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

The Open University - comment on debate about ELqs

Please find, from the link below the comments of the Open University, specifically, the Vice Chancellor, Professor B M Gourlay and their stated intentions as to how they are going to tackle the problem:-


Open University commentary 4th April 2008

I think that this is a pretty fair assessment of what is going on. What is extremely worrying is that at the end of the period, the OU will lose £29.8m per anumn if they do not find funding from other sources. That is why this policy cannot succeed and I call on everyone to continue campaigning against this policy and especially the attitude of the Secretary of State for Universities who, it must be said, is hardly acting in a democratic manner.

Bill Rammell is coming to the Open University

It is by no means certain that Bill Rammell will be visiting the Open University in the said vehicle illustrated above, by the way.


I dont normally talk about the Open University Students Association on the blog out of respect to them; I normally like to keep my involvements with this side of my higher education activities out of their way, as well.

However just on this occasion, I see that they have invited Bill Rammell to their esteemed conference on 25-27 April 2008 and he has accepted. I have therefore posed the following question of him:-

Now that your own Select Committee have come out against your plans and say that they are hasty, ill considered and out of sync with the forthcoming feees review of 2009 have you any foreseeable urge to amend your plans. If so, what amendment to your plans would you foresee.

I would anticipate a very interesting answer to that conundrum.

The multi-talented John Denham

John Denham (Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) | Hansard source

It is important to understand that there have been no changes to the formula that determines how money to widen participation is allocated to universities. Part of the formula rewards universities that are successful in attracting students from a wider range of backgrounds. Many other funds are available to universities, including those that go into bursaries and other means of attracting students from such backgrounds, and it is clearly a responsibility on the universities that are making least progress to do better.



Comments
Donald Hedges
Posted on 2 Apr 2008 12:27 pm

Thats a very interesting point Mr Denham. Consider how much the Open University and Birkbeck College have done to widen participation. Then consider that you have agreed to withdraw £100 million of funding from them during the next three years 2008/11. Then consider whether or not your argument makes sense.

Donald Hedges, BA(Hons)(Solent), Dip Eng Law(Open).

The Select Committee Report on ELQs - 27th March 2008.

The report of the Select Committee of the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills has been published and I would print here for the readers delectation, a summary of what has been said, with full acknowledgement to the preparers of the report:-

Summary

In September 2007 the Government announced that it was withdrawing state funding paid
to higher education institutions to subsidise the fees of ELQ students, that is those studying for a qualification at the same or lower level to one they already hold. The result is that from 2008–09 students starting a second degree could see their tuition fees increase by 200%.

The Government argued that its policy was in line with the recommendations of the Leitch Review of Skills to concentrate the extra resources that it is putting in to higher education on first-time students and expecting employers to shoulder more of the burden for retraining via second degrees.

We found that consultation on the withdrawal of the funding was restricted to the
implementation arrangements with the full effects of the changes and consequences for
other policies such as the need for re-skilling inadequately examined. We conclude that the decision to cut funding to ELQ students was insufficiently justified either by persuasive analysis of its likely effectiveness in achieving the desired goals or evidence of the likely wider impact of the policy.

Nearly all the submissions we received were hostile to the changes.

We conclude that the transitional arrangements and exemptions are inadequate—for
example, the change will affect some groups of students and some institutions more than others—and inconsistent—for example, those pursuing Turkish studies are exempt but not pharmacists. We believe that the change would have been better left until the independent review of variable fees due in 2009, which would have been able to weigh funding of ELQs against other priorities.

My analysis of the situation exhibited by the report is as follows:-

In short, this Select Committee does not believe that the Leitch Report on skills has bearing on ELQs either way, despite the government having said that their policy on ELQs would be in line with the Leitch Report.

Neither does this Select Committee find that first time buyers into Higher Education will be pushed out by the demand for ELQs. As Brenda Gourley, Vice-Chancellor of the Open University said, all requests for courses within the Open University are being met at the present moment. So, there is no evidence of unassimilated demand within the system.

It has been brought to the attention of the Select Committee that there were 100,000 applications last academic year which have been turned down and that this was a point which was worth investigation. Nonetheless there were very many reasons why students were not accepted on to courses, one of them being that may be the students were not exhibiting the requisite level of entry qualifications.

The Select Committee has said that the government has not provided sufficient evidence of the demand for the 20,000 additional students which the government has said could be provided for if the ELQs money were transferred to the account of HE first time buyers.

The Select Committee has said that there is no evidence of the phenomenon of "perpetual students"; mainly owing to the fact that most students have to contribute something towards their own education.

There was concern expressed over the timing of the presentation of the ELQ policy; it was thought to be ill-timed and out of sync with the investigations which were going to be carried out in 2009 of the Office of Fair Access and independent review of variable fees. Although the government would argue this aspect it was still felt that the government could have waited a bit

longer.

The Select Committee thought that there should have been consultations of a rather more extensive nature on the principles behind the changes; it thought that there had been insufficient consultations on these aspects.

The Select Committee has said that it thinks that support of a funding nature for part-time students is precarious and that the government's suggestions for ELQ funding do not do much to improve the situation.

The Select Committee thought that the proposed reliance on co-funding would remove the flexibility which now exists for students to choose their courses and that students without employer support would not have the same freedom which they have heretofore enjoyed.

The Select Committee was concerned that an impact assessment had not been carried out and urged the government to correct this error in the future.

It was recommended by the Select Committee that HEFCE should have an appeals system regarding its modelling to challenge the data about ELQs and how the funding for them is to be calculated (including the safety net).

The Select Committee does think that the safety net period of 3 years is sufficient but it has suggested provisos such as more interim help or additional help for those worst hit by the ELQs provisions (and I think that this additional help will be targeted at the Open University, Birkbeck College and other large scale providers).

The Select Committee felt that the exemptions proposed were not consistent or always viable. It also wants the government to clarify its positions on the exemptions announced by Hefce in January 2008.

The Select Committee has recommended that a clear set of guidelines be provided to higher education institutions regarding the policing of which students already have ELQs and whether or not higher education institutions have a duty of due diligence.

In summary, the Select Committee has said that it does not support the way that the ELQ issue has been handled. There needs to be more investigation and analysis.

It seems to me that we have won a minor battle in the war over ELQs. It remains to be seen what the government are going to do. They have three months in which to respond. It will be interesting to see what the response is but we wont hold out breath. In my view there is still plenty of work to be done and more battles to be won.

Donald Hedges, BA(Hons)(Solent), Dip Eng Law(Open).