Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1100
- 1119)
WEDNESDAY 26 JULY 2000
BARONESS BLACKSTONE,
MRS VANESSA
NICHOLLS AND
MR MICHAEL
HIPKINS
1100. As you say, the University of Oxford and,
indeed, Cambridge, we have heard on a separate occasion, have
their own programmes. Is it therefore necessary for the Government
to skew its funding in order to require universities to go down
this route?
(Baroness Blackstone) It is not a matter of skewing
funding to require universities to go down this route. I think
it is a matter of providing universities with the resources that
they need to do the outreach work that I was just describing,
to provide for the summer schools and, indeed, to pay for the
additional costs that there may be for recruiting students who
do not come from family backgrounds where there is a tradition
of going into higher education. For example, they may need a little
more pastoral help when they arrive, it is that kind of programme.
I think it is very important that we make it easier for universities
to do the good job that they all want to do in this respect.
1101. Just to be absolutely clear about this,
the core funding for the universities as set out two years ago
is not being changed now, the money going for access is not being
taken at the expense of the programme whereby universities are
required to have one per cent of efficiency savings a year?
(Baroness Blackstone) Just on that last point, under
the spending review this time we have been able to say that universities
will not have to make a one per cent efficiency gain for the first
year of that spending review. I think that is a very important
change after ten years of very significant reductions in unit
costs, a 36 per cent reduction between 1989-97. No, this is additional
funding, this is not in any way reducing core funding.
1102. That last sentence is very helpful because
I know from the Vice Chancellor of the university in my own constituency
that many out there are not aware exactly what their situation
is following the Comprehensive Spending Review and I think you
are the only Minister in the Department to answer questions on
funding between the Chancellor's announcement last week and the
return of Parliament in October. Do you not regret the fact that
there is no education statement on the CSR?
(Baroness Blackstone) I am sure that most Vice Chancellors
are absolutely clear of what the position is, it is set out in
the spending review. I am surprised that the Vice Chancellor in
your constituency is not. I would be very happy to write to him
and to set out very clearly what the position is. If I could just
say in very general terms, over the four year period of the last
spending review and the first year of this one, we have been able
to provide more than one billion pounds of extra funding, an 11
per cent increase in real terms. We have added in an extra £100
million for the first year of this spending round, which is also
the last year of the previous one. That is on top of the one billion
pounds extra that was announced for research a week before the
Chancellor's announcement. This is a very substantial improvement
in the position of universities' funding.
Chairman: I have got to share the time out very
carefully because it is very restricted now, Gordon.
Mr Marsden
1103. Thank you, Chairman. Minister, on that
last point most Members of this Committee are delighted that the
Government has been able to match the increased funding for access
with the ending of the efficiency cuts in the units of resource,
I think that is a key signal that is obviously being sent out.
I would like to ask you about overall policies for widening access.
When HEFCE came before us they talked about their programme for
widening participation and said it was not designed to induce
wholesale transformation of actual institutional missions across
the sector. Do you think that all universities should promote
wider access?
(Baroness Blackstone) Yes.
1104. If they do that is there not a concern
that that particular mission, particular excellence, that the
Chancellor, the Secretary of State and others have spoken about,
will be jeopardised?
(Baroness Blackstone) No, because I do not believe
that widening access should in any way jeopardise standards and
quality. It is very important that we should maintain high quality
in our universities but I think you have seen the figures from
the Sutton Trust which show that in the top dozen or 13 universities—the
ones it has listed—they could do better with respect to
access programmes. Many of them do not reach the benchmarks that
HEFCE would expect that they would on the basis of the calculations
that have been done. I think this should be a programme for all
universities. I certainly do not think it should be confined to
the top research universities, they all have a duty to reach out
to those young people and, indeed, mature students—we must
not forget mature students because that is a very important route
from the point of view of widening access—and recruit them.
1105. I am glad you have raised the issue of
mature students because a significant proportion of mature students
come into higher education via a further education background
and that, of course, is increasingly true of students in the 16-19
age range as well. One of the ways in which access and participation
may be impeded is through lack of recognition of qualifications,
lack of portability, if you will, between one sector of education
and another. Given that further and higher education in many ways
seem to be eliding into each other at a very rapid rate, are you
satisfied that universities are doing enough themselves to promote
recognition of qualifications and thereby enabling those students
who come from the sort of background that you have described more
easily to access higher education?
(Baroness Blackstone) Let me make a point about FE
first. Both David Blunkett and I feel very strongly that it is
important that FE should not be left out in the new access programmes
that are now being promoted. I think there has been a tendency
in the past for universities to think about linking up with local
schools. And if they are not in an inner city, going to a city
that is not too far from them, and making those links. It is really
important that they make the links with the FE sector too. After
all, as you have rightly pointed out, nearly 40 per cent of 16-19
year olds taking A level and equivalent courses are actually in
the FE sector, so I do feel very strongly about that. I think
that is now being recognised and more is now being done in that
area. On the point about qualifications, I think that universities
have become hugely more flexible than they were, perhaps, 10 or
15 years ago in recognising a wider range of qualifications, especially
as far as mature students are concerned. With the establishment
of the access programmes, that are specifically geared to helping
mature students who do not have any relevant qualifications, there
are now substantial numbers of very good mature students who come
into higher education by that route who do not have any qualifications
of a conventional kind and many of them do very well.
