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

Strand 1 and 2: Support for part-time or distance learning study

This chapter presents an overview of the analysis of the consultation questions about the support available to part-time and distance learning students. The questions related to each section are noted in the section headings. All percentages and the analysis below are based on those answering the respective question. A full analysis of each question, including a note of how many respondents answered, can be found in the Technical Annexe, which is provided separately.

Key points

• The responses to the two sets of consultation questions highlighted the significant value of part-time and distance learning in offering more flexible and affordable study options, allowing individuals to balance learning with work, caring responsibilities or managing disabilities or health conditions.
• The complexity of accessing existing support for part-time and distance learning study was a recurring theme. While some described positive experiences, there were frequent calls for more and clearer information about the available support and who is eligible, and greater parity between part-time and full-time students.
• While many student consultation respondents felt the financial support available to them helped them complete their course, the current eligibility criteria and income thresholds often leave some ineligible. Respondents stressed the need to ensure that eligibility criteria are fair and recognise the unique challenges faced by part-time and disabled students.
• The means-tested approach to fee waivers and the Part-Time Fee Grant (PTFG) were generally supported by respondents, but there were widespread calls for thresholds to be increased.
• There was also strong support for extending living cost support to part-time and distance learners. Many student and stakeholder respondents believe this would reduce financial stress and improve educational outcomes.

Support for part-time and distance learning study

The benefits of part-time or distance learning study (Student consultation Q4)

Student consultation respondents were shown a list of possible benefits of part-time or distance learning study and asked which applied to them (Figure 1). The most common benefit chosen by those answering the question was ‘It allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments’. This was followed by 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’ (35%).

Base: All student consultation respondents who answered (498)

Alt A horizontal bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who selected each answer option in response to the question "What benefits of part-time or distance learning study attracted you or would attract you to learn in this way? ". The most common benefit chosen was ‘It allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments’. This was followed by 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’ (35%).

The view that part-time or distance learning study ‘allows me to balance study with my work/job commitments’ was most selected by those answering across many respondent types, especially those with no long-term condition (69%) and those identifying as Higher Education (HE) students (56%, compared to 37% of Further Education (FE) students). In contrast, 63% of those with a long-term condition selected ‘I have a disability and part-time study offers more flexibility’ as the biggest benefit of part-time or distance learning study. This was also the most selected reason among FE students (43% compared to 36% of HE students).

Student consultation respondents elaborated on many of these benefits in their comments. However, as only one in five respondents left a comment, the order of the themes was slightly different to the closed question results. The most common benefit in comments was that part-time or distance learning can help students manage their workload. Some respondents felt that these flexible study options allow them to progress at their own pace, make it easier to adjust to college or university life, or help them to maintain a healthy balance between study and personal interests.

Some respondents felt that these styles of learning offer flexibility, particularly for disabled students, which was seen as essential in helping people to access and maintain their education. Respondents felt these ways of studying could allow learners to manage fluctuating symptoms, attend medical appointments, and avoid environments which could make their health worse. For neurodivergent students, it was felt that online learning reduced sensory overload and supported better focus.

The benefit of part-time or distance learning to make education more affordable was mentioned by some student consultation respondents. They noted that full-time study is often considered too expensive due to tuition fees, living costs, or lost income from leaving work. Studying part-time could, therefore, let them keep working and earning, spread costs over a longer period, or get funding that was only available to part-time students. Others highlighted restrictions in funding eligibility, such as age, previous study history, or government support rules, that made part-time study the only possible or affordable option.

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

• Balancing work and study: Respondents valued being able to continue other roles while pursuing education, e.g. employment, caring roles, or volunteering.
• 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.

Simplifying support (Student consultation Q5, Stakeholder consultation Q3)

Both sets of consultation questions asked respondents if support for part-time and distance learning study needs to be simplified (Figure 2).

Just over half (52%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt it does, and just under half (48%) felt it does not. The highest support for simplification was among former students (64%) and FE students (61%) who answered. At least half of most other groups who answered this question also supported simplification, including 51% of HE students. Almost all (92%) stakeholder consultation respondents who answered felt that support should be simplified. This view was widely held among most types of stakeholder consultation respondents, including all universities and 86% of colleges that answered.

