	50	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	2	0	50	50	n/a
- Other	1	0	0	100	n/a

Q2. If you represent or work for an education provider, do you provide part-time or distance learning study options?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	60	2	39
All answering	35	97	3	n/a
A member of the public	1	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	6	100	0	n/a
An organisation/institution	28	96	4	n/a
- University	11	100	0	n/a
- College	7	100	0	n/a
- Third sector organisation	1	0	100	n/a
- Private education provider	6	100	0	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	2	100	0	n/a
- Other	1	100	0	n/a

Support for part-time and distance learning study questions

Q3. 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	57	79	7	14
All answering	49	92	8	n/a
A member of the public	5	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	11	91	9	n/a
An organisation/institution	33	91	9	n/a
- University	10	100	0	n/a
- College	7	86	14	n/a
- Third sector organisation	5	80	20	n/a
- Private education provider	5	80	20	n/a
- Public sector body	2	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	2	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	100	0	n/a

The vast majority (92%) of stakeholders answering Q3 indicated that support for part-time and distance learning study needs to be simplified. This view was widely held among most types of respondents in the stakeholder consultation, including all universities and 86% of colleges that answered.

Four fifths of stakeholder consultation respondents commented at Q3. The most common theme, mentioned by several respondents, was that support for part-time and distance learning study needs to be simplified. Respondents highlighted a range of reasons for this, including, in order of prevalence:

• Reducing complexity and confusion. The current system was described as overly complicated and difficult to navigate, particularly for learners who are new to the education system. Bureaucratic processes and unclear eligibility criteria were seen as significant barriers, discouraging prospective students from applying for support. Simplification was viewed as essential to make the process more straightforward and accessible.
• Improving transparency and equity. Respondents stressed that simplification should also address fairness. They highlighted disparities between part-time and distance learning students and full-time students, such as separate application routes, different funding models, and income-based thresholds for part-time tuition support that do not apply to full-time learners. Greater transparency was seen as key to ensuring equal treatment and reducing these inconsistencies.
• Reducing administrative burden and improving access. It was believed that a streamlined system would simplify the application process for students and reduce their reliance on training providers for guidance. Institutions could also benefit from lower administrative overheads. Simplification was linked to improved participation and retention, particularly for learners who manage work, caring responsibilities, or health conditions alongside their studies.
• Addressing inconsistent information and eligibility rules. Respondents highlighted that students often receive conflicting advice on what support they can access, with rules varying between FE and HE. Examples included confusion when progressing from FE to HE or combining courses at different levels. Disabled students and unpaid carers were identified as groups most affected by unclear or inconsistent guidance.
• Concerns about equity and adequacy of support. While simplification was widely supported, respondents suggested that reform should focus on improving equity and adequacy rather than simplification alone. They raised concerns about simply replicating full-time processes for part-time learners without addressing underlying funding gaps. Respondents called for a system that recognises the role of part-time and distance learning in Scotland’s skills economy and ensures support is fair, flexible, and fit for purpose.

Conversely, a small number of respondents did not believe that support for part-time and distance learning needs to be simplified, noting that the support has improved and is now much clearer and simpler for students to access.

Q4. If you represent or work for an education provider, apart from student financial support packages funded by the Scottish Government, what other financial and wider institutional support does your college or university offer part-time/distance learning students?

Just over half of stakeholder consultation respondents left an open comment in response to Q4. In order of prevalence, some respondents mentioned:

• Wellbeing, pastoral and one-to-one support - This includes remote counselling, welfare services, and tailored support for part-time and distance learning students, with access to wellbeing resources, learning support, and student advisors.
• Access to the Discretionary or Hardship Funds - Support includes help with living costs, study-related expenses, childcare, and digital access, alongside targeted scholarships, emergency grants, and specialist funding for disabled student or those with specific learning difficulties. Universities were more likely to mention this support than other respondent types.
• Study skills and academic support – This includes virtual workshops on academic writing, time management, digital tools, access to learning hubs, personal learning support plans, specialist disability support, and tailored assistance for assessments and exams.

A few respondents each mentioned the following:

• Support for disabled people and those with Additional Support Needs - Provision includes tailored adjustments such as specialist tutors, assistive technology, accessible formats, alternative assessment methods, and dedicated disability services and individual support plans.
• Online learning and library resources - Provision includes access to virtual learning environments, remote library services with e-books and journals, online study tools, and full IT support, including software and digital platforms.

A very small number of respondents highlighted perceived limitations of support for part-time and distance learning students. One respondent noted that some resources, like portable WI-FI modems, are only available to students accessing the campus. Another highlighted that evening learners struggle to access services delivered mainly during the day, and colleges face capacity challenges supporting school/college partnership learners alongside other part-time cohorts. A third respondent reported that hardship funding has declined by 30% in real terms since 2023/24, despite rising demand.

Q5. If you represent or work for an education provider, do you think that the introduction of living cost support (bursaries and/or loan) for part-time / distance learning study might affect your institution’s course provision?

If ‘yes’, please tell us what effect this might have.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	54	11	35
All answering	37	84	16	n/a
A member of the public	1	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	8	63	38	n/a
An organisation/institution	28	89	11	n/a
- University	11	100	0	n/a
- College	7	86	14	n/a
- Third sector organisation	1	0	100	n/a
- Private education provider	6	83	17	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	100	0	n/a

Among those answering Q5, 84% felt the introduction of living cost support (bursaries and/or loans) for part-time / distance learning study might affect their institution’s course provision, while 16% did not. This included 89% of organisations that answered, including 83% of private education providers, 86% of colleges and all universities.

Just over half of stakeholder consultation respondents left an open comment at Q5. The most prevalent theme was that introducing living cost support for part-time and distance learning study could widen access and increase demand for the institution. Universities and colleges were more likely to raise this theme than other respondent types. Respondents commented that living cost support could remove financial barriers and broaden participation, enabling more learners to study part-time or via distance learning, particularly working adults, carers, and those in rural or disadvantaged areas. Some also commented that living cost support could increase demand for flexible learning options, making courses more viable and encouraging institutions to expand provision, develop new programmes, and innovate in delivery. A few respondents highlighted the value of living cost support in supporting widening participation agendas.

