Support for part-time study and disabled students: consultation analysis
This report provides an analysis of responses and key findings from the consultation on support for part-time study and disabled students.
Introduction
Background and context
The Scottish Programme for Government 2023 to 2024, published on 5 September 2023, committed to ‘improve the parity of living cost support on offer for those wishing to study part-time or flexibly’. The Minister for Higher and Further Education and Minister for Veterans confirmed to the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee on 5 March 2025 that a consultation on support for part-time study and disabled students would be launched before the summer recess. The current support system has been in place for several years and a consultation is being conducted to seek views to help determine if this approach still fits the needs of students and the sector.
The consultation had three strands of engagement:
- Strand 1 - Public consultation on Citizen Space.
- Strand 2 - Stakeholder engagement by the Scottish Government.
- Strand 3 - Qualitative research with students.
More details about each strand are provided below.
Strand 1: Public consultation
Two sets of consultation questions were live from 26 June to 9 October 2025. Most responses were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email, were added to Citizen Space to ensure all responses were recorded consistently.
Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, and this is important to keep in mind when exploring the information emerging from the consultation.
Consultation questions for students, potential students, parents and carers
In this report, we refer to this as the ‘student consultation’, and to those responding to these questions as ‘student consultation respondents’.
In total, 524 people responded to the student consultation[1]. To support analysis, respondents were grouped based on their responses to profile questions included in the consultation. Table 1 presents the number and proportion of each respondent type. 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[2] | 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 |
More details about student consultation respondents are included in Technical Appendix B, which is provided in a separate document.
In this report, we refer to this as the ‘stakeholder consultation’, and to those responding to these questions as ‘stakeholder consultation respondents’. In total, 57 stakeholder consultation responses were received. Table 2 presents the number and proportion of each respondent type.
| 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 |
More details about student consultation respondents are included in Technical Appendix C, which is provided in a separate document.
Analysis approach
The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the two sets of consultation questions. Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impractical to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter and sector expertise. This report, therefore, provides a high-level analysis of responses. We would also direct the reader to review full responses on Citizen Space, where permission to publish has been granted.
A Technical Annexe has been provided as a separate document. Full details of the methodology and analysis approach are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B and C provide a full breakdown of the closed question results for each question, including a breakdown by each type of respondent answering, and a qualitative analysis of open comments made in response to each consultation question.
All the analysis in this report is based on those answering the respective questions and is therefore not representative of all students or stakeholders.
The response rate to each question varies considerably across the two sets of consultation questions, as shown in Table 3.
| Consultation questions | Average % of all respondents (n=524) answering closed questions | Average % of all respondents (n=57) answering open[3] questions |
|---|---|---|
| Student consultation – All questions | 71 | 39 |
| Student consultation – Part-time and distance learning questions | 85 | 53 |
| Student consultation – Support for disabled students questions | 55 | 21 |
| Stakeholder consultation – All questions | 61 | 53 |
| Stakeholder consultation – Part-time and distance learning questions | 80 | 68 |
| Stakeholder consultation – Support for disabled students questions | 49 | 42 |
The main reason for this variation is that not all questions apply to all respondents. For example, a question about support for HE students may not apply to a FE student, and a question about support for disabled students may not necessarily apply to a part-time student.
However, it is important to note that respondents were able to answer any question, and it is likely that many have responded based on their own personal experiences. This has resulted in instances which may appear inconsistent. For example, a HE student may answer questions about support for FE students, as they had previous experience of this before moving to HE. Similarly, a FE student may comment on support for HE if they investigated or applied for support for HE, but were not eligible. In the stakeholder consultation, some questions were directed at those representing or working for education providers, but were also answered by other respondents, for example, individuals with experience of supporting part-time or disabled students. Analysts have not edited any data, and the closed question data presented in tables is as provided by respondents.
This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. However, despite the large number of student consultation respondents, the wide range of issues highlighted in responses means that across the consultation questions, very few themes have been raised by large numbers of respondents. Given this, and to give the reader consistency across the two sets of consultation questions, we have used the following framework to assist in understanding the prevalence of themes in responses to each question:
- Several respondents - over 30 respondents, a prevalent theme.
- Some respondents - between 10 and 29 respondents, another theme.
- A few / a small number - fewer than 10 respondents.
- Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view raised in two responses.
Strand 2: Scottish Government led stakeholder and student engagement
Strand 2 engagement was conducted by the Consultation Project Team from the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Lifelong Learning and Skills. All engagement was carried out online via MS Teams. This took place between 31 July 2025 and 12 November 2025. This focused engagement featured the following components:
One-to-one stakeholder engagement meetings
A total of six meetings took place with the following key stakeholders identified as having a particular interest in the consultation themes: Universities Scotland, Colleges Scotland, National Union of Students (NUS) Scotland, Lead Scotland, The Open University in Scotland, and Open University Students Association (Open SU).
Consultation engagement sessions by sector
A total of four engagement sessions took place with 36 participants. One event was student-focused, while the other three were sector-specific, engaging respectively with interested third sector organisations, colleges and universities. A fourth sector-specific session was scheduled for private learning providers; however, there were no attendees for this session.
Analysis approach
Anonymised notes from the meetings and engagement sessions were reviewed alongside the consultation responses as part of The Lines Between’s analysis process. Many of the points raised aligned with the themes evident in consultation responses; as a result, they are not presented separately in this report. However, where additional or unique perspectives were raised, these have been noted.
Strand 3: Qualitative research with students
Strand 3 was distinct from the other strands of the consultation. Craigforth was commissioned to conduct independent qualitative research with students on the support available for part-time study, distance learning, and disabled students (full and part-time). This research aimed to provide an opportunity for students to contribute their views and experiences through in-depth 1-1 interviews, with a more targeted engagement approach across a variety of student groups.
Qualitative fieldwork was conducted over a five-week period during October and November 2025. A total of 37 students took part, primarily via individual or paired remote interviews. This included students from across the Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) sectors, spanning a range of ages and different household and economic situations, as well as different modes and levels of study. Most indicated that they were physically disabled and/or had a mental health condition, neurodevelopmental condition, or other health condition.
This report presents an analysis of the interviews conducted for Strand 3. Technical Appendix A, provided in a separate document, summarises the research objectives and methodology, including the fieldwork approach, participant profile, as well as strengths and limitations.
Contact
Email: sfs_policy@gov.scot