Multiple reasons for simplifying the system were given, with comments in both consultations often raising the same issues. Most commonly, respondents to both sets of consultation questions described the current system as complex, overcomplicated, confusing and hard to navigate. Several student consultation respondents criticised confusing application forms, repetitive paperwork, and unclear guidance. They described the process as time-consuming and difficult, especially for first-time applicants, disabled students, or those with poor mental health. Having to apply to several organisations and send the same information every year was also seen as a problem. Other issues raised by student consultation respondents included finding the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) website hard to use and perceived differences between the systems used by funding bodies and institutions. Respondents felt this complexity is a barrier to accessing support, which means people could miss deadlines, drop out of courses, or give up on applying altogether. One stakeholder meeting highlighted that the process can be confusing for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) learners who are funded through a different funding stream.

Respondents to both sets of consultation questions also felt that there is a lack of information and clarity around eligibility for part-time and distance learning study support. Comments highlighted confusion over what funding is available, who qualifies, and how eligibility is decided, particularly for those with existing qualifications, disabilities, or studying at different levels. Respondents felt it was hard to find clear guidance on course eligibility, credit requirements, and the differences between full-time and part-time study support. Others raised concerns that they only found out they were eligible after speaking to institutions or support services; for some, this was after starting their course. They felt that clearer information that is easier to find could reduce stress and help prevent people from missing out.

It was also noted that institutions and funding bodies often provided incomplete or conflicting information, leaving students unsure whether they could access support. Stakeholder consultation respondents highlighted that different processes for FE and HE could be confusing when students progress from FE to HE or if they apply for courses at each level. They felt that a streamlined system would simplify the application process for students, reduce their reliance on institutions for guidance, and reduce administration for colleges and universities.

While simplification was widely supported, respondents to both sets of consultation questions suggested that changes should also focus on making things fairer. Stakeholder consultation respondents gave more detail than student consultation respondents on this point, highlighting existing differences between part-time, distance learning, and full-time students. It was noted, for instance, that separate application routes, different funding models, and different income-based thresholds apply for part-time support compared to full-time students. They called for processes to be more transparent to ensure everyone is treated equally and that these differences are minimised. However, stakeholder consultation respondents also raised concerns about simply copying full-time processes for part-time students without addressing underlying funding gaps.

Several student consultation respondents also wanted part-time and distance learners to be treated more like full-time or on-campus students, with fairer and more equal support. They felt that current systems treat different types of students differently, even though they are aiming for the same end goal. It was also believed that part-time and distance learners often face additional challenges – such as caring responsibilities, disabilities, or geographic isolation – but get less financial, academic, and pastoral support. There were concerns about a lack of maintenance loans, childcare funds, and institutional engagement, which could leave these students feeling excluded or disadvantaged.

It should be noted, however, that several student consultation respondents described positive experiences. They felt that the application process and available support were already clear, accessible, and easy to use. They described SAAS and course providers as easy to work with, with well-signposted information and minimal difficulty completing forms. While these respondents recognised others might have difficulty depending on their situation, their own experiences were largely positive and unproblematic. Similarly, a small number of stakeholder consultation respondents did not believe that support for part-time and distance learning needed to be simplified, noting that support has improved and it is now easier for students to find out about and access support.

Self-funding and availability of finance (Student consultation Q6, Q7)

Student consultation respondents were asked if they are self-funding or are planning to self-fund their part-time course fees, and the reasons for this. Among student consultation respondents who answered (Figure 3), the most common reason why they are self-funding was that they were ‘Not eligible due to earnings’ (23%). The most commonly 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%). There was little difference in the reasons selected by HE and FE students, with the most common reason among both groups being ‘Not eligible due to earnings’ (24% and 20% respectively).

Although not directly answering the question, by far the most common theme in comments was about funding which student consultation respondents had received from SAAS. Several respondents who identified as HE students noted 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 rest because course costs were greater than the available support.

Several respondents, including a mix of HE and FE students, described not meeting the eligibility criteria for some or all of the available funding options because of their age, existing qualifications, course type, or mode of study. Respondents noted that small pay increases or receiving certain benefits pushed them just above eligibility thresholds, meaning they could not get support, even though they were still struggling financially. Others described how they had used up their funding or were not eligible due to complex personal circumstances, such as being a carer, being disabled or being a military spouse.

Another view, expressed by some respondents including a mix of HE and FE students, was that insufficient financial support is available. This view was also more likely to be raised by prospective students who commented. Respondents commenting on this theme felt that current funding policies fail to reflect the realities of low-income households, rising living costs, or the cost of retraining, leaving them feeling unsupported and unable to study.