The next most prevalent theme, mentioned by some respondents, was that introducing living cost support could support retention rates and improve engagement for part-time and distance learning students. Respondents expressed the view that living cost support could help students stay enrolled and succeed academically by reducing financial stress, which was cited as a significant factor in student withdrawals among part-time and distance learners. Of these, a few respondents noted that cost of living support could allow students to reduce any paid employment, engage more fully with their studies, and complete courses - particularly benefiting those with caring responsibilities, who are disabled, or have unpaid placements.

A less commonly mentioned theme was that the introduction of living cost support could allow for more flexibility in curriculum offerings. A few respondents suggested this could enable institutions to broaden their provision by adapting full-time courses for part-time or online delivery, introducing modular or stackable pathways, and diversifying offerings to meet demand for flexible, job-relevant learning. A few respondents also noted it could make previously low-uptake disciplines viable and encourage innovation in curriculum design.

While not directly addressing the question, a few respondents commented on the potential for living cost support to impact other aspects of student finance. This included how living cost support might interact with welfare benefits, with respondents noting that students often choose part-time study to maintain eligibility for benefits. Others highlighted issues such as aversion to debt among FE students, reliance on discretionary funds, and the risk of students incurring significant debt or leaving courses due to financial pressures.

Q6. 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 / distance learning study should be different.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	58	25	18
All answering	47	70	30	n/a
A member of the public	4	75	25	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	11	91	9	n/a
An organisation/institution	32	63	38	n/a
- University	11	55	45	n/a
- College	7	86	14	n/a
- Third sector organisation	5	60	40	n/a
- Private education provider	5	60	40	n/a
- Public sector body	1	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	0	100	n/a

Among those answering Q6, 70% agreed with the eligibility criteria for living cost support for part-time or distance learning study being the same as those used for full-time study, while 30% disagreed. A majority of most respondent types agreed with this approach, ranging from 55% of universities to 86% of colleges that answered. Almost all (91%) individuals with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students agreed with this approach.

Just over half of stakeholder consultation respondents commented on Q6. While not directly answering the question, the most common theme, raised by a few respondents, was agreement with introducing living cost support for part-time or distance learning study using the same eligibility criteria as used for full-time study. Colleges were more likely to raise this theme than other respondent types. Respondents emphasised the importance of parity, noting that using the same criteria promotes equality, avoids disadvantaging part-time or distance learners, and ensures consistent standards. It was also stressed that exceptions and concessions available to full-time students, such as additional funding for disabled students, should equally apply to part-time learners.

A range of additional considerations was noted by a few respondents. Some agreed with using the same eligibility criteria but raised the need to be mindful of potential unintended consequences, such as impacts on benefits eligibility or reductions in existing full-time student funding. Suggestions included providing support similar to the Special Support Loan currently offered to HE students, used to cover travel, study and childcare costs, which does not impact on Universal Credit entitlement. Respondents felt that any new form of support should ensure that exceptions and concessions, such as additional support for disabled students, apply equally to part-time and distance learners, and would require undertaking sector-wide consultation and modelling to assess practical and policy implications. Other respondents disagreed with using the same criteria because of the potential for these unintended consequences. Concerns included the possible loss or reduction of Universal Credit and related benefits, which could leave some students worse off financially. Respondents also highlighted the need to balance support with benefit eligibility, avoid creating new barriers, and ensure that any changes do not disadvantage full-time students or reduce institutional funding. Additional concerns included the complexity of household income assessments, the impact of loans on debt-averse learners, and the importance of modelling policy changes to prevent unintended consequences.

Comments calling for more flexibility were made by a few respondents, including a mix of those who agreed or disagreed with using the same eligibility criteria. These respondents highlighted the importance of accommodating the diverse circumstances of part-time learners, such as varying course intensity, complex financial situations, and caring responsibilities. Comments included that rigid rules on previous study or single-use funding could disadvantage those who progress gradually through multiple part-time courses, while others noted the need to consider gendered impacts and ensure equitable access for groups like unpaid carers and single parents.

A few respondents disagreed with applying the same eligibility criteria, as they felt this could disadvantage part-time students. Concerns included rigid income thresholds and restrictions on repeated part-time study, which could negatively impact mature learners, care-experienced students, and those balancing work and family life, all of whom are more likely to study part-time or via distance learning. Respondents suggested that a tailored approach recognising these differences could ensure fairness and equity.

Q7. 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.

What are your views on this approach?

Seven in ten stakeholder consultation respondents left an open comment at Q7. The most common theme, mentioned by some respondents, was support for a means-tested approach, alongside other suggestions for improvement. Respondents suggested simplifying and standardising eligibility criteria across institutions to ensure consistency and clarity, and introducing greater flexibility in means-testing to capture students in vulnerable financial situations who are not fully covered by the current model. Improving outreach and guidance so students understand what support they are entitled to and how to apply was also suggested.

Other, less common reasons cited in support of a means-testing approach, in order of prevalence, included:

• Removing barriers to education. It was felt that means-testing helps remove financial barriers and widens participation by targeting support to those who need it most. This approach was seen as enabling low-income learners, unpaid carers, and disadvantaged groups to study without incurring debt.
• A fair and appropriate approach - Respondents viewed means-testing as a fair way to allocate limited resources. They noted that it helps maintain equity, prevents misuse of funding, and supports learners into education.
• General positive comments. Positive and supportive views were expressed for the approach, describing it as effective and well-established at the FE level. Respondents noted that the existing model works well in practice and continues to meet the needs of most students.

Another theme, mentioned by a few respondents, was that the current income threshold is too low and should be increased. Respondents felt that rigid thresholds exclude students with low to middle incomes who still experience financial hardship. Suggestions included raising the threshold to reflect rising living costs and wage levels, with one proposal suggesting a threshold of around £30,000. Respondents noted that this issue particularly affects students in full-time employment and can impact retention.

A further theme, of similar prevalence, was concern that a means-tested approach could act as a barrier to entering education. A few respondents highlighted that complex eligibility rules, administrative burdens, and unclear processes can make the system confusing and off-putting for prospective students. They also noted that rigid income assessments fail to reflect real financial circumstances, such as for single-person households, and that partial fee coverage can leave students with unaffordable gaps in their finances. These factors were perceived as creating inequities, particularly for care-experienced learners and those with additional needs, and risk preventing individuals from re-entering education.

