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:-
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment