The post Studying in Scotland as a Pakistani student appeared first on The PIE News.
Tag: Scotland
-
Graduate apprenticeships are failing to scale in Scotland – here’s why
This HEPI blog was authored by Elaine Jackson, Lecturer in Business and Management at the University of the West of Scotland.
Imagine earning a full salary while studying for your degree, graduating debt-free, and having a guaranteed job at the end. This isn’t fantasy, it’s exactly what graduate apprenticeships offer. Yet these programmes represent just 8% of Scotland’s university intake, despite employers desperately needing skilled workers in the very sectors where apprenticeships thrive.
The story of what’s possible starts with people like Donna. Through her graduate apprenticeship with a Local Authority, she delivered a project that secured £280,000 in funding and earned recognition as a nominee for the 2025 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) excellence awards. Her success demonstrates the transformative potential of combining work and study but it also highlights a troubling question: if graduate apprenticeships work so well, why aren’t there more of them?
Graduate apprenticeships (GAs), also known as Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in the UK, represent a specific model of work-based learning where the apprentice is an employee who is simultaneously studying for a full undergraduate or master’s degree. These programmes typically last three to six years, with apprentices spending approximately 20% of their time studying and 80% working.
The scale challenge reveals a deeper problem
The numbers reveal a stark reality. Since these programmes launched in 2017, only 37,000 Scots have enrolled in Foundation and Graduate Apprenticeships combined across all years combined. To put that in perspective, 16,340 Scottish 18-year-olds accepted traditional university places in just 2024 alone. Graduate apprenticeships are growing alongside regular university degrees, offering an alternative pathway rather than replacing traditional routes, but they’re growing far too slowly.
This slow growth becomes even more puzzling when we consider the demand. Skills Development Scotland reports that social work faces a 9.3% vacancy rate, while engineering, digital technology, healthcare, and business management show similar patterns of unmet need. These are exactly the sectors where graduate apprenticeships are proving most successful, yet only 1,378 new opportunities are projected for 2024-25 across all Scottish universities.
So, what would realistic growth look like? Based on current university capacity, documented employer partnerships, and persistent skills shortages, Scotland could reasonably support 2,000-2,500 new apprentices each year, nearly doubling current numbers. This figure accounts for genuine employer capacity to provide meaningful workplace learning, not just any company willing to take on apprentices. It represents growth that the system could absorb without compromising quality.
But three fundamental barriers prevent this expansion from happening and understanding them reveals why good intentions alone aren’t enough to scale successful programmes.
Why growth remains elusive: Three critical barriers
The first barrier is financial, and it’s more complex than simply needing more money. Graduate apprenticeships cost significantly more to deliver than traditional degrees, yet they’re funded as if they were the same thing. Think about how a typical university lecture works: one professor teaches 200 students in a hall, students complete assignments independently, and most learning happens through individual study. Now consider how apprenticeships work: Glasgow Caledonian University provides one-to-one mentoring and three-way liaison between each student, their employer, and university staff throughout the entire programme. Class sizes on these programmes are typically 15-35 students, not 200, and every apprentice needs dedicated support to balance work and study successfully.
This intensive approach works, apprentices like Donna achieve remarkable outcomes. But it is expensive. Evidence from England’s apprenticeship system shows funding ranges from £1,500 to £27,000 depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring the higher amounts. Yet Scottish universities, already facing a £4,000 to £7,000 funding gap per student, receive the same amount whether they’re delivering a large lecture or providing intensive one-to-one support. This creates a perverse incentive: the better the apprenticeship programme, the more money the university loses.
The second barrier involves employer readiness, and here Scotland faces a fundamental difference from countries where apprenticeships work at scale. In Germany and Switzerland, companies must meet standardised quality criteria before they can take on apprentices. They need qualified supervisors, structured learning programmes, and formal assessment processes. This ensures every apprentice receives genuine training, not just a work placement.
Scotland takes a different approach: any employer can participate without meeting specific training standards. While this sounds more flexible, it creates wildly inconsistent experiences. Some employers, like those partnering with the University of the West of Scotland, provide excellent mentoring and career development. Others treat apprentices more like temporary staff, offering limited learning opportunities. This inconsistency doesn’t just harm individual apprentices, it undermines confidence in the entire system, making other employers hesitant to participate and students uncertain about programme quality.