Q8. The Part-time Fee Grant (PTFG) is a grant towards tuition fees for eligible Higher Education students.

What do you think would help to further improve support for part-time and distance learning students in Higher Education?

Over four fifths of stakeholder consultation respondents commented at Q8. Some respondents highlighted the need for additional financial support beyond the Part-Time Fee Grant to further improve support for part-time and distance learning students in HE. Suggestions included:

• Introducing living cost support, such as bursaries or pro-rated loans, to help students manage essential expenses while studying, particularly for those balancing work, caring responsibilities, or retraining.
• Access to student loans for part-time learners, with repayment terms similar to full-time students, to provide flexibility for those not eligible for grants.
• Small, means-tested bursaries to cover study-related costs such as IT equipment, travel, or materials without affecting benefits eligibility.
• Extending existing support schemes, such as the Care-Experienced Bursary and Estranged Students’ Bursary, to part-time students, and considering targeted grants for student carers.
• Additional measures to reduce financial strain, such as council tax reductions for part-time students studying the equivalent of full-time hours and more flexible tuition payment models.

Respondents emphasised that without broader financial support, many learners remain excluded from HE, despite receiving tuition fee assistance.

Despite not specifically answering the question, a few respondents felt the PTFG should be expanded to include more courses and increased to a more sufficient amount.

Another theme, highlighted by some respondents at Q8 but also at other consultation questions, was the need to increase the eligibility threshold to enhance access to support for part-time and distance learners in HE. Respondents highlighted that the current income threshold for the PTFG, set at £25,000, is too low and has remained unchanged for many years. They noted that this figure no longer accurately reflects average salaries or rising living costs, and excludes many low- to middle-income earners who still face financial hardship. Suggestions included raising the threshold to align with inflation and wage growth, ranging from £30,000 to £35,000, or removing the cap entirely. Respondents noted that failing to update the threshold reduces access to support and creates inequities for part-time and distance learners, particularly those in employment seeking to upskill or retrain.

Comments on the eligibility criteria used for part-time and distance learning students in HE were also raised. Some respondents called for a review of the eligibility rules for part-time and distance learning students, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived inequities compared to full-time study. Suggestions included removing or simplifying distinctions between study modes, ensuring consistent rules on income assessment, and considering household circumstances rather than gross salary. Respondents also proposed exemptions for certain groups, such as care workers, and recommended that benefits should not count towards income. Calls were made for more flexible criteria around previous study and course level, as well as expanding eligibility for disability support and targeted assistance for disadvantaged learners.

The next most prevalent theme was related to processes and communication. Some respondents highlighted the need to simplify and streamline the PTFG application process, making it easier to navigate and ensuring the timely allocation of funds. Suggestions included clearer and consistent guidance on eligibility and entitlements, improved transparency regarding which courses qualify, and more flexible deadlines to accommodate varied start dates. Respondents also stressed the need to raise awareness of available support, noting that eligible students often remain unaware of the PTFG or other funding options. Better promotion and accessible information were seen as essential to prevent learners from missing out.

A few respondents suggested improvements beyond financial support, including more flexible course delivery, such as evening or weekend options and recorded lectures; enhanced digital access, such as devices, connectivity, and technical support; and tailored academic and pastoral support, such as mentoring, study skills workshops, and a single point of contact for part-time and distance learners. These measures were considered essential to reduce isolation and enhance engagement.

Q9. 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 work on focusing support for students who need it the most? Can you explain the reasons for your answer?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	26	56	18
All answering	47	32	68	n/a
A member of the public	6	0	100	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	11	18	82	n/a
An organisation/institution	30	43	57	n/a
- University	9	33	67	n/a
- College	7	71	29	n/a
- Third sector organisation	5	40	60	n/a
- Private education provider	5	20	80	n/a
- Public sector body	1	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	0	100	n/a
- Other	2	50	50	n/a

Overall, one third (32%) of those answering Q9 felt the current eligibility criteria for the part-time fee grant focus support for students who need it the most, while 68% disagreed. All members of the public disagreed, as did 82% of individuals with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students who answered disagreed. Among organisations who answered, 43% agreed and 57% disagreed. However, a mix of views was evident by organisation type. For example, 71% of colleges felt the current eligibility criteria are effective, compared to 33% of universities and 20% of private education providers.

Just over three quarters of respondents commented on Q9. By far the most prevalent theme, overall and among most respondent types, was that the current threshold is too low and should be higher. Respondents commented that the £25,000 personal income threshold is outdated, having remained unchanged since 2013, and does not reflect inflation, rising wages, or the cost-of-living crisis. It was noted that this threshold is close to the UK minimum wage, meaning students on modest incomes, particularly those with dependants or in high-cost areas, could be excluded despite facing financial hardship. Increasing the threshold in line with inflation, introducing regular reviews, or considering alternative measures such as household income or tapered support to avoid a “cliff-edge” effect were suggested.

While not directly answering the question, some respondents commented on challenges around students not being eligible for support despite needing or wanting it. These comments noted concerns that students earning just above the £25,000 threshold can still face significant financial hardship, particularly those with dependants, caring responsibilities, or living in high-cost areas. Respondents felt that the current cut-off is too severe, and could exclude learners who need support to progress in their careers or to complete mandatory qualifications, potentially forcing many to self-fund or abandon study due to affordability.

Some respondents expressed positive views on the current eligibility criteria for the PTFG, noting that it effectively targets support to those most in need. They highlighted that the approach is fair, promotes equal access to education, and ensures support is directed to the right learners.

Other comments were made by a few respondents on what should be included and excluded in a means-test. This included suggestions to introduce a sliding scale for income rather than a fixed cut-off, allow greater flexibility for learners reskilling or with previous qualifications, and consider additional costs such as childcare. Respondents also suggested reviewing credit requirements to include mandatory qualifications like Professional Development Awards (PDA), and enabling models that support part-time study alongside employment, such as funding for one-day-a-week release to study.

Q10. 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?