Mr Marsden
1106. We have a problem with the University
of Oxford. They came before this Committee and gave evidence and
they were questioned about the UCAS tariff—which many of
us believe is a step in the right direction—and they told
this Committee, quite bluntly, that they did not intend to use
the UCAS tariff, at least not for the time being. Is that not
an impediment to access and wider participation?
(Baroness Blackstone) I do not think that using or
not using the tariff itself may be an impediment to access. I
am delighted when I hear that most universities are going to make
use of the new tariff. It is a matter for them to decide how they
want to assess students who apply to them. It is one of a number
of different tools that can be used. I can certainly envisage
a situation in which a university decided that the tariff system,
where you tot up points and then reach a total and see how students
compare, might not be the one that they would want to make most
use of. They might want to look at a whole range of individual
qualifications, plus other qualities that students might want
to possess to do really well in particular courses that they are
offering.
1107. To interrupt you on that, the dilemma—I
accept the point you are making—with that is that the more
complex the system the more difficult the problems with "transparency"
and "fairness" which have been at the root of much of
the discussion and controversy in recent months.
(Baroness Blackstone) I certainly think that admission
systems need to be transparent. I think that every university
needs to set out quite clearly, department by department, what
kinds of qualifications and, indeed, qualities they are looking
for when they are recruiting students, so that students in all
our schools and our FE colleges and sixth form colleges know what
to expect. If they do not do that, how can they possibly tell
where they can apply to and expect that they have some chance
of getting a place.
1108. You talked about the access funding and
how it is going to be delivered. The whole thrust of what you
said, and what the Government has said over recent months, has
been to be more targeted in these sort of initiatives. Will you
target access funding specifically to benefit those groups from
the FE sector and the mature students, whom you described?
(Baroness Blackstone) We have already said that we
will be providing opportunity bursaries not just for young people
but also for mature students. We have a new system for providing
mature students with a genuine access bursary rather than the
student arriving and then having to go to an access fund later.
What we have done is to divide the access funds that we have provided—which,
incidentally, next year will be four times greater than when we
came in in 1997—between a hardship fund, on the one hand,
where people can apply if they get into financial difficulty once
they have arrived, even, perhaps, in their final year, and support,
which they are aware they will get right from the beginning through
a genuine access bursary, of the sort that I have just set out.
I think that mature students have benefited very substantially
under the new arrangements that we provided for student support,
because we are now able to target them in a way that never happened
before. Perhaps the most important way we are targeting mature
students is providing loans for part-timers. This has never happened
before. In my previous job I went to successive Secretaries of
State and said, "Part-time students are the one group who
get no help whatsoever. They are taking the hard route. They are
doing a job. They are coming in the evening. They are working
at weekends. They pay their taxes, but they get nothing".
I am really delighted that this Government has been able to rectify
that.
1109. Minister, the first letter I sent to you
after the 1997 election was precisely on that subject, and I share
your delight.
(Baroness Blackstone) I think it was.
Chairman
1110. When the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford came
here he said he needed about £1 million a year in order to
professionally do the job of trying to broaden access. How far
towards that million is he going to be now?
(Baroness Blackstone) I cannot comment on how much
individual institutions are going to get. What you just said proves
my point, that all institutions do want a little additional help
to make it possible to really, really put the effort, time, energy
and the people into making access a reality; access for students
who have not previously come to university.
Valerie Davey
1111. My apologies for not being here at the
very beginning. The curriculum for 16 to 19 year olds has had
a welcome change, it has been broadened and extended. In particular,
starting this September, there will be the AS Levels but also
the vocational A Levels and, indeed, the advanced extension papers.
First of all, will that, as I am sure the Government intended,
ensure that more young people get the qualifications that they
want to enable them to go on to further and higher education or
will it, in effect, mean that only those schools which can provide
the extra support for those additional courses will enable the
youngsters to progress? Secondly, how much preparation has the
Government overseen at university level in preparation for these
new courses being matched by the requirements at university when
they arrive?
(Baroness Blackstone) Let me just begin with the reforms
to the 16 to 19 year old curriculum and examination system. We
came into Government with a manifesto commitment, as you will
remember, to move away from the rather narrow and very specialised
provision that we have been making for a long time for 16 to 19
year olds. People have wanted this reformed for many, many years.
Higginson made proposals which were rejected by one of Margaret
Thatcher's Governments. I am delighted that at last we have a
broader curriculum for young people to study, and I think it will
be hugely to their benefit. I am also delighted that on the basis
of an initial evaluation of what is happening it looks as if the
take-up of a broader range of subjects is going to be very considerable.