Some respondents who identified as HE students described using various ways to fund their tuition fees and related costs, piecing together funding from SAAS, personal savings, family support, bursaries, charity grants, and employers. In some cases, SAAS funding partially covered the fees, with individuals covering the shortfall.

The student consultation questions also gave respondents a list of possible finance options and asked which they could access if they needed financial support for their studies (Figure 4). The most commonly selected type among those answering was paid employment (45%). One third (35%) could access benefits, with part-time or distance learners with a long-term condition who answered being the most likely to indicate they could access this type of support (49%). A similar proportion of all those answering (34%) could access savings, while 28% indicated they could access a personal loan or credit if needed. Those answering who identified as FE students were more likely than HE students to indicate they could access benefits (47% and 33% respectively), whereas HE students were more likely to indicate they could access paid employment (47% compared to 29% among FE students).

While financial support from SAAS was not on the list provided to respondents, this was again the most common source of financial support mentioned in comments.

However, the remaining themes raised at this question aligned with the closed question answer options, but each was mentioned by a few respondents. These included, in order of prevalence, relying on:

• Paid work, including part-time jobs and freelance work. Challenges in balancing employment with study were highlighted, particularly when limited hours or childcare needs 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, though these were seen as insufficient to cover education expenses, leaving students short of money and potentially unable to fully fund their studies.
• Money or loans from parents, spouses, relatives and friends. This support was often used to fill gaps left by limited funding or personal income.
• 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.
• Loans or credit cards, with a few student consultation respondents being worried about long-term debt. Others mentioned taking out loans during periods of financial strain, such as unpaid breaks or due to rising living costs.

Availability of financial support (Student consultation Q8, Stakeholder consultation Q4)

Over three quarters (78%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt the financial support available from SAAS, or from their college or university, helped support them to complete their course, while 22% did not. Among those who identified as FE students, 68% felt they had been supported, compared to 78% of HE students.

By far the most common theme in comments was that, without financial support, respondents would not have been able to afford their course or to keep studying. Although this was raised by both FE and HE students, it was a more prevalent view among HE students. Respondents described how the financial support helped them to overcome significant personal, financial, and logistical barriers – such as disability, low income, or caring responsibilities – that would have otherwise made it difficult to study. Others expressed gratitude for the financial support they received, or left positive comments describing their general satisfaction and appreciation of how easy and helpful they had found the process. FE students were more likely than HE students to leave more general positive comments about the financial support they had received.

In contrast, the next most mentioned theme was comments from respondents who felt they had been unable to access financial support from SAAS (for HE) or their institution (FE and HE). These respondents felt overlooked or unfairly left out of funding options, and felt that rigid eligibility criteria did not consider their individual circumstances. Several respondents commented that the financial support available was not enough for their situation and should be expanded. While some appreciated the support they did receive, they felt it only partially met their needs. At one stakeholder meeting, it was highlighted that international students make up a significant portion of students, but this group lacks access to support.

Worries about funding were frequently raised by some respondents who identified as HE students, who described financial difficulties because the funding they received did not fully cover tuition fees or living costs. Respondents shared that they had to pause or withdraw from their studies due to a lack of funding, while others worried about the long-term impact of student debt. Others expressed frustration at eligibility thresholds, especially when small increases in income meant losing support even though they still needed it.

Stakeholder consultation respondents were asked what other financial or wider support their college or university offers part-time and distance learning students. They described:

• Wellbeing, pastoral and one-to-one support, such as remote counselling, welfare services, and tailored support with access to wellbeing resources, learning support, and student advisors.
• Access to discretionary or hardship funds, including help with living costs, study-related expenses, childcare, and digital access, alongside targeted scholarships, emergency grants, and specialist funding for disabled students or specific learning difficulties. For example, one HE stakeholder noted their Student Assistance Fund is available for emergencies but is capped at £500 and therefore insufficient for broader support.
• Study skills and academic support, such as help with time management, digital tools, learning hubs, personal learning support plans, specialist disability support, and tailored help with assessments and exams.

A few stakeholder consultation respondents each mentioned:

• Provision for disabled people and those with additional support needs, such as specialist tutors, assistive technology, alternative assessment methods, dedicated disability services and individual support plans.
• Online learning and library resources, including 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.