Three fifths of consultation stakeholder respondents commented at Q10. The most common themes, in order of prevalence, were as follows:

• Stronger academic support, improved course quality, and greater flexibility in delivery and assessment were called for by some respondents. Suggestions included dedicated advisers, structured tutor check-ins, robust induction programmes, clearer resources, evening/weekend options, recorded lectures, hybrid learning models, and modular pathways to accommodate flexibility by allowing students to build qualifications over time.
• Equity and inclusion were mentioned by some. Respondents stressed the need for parity between part-time and distance learning students and full-time students, including equal access to academic, wellbeing, and extracurricular services. Suggestions included better representation in decision-making, tailored communications, recognition of prior learning, and inclusive practices to ensure these learners feel valued and connected rather than marginalised.
• Wellbeing and community were raised by some respondents who emphasised the need for stronger wellbeing support and opportunities to build a sense of belonging for part-time and distance learning students. Suggestions included expanding access to remote counselling, creating peer support networks and mentorship programmes, and offering online or hybrid activities to reduce isolation.
• Administrative systems and communication. A few respondents emphasised the need to simplify and streamline application processes, enhance clarity on eligibility, and make systems more user-friendly for both students and employers. Suggestions included revising SAAS processes, enabling secure electronic signatures, improving website guidance, and increasing publicity and targeted information campaigns to ensure all students are aware of available support.
• Digital access and infrastructure were mentioned by a few respondents. They highlighted the need for improved digital provision to support distance learners, including reliable connectivity, accessible online learning environments, and better-designed virtual platforms. Suggestions included providing devices or digital loan schemes for low-income students, offering training in digital tools, and investing in national infrastructure to reduce barriers for rural and disadvantaged learners.
• Clearer definitions and improved understanding of study modes. A few respondents called for a standardised definition of ‘part-time’ study, including clear guidance on hours and course length, and for institutions to develop a better understanding of the experiences and needs of part-time and distance learners to ensure consistent and inclusive support.

Although not answering the question, a few respondents left monetary-related comments on this question. These included suggestions moving from the PTFG to a fee waiver for HE students to simplify processes, and highlighted additional financial challenges for rural learners, including travel and accommodation costs. Flexibility in funding criteria and the ability for colleges to transfer between HE and FE discretionary funds were also recommended.

Q11. SIMD-20 learners are students from the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Should part-time and distance learning first-degree students be included in the official data measuring progress towards the Scottish Government’s target to increase the proportion of SIMD-20 learners entering Higher Education? Can you explain the reasons for your answer?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	79	4	18
All answering	47	96	4	n/a
A member of the public	4	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	11	100	0	n/a
An organisation/institution	32	94	6	n/a
- University	11	82	18	n/a
- College	7	100	0	n/a
- Third sector organisation	4	100	0	n/a
- Private education provider	6	100	0	n/a
- Public sector body	1	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	100	0	n/a

Almost all (96%) of those answering Q11 felt that part-time and distance learning first-degree students should be included in the official data measuring progress towards the Scottish Government’s target to increase the proportion of SIMD-20 learners entering HE. There was 100% support for this suggestion among all respondent types, except for among universities, where 82% agreed.

Just under three quarters of stakeholder consultation respondents provided an open comment at Q11. The most prevalent theme, commented on by some, was a call for part-time and distance learning first-degree students to be included in official data to ensure fairness and accuracy. Respondents noted that excluding these learners risks creating an incomplete and misleading picture of widening access. It was felt that including them could provide a more accurate national view, improve accountability, and help measure the effectiveness of funding and support policies.

The second most common theme was suggestions from some respondents about the official data; this included the small number of respondents who disagreed or did not answer the closed question. Views included supporting inclusion as a matter of principle, highlighting that all learner types should be recognised, while also expressing a need for careful consideration of methodology. Other suggestions included reviewing SIMD as a measure due to its potential limitations in capturing rural disadvantage, exploring additional or alternative metrics for mature and part-time learners, and ensuring data is disaggregated by mode of study to avoid possible distortion of targets. Reporting in ‘FTE’ format and incorporating broader equality indicators, such as disability and age, was also suggested.

Some respondents commented on representation. They highlighted that SIMD-20 learners are more likely to study part-time or by distance learning due to work, caring responsibilities, or financial pressures. It was felt that excluding these students from official data could risk underestimating participation among disadvantaged groups and overlooking the pathways most relevant to them. Including these learners could, therefore, ensure fair representation and better inform policy and resource allocation.

Support for disabled students questions

Q12. 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	57	67	9	25
All answering	43	88	12	n/a
A member of the public	4	100	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	9	78	22	n/a
An organisation/institution	30	90	10	n/a
- University	10	90	10	n/a
- College	7	100	0	n/a
- Third sector organisation	4	100	0	n/a
- Private education provider	4	50	50	n/a
- Public sector body	2	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	100	0	n/a

The vast majority (88%) of stakeholders answering Q12 indicated that support for disabled students in FE or HE needs to be simplified. This view was widely held among most types of respondents in the stakeholder consultation, including 90% of universities and all colleges that answered.

Almost three quarters of stakeholder consultation respondents commented at Q12. Respondents detailed specific processes that they felt could be simplified, but also made positive comments about access to current support for disabled students.

Most commonly, respondents detailed process-related improvements that they believed could benefit disabled students. Some respondents expressed the view that there is a lack of information or clarity regarding eligibility for support, which can lead to confusion. Inconsistent administration of support across or within educational providers was also raised by some respondents, with a more unified approach being suggested instead. The complexity of application forms and processes was noted by some respondents, who felt that they are repetitive, time-consuming, and have significant requirements to provide evidence. Instead, respondents called for a more simplified, standardised and streamlined approach. A few respondents noted that the current support process can be overly burdensome and complex, which may deter students from applying for support in the first place, as well as lead to them withdrawing from their studies. One respondent suggested taking a more proactive approach to support.

Some respondents emphasised the need to address challenges with timescales, noting that there can be significant delays within processes. This includes the time-consuming nature of applications, that it can take a long time to receive a diagnosis, slow processes in receiving funding, and delays in support being provided. Some respondents detailed how current processes can be burdensome and stressful for students, on top of managing their disabilities and studies, which can lead to students not applying for support.