I am not worried that schools are not going to be able to do this.
Schools and the teaching profession have wanted to do it for a
long time. They are geared up to doing it and they will be able
to. They have the additional resources, we put a lot of extra
money into schools across the board to make it possible for them
to do this. As far as the university end is concerned, I am also
very pleased. All our evidence is that universities are going
to look at a broader range of qualifications. They are going to
take into consideration the number of subjects that a young person
is doing, look at their AS Level results as well, of course, as
wanting to look at what the final outcome of the student's performance
is when they have completed the whole programme. What I cannot
do, because it is not the job of ministers or the job of Government,
is to interfere in what universities actually teach in relation
to what students have done before. That is for them. I have no
doubt that they will be responsive to those changes.
1112. The evidence we have had is very mixed.
Again, the universities are claiming that the papers they are
sending out to young people take account of the new qualifications,
whereas the Secondary Heads' Association and people at the school
base see very little evidence so far. There is need, if you can
in any way, to encourage universities to be rather quicker in
anticipating these changes in the material they are sending out.
(Baroness Blackstone) I have been. Each time I have
spoken at CVCP events over the last 18 months I have drawn attention
to these changes and I asked that vice chancellors discuss them
with their admissions officers and make sure they are fully aware
of them.
Chairman
1113. Minister, I am conscious of the shortness
of time, this is, as you know, an all party Committee and Stephen
O'Brien—who sends his apologies, who was here yesterday
but could not be here this morning—has asked me to ask this
question, "To your knowledge, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer
or anyone on his behalf have any contact concerning access with
DfEE and/or Oxford University prior to his attack on Oxford University
towards the end of May this year?"
(Baroness Blackstone) I really do not know how much
contact he had with my colleagues. I am really not sure that that
is an appropriate question for me to answer here.
Mr St Aubyn
1114. Can we ask the Minister if she would like
to write to us on that?
(Baroness Blackstone) I really have nothing more to
add to what I just said.
1115. After consulting with your Department
could you advise us as to whether the Chancellor—
(Baroness Blackstone) I do not honestly think that
internal discussions between different Cabinet ministers are something
that I ought to be relaying to this Committee. I do not know what
conversations took place between the Secretary of State and the
Chancellor.
Chairman: I think we have fulfilled our duty.
I am going to move on.
Mr Foster
1116. The CVCP Working Party on University Admissions
was looking at the post-qualification application system. It failed
to reach agreement on that. We have been told in evidence that
the Russell Group of universities were particularly reluctant
to adopt a post-qualification application system. What is the
Government's view on this?
(Baroness Blackstone) Of course there are lots of
advantages to having a post-qualification system. It would make
it simpler. It would mean that students were absolutely clear
when they made their application what grades they had and what
they, therefore, could offer to a university that would provide
a better basis for them making their application. In principle
there are lots of advantages. The practicalities are very difficult,
and the Government recognises that. I think this is a matter for
the sector to work out and discuss with the FE colleges and with
the schools. This is not an issue that is going to go away and
I believe that further discussions are very likely to take place.
I would encourage such discussions. I really do understand how
difficult it is because of the time constraints involved.
1117. One of the problems that was highlighted
with not adopting the system was the constraint to the school
academic year and the university timetables for the start of their
academic year. Is the Government in a position to help facilitate
any movement or offer any help to make the system more flexible
so that PQA could be adopted?
(Baroness Blackstone) There are huge issues involved
in very big changes of that sort. At this stage I really would
not want to—when all of those issues have not been adequately
considered and studied—make any predictions as to what might
happen.
1118. Would you accept that the Government would
look favourably on a PQA system if it were to be adopted with
the agreement of the sector?
(Baroness Blackstone) I think it would have to have
the agreement of all three sectors, the school, the FE and the
HE sectors.
Mr Foster: Thank you.
Chairman
1119. One of the things that rather intrigued
us when we heard evidence from Professor Wiliam from King's College
was he said there was no relationship between ability and social
class. Knowing of your background in social science, like mine,
I wonder whether you agree with his statement and, if you do,
is that the sort of view that you would base the present policies
on access on in the Department?
(Baroness Blackstone) At present about 80 per cent
of the children of professional and managerial groups go on into
higher education and only about 17 per cent of the children of
lower socio-economic groups go on to higher education. I do not
believe that is a reflection of differential ability between the
two groups. It is a reflection of all kinds of environmental factors
and different levels of opportunity, support, and so on, that
social scientists have been studying for a very long time. It
is interesting that when you and I went to university in the early
1960s the proportion of girls going into higher education was
less than half of what it is today, it was under a quarter. Today
it is over 52 per cent. The fact that there was such a big difference
in the early 1960s had nothing do with differences in ability
but it had much more to do with differences in opportunities,
social expectations, and so on. I suspect that the same is true
for young people from different social class backgrounds.
|