The third barrier is bureaucratic complexity that would frustrate even the most determined institutions. Universities wanting to create new apprenticeship programmes must navigate approval processes across Skills Development Scotland, degree-awarding bodies, and professional accreditation requirements. The Scottish Funding Council’s guidance spans multiple pages covering compliance requirements across 14 different subject areas. When universities are already struggling financially, investing scarce resources in complex approval processes for programmes that may not even cover their costs becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
These barriers explain why graduate apprenticeships remain promising but small-scale, despite clear demand from both employers and students. Early evidence suggests positive retention outcomes among graduate apprentice cohorts, though comprehensive longitudinal data is still emerging given the programmes’ recent introduction. This contrasts with broader patterns where Scotland faces challenges retaining skilled graduates, particularly in STEM fields where migration to other regions for career opportunities remains a persistent concern.
The investment case
The solutions are straightforward, though not simple to implement. First, funding must reflect delivery reality. Universities need premium funding of 125-135% of standard degree rates to cover the intensive support that makes apprenticeships effective. Given that Scottish universities already receive £2,020 less per student than English institutions, this investment would address both general underfunding and apprenticeship-specific costs.
Second, Scotland should build employer capacity systematically rather than simply recruiting more participants. This means developing quality standards for workplace learning, supporting successful employers to mentor others, and focusing on sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion that compromises quality.
Third, approval processes need streamlining. Rather than navigating multiple agencies with overlapping requirements, universities should face consolidated processes that maintain quality while reducing bureaucratic barriers to innovation.
The investment required, approximately £20-35 million annually to reach 2,000-2,500 starts, is significant but justified. Graduate apprenticeships address multiple policy priorities simultaneously: reducing student debt, developing skills where shortages are most acute, and retaining talent in Scotland rather than losing graduates to other regions.
Funding viability: A realistic investment in Scotland’s economic future
The question of funding viability deserves a data-driven response. The proposed £20-35 million annual investment represents just 0.03-0.06% of Scotland’s £59.7 billion public budget—smaller than typical annual budget variations. Scotland already invests £185 million annually in apprenticeships, making this 11-19% increase both modest and strategically targeted.
A phased expansion demonstrates fiscal responsibility while addressing urgent skills gaps. Starting with £15 million (expanding from 1,200 to 1,500 graduate apprentices), scaling to £25 million by year three (2,000 apprentices), and reaching £35 million by year five (2,500 apprentices) aligns expansion with demonstrated employer capacity while allowing quality oversight.
This investment timeline is economically viable because Scotland’s economy is projected to achieve 1.7% growth by 2027. Based on Scottish Fiscal Commission projections of economic growth averaging 1.5% over the implementation period, the apprenticeship investment would represent less than 1% of projected economic expansion—a sustainable allocation that directly addresses the 9.3% vacancy rate in social work and similar shortages across engineering and digital sectors.
International benchmarking supports this scale. England’s apprenticeship system spends £1,500-27,000 per apprentice depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring higher investments. Scotland’s proposed £14,000-20,000 per graduate apprentice (including university premium funding) sits within this proven range while delivering superior outcomes through integrated workplace learning.
The return on investment is compelling: each graduate apprentice avoids approximately £15,000 in student debt compared to the Scottish average, while earning during their studies and contributing immediately to productivity. Graduate apprentices also avoid the debt burden that affects traditional students, providing a genuine alternative to debt-financed higher education.
Rather than adopting loan models that would undermine the fundamental “earn while learning” proposition, Scotland should view this as infrastructure investment—comparable to the £150 million being invested in offshore wind manufacturing. Both create sustainable employment, address skills shortages, and position Scotland competitively in growth sectors. Analysis of successful apprenticeship systems consistently shows that sustainable models rely on public investment rather than employer or student financing.
The choice is strategic, not fiscal. Scotland can afford this investment; the question is whether it can afford not to make it when facing documented skills shortages in sectors critical to economic growth and the net-zero transition.
Conclusion
The choice facing Scottish policymakers is ultimately about ambition and fiscal realism. The evidence shows what works, the economic case is compelling, and the investment is demonstrably affordable through phased implementation. Scotland can accept that graduate apprenticeships remain a valuable but limited option, or it can make a modest, strategic investment to unlock their transformative potential for addressing skills shortages and retaining talent. Now it’s time to scale what works.