A few respondents suggested other improvements to simplify processes, such as, from most to least mentioned:

• The need for greater financial support, such as funding for diagnostic assessments, review of the loan system for postgraduate students and general comments on the need for more funding to support disabled students.
• Other administrative barriers to accessing support, in particular, that the process is too bureaucratic.
• Ensuring that a flexible approach is taken to support individual needs.
• Challenges with students wanting support but not meeting eligibility criteria.
• Recognising the support needs of disabled students who are also unpaid carers, to ensure there is a clear joined-up approach to accessing support which is appropriate for students with intersecting identities. This should seek to address challenges in retention rates for this group of students and ensure all college and university staff have an understanding of the unique challenges their students are facing.
• Recognising the increase in support needs of students in general, including more complex support requirements.
• The need for clearer communication with students regarding eligibility.
• A lack of knowledge and awareness of support available to students.
• Other suggested supports that respondents felt would help were each made by individual respondents. This includes having local support, ensuring that GP costs are not prohibitive for receiving diagnostic evidence for applications, updating SFC bursary policy documents, providing options to complete applications online, comparing these approaches with international systems such as the Australian system, determining student support needs during registration, and continuing to have DSA assessors with relevant qualifications.

Some respondents made general comments about the need for simplified support for disabled students in FE or HE. This includes supporting the accessibility of FE or HE for disabled students, and reducing administrative burdens on education providers as well as students.

A small number of stakeholder consultation respondents left positive comments on access to current support being straightforward, clear, and having reasonable application information requests.

Q13. If you represent or work for an education provider, what financial and wider support can be accessed by disabled students studying with you?

Half of the stakeholder consultation respondents commented on Q13. The most prevalent themes were the types of funds used, the administrative support provided by education providers, and the specific types of support and resources provided to disabled students.

Some respondents detailed a range of funds available to disabled students. This included discretionary funding, hardship funding, bursary funding, grants, scholarships, and other education provider-specific funding, such as additional support funding for students who are above the DSA eligibility criteria. Colleges were more likely to mention these other funds than universities. A few respondents noted that some students can receive DSA funding through SAAS and that they support students with their applications for this.

Education providers emphasised the range of administrative and advisory support they provide. Some noted this includes disability and learning support advisory services. Some respondents noted other forms of support, such as with careers, transitions, and childcare. A few respondents mentioned supporting students with learning plans and needs assessments, while a few others emphasised that disabled students can access support that all other students can. One respondent called for clear national standards to ensure consistency of support across education providers.

Specific types of support provided to disabled students to help with their education were described by some respondents. These included access to wellbeing support, course materials in accessible formats and note-takers, and digital support such as assistive technologies. A few highlighted the provision of study and exam adjustments, such as extra assessment time, travel expenses, specialist assistive equipment, and building accessibility.

Q14. Do you find that disabled students' decision on whether to study full or part-time is affected by the level of financial or wider institutional support available?

If ‘yes’, please tell us what evidence you have and what examples of impact you are aware of.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	40	18	42
All answering	33	70	30	n/a
A member of the public	2	50	50	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	5	40	60	n/a
An organisation/institution	26	77	23	n/a
- University	8	88	13	n/a
- College	7	71	29	n/a
- Third sector organisation	3	67	33	n/a
- Private education provider	4	50	50	n/a
- Public sector body	1	100	0	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	2	100	0	n/a

Among all stakeholders who answered Q14, seven in ten (70%) felt that disabled students' decision on whether to study full or part-time is affected by the level of financial or wider institutional support available, while 30% did not. Over three quarters of organisations / institutions that answered felt this was the case, including 88% of universities and 71% of colleges. Among the small number of other types of respondents that answered, views were more mixed.

Half of stakeholder consultation respondents commented at this question. While the majority of responses were from those who had responded ‘yes’ at the closed question, as prompted, responses were also made by those who responded ‘no’ and those who did not answer. In particular, some respondents suggested that there is either no impact on students deciding whether to study full or part-time due to financial or wider institutional support, or there is a lack of evidence to know with certainty whether or not that is the case. One respondent believed there would be little difference due to equal support provided by their institution to both full-time and part-time students. Another commented that evidence is currently anecdotal.

A few respondents detailed the factors that may influence disabled students’ decisions to study either full-time or part-time. Choosing to study part-time due to a student's individual condition was raised by a few respondents. This decision was felt to include a number of factors, such as part-time study being more manageable than full-time study due to students’ health needs, other personal responsibilities, meets their learning needs, gives them greater flexibility, or due to studying full-time being too intense if without adequate adjustments and support.

Comments highlighting that students may choose to study full-time to receive additional funding and support were made by a few respondents. On the one hand, it was suggested that students who choose to study full-time could be more successful due to more support being provided (particularly financial). In contrast, negative impacts of full-time study were also noted. Among those concerns were that full-time study could be detrimental to the health of students if they take on an unmanageable workload, which could lead to withdrawal from courses. Comments also suggested that disabled students may be left with limited options to study part-time courses due to their unaffordability and a lack of part-time courses. Two respondents used the term ‘forced’ to describe some disabled students studying full-time over part-time.

A lack of support and funding for part-time study was emphasised by a few respondents. This included there being differing DSA limits by part or full-time study, a lack of support for living costs within part-time study, and support services not being set up for part-time students, such as counselling or academic support. Due to a lack of support available to disabled students, a small number of respondents expressed the view that students may not enter education in the first place, they may drop out during study, they may delay study until they can study full-time, or they may have to take breaks from study or defer.

A few respondents detailed what they thought the key considerations of disabled students were when deciding whether to study full-time or part-time. This included the availability and accessibility of financial support, including DSA, the provision and flexibility of education provider support, and travel costs. A few respondents detailed what can help students to make their decision, including clearly publicising the support offered by education providers, institutions ensuring they can provide the support required to students, equal support being provided to students across programmes, and person-centred student support services.

Non-financial challenges with support were also described by a small number of respondents. This included comments on overly complex rules and processes to access support, a lack of clarity on eligibility, and a lack of awareness of the differentiation in the support available to students by mode of study. Comments highlighting an overall lack of funding available to disabled students within their studies were also made.

Q15. Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) is administered by the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) based on the recommendations of the Disability Advisor following a needs assessment.

What improvements do you feel could be made to the administration of support for disabled students in Higher Education?

Half of the stakeholder consultation respondents commented on Q15. The most common theme evident was a range of suggested improvements to the application process and administration of DSA. Some respondents requested faster application processes and decisions, suggesting this could be achieved by reviewing and streamlining application forms, having more assessors, allowing people to use previous applications, completing parts of applications prior to enrolment, and speeding up funding distribution. Improving the speed of the process was more likely to be mentioned by colleges than other respondent types. Some respondents also called for increased consistency across education providers, and changes to eligibility criteria and funding caps to meet current needs.

