Denham plans for Universities crash and burn

Happy after having taken money away from ELQ students which he then stated were going to assist the cause of new and younger students going to University, Denham has now said that the amount of additional university places 2009 will be capped at 10,000, which is 5,000 less than expected.

The link for this information is contained at this point in my blog today:-

Guardian newspaper web edition


As if the cap on the number of students is not enough, which goes directly against the grain of Denham's policy of opening things up for youngsters to go to University, he has also taken money from the ELQ budget to finance this very purpose, which is now failing. He cant subsidise the grant for the number of students who wish to go and therefore has set the limit on an income of £50,000 for middle income parents, which is way below what any Government Minister can earn and way below what most people actually do eatn.

What the government have done instead is to say that these students can have more loans. Thats exactly what I always said; who wants to leave University with a debt of more than £20,000. Thats no way to start a career, with a great big burden of debt around one's back.

The arithmetic employed by this government does not add up and as usual the students are the one's suffering from these bad and lazy decisions. When I think of this government, I can hear the sound of one hand clapping (Famous Zen saying).

Foundation Degrees to be awarded by FE Colleges

After having made a lot of fuss about the government's ELQ policy, I now read with surprise that there is a cunning plan afooot, indeed encouraged by legislation that the Further Education Colleges should now award their own foundation degrees.

That would mean that the Further Education Colleges would have access to the very HE funding that universities were told would be theirs if they changed course and started verifying foundation degrees.

The question is whether the further education colleges are capable of verifying their own degrees and whether they have the technical, academic and pedagogic backgrounds so to do. Certainly, my own anecdotal evidence is that they do not. I speak of an incident ten or so years ago when I was teaching HND Business Studies at a further education college. Now this would be, one supposes, an equivalent thing to the foundation degrees of 2008. I was told that my efforts were no longer required and that it was not quite their thing. Even though I offered to get my own university (of which I am a graduate) to franchise the said HND.

What was their thing; health and beauty, cookery? Whither foundation degrees in those subjects. Of course they are needed but hardly to be verified by Universities.

What is being said is that there is a market, shall we call it sub-prime, in more vocational subjects, such as the ones I have mentioned and lets allow the FE colleges to do foundation degrees in these subjects and verify the degrees to the level of that required by the QAA.

This still takes much needed money away from the Universities. Am I being snobby; I would really like to know because I understood that the pot of money available was available for institutions of Higher Education to do higher education learning and not go do degrees in cookery at FE and thus divert even more funds away from Higher Education.

This government seems to have such a distrust of learning. I can see that they would pay out the Queen's shilling to FE to allow them to verify foundation degrees in toast making and basket weaving. But I am seriously asking, is this the way that our much vaunted educational system should be going?

Open University and the Dragon Issue

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a speech recognition system used by disabled students for their examinations. This system seems to have been used for a number of years without question until some new versions came along which seem to make use of macros. That is the reason why the Open University have said that the students who are using this system for examinations now cannot use it.

There is a logic error in the thought processes of the Open University here. First of all, if the system had been used for years without problem, why is there now a problem. Secondly, Dragon software is not that easy to use, so if students can have the benefit of updated editions which are easier to use why not?

Third, we are talking about students who are already disabled and it is my earnest wish and the wish of a lot of others to get them on to a level playing field with able bodied students. So this problem about "Yes but they might cheat and use macros" is just the faintest bit ridiculous. Yes but so might lots of students. We are talking here about students who are disabled and are closely supervised during their examinations. They want to genuinely pass their examinations and are not interested in cheating. So its all a bit of an indictment about this set of students.

I do have every sympathy for the students that are trying so hard to do their work; they are very deserving of respect. I will call upon the Vice Chancellor of the University to hear all our calls in respect of this issue and allow this group of students access to Dragon software.

Co-funding issue? Are employers interested?

There is an interesting article in the Times Higher Educational Supplement website about whether or not employers are actually receptive and interested in the ideas of co-funding which have been proposed and promulgated by this government. The article poses many interesting questions, among them what employers know about vocational degrees, which does not seem to be much, according to the article.

Yet this co-funding option is one of the fundamental tenets of the governments elq proclamation; what is it doing to see to it that employers themselves are educated as to the merits/demerits of the co-funding system.

Employers of all sizes of enterprise are likely to be asking the question, what can co-funding do for me, what are the tax breaks involved, can my company afford it, what will it mean in terms of human resources, increased productivity, what will it mean to the bottom line of my business?