Views on a fee waiver for Further Education students, including means-testing (Student consultation Q9, Stakeholder consultation Q7)

Both sets of consultation questions explained that: “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”. Respondents were then asked for their views on this approach.

Respondents to both sets of consultation questions supported this approach; positive comments were, by a large margin, the most common theme raised by student consultation respondents, particularly among those identifying as FE students, and it was also the most common theme among stakeholder consultation respondents. Reasons in support of a means-testing approach included that it:

• Is a fair and appropriate way to allocate limited resources. Respondents noted that it helps maintain equity, prevents misuse of funding, and supports learners into education.
• Removes financial barriers and widens participation by targeting support to those who need it most, for example, enabling low-income learners, unpaid carers, and disadvantaged groups to study without incurring debt.
• Is effective and well-established within FE, where it was felt to work well in practice and continues to meet the needs of most students.

While there was broad support, respondents also raised concerns. The second most common theme among FE students was a concern about basing the eligibility criteria on a household’s income rather than an individual's income. Several respondents felt 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. They pointed out that complex family situations and cases of controlling or abusive relationships are reasons why household income should not be considered an accurate measure of ability to pay, and called for assessments to reflect individual income instead. This issue was also raised in some engagement sessions. A few stakeholder consultation respondents called for greater flexibility in means-testing to ensure students in vulnerable financial situations are not left out.

Another common theme, raised by several FE student consultation respondents and a few stakeholder consultation respondents, was that the current household income threshold for the fee waiver is too low. These respondents called for the threshold to be increased to reflect the current cost of living, inflation, and rising wages. It was felt that the current rigid limit excludes people with low to middle incomes who, despite earning slightly above the threshold, still struggle to afford tuition fees alongside rent, childcare, and bills. Others highlighted that the threshold has not changed in years, making it out of step with economic realities.

A few stakeholder consultation respondents expressed a concern that a means-tested approach could act as a barrier to education. They felt that complex eligibility criteria, administrative burdens, and unclear processes can make the system confusing and stop people from applying. 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 seen as unfair, particularly for care-experienced learners and those with additional needs, and risk preventing individuals from re-entering education.

A few respondents in both consultation questions suggested how this approach could be improved. These included:

• Calls to extend fee waivers to other FE courses and for students to access the same support regardless of mode of study.
• Simplifying and standardising eligibility criteria across institutions to ensure consistency and clarity.
• Improving outreach and guidance so FE students understand what support they are entitled to and how to apply.

Though not directly answering the question, respondents provided a range of suggestions for how financial support could be administered. These included introducing:

• A sliding scale instead of a strict income threshold.
• Assessments for exceptional circumstances.
• Set allowances to encourage lifelong learning.
• Regional adjustments to reflect higher living costs in rural and island communities.
• Employer contributions where the study is job-related, and
• Free, or fully government-funded education.

As part of Strand 2, discussion in an engagement session with colleges covered views on a fee waiver. The existing approach was generally seen as robust, but participants voiced concerns about there being fewer eligible courses because of reduced Individual Training Accounts and colleges’ need to increase their income. Increased fee waiver rates were welcomed, but questions were raised about parity and consistency of tuition fee rates across the sector.

Part-time Fee Grant (PTFG) in Higher Education

Student eligibility for PTFG and covering tuition fees (Student consultation Q10)

Over half (56%) of student consultation respondents who answered were eligible for the HE PTFG covering all their tuition fees, 16% for PTFG covering more than half of their fees, and 6% for PTFG covering less than half of their tuition fees (Figure 5). One in five (22%) were not eligible for PTFG. A broadly similar pattern of eligibility was recorded by type of respondent who answered, including 57% of part-time and distance learning students, 57% of those identifying as HE students and 61% of those with a long-term condition, indicating they were eligible for PTFG covering all their fees.

Student consultation respondents most commonly reported using savings to pay their HE tuition fees in full or to cover any remaining costs. Several described using personal savings, redundancy payments, or pension income to cover fees. Others highlighted that savings were often combined with credit cards or loans to cover any gaps.

Self-funding, in general, was the next most mentioned theme. Several student consultation respondents reported paying all or part of their tuition fees themselves, often using personal income, savings, or payment plans arranged with their college or university, for example, paying per module or using instalment arrangements to manage costs. Respondents also mentioned relying on paid employment to fund their studies, though balancing work and study was described as challenging.