A range of specific improvements to the application process was also noted. These included having online applications, taking a trauma-informed approach, making advocacy available, and using independent reviews, as well as questions around assessor qualifications and quality assurance of fund use. A few respondents noted the need for a more straightforward application process, clearer application guidance, improved inter-organisation and student communication, and the need for transparency and accountability.

The need to improve student experiences of support administration was raised. In particular, some respondents felt action should be taken to reduce student anxiety and stress, such as by streamlining processes and changing the reimbursement process. A small number of respondents noted the need for greater flexibility to allow for changing student needs, responding to specific contexts, and improving the types of resources provided to students to meet a variety of student needs.

A few respondents noted that the current process, including the online DSA application system, is working well and noted the importance of DSA in supporting disabled students.

Q16. If you represent or work for a college or university, do you carry out in-house needs assessments for disabled students who are applying to access DSA in Scotland?

If ‘no’, who provides needs assessments for your students?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	25	16	60
All answering	23	61	39	n/a
A member of the public	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	3	0	100	n/a
An organisation/institution	20	70	30	n/a
- University	9	78	22	n/a
- College	7	86	14	n/a
- Third sector organisation	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Private education provider	2	0	100	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	1	0	100	n/a

Q16 was directed at those responding on behalf of a college or university; however, a small number of other respondents answered the question. Over three quarters (78%) of universities and over four fifths (86%) of colleges that answered indicated that they carry out in-house needs assessments for disabled students who are applying to access DSA in Scotland.

One in six stakeholder consultation respondents commented at Q16, including a mix of those who selected ‘yes’, ‘no’, and those who had not answered the closed question. A few respondents commented that needs assessments could be partially provided in-house. This included, for example, institutions largely completing needs assessments in-house except for at peak times or when there is a lack of capacity, or colleges or universities helping students to access externally provided needs assessments. A few respondents stated that their needs assessments are completed entirely in-house. One respondent expressed the view that needs assessments should be conducted in-house as this may better support individualised student support and faster processes.

Among those who do not carry out in-house needs assessments, a range of external providers were noted. These included using SAAS contracted or authorised external providers, while one respondent noted the use of an educational psychologist to conduct needs assessments.

Q17. If you represent or work for a college or university that supports DSA students, how long does it typically take DSA applicants to undergo a needs assessment once they have been referred?

Respondent type	n=	% 1 to 2 weeks	% 2 to 4 weeks	% 1 to 2 months	% Over 2 months	% No answer
All respondents	57	4	26	7	2	61
All answering	22	9	68	18	5	n/a
A member of the public	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	1	0	100	0	0	n/a
An organisation/institution	21	10	67	19	5	n/a
- University	10	0	60	30	10	n/a
- College	7	29	57	14	0	n/a
- Third sector organisation	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Private education provider	3	0	100	0	0	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	0	100	0	0	n/a
- Other	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Q17 was directed at those responding on behalf of a college or university that supports DSA students; however, a small number of other respondents answered the question, as shown in the table above. Among organisations / institutions that answered, a needs assessment was most frequently carried out between two and four weeks after a referral (67%). However, 86% of colleges indicated that a DSA applicant is assessed within 4 weeks, compared to 60% among universities that answered.

Q18. If you represent or work for a college or university that supports DSA applicants, when recommending a Non-Medical Personal Helper to be hired by the student, do you check to ensure that the appointed individual has the necessary skills, experience, and clearance to support the student, prior to endorsing?

If ‘yes’, please tell us what type of checks you carry out.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	19	11	70
All answering	17	65	35	n/a
A member of the public	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	2	100	0	n/a
An organisation/institution	15	60	40	n/a
- University	7	57	43	n/a
- College	5	40	60	n/a
- Third sector organisation	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Private education provider	2	100	0	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	n/a
- Other	0	n/a	n/a	n/a

Q18 was directed at those responding on behalf of a college or university that supports DSA students; however, a few other respondents answered the question, as shown in the table above. Among all those answering, two thirds (65%) indicated that they check the credentials of a Non-Medical Personal Helper (NMPH). This varied by respondent type, including 57% of universities that conduct these checks and 40% of colleges.

One third of stakeholder consultation respondents answered Q18, which included a mix of those who answered ‘yes’, ‘no’, or did not answer at the closed question. A range of checks undertaken were detailed, along with suggested improvements and considerations for the future.

Most commonly, some respondents explained that they hire or recommend NMPHs from external agencies that already have pre-existing checks in place. These pre-existing checks were noted to include assessment of the skills, experience, qualifications and clearance of staff. Respondents noted they have established and trusted agencies that they refer students to, as well as stating that they do not recommend students manage NMPHs themselves.

A range of checks being undertaken on NMPHs were detailed by a few respondents. These included, from most to least mentioned checking or verifying:

• Relevant experience, including that NMPHs have experience with specific disabilities.
• Clearances, with a few respondents specifically mentioning checks for a current Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) scheme membership / Disclosure Scotland checks.
• Qualifications.
• Reference checks
• Other forms of background checks, such as criminal background checks.
• One respondent noted they confirm data protection compliance of NMPHs.

In addition, it was suggested that there should be an interview or information meeting with potential NMPHs to determine their suitability for the role and to confirm the above checks, and for monitoring of NMPHs once they have hired to address concerns and ensure students are being well supported.

A few respondents described how their college or university supports students who hire their own NMPH. This included by advising them on the hiring process, checks to undertake, the type of NMPH to hire, as well as other general advice on support needed. One respondent, however, noted when students hire NMPHs themselves, their university would not be involved in endorsing the NMPH. Two respondents noted that support is provided by their college or university, meaning NMPHs are not required unless the student requires more specialised support.

One respondent suggested creating a central register or national framework for approved providers of NMPHs to reduce the administrative burden of checks on institutions, as well as ensuring that students have vetted support.

