Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme: interim report - qualitative process and impact assessment

Chapter 4: Has the Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme been implemented as intended and embedded mentoring and leadership across the school system?

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, 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.

In relation to the Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme as a whole, however, it was found that the speed and scale of rollout of the programme has adapted over time and has been considerably more limited than originally intended. Stakeholders indicated that the main reason for the more limited rollout of the programme was the much 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 no longer sustainable.

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

Another stakeholder felt the original funding model (i.e. part-funding for three years after which schools/local authorities would commit 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

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 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, another stakeholder questioned how much it mattered that few 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.

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.

In term of the Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme 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, at this stage, mentoring and leadership have not yet been fully embedded across the Scottish school system as a whole.