Some student consultation respondents reported relying on personal or postgraduate loans or credit cards to cover any gaps, describing spreading payments through instalment plans or using 0% interest credit cards to manage affordability. Others raised concerns about the long-term burden of debt and interest repayments.

Some student consultation respondents noted that their university covers some or all of their tuition fees, while 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 support from family and friends and through bursaries, scholarships, or grants.

PTFG eligibility criteria (Student consultation Q11, Stakeholder consultation Q9)

Both sets of consultation questions asked respondents if they felt the current eligibility criteria for the HE PTFG - which is accessible for those with personal incomes of under £25,000 - support the students who need it most (Figure 6). Three fifths (59%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt the eligibility criteria are effective, while 41% did not. Agreement that the current criteria are effective was also evident among current students (61%), part-time/distance learners (61%), those with a long-term condition (63%), and HE students (59%) who answered. One third (32%) of stakeholder consultation respondents who answered felt the eligibility criteria are effective, while 68% did not. Mixed views were evident by organisation type, with 71% of colleges that answered believing the criteria are effective, compared to 33% of universities and 20% of private education providers.

The most common theme across the two sets of consultation questions was that the £25,000 personal income threshold is too low and should be higher. This point was also made in engagement sessions across Strand 2. The threshold was seen as outdated, as it has not changed 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, or those with dependants or living in high-cost areas, could be left out, even though they still struggle financially. One engagement session highlighted that a student could be partway through their studies but become ineligible if they have a slight increase in their personal income.

Suggested changes included increasing the threshold in line with inflation and wage growth, introducing regular reviews, or considering alternative measures such as household income, or introducing a more flexible, graduated system to avoid a “cliff-edge” effect. A few suggested thresholds of between £30,000 and £35,000.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents described challenges faced by students who are not eligible for support despite needing or wanting it. These comments noted that students earning just over the £25,000 threshold can still face 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 students who need support to progress in their careers or to complete mandatory qualifications, potentially forcing many to self-fund or give up their studies.

Student consultation respondents highlighted groups of people that they felt the eligibility criteria do not currently work for. They felt that the criteria exclude those with complex financial situations, such as mature students, carers, disabled people, and those earning just above the income threshold, who still face significant barriers to accessing education. A few respondents commented that the system does not consider household dynamics, higher living costs, or non-traditional circumstances, making it unfair for many who need support.

Some student consultation respondents and a few stakeholder consultation respondents commented on what they felt should be included and excluded from the means-testing for assessing eligibility. They felt the means-test should: better account for individual circumstances like caregiving, disability costs, location, and disposable income; 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.

It should be noted, however, that several student consultation respondents and some stakeholder consultation respondents commented that the current PTFG eligibility criteria for HE work well and help the right people. These respondents felt the income-based criteria are fair and effective, as they make sure support is directed to those with the greatest financial need and give opportunities to 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.

Further improvements (Stakeholder consultation Q8)

The Stakeholder consultation questions asked respondents what else, in addition to the PTFG, could help improve support for part-time and distance learning students in HE. Some respondents highlighted the need for additional financial support beyond the PTFG. Respondents emphasised that without broader financial support, many learners remain excluded from HE, despite receiving tuition fee assistance. 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.

Some respondents to this question repeated their calls to increase the eligibility threshold for PTFG to enhance access to support for part-time and distance learners in HE; see the previous section for more detail. A few respondents felt the PTFG should be expanded to include more courses.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents called for a review of the eligibility criteria for part-time and distance learning students in HE, highlighting inconsistencies and unfair differences with full-time study. Suggestions included removing or simplifying distinctions between study modes, applying the same rules as for income assessment, and considering household circumstances rather than gross income. 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, expanding eligibility for disability support and targeted assistance for disadvantaged learners.

The next most prevalent theme was related to processes and communication, with comments reiterating many of the points made in the “Simplifying support” section earlier in this chapter. In summary, suggestions included improving the PTFG application process, ensuring the timely allocation of funds, providing clearer and consistent guidance on eligibility and entitlements, improving transparency regarding which courses qualify, and offering 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.