Q19. If you represent or work for a college or university that supports DSA students, do you assist these students in undertaking their employer obligations in relation to contract, tax, NI when they employ their own Non-Medical Personal Helper?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	57	4	32	65
All answering	20	10	90	n/a
A member of the public	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	2	50	50	n/a
An organisation/institution	18	6	94	n/a
- University	8	13	88	n/a
- College	7	0	100	n/a
- Third sector organisation	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Private education provider	2	0	100	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	0	100	n/a
- Other	0	n/a	n/a	n/a

Q19 was directed at those responding on behalf of a college or university that supports DSA students; however, a small number of other respondents answered the question, as shown in the table above. Most (90%) of those answering do not assist their students in undertaking their employer obligations when employing their own Non-Medical Personal Helper. No colleges and only one university that answered provide this support.

Q20. 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=	% I would prefer allowance limits for each element of DSA	% I would prefer a single DSA allowance	% Other	% No answer
All respondents	57	12	35	12	40
All answering	34	21	59	21	n/a
A member of the public	4	25	50	25	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	6	17	83	0	n/a
An organisation/institution	24	21	54	25	n/a
- University	9	22	44	33	n/a
- College	7	29	71	0	n/a
- Third sector organisation	3	0	67	33	n/a
- Private education provider	3	33	33	33	n/a
- Public sector body	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	0	100	0	n/a
- Other	1	0	0	100	n/a

On balance, respondents answering Q20 preferred a single DSA allowance (59%), compared to allowance limits for each element (21%), while another option was suggested by 21%. A single allowance was heavily favoured (83%) by the small number of individuals with experience of providing support who answered. While 71% of colleges that answered favoured a single allowance, this was less popular among universities (44%). However, a single allowance was still the most preferred option among universities, with 22% preferring allowances for each element and 33% another approach.

Two fifths of stakeholder consultation respondents commented on Q20A. In line with the closed question results, the most prevalent theme in comments was reasons in favour of a single DSA allowance. Some respondents expressed the view that a single DSA allowance would: better meet individual needs and enable more tailored support; prevent students from facing a lack of funding in one area that is of most importance to them; and provide flexibility to support students' needs if they change over time. A few respondents felt that a single DSA allowance would be more efficient and more straightforward to administer, which in turn could make it easier for students to navigate and manage DSA.

On the other hand, a small number of respondents explained their support for separate DSA allowance limits. A key reason was that separate limits could prevent disproportionate spending in one area, allow for a clear audit trail, provide allocation transparency, and enable clear student support management.

A range of individual points were each raised by a few respondents, including:

• The need to review DSA allowance rates, so that it is increased in line with inflation.
• Considerations for implementation if a change to a single DSA allowance is made, such as ensuring that any change is well communicated to students and that these changes do not disadvantage any students.
• To take a flexible, mixed approach, with one respondent suggesting that the use of either a single DSA allowance or differing allowance limits is determined by individual needs assessments.
• Comments made by individual respondents included the need for individualised support, accessible support, and challenges in determining individual need.

Q21. If you represent or work for a college or university that supports DSA students, what is your approach when the cost to support the needs of a disabled student exceeds the relevant DSA allowance limits?

Almost two fifths of stakeholder consultation respondents answered Q21. Some respondents explained that when costs to support the needs of disabled students exceed the relevant DSA allowance limits, their college or university contacts SAAS. This includes supporting students to appeal their DSA decisions where required, requesting exemptions to increase allowances for students and for SAAS to cover overspend. These comments were made particularly in relation to the limits of the Non-Medical Personal Help (NMPH) allowance.

Universities and colleges covering costs exceeding the DSA allowance limits was noted by some respondents, who stated this was done by using a range of funds, such as hardship funds, discretionary funds, institutional funding and bursaries. Respondents highlighted the pressure this places on the financial planning of education institutions, as well as the importance of ensuring students have access to the support they need for their studies.

A few stakeholders described making learning adjustments to support students where funding has been insufficient. This included prioritisation of support within the funding limitations, and exploring what can be provided within the existing resources available for students from the institution.

A small number of respondents described supporting students to find other funding sources to help them access the support they require. This included helping students to find charitable grants, as well as other general third-party assistance.

Q22. If you represent or work for a college or university, what is your approach when the type of support required for a disabled student cannot be met through DSA allowances or when the student is not eligible for DSA?

One third of stakeholder consultation respondents commented on Q22. The most prevalent themes were institutions providing learning adjustments, covering costs for disabled students, and supporting students in finding and applying for other funding sources.

Some respondents described how they ensured disabled students had the support they needed through learning adjustments. This was mentioned by all colleges, and was more likely to be mentioned by universities than the remaining respondent types. Respondents described what reasonable adjustments they offered students and the changes they could make to support students without additional funding. This included changes to teaching and assessments, course material support, physical environment changes, use of existing software, mentoring, use of library services and loan equipment, and timetable changes.

Institutions covering costs for disabled student support, where required, was raised by some respondents, and was more likely to be cited by universities than other respondent types. This was noted to occur through discretionary funding, hardship funding, and internal institutional funding. It was also emphasised that institutions may support disabled students in finding, applying for, and accessing other funding sources to support their studies. This included local grants, social services, charitable grants, and community funding. One respondent described support being provided to appeal DSA decisions where appropriate.

A few respondents used this question to raise challenges with DSA and suggest changes to address these. These included having greater flexibility in thresholds and funding arrangements, and ensuring a consistent approach to providing support across the sector.

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

Should funding for disabled students in Further Education continue to go to the college to support the student with their disability, or do you think this should go directly to the student (similar to DSA for HE students) to manage the additional costs?

Can you please explain why this is your preferred option?

Respondent type	n=	% Colleges should continue to deliver all aspects of support for FE disabled students	% FE disabled students should be able to apply for a dedicated allowance to support with their disability/impairment needs	% Other	% No answer
All respondents	57	19	23	16	42
All answering	33	33	39	27	n/a
A member of the public	3	33	67	0	n/a
An individual with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students	6	17	67	17	n/a
An organisation/institution	24	38	29	33	n/a
- University	5	40	0	60	n/a
- College	7	57	14	29	n/a
- Third sector organisation	2	0	100	0	n/a
- Private education provider	5	20	60	20	n/a
- Public sector body	2	50	0	50	n/a
- Sector representative body	1	100	0	0	n/a
- Other	2	0	50	50	n/a

There was no consensus on where funding for disabled students in FE should go. Among those answering Q23, one third (33%) felt colleges should continue to deliver all aspects of support for FE disabled students, 39% felt FE disabled students should be able to apply for a dedicated allowance to support with their disability/impairment needs, and 27% made another suggestion (see the analysis of open comments below). The small number of members of the public and individuals with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students who answered Q23 were more likely to favour students managing their own support (67% among both groups). Opinions varied considerably by organisation type; for example, 57% of colleges felt they should continue to deliver all aspects of support, whereas 60% of organisations indicated another approach would be preferable.