-
Partnership? Students in Scotland need protection
It’s easy to trace differences in culture back much further – arguably right back to Bologna in 1088, and the Rectors of the Ancients in the 15th Century.
But at the very least since 2003, students’ unions in England have looked North of the border jealously at a country so committed to student partnership that it created a statutory agency to drive it.
Partnership at all levels thrives when there’s will, time, and frankly, money. It’s tougher to reflect the principles of students having power when times are tight – when the excel sheets no longer add up, when restructures have to be planned, and when cuts have to be crafted to the facilities and services that students have been inputting on for years.
Beyond the potentially apocryphal stories of truly student-led institutions in ancient times, students in any system are bound to be treated as, and regard themselves as, at best junior partners – with, both at individual and collective levels, a significant power asymmetry.
In such scenarios, when leaders spend their days choosing between any number of awful options, it’s often going to be the least institutionally risky path that’s taken. And the danger is that students – who previously might have relied on partnership to secure their interests – now really need protection instead.
I spend quite a bit of time here lamenting the implementation of protection measures for students in England. But in conversations with students and their leaders in Scotland, I’m now finding myself repeatedly reflecting on the fact that at least, in England, there are some.
3 months to open your email
Take complaints. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) doesn’t always generate the answer that student complainants would like – it often feels too distant, and at least temporally, hard to access.
It also has a tendency to seek resolution when it’s sometimes justice that should prevail – and increasingly feels like providers are paying students off (often with NDAs for non-harassment complaints) before they get there.
But in Scotland, students have to use the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). As I type, “due to an increase in the volume of cases” it is currently receiving, there is a delay of 12 weeks in allocating complaints to a reviewer.
Some comfort that will be to the international PGT who has cause to complain in month 10 of their studies, only to have to encounter a complaint, an appeal, and then a further 12 weeks just to get the SPSO to open their letter. UKVI will have ensured they’re long gone.
It’s clear that few get as far as the SPSO. When it investigates a complaint, it usually reports its findings and conclusions in what it calls a decision letter – and these findings are published as decision reports. Since May 2021, just ten have been published.
Either students in Scotland have much less to complain about than their counterparts in England and Wales, or universities in Scotland are much better at resolving complaints, or this is a system that obviously isn’t working.
Never OK
Then there’s harassment and sexual misconduct. Just under a year ago Universities Scotland’s update on anti-harassment work suggested a system of protection that’s patchy at best.
37 per cent of institutions weren’t working with survivors to inform their approach, 21 per cent didn’t have policies allowing for preventative suspension where necessary, and only 71 per cent of institutions had “updated their policies” following guidance from UUK on staff-student relationships – which could still mean all 19 universities are permitting staff to pursue students.
Universities Scotland acknowledges that most identify funding as a barrier, but England’s regulator makes clear that providers “must” deploy necessary resources, with higher-risk institutions expected to invest more. If you can’t fund student safety properly, perhaps you shouldn’t be operating is the message in England.
And there’s no sign that Scotland will be taking part in the prevalence research that’s been piloted in England.
Cabinet Secretary Jenny Gilruth’s praise for Scotland’s “partnership approach” suggested either complacency or a failure to grasp that Scotland is sliding toward being significantly less robust than England in protecting students. When partnership fails to deliver safety, protection becomes essential – and on harassment, it feels like Scotland is failing to provide either adequately.
Best practice should not be voluntary
Or take mental health. While Wales has responded to parliamentary concerns about consistency by accepting recommendations for a “common framework for mental health support” backed by registration and funding conditions, Scotland continues to rely on voluntary approaches that deliver patchy outcomes.
The Welsh government’s response to its Children, Young People and Education Committee shows what serious commitment looks like. New MEDR registration conditions will require clear expectations for student wellbeing, supported by data collection requirements, evaluation frameworks, and crucially, funding considerations built into budget allocations.
There’s partnership rhetoric – but it’s partnership backed by regulatory teeth. Wales has grasped what Scotland appears to miss – that “best practice should not be voluntary” when student lives are at stake, as one bereaved parent told Westminster’s Petitions Committee.