Living cost support

Potential impact of living cost support (Student consultation Q12, Stakeholder consultation Q5)

Both sets of consultation questions asked respondents about the potential impact of introducing living cost support for part-time and distance learning students, which could include bursaries or student loans. Over half (56%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt this kind of support could affect how they learn and study, while 44% felt it would not. The proportion who felt they could or would have been affected varied by respondent type, from 52% of prospective students to 60% of former students. While 58% of HE students who answered felt they would have been affected, this was much lower (34%) among FE students who answered.

Most of the comments explaining how living cost support would impact learning and study highlighted positive benefits. While these were mentioned by both FE and HE students, they were often more likely to be raised by HE students. The most common theme was that it would allow students to concentrate better, study more effectively, and do as well as they can in their courses. Respondents felt this extra support could reduce money worries and other pressures, such as caregiving responsibilities and managing health needs, which can make it hard for students to fully take part in their studies.

Other advantages of living cost support mentioned in comments included:

• Letting students work fewer hours or stop working, so they can spend more time and energy studying and do better in their courses.
• Lowering student stress and making it easier to manage studying, working, and paying for everyday costs. This could lead to better mental health, healthier daily routines and reduce the likelihood of burning out.
• Helping disabled students or those with caregiving responsibilities to participate more fully, e.g. covering childcare costs to give more time to study.

Among those answering this question in the stakeholder consultation, 84% felt the introduction of living cost support for part-time and distance learning study might affect the courses their institution offers, while 16% did not. This included 83% of private education providers, 86% of colleges and all universities that answered.

Stakeholder consultation respondents most frequently commented that introducing living cost support could help more people get into part-time and distance learning, and make these options more popular. Some also felt that if there was more demand for flexible learning options, colleges and universities may feel encouraged to create new courses or programmes or try more innovative ways to teach courses.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents commented that living cost support could support retention rates and improve engagement for part-time and distance learning students. They suggested that living cost support could help students stay enrolled and succeed academically by reducing financial stress.

A less common theme was that introducing living cost support could result in more flexible curriculum choices. This could happen if institutions feel they can broaden their provision by adapting full-time courses to be part-time or online, introducing modular or stackable pathways, or offering practical, job-relevant learning.

Eligibility criteria for living cost support (Student consultation Q13, Stakeholder consultation Q6)

Both consultations asked respondents if they agreed that the eligibility criteria for part-time and distance learning study should be the same as those for full-time students (Figure 7). In the student consultation, 71% of those answering agreed with this approach, including 78% of those identifying as FE students and 70% of HE students. While 70% of stakeholder consultation respondents who answered agreed with this approach, this ranged from 55% of universities to 86% of colleges that answered. Almost all (91%) individuals with experience in supporting part-time and/or disabled students who answered agreed with this approach.

The most common theme raised by students was that the eligibility criteria would still need to consider the extra challenges faced by part-time or distance learning students. Respondents noted that these learners often have very different lives compared to full-time students and that using the same criteria could overlook these differences and risk excluding students who need support the most. Several respondents felt that means-testing should not be used to determine eligibility for living cost support for part-time or distance learning students. They felt that means-testing could create unnecessary barriers and does not reflect individual situations, particularly for disabled students, caring responsibilities, or with complex financial situations. A few called for flexibility because of the diverse circumstances of part-time learners.

Fairness was also raised. Some student consultation respondents noted that living costs are the same no matter how someone studies, so using the same eligibility criteria ensures fairness and simplicity. Stakeholder consultation respondents also emphasised the importance of parity, noting that using the same criteria would promote equality, avoid disadvantaging part-time or distance learners and ensure consistent standards. It was also stressed that exceptions and concessions available to full-time students should be available to part-time learners.

Some respondents agreed with using the same eligibility criteria but raised the need to consider potential unintended consequences. For example, respondents to both the stakeholder and student questions noted that living cost support could impact people’s eligibility for social security and other benefits, and that students often choose part-time study so they can still access benefits. Concerns about the interaction between support and eligibility for benefits, such as Universal Credit, were also noted in several engagement sessions as part of Strand 2. For example, participants called for a better understanding of how all support is connected, and for better communication with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or the integration of DWP and student support systems and applications, which was felt could make getting support easier for students. One stakeholder meeting noted that many Scotland-based students now undertake distance learning courses provided by institutions elsewhere in the UK, which adds further complexity.