So far the government has not got in touch with the employers to answer these important and many other important questions.

This is why the elq situation seems to me at best "half-baked" but why not go the whole hog and say, as I am sure Dustin Hoffman did in the "Graduate" that in fact the whole elq idea is "Fully baked". Evidently this government does not believe in doing its research and is hoping that the good fairy will wave her magic wand and that employers will get interested in co-funding.

The 3 month anniversary of the Select Committee

It has now been three months, almost exactly to the day, since the ELQ Sub Committee posted their verdict on the DIUS website. Interestingly enough, out of more than 500 entries of pieces of evidence, 496 were not in favour of the proposal to move monies away from those continuing to further their education in a useful way by doing more qualifications. There has been a considerable argument that not only do people need to reskill again and again in the modern economy but need to keep minds and brains alive by continuing their education at whatever age. As well as the widening participation and lifelong learning arguments.

Now it is the three month anniversary of this publication which was not in favour of the ELQ argument as promulgated by Messrs Denham and Rammell, et al, is it not time for this government to formally state what their position now is. I am of the understanding that they should have given a response to the Select Committee by now, or at the very latest by 27th June 2008, which is at the end of next week.

It would be interesting to see what they have finally concluded about the Select Committee, which obviously was not on the side of this government.

Yes Minister - the Hefce figures (Open University) 2007-2011

Donald Hedges – Following the attendance of Bill Rammell at Conference 2008

Pro-tem report for South Regional Forum on HEFCE estimates 2007-8 to 2011/11 (OU)

Item One – 2007 to 2008


Summary of funding changes 2007-08 to 2010-11

Institution Mainstream funding for non-ELQ students 100,777,907
2007-08 Mainstream funding for exempted ELQ students 2,061,610
2007-08 Mainstream funding for ELQ students aiming for a SIVS qualification 4,896,640
2007-08 Mainstream funding for ELQ students to be phased out 31,628,519
2007-08 Total Funding 139,364,677
2007-08
Open University


This table shows the figures as currently projected by Hefce November 2007. The total funding is £139,364,677 of which £100,777,907 is for current mainstream non ELQ students for the year just passed.

The mainstream funding for exempted ELQ students is £2,061,610 and the funding stream for Study in Vulnerable and Specialist subjects is £4,896,640. The money that is earmarked to be phased out from ELQ students is £31,628,519.

The money obviously has not obviously been phased out from the year just gone but it shows the government and Hefce thinking along these lines and what they do intend to phase out eventually., I think that is quite a clear statement of the rationale behind these moves.



Item 2 – 2008 to 2009

Mainstream funding for non-ELQ students 103,498,911
2008-09 Mainstream funding for exempted ELQ students 2,117,274
2008-09 Targeted allocation for non-exempt ELQ students aiming for a SIVS qualification 5,028,850
2008-09 Supplement to part-time targeted allocation 0
2008-09 Transitional funding for ELQ students currently in the system 22,955,962
2008-09 Safety net funding 5,763,681
2008-09 Total Funding 139,364,677
2008-09


This table shows the position from 2008-2009

The total funding is of the same value for 2007-2008.

The mainstream funding is £3m more, which I believe the Minister did mention in his speech. The exempted value is about £2m and the targeted allocated for strategic and vulnerable subjects is £5m.

In order to shield the University from the nastiest effects of taking £31m, the government and Hefce is giving £28m in transitional and safety net funding.

The difference thus indicated is £0 but the £31m is now cleverly hidden in three groups of numbers which themselves total £31m. This clever figure juggling shows that we have lost nothing. We have in fact still lost £31m but the reliefs and increases hide what we have really lost.

For the other years in question, the figures are broadly the same, for example in 2009-2010, the mainstream funding for non ELQs has again been increased by £3m.

I have attached a spreadsheet in another file so that delegates to the Regional Forum South can see what the figures are doing.

Now the real question is, what does the University do when the transitional funding and safety net provision comes to a stop in 2010-2011? That is the real question that needs to be answered.

Copyright Donald Hedges 2008 with specific permission for OUSA Regional Forum South Only to use this report.

The spreadsheet is not copyright because it is in the public domain.

New Facebook Group - 10p Rate of Tax

I now append details of a new Facebook group I have set up to protest against the 10p rate of Income Tax being abolished. The initial results will be published in this blog but if the movement grows it will be transferred to a blog all of its own.

Cheers.

Facebook 10p tax rate group