Just over one third of respondents commented at Q23. Responses were broadly similar to those mentioned in responses to Q23 of the student consultation. This included a few respondents commenting that colleges should manage funding as it can help to minimise the administrative burden and stress students may face, that they have the best understanding of students’ needs and how students access support, and that it can avoid misuse of funds. The potential to minimise student burden was particularly noted in comments from colleges.

Other reasons why respondents felt colleges should manage funding were cited by a small number of respondents. These included:

• Being able to ensure seamless, integrated support.
• Allowing for strategic resource allocation, such as assistive technology.
• That it would make it easier to collect data about supports that can be used in reporting, monitoring and audit processes.
• There is no need for supplier change notifications between college finance staff and external suppliers.
• It reduces complexity where student support staff are shared between multiple students.

A few respondents supported students managing their funding, suggesting it gives students choice, autonomy and independence, as well as students having the best understanding of their own individual needs. A few other mentions of reasons why students should manage their funding were each noted by individual respondents, including that it removes institutional barriers, allows funding to follow students throughout their education, and creates more alignment between HE and FE students.

A few respondents left comments elaborating on the ‘other’ answer option. A small number suggested that a mixed model of students and colleges managing disabled students' funding, calling for it to be determined on a case-by-case basis or for students to choose who manages their funding. It was felt that this could support flexibility instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. One respondent called for consideration of learnings from the Care Experienced Student Bursary. Another respondent requested that the funding review should be in line with the SAAS Disability Related Student Support Review recommendations.

Q24. If you represent or work for a college or university, can you provide examples of how the different funding streams administered to your organisation by the Scottish Funding Council are used to support disabled students and students with additional learning needs?

One third of stakeholder consultation respondents answered Q24. The most prevalent themes related to how funding is used to support students. Some respondents detailed study and exam adjustments that are made, such as providing communication support, tutors, note takers, interpreters, extra exam time, and ensuring there are fair assessments. These adjustments were more likely to be mentioned by colleges than other stakeholders. A few respondents described supporting students with IT, such as using assistive technology, with others commenting on providing support for transport, specialist equipment, course materials such as printing, building accessibility such as guides, childcare support, and easing living costs.

Multiple other forms of support provided by institutions were noted by a few respondents, including:

• Mental health, mentoring and wellbeing support.
• Staff training to increase awareness and improve skills for disabled student support.
• Funding being used to cover staff costs and provide disability support teams to students.
• Covering costs for assessments, such as educational psychologist assessments and support with medical evidence.

A few respondents mentioned other funding streams that are used, in particular discretionary funds and the Disabled Students Premium. Other comments, each mentioned by individual respondents, included the Independent Living Transition Fund, Additional Support Needs for Learning Allowance, and university funding for students ineligible for DSA.

A few respondents commented that institutions use funds inconsistently and, therefore, need clearer guidance.

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?

Two fifths of stakeholder consultation respondents answered Q25. These comments were varied and detailed, suggesting improvements to the resources provided by education providers to disabled students, changes that could be made by both institutions and the Scottish Government, and other process-related improvements.

Improvements related to the resources and support services provided by providers were suggested. A few requested adjustments to study and exams, including more flexible exams and course delivery, accessible and inclusive teaching methods, more flexible timetables, and acceptance and accommodation within classrooms of students’ adjustments. The need for accessible and assistive technology, sufficient IT infrastructure, and Wi-Fi and hardware equipment was raised by a few respondents. A small number emphasised the importance of accessible campus facilities and infrastructure. Strengthened peer support and social/extracurricular activities for disabled students were suggested by a few respondents, noting that this can improve wellbeing through reduced feelings of isolation and increased opportunities for connection with students with similar experiences, as well as being empowering. Two respondents called for more accessible course materials, and another two requested more accessible and specialist mental health service support for students.

A variety of wider sectoral improvements were suggested by respondents. A few recommended training and awareness raising of administrative and academic staff at education providers on the needs of disabled students and on taking a trauma-informed approach. Calls for greater Scottish Government investment in support for disabled students were made by a few respondents, along with other specific recommendations for the Scottish Government. This included comments on creating a role to support disabled students that is similar to the Commissioner for Fair Access who leads a system-wide effort to deliver fair access to higher education in Scotland, establishing a disability in FE and HE Advisory Group, along with quality assurance of support across providers, and the greater use of frameworks and tools to enhance student support.

Calls for cross-institution consistency in the support provided to disabled students were made by a few respondents, along with suggestions for sector guidance to support this. A greater connection with secondary schools to aid in transition support to FE and HE was also recommended. A small number of respondents raised the possibility of integrated services within educational providers, such as disability services working with careers and wellbeing services, as well as improving the ease of access to support for students. A small number of respondents highlighted that recommendations of the SAAS Disability Related Student Support Review had not been implemented, and called for them to be delivered. One respondent expressed the view that they thought the SAAS processes were working well.

As mentioned previously, stakeholder consultation respondents emphasised the need to improve processes, in particular the DSA process. This included a few respondents advocating for:

• A process that reduces the stress and burden on disabled students when trying to access support, along with general comments on the need to improve and simplify the process with reduced administrative burdens.
• Addressing challenges with diagnoses, namely waiting times for diagnosis through the NHS limiting student access to support, and reviewing medical evidence requirements for DSA applications and reasonable adjustments.
• Timely support to be provided, through addressing delays in process timelines, with one suggesting standardisation of timelines within needs assessments.
• Streamlined communication with students regarding eligibility for support, with one respondent suggesting increasing the awareness of support available to students while they are still at school.

Other suggestions of non-monetary improvements for disabled students were described by individual respondents. These included more proactive student support, more postgraduate student funding support, creating inclusive institutional cultures, ensuring neurodivergent students have access to support, and increased clarity on fee-waver limits.