The Welsh approach is set to recognise that students need “parity of approach” and “consistency between departments, institutions, and academic teams” – something that purely voluntary frameworks cannot deliver.
Scotland’s reliance on institutional goodwill for mental health provision increasingly looks naive. Maintaining flexibility for institutions to design services suited to their contexts, is one thing – but Wales will ensure baseline standards that students can depend on regardless of which university they attend.
The contrast is stark – Wales will treat student mental health as a regulatory priority requiring systematic oversight, while Scotland appears content to hope that partnership alone in a context of dwindling funding will somehow deliver consistency. When partnership fails to protect the most vulnerable students, Wales will have built backup systems – Scotland has built excuses about funding pressures that Welsh universities face too.
Promises promises
Then there’s consumer protection – or, as I like to rebrand it, delivering on the promises made to students. It’s easy to assume that students in Scotland aren’t covered – but plenty do pay fees, and those that don’t are supposed to be protected too.
But over two and a half years since the Competition and Markets Authority revised its guidance to universities on compliance, there seems to be a nationwide problem. Of the 16 universities I’ve looked at in Scotland, 15 still include contractual terms limiting liability in the event of a strike involving their own staff – something CMA has advised is unlawful, and which OfS is effectively enforcing in cases like Newcastle.
In a year when strikes are more likely, why should students in Scotland not be afforded the same rights to the education they’ve signed up for than their English counterparts?
The CMA also bans clauses that limit compensation for breach of contract to the total paid in fees – something that would be very attractive in Scotland for obvious reasons. Yet 14 of the country’s universities continue to publish contractual terms that apparently allow them to with impunity. Several have highly problematic clauses on in-contract fee increases too.
And CMA’s guidance on “variation clauses” – that should not result in too wide an ability to vary the course or services that were offered when students signed up – looks like it’s been flouted too.
I’m no lawyer, but most universities in Scotland seem to be affording themselves the right to pretty much change anything and everything – and when finances are as tight as they are, that means students and their complaints about cuts can be bottom of the risk register, if they feature at all.
You’re the voice
Or take student voice itself. The mandatory Learner Engagement Code required by the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 could be transformative – moving from “should” to “must” with genuine comply-or-explain mechanisms, protected status for student representatives, and mandatory training on rights and responsibilities for all students. Or it could emerge as something weak and vague, disappointing everyone who fought to get student engagement into primary legislation.
But at least there is one. At minimum, Wales recognises that student partnership requires legal backing, not just goodwill that evaporates when finances get tight. Scotland’s partnership model, for all its historical reputation, increasingly looks like an expensive way of avoiding the hard work of building systems that actually protect students when partnership fails.
However flawed, students in England now have new rights over freedom of speech – including a right to not be stopped from speaking on the basis of “reputational impact” on the provider. Several Scottish universities seem to have extraordinarily wide exemptions for “disrepute” and “reputation” that are almost certainly in breach of the Human Rights Act.
You could even, at a stretch, look at cuts and closures. For all the poor implementation and enforcement of a system designed to protect students when their campus, course, university or pathway is closed in England, at least the principle is in place. Student Protection Plans are required in Scotland by SAAS for private providers – but not of universities. Why?
We voted against Brexit
I could go on. Scotland regularly positions itself as more European than England, particularly in higher education where the “partnership approach” is often presented as evidence of continental-style governance. Scottish politicians invoke European models when defending their policies, suggesting Scotland’s collaborative approach mirrors sophisticated systems across the continent.
Yet European student rights frameworks put Scotland to shame. In Serbia, students have the legal right to nutrition, rest and cultural activities. In Sweden, students enjoy the same workplace protections as employees under the Work Environment Act. In Lithuania, there’s a minimum amount of campus space allocated per student by law, and student representatives hold veto power over university senate decisions – if they use it, a special committee reviews the issue and a two-thirds majority is required to override.
In Latvia, students’ unions receive at least 0.05% of the annual university budget by law, with legal rights to request information from any department on matters affecting students. In Poland, students have guaranteed rights to study programmes where at least 30 per cent of credits are elective, and universities must consult student governments when appointing managers with student affairs responsibilities. Student protests and strikes are specifically protected, with mediation rights.
