The Vice Chancellor of the Open University has commented

Vice Chancellor of the OU


My comments on what the Vice Chancellor of the Open University has said in her briefing:-

The Vice Chancellor of the Open University, Brenda Gourlay, in her briefing on the matter of Equivalent and Level Qualifications, has rightly pointed out in paragraph one of the briefing that the government has appointed Sandy Leitch to have a look at Britian’s skills agenda and lifelong learning. Indeed the Secretary of State for Universities John Denham has said that 50% of us must bring our skills up to speed for Britain to succeed in the modern economic climate. So how strange then, that the first action of the said Secretary of State when getting into office was to strip out funding from the lifelong learning agenda?

The Vice-Chancellor goes on in her second paragraph to talk about the rationale of what I would call “tinkering around the edges” of the Higher Education budget. There is a theory within the DIUS that employers will co-fund second or equivalent qualifications. This goes directly against my own personal experience of 35 years within the workplace, where I was lucky to have seen one employer who ever did this and that was a government agency and even then 20 years ago.

The Vice Chancellor notes the exemptions, which I have already explained in a previous posting.

In terms of help, the Vice Chancellor has noted that there is short-term help; however what help can the government really give when it has already thrown the system into turmoil. It has kicked the Open University and Birkbeck, offering them an elastoplast as a paliative.

In her fifth paragraph, the Vice Chancellor has spoken about the increased amount of bureaucracy within the system, trying to work out who has previous qualifications. I have already pointed out within these pages the disgrace of the money being spent on the administration of the HEFCE system both within the organisation itself and within the Universities, namely £250million a year. This should be the subject of a select committee enquiry in and of itself but I notice has gone largely uncommented upon by the DIUS.

In the seventh paragraph of her letter, the Vice Chancellor touches upon the policy changes which impact so much upon the part-time sector and how the part-time sector is deeply underfunded (and will be unfunded at the present rate).

The eighth point is that the unfunding that is proposed will impact upon 25% of the Open University’s students from 2008/9 and that 19% of teaching funding will be lost from that year.In 2010/11 the Open University will have lost about £19m worth of funding. That is really not the way to treat a university which has done so much for the cause of part-time study, equal opportunities in education, lifelong learning and widening participation.

I am with the Vice Chancellor in that I think that this sort of decision would be better held in abeyance until we have had a proper opportunity to really look at part-time funding issues.

I would not disagree with any of the key facts.

This measure which has been proposed by the Secretary of State is destined to hit the part-time sector extremely severely. From what people including the Vice Chancellor of the Open University have said and in my personal view, it is an extremely chaotic and badly thought out measure, which I suspect the present government will not live to see the full implications of, if the voters get their way at the next general election. It should be abandoned as a bad idea and I would ask everyone once again to enjoin with all of us already in the campaign to protest in the most vigorous terms to your Members of Parliament. At the same time I would congratulate and thank the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University for coming out and saying what a lot of us have been thinking since this disgraceful announcement from John Denham.

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