THE furore of the week for me was not about Stephen Byers, but about events at a Glasgow college, which stands accused in at least two newspapers of providing incentives to students to stay on after the “required date” to claim SUMs funding. It is the date on which 25 per cent of the course length has been reached.
So why the furore? It is obviously important for colleges to achieve target enrolment figures and for student units of measurement to match their budget projections. Besides there are no particular rules regarding incentives and I understand that the college’s actions in providing raffle tickets for any student registering in class after the required date (specifically November 12, 2001) were justified in terms of getting students with problems to come into the college to discuss them rather than simply drop out.
The Scottish Executive was quoted as stating that the funding council had issued clear guidelines to colleges setting out the circumstances and conditions under which funding may be claimed and that any evidence of unjustified claims should be fully examined and action taken where appropriate.
I must say I am not so sure that the rules are clear on this point. The funding council’s regulations on claiming student attendance for SUMs achieved are complex and, since incorporation, subject to many changes so as to make more robust what is allowed and what is not allowed. In fact, I would suggest that the rules governing SUMs claims have been sufficiently complex so as to have Byzantium associated with them.
Also they have allowed differences of interpretation - hence the revisions on a regular basis as the funders have attempted to close loopholes.
Over the years this has given rise to debate about the ways in which student retention rates can be improved. I have taken part in numerous discussions, often late at night, after a conference, about ways in which retention rates could be improved and specifically the ways in which the critical “attendance after the required date” could be achieved. Those more imaginative, or simply bolder, among us were prepared to implement schemes similar to the one indicated above. In some cases the prizes suggested were luridly exotic compared to the case in question - two tickets to a Travis gig, cinema tickets, a bottle of champagne.
I remember a previous member of my own board of management asking why, if the costs of not retaining students were so high, the college could not provide Marks and Spencer vouchers to all those who stayed on after the required date. We chose not to do that at the time but, as part of our annual debate about retention rate improvement, the voucher scheme still raises its head.
It will be interesting to see if the funding council investigates further and issues guidelines. Meanwhile we should be grateful we don’t have to operate in the English system, which is apparently more bureaucratic than our own. Colleges are funded according to three different dates during the session, with the level of funding relating to the students attending at each date.
Despite the tighter bureaucracy I am sure colleagues try similar things to improve their funding. It’s not surprising: when colleges are under severe financial pressure it is obvious they will seek ever more ingenious ways.
Meanwhile if readers have any suggestions on incentives for students, I am sure we in the FE sector would be delighted to hear from you. Just make sure they are allowed.
Norman Williamson is principal of Coatbridge College and a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