In the Netherlands, universities must inform the national confidential inspector whenever staff may have engaged in harassment involving students – and any staff hearing about allegations must report them to management. Spain mandates every university has an independent ombudsperson with statutory reporting duties. In Croatia, universities are legally obliged to provide students’ unions workspace, co-finance their activities, and offer administrative support. And Austrian students make up significant proportions of curriculum committees by statute, ensuring programmes remain flexible and career-relevant.
Can I get the Bill
It’s not as if there isn’t a legal vehicle that could improve things. The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is weaving its way through the Scottish Parliament as we speak – but it couldn’t be weaker in protections for students if it tried.
- Section 8 allows the new Council, when conducting efficiency studies, to consider “the extent to which the needs and interests of students are being met” and then issue recommendations to universities and colleges. But recommendations are not binding.
- Section 11 amends the 2005 Act to require the Council, in exercising its functions, to “have regard to the desirability of protecting and promoting the interests of current and prospective learners.” Again, this is a duty on the Council, not directly on universities, and is about regard rather than enforceable standards.
- Section 18 allows Scottish Ministers to designate private providers so that their students can access public student support. That’s a consumer-style protection, but it’s about access to funding rather than quality or rights.
- Section 19–20 updates the rules around how student support is administered and delegated — but again, that’s more about machinery than protections.
There’s no new regulatory framework for how universities behave towards students (on contracts, teaching quality, complaints handling, etc.). There are no rights conferred directly on students — no duty of fair treatment, no consumer protection-style obligations, no statutory complaints rights.
Universities themselves are not made subject to enforceable duties in the Bill, beyond existing general oversight via the Funding Council. And while the Council can give guidance (section 10) and issue recommendations (section 8), institutions are only required to “have regard” rather than comply.
Cakeism in Scotland
Models of student partnership have served Scotland well over the decades – and should continue to. After all, learning outcomes take two to tango – and that’s true from the classroom right up the boardroom.
But right now here in 2025, partnership often feels like a luxury for when rivers of money start flowing back in – and even the most well meaning and moral SMT or Court has a duty to protect the institution before it protects its students.
Ultimately, partnership and protection should not feel like mutual exclusives, or something a country should choose. It’s perfectly possible, and in the current funding climate, deeply desirable, for students to have both.
Scottish ministers – through a new section of the Funding and Governance Bill – should legislate to make it so.
-
Scotland’s “sleeping giant” looks to international recruitment
Although the history of the institution dates back over 100 years, it only achieved degree-awarding powers last year. Specialising in agriculture and life sciences, SRUC hopes to become an increasingly attractive choice for international students.
“For many years, SRUC’s been a sleeping giant,” SRUC’s principal and chief executive Wayne Powell told The PIE News. “Now we’ve awoken and we can see huge amount of potential in what we can offer here in Scotland.”
Offering international masters programs including international food and agriculture business, business consultancy and project management, Powell said the institution is “creating a future which is much more aligned to what students for the future will want to do” – with international recruitment efforts largely looking to students from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
With six campuses located around Scotland, SRUC’s Edinburgh campus launched a £1.8 million vertical farming innovation centre in January, making it the first Scottish higher education institution in Scotland to create a commercial-sized vertical farm to help address global and local food production challenges.
“Some of the things that we work on are at the nexus of the most important challenges facing society. So how do we feed a growing world?” explained Powell. “How do we support environmental sustainability?”
He continued: “We are interested in attracting students that have an identity and an interest in sustainability and how the sustainability will play out over their lifetimes”.
But while sustainability is undeniably a focus for the institution, Powell stressed that prospective students are also being enticed by curriculums focussing on business – especially as SRUC runs its own “successful consultancy business”.
Now we’ve awoken and we can see huge amount of potential in what we can offer here in Scotland
Wayne Powell, SRUCLearning about international agriculture, food and business in tandem is also a focus for programs, “particularly the potential for acquiring those business skills as part of a green economy”, Powell said.
“And our location in Edinburgh [creates] a fantastic opportunity to come and live and work and study in a great city,” he added.
“There’s something here which is going to be attractive and we’re keen to market that in the right way and creating the first cohort of students coming into something really special.”
It comes as Scotland has taken steps to position itself as an attractive destination for international students. In late January, the country’s universities were encouraged to take “collective action” to promote Scotland as a study destination.
