Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme: evaluation - final report

Chapter 6: Has the Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme been implemented as intended and embedded mentoring and leadership across the school system?

As discussed in earlier chapters, it was generally agreed that MCR Pathways and the Columba 1400 YPLA had both been implemented as intended in the schools where they were running.This section considers whether the SMLP, as whole, has been implemented as intended.

It was found that the speed and scale of rollout of the SMLP has adapted over time and has been more limited than originally intended. Stakeholders indicated that the main reason for the more limited rollout of the programme was the less favourable fiscal climate which had developed since the start of the programme. It was suggested that the original funding model, which required matched funding from local authorities/schools, was difficult to sustain.

“When [SMLP was] set up, the world was quite different […] budget constraints and local government constraints [have constrained the expansion].” National Stakeholder (wave one)

Another stakeholder felt the original funding model (i.e. part-funding for three years after which schools/local authorities would commit full funding to sustain the interventions) was no longer sustainable:

“The context, especially the fiscal climate, has had a big impact. The ability to match funding from the local authority is a huge barrier […] the three-year model of funding, proving effectiveness and then self-funding, that’s not feasible now [...] the original model for sustainability isn’t viable.” National Stakeholder (wave one)

The fact that funding the programme was not a statutory responsibility was identified as a further factor in local authority decisions not to fund it.

The original vision of the two interventions (MCR Pathways and Columba 1400 YPLAs) complementing each other within individual schools has also not materialised. Cost is, again, likely to be a major factor, with schools/local authorities feeling that they cannot justify funding two schemes in the same school. However, one stakeholder questioned how much it mattered that fewer schools had participated in both schemes:

“the reach as a joint offer hasn’t been as wide as hoped but there’s certainly been interest in the component parts. [How much does that matter?] I don’t know. There are two strong offers at face value so, if people in schools and local authorities identify that offer as something that’s going to meet young people’s needs, then it is still delivering, ultimately, on what we are aiming to do.” National Stakeholder (wave one)

Two Local Authority stakeholders in Wave 2 indicated that any future involvement within their areas would be initiated by schools – though one of these stakeholders did suggest that they would continue to highlight MCR Pathways as a positive option.

Have mentoring and leadership been embedded across the school system?

There was some evidence that the two interventions had embedded mentoring and leadership within the schools in which they were operating, with staff being keen for the schemes to continue. Phase Three of the Columba 1400 YPLA (where young people design and deliver a local school or community service project) is aimed at embedding the leadership skills the young people have discovered in Phases One and Two. Teachers and Columba 1400 staff felt that the YPLA cohorts had played a key role in embedding a leadership and mentoring culture in the wider school. (See Chapter 1, Intervention overviews and Chapter 3, Broader impacts, for more details.)

Looking at the picture more broadly, one local authority stakeholder suggested that school capacity was a barrier to embedding mentoring:

“I think the concept of developing mentoring programmes is very much welcomed within schools. I think the biggest challenge around it is the capacity in terms of whether it's internal mentoring programmes, whatever staff capacity takes do that […] the timetables in schools are so tight”. Local Authority stakeholder (wave two)

In term of the SMLP as a whole, given that the programme has not been rolled out at the scale and pace intended, and has reached considerably fewer schools and pupils than originally envisioned, we would conclude that mentoring and leadership have not yet been fully embedded across the Scottish school system as a whole.

To what extent has MCR Pathways developed a positive relationship with Developing the Young Workforce, Skills Development Scotland and the Promise?

Representatives of other organisations working with young people such as Developing the Young Workforce (DYW), Skills Development Scotland (SDS)^[30] and the Promise, generally felt that their organisation had a positive working relationship with MCR, and vice versa.

Representatives of these organisations shared various examples of partnership working. For example, at a senior level, MCR and the Promise met to discuss the definition of ‘care experienced’, with MCR also offering support in raising local awareness of the Promise. At a school level, mentors are encouraged to complement the work of SDS by supporting their mentee with things like college applications. MCR and DYW also work together on employer engagement opportunities called ‘Talent Tasters’. There were also examples of individual staff moving employment between these organisations which helped share knowledge, while SDS also highlighted that some of their staff are mentors for MCR Pathways.

One MCR manager talked about their mutually beneficial relationship with the local Developing the Young Workforce lead: sharing information about work experience opportunities and about sectors that young people are interested in.

Representatives noted that their organisations have a shared remit in supporting young people to move into positive destinations. One stakeholder said that MCR Pathways complements their work in being able to offer weekly one-to-one support, which their organisation cannot provide. However, there was a wider sense among participants that more could be done to avoid duplication of effort in this space. For example, some stakeholders compared MCR Pathways with a programme offered by Career Ready and felt these interventions were available to similar^[31] cohorts of young people and had similar aims. One described this as a ‘duplication of time, effort and money’.

Has the programme led to building out and deepening support for young people?

Local authorities and national stakeholders felt there was huge potential for the SMLP to help provide links with other services or organisations outside of schools to support young people – but did not feel that they had seen clear evidence of this happening yet. Challenges relating to funding post-COVID, and the number of different agendas across the education system, were identified as barriers to this happening. One rural local authority representative suggested that having a ‘connector’ role (with a specific remit to bring work together) would help with this building-out element, especially across complex geographical areas.

“I’m sure it’s happening in pockets but [it’s] getting a national drive on it, I suppose.” Local authority (wave one)