Stakeholder consultation respondents highlighted the need to avoid creating new barriers and make sure any changes do not disadvantage full-time students or reduce funding for colleges and universities. More specifically, one stakeholder meeting raised the need to consider how the introduction of living cost support could impact people studying for Modern Apprenticeships. Other concerns raised by stakeholder consultation respondents included that loans may put off students who do not want debt, the complexity of household income assessments, and the importance of modelling policy changes to prevent unintended consequences.

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 create difficulties for mature learners, care-experienced students, and those balancing work and family life. Respondents suggested a tailored approach that recognised these differences could ensure fairness and equity.

Other improvements

Other non-monetary improvements (Student consultation Q14, Stakeholder consultation Q10)

Both consultations asked respondents if there were any non-monetary improvements relating to support for part-time and distance learning students that they would like to comment on. The most common theme among student consultation respondents was that no further improvements were needed, with some leaving positive comments about the support available and the support they had received. In contrast, some student consultation respondents and a few stakeholder consultation respondents reiterated concerns about various aspects of financial support that have been outlined in this chapter.

While the largest number of comments were made by those who felt no changes were needed, other respondents to both consultations suggested a range of possible improvements. A common theme was the need to support wellbeing, particularly mental wellbeing. Respondents noted that part-time and distance learners could experience isolation and unique pressures that need tailored support and opportunities to build a sense of belonging. One engagement session raised concerns about reported higher suicide rates among part-time students, indicating a need for enhanced mental health support. Suggestions included free or better access to counselling, regular wellbeing check-ins, specialist services for neurodivergent students, creating peer support networks and mentorship programmes, better access to wellbeing resources, and flexible support for students balancing health issues with study.

Related to this, student consultation respondents proposed actions to reduce isolation among distance learning students. They emphasised the importance of having 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, improving communication and outreach from institutions, and organising networking events with travel support for low-income students.

Another theme, aligned with the earlier section on simplifying support, was calls for improvements to administration and communication. Respondents emphasised the need to simplify application processes, have clear eligibility criteria and timescales, and make systems more user-friendly for students and institutions. Suggestions included: revising SAAS processes for HE study; improving direct access to SAAS staff to support completion of applications; being clear about part-time course structures; giving timely feedback on assessments; and improving guidance on websites. However, student consultation respondents stressed the need for personalised advice from knowledgeable staff, rather than standard online forms, and for colleges and universities to be more responsive. One stakeholder meeting noted that student unions played a critical role in advocacy but are under-resourced in smaller colleges.

Some student consultation respondents suggested broader improvements to make part-time and distance learning more accessible. Ideas included 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, more support for evening learning and improved evening access to facilities, recognising lived experience in eligibility processes, and creating alternative entry routes beyond traditional qualifications. Other suggestions raised by stakeholder consultation respondents, in order of prevalence, were:

• Stronger academic support, improved course quality, and greater flexibility in delivery and assessment. Suggestions included dedicated advisers, structured tutor check-ins, robust induction programmes, clearer resources, evening/weekend options, recorded lectures, hybrid learning models, and modular pathways.
• 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 having better representation in decision-making, tailored communications, recognition of prior learning, and inclusive practices to ensure these learners feel valued and connected rather than left out.
• The need for improved digital provision to support distance learners, including reliable connectivity, accessible online learning environments, and better virtual platforms. Suggestions included providing devices or digital loan schemes, offering training in digital tools, and investing in national infrastructure to reduce barriers for rural and disadvantaged learners.
• A few respondents called for a standard definition of ‘part-time’ study, including clear guidance on hours and course length, and for institutions to gain more understanding of the experiences and needs of part-time and distance learners to ensure consistent and inclusive support.
• One engagement session discussed the accommodation-related barriers disproportionately affecting part-time students, such as having to pay council tax, and suggested that more support with accommodation issues could help.

Official data related to Widening Access to HE (Stakeholder consultation Q11)

Almost all (96%) stakeholder consultation respondents who answered 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 (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) learners entering HE. There was 100% support for this suggestion among all respondent types who answered, except universities, where it was 82%. It was also widely supported when discussed in stakeholder meetings as part of Strand 2.

Including these students was seen as fair and accurate, providing a more accurate national view, improving accountability, and helping measure the effectiveness of funding and support policies. Some respondents 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 part-time and distance learning first-degree students from official data could risk underestimating participation among disadvantaged groups and overlooking the pathways most relevant to them. The two universities that disagreed with this approach felt that a review of the target or widening access measures would be necessary to ensure they remain appropriate