In the same week, Scotland’s first minister John Swinney made the case for a bespoke visa for skilled international students graduating from the country’s colleges and universities. However, it is understood that the UK government has no plans to make good on these ambitions.
-
Podcast: Scotland, Secret life of Students
This week on the podcast – recorded live at our Secret Life of Students event in London – we get across the financial crisis facing universities in Scotland. Can the SNP hold its “free education” line forever?
Plus there’s clips, highlights and reflections from our Secret life of Students event in London – where we’ve been discussing student health, what students learn, the time crunch that prevents meaningful engagement and what universities can do to “make the space” to innovate in the student interest.
With Jimena Alamo, President at University of Bath Students’ Union, Mark Peace, Professor of Innovation in Education at King’s College London, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
Additional £10m funding from the Scottish Government
Breaking out of Borgentown – the case for hope in higher education
-
New legislation in Scotland increases the SFC’s powers, but only up to a point
Post-school reform in Scotland continues to chug along, following last month’s announcement of the preferred future shape of the funding body landscape.
Today sees the legislation that will enact the changes introduced in Holyrood: the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.
We’ve been over how responsibilities for further education student support and apprenticeships and skills funding will shift around, and the bill also contains expected changes to the governance arrangements of the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), as well as some technical changes relating to fees and private provision.
But what’s emerged as perhaps the more pressing question for the higher education sector is how the legislation will change SFC responsibilities and powers, as these apply to its work with universities. The legislation sets out the route the Scottish government will take here, and it’s a fairly balanced one – we are still a long way from an England-style “boots on the ground” regulatory environment, likely to the relief of many.
Tell us about your finances
Much of what the bill will do legislatively is through modifications to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Section 22(4) of this gives the SFC various powers to “pull” information from universities – or strictly, from their governing bodies – but only where the funder knows that the information exists, or may exist.
The new legislation aims to create a landscape in which post-16 education bodies must “proactively notify SFC of certain developments of which the SFC might otherwise be unaware” in what the bill’s policy memorandum characterises as a “push” of information – a responsibility to notify the funding council of things it would not have known otherwise. Those who are more used to other UK systems will probably be thinking of “reportable events”.
It’s suggested that notifications would likely be sought in the following kinds of situation:
- Where a university is planning voluntary or compulsory severance (so no daily refreshing of the QMUL UCU cuts tracker for the SFC)
- Where a university has reached a certain threshold in a rapidly worsening financial viability situation
- A major data breach, such as resulting from a cyberattack.
But exactly how this will work is not specified on the face of the legislation – it would be determined by ministers via the laying of regulations, with consultation and an affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament, “given that they could potentially place significant obligations on post-16 education bodies.” But this does mean that there is a lack of clarity on exactly what the bill is going to mandate.
Part of the rationale for beefing up the legislation from what was previously anticipated (and let’s be honest, what was in the consultation) seems to be that ministers have not received enough clarity about the financial challenges being faced by certain universities and colleges. When the policy memorandum notes that “there can be challenges for SFC in getting information from post-16 education bodies about their financial sustainability,” you feel that really the issue is about ministerial oversight and the sense of having active levers to pull. This is given an explicit tweak elsewhere in the bill (again, quoting the policy memorandum):
New section 15A(2) allows the Scottish Ministers to seek information and advice from the SFC relating to post-16 education bodies, this could be an individual body or the bodies as a whole. Section 15A(3) requires the SFC to respond to any such request from the Scottish Ministers and the SFC may also offer information proactively when it considers it appropriate to do so. This is necessary because unforeseen circumstances may arise of which the Scottish Ministers might otherwise be unaware (and so would not know to enquire).
So what are you going to do about it?
Also in the 2005 Act is provision for the SFC to “secure the promotion or carrying out of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of any fundable body” – but no such power exists where the matters are not related to financial support.
The new legislation would amend this, with the intention of making the SFC able to “address a broader range of matters to assist with performance improvement.” So in scope for an efficiency study would now be the needs and interests of learners:
The policy intention is that the SFC could, particularly where notified of certain adverse circumstances (such as course closures), instigate studies or reviews of the impact on students and learners so that assistance could be provided to ensure they are not negatively impacted. For example, if a college was heading towards needing to close courses before students could complete them, the SFC could help to make arrangements for the students to continue their education at different colleges.
Bringing the student interest in scope sounds sensible in theory, but there remains the question of what changes on the ground, beyond the production of a study. The 2005 Act allows the SFC to attend and speak to an institution’s governing body – the new section 15(4) of this bill will extend this to the issuing of a set of written recommendations.
So the SFC will be able to recommend setting specific improvement targets, or requiring the development of an improvement plan. And it will now even be able to publish these, “where there is wider interest amongst institutions, or the public, in the recommendations and they are not sensitive.” But it won’t be obliged to.
And what if its recommendations are ignored?
As with the SFC’s right to address meetings, already provided for in section 16 of the 2005 Act, there is no corresponding duty on the fundable body to do anything in response to the recommendations. However, as a matter of good governance and practice, the Scottish Government would expect the fundable body to consider them appropriately.
But beyond these recommendations, in the legislation as it stands there would be proper statutory powers for the SFC to influence educational institutions’ behaviour, through the issuing of guidance, which currently is “purely administrative” (though presumably always very welcome). The Tertiary Education and Training Bill will change this, so that institutions must have regard to the guidance, in the carrying out of their funded activities (note that “have regard to” is quite woolly language – something that the Office for Students has exploited frequently within the way HERA was drafted). But the SFC will have to consult both ministers and institutions in issuing guidance.
It could have been otherwise
Various alternative approaches were considered and rejected. The use of codes of conduct (“for example to address concerns around breaches of fair work conditions”) was felt to potentially lead to complex interactions with other requirements, and diminish autonomy. Plus there would have been a need for “appropriate enforcement mechanisms,” which is a whole other question.
More powers of audit and investigation were also considered and not taken forward, which would have been a move towards a “more interventionist SFC.” Likewise for stronger enforcement and intervention action, including serving enforcement notices or the removing, suspending, or appointing of officers or governing body members.
But this would have been “a fundamental change to SFC’s role which requires more careful consideration” – and would have gone way beyond what was originally consulted on.
There’s still a long way to go here – Universities Scotland is already noting the “new, very broadly defined provisions regarding the monitoring of the financial sustainability of institutions,” and raising concerns that too much change in the relationship between the SFC and universities (or universities and the Scottish government) could jeopardise the classification of universities in the Office for National Statistics classification.
The Scottish government seems to be aware of this particular risk – but there are certainly MSPs keen for the SFC to become more “interventionist”, and the legislation now faces a complicated passage through a Parliament in which the SNP does not hold a majority. The ministerial statement to Holyrood launching the bill saw Ross Greer of the Scottish Greens concerned about whether the SFC would have the ability to intervene in matters relating to fair work – higher education minister Graeme Dey said he would be happy to discuss the issue further.
For now the legislation aims at a delicate balancing act between juicing up the SFC’s role and preserving universities’ autonomy. The next question is whether this persists in the face of deeper scrutiny and parliamentary compromises.
-
Scotland eyes new graduate visa for international students
Speaking at an event in Glasgow this week, John Swinney blasted the UK’s “disastrous” decision to leave the European Union, but suggested a new migration route specifically for students who choose to study in Scotland.
“Twenty years ago, the Scottish and UK governments worked together to launch a tailored migration route designed to enable international students to stay in Scotland after they graduated,” he said. “I see no reason why this cannot happen again.”
Under the plans, designed to keep highly skilled graduates in the country, the Scottish Graduate Visa would be linked to a Scottish tax code and be issued on the understanding that recipients would live and work in Scotland.
But despite Swinney’s assurances that he was “ready to work with” Downing Street on making the proposal a reality, his idea already appears to have been rebuffed by the UK government.
A government spokesperson quoted by The Evening Standard indicated that there were “no plans” for a new Scottish visa, citing the UK’s Graduate Route already in place that allows international students to stay in the country for up to two years after they graduate.
In his speech, Swinney said a new Scottish Graduate Visa would benefit not only the country’s institutions but its economy after international students’ graduation, highlighting that this group contributes £4.75 billion a year.
“In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable. It would play a part in making our communities more prosperous,” he said.
In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable
John Swinney, Scottish first ministerPointing out that Scotland’s projected population is expected to dip for the next two generations, Universities Scotland convener Paul Grice highlighted the benefits a Scottish Graduate Visa could bring the country and said he hoped the proposal would “progress in a meaningful way”.
“It would be enormously helpful if a policy space could be created between governments to consider greater regional variation of migration within an overall UK framework,” he said.
“Inward migration will be essential to Scotland’s future and there is a really positive opportunity for Scotland’s universities, as magnets for the attraction and retention of highly-skilled people, to help deliver this as a win-win for the sector and Scotland as a whole. There is a lot to like in this outline proposal.”
Although it does not appear to welcome the idea of a Scottish Graduate Visa for the time being, the UK government seems to be embracing international students.
This week, education secretary Bridget Phillipson recorded a video message to international students in the UK promoting the country’s post-graduation work opportunities.
-
A new funding body landscape emerges in Scotland
Last June the Scottish government set out two proposals for changing up the funding bodies in post-compulsory education, following James Withers’ damning indictment of a “lack of cohesive approach, common purpose, or strategic narrative” in how Scotland’s skills system was organised.
There were two options on the table, and the less drastic reshuffle has prevailed following consultation: the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) will take on all the funding responsibilities from Skills Development Scotland (SDS), which currently handles apprenticeships and training. And the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) will take further education student support off SFC’s hands, rather than being dissolved as per the other consultation option.
We’ll be left with one funder – SFC – and one student support distributor – SAAS. SDS will still exist, retaining its careers information and guidance roles. It all sounds fairly coherent, when put like that, though open to criticism that it is simply a rejiggling of the funding system component parts (Annex B to the business case presents an exhaustive list of all the possible permutations of changes to the landscape, which some poor civil servant had to go through). Certainly from what we’ve seen, many consultation responses stressed that when it came to funding, the burning question is “how much” rather than “who”.
Whether student support responsibilities stayed with SAAS or became a department of SFC was probably at the end of the day a somewhat moot point, and the Scottish government doesn’t bother to give any particular justification for the decision, besides it being slightly preferred by consultation respondees (44 per cent to 35 per cent). It would likely have been a whole heap of organisational work for little strategic reward.
But let’s not underestimate the overall change that’s going to take place. We’ve now got post-school funding responsibilities all in one place within the SFC, including apprenticeships and other training – a landscape-wide role for new chief executive Francesca Osowska (who starts this week) to get thinking about. It’s a similar tertiary lens to Medr in Wales, and the kind of thing that some commentators on the English system would bite your hand off for. That said, there’s no indication that the Scottish government will think about giving the SFC freer rein to assign funding across the skills system as it sees fit – we’ll still be puzzling over itemised budgets each December covering exactly how much will be spent where, for the foreseeable future.
Legislation to enact the changes will now arrive “in the coming weeks”, with a view to it all being in place by autumn 2026. This may prove ambitious given that there are elections in Holyrood in the interim.
Anyone for new powers?
The consultation also asked for feedback on changes to SFC governance (all largely welcomed by respondents), as well as on “enhanced functions” for the funding council. This wasn’t a set of proposals, but more along the lines of a call for ideas, on issues like the information that those funded need to return to SFC, or the strengthening of data collection processes (respondents unsurprisingly were pro-strengthening rather than anti-strengthening).
But it’s worth thinking about what’s changed since the consultation was launched. The financial situation at various Scottish universities has worsened significantly (meanwhile in England the sector has been hammering its regulator for not having collected more timely financial data). Higher education minister Graeme Dey has explicitly linked possible new powers with the SFC – for oversight and intervention – to its ability to respond to university financial crises.
So in the consultation responses we see “calls for up to date information on the financial sustainability of institutions and skills providers, and the financial health of the skills sector as a whole” – moves here would seem to chime with ministerial thinking. On the question of new powers of intervention, there’s likely to be much more pushback:
A number of fundable education bodies, individuals and others […] did not see any need for additional powers for SFC. These respondents suggested that SFC had all of the powers required for their current role, and that proposed reforms should be implemented before reviewing the need for new powers. This was also linked to a view that implementation of reforms should initially focus on policy and support.
Today’s announcement on the preferred rearrangement of funding bodies is not accompanied by any indication of where government policy is going on powers and duties for the SFC – this will come with the legislation, and then almost certainly be the subject of parliamentary horse-trading during the bill’s passage through Holyrood.