House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 27 Feb 2003 (pt 7)

27 Feb 2003 : Column 673W—continued

Higher Education (Academic Merit)

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he is issuing to higher education institutions on the assessment of academic merit without reference to social or cultural factors affecting an individual. [99560]

Mr. Charles Clarke: It is not for Government to prescribe university policies for which universities are themselves responsible. We look to them to ensure that they admit on the basis of merit, taking into account appropriate factors which may well go beyond simply using predicted A-level scores. We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council to look at best practice and disseminate it throughout the sector so that all universities have admissions processes which are fair and transparent.

Higher Education (Drop-out Costs)

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has commissioned into the relationship between student costs and drop out rates for each university and higher education institution. [94765]

Mr. Charles Clarke: Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has

27 Feb 2003 : Column 674W

one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

Up to date research, the UNITE/MORI "Student Living Report 2003", found that 96 per cent. of students consider that going to university is a worthwhile experience and that the major reason for drop out is dissatisfaction with the course rather than financial issues. 87 per cent. of students interviewed agreed that the money they were spending on higher education was a good investment in their future.

These findings on drop out are backed up by research commissioned by the Department "Dropping Out: A Study of Early Leavers from Higher Education" by Peter Elias and Rhys Davies at the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University, published January 2003 that shows that the most common cause of non-completion was poor choice of course. Financial problems and personal problems were also cited by respondents to the survey. However, a relatively low response rate to the survey underpinning the research implies the quantitative results are only indicative.

The National Audit Office report "Improving Student Achievement in English Higher Education" published in January 2002 showed that students who drop out tend to have lower prior academic qualifications. Most of them cite personal reasons (feeling unprepared for higher education, changing personal circumstances or financial matters) or withdraw because of academic failure.

Higher Education (Operating Deficits)

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities and colleges in the English and Welsh higher education sector have operating deficits; and if he will make a statement. [98504]

Mr. Charles Clarke: Information about higher education institutions in Wales is for the Welsh Assembly to provide. The Higher Education Funding Council for England published 'Outcomes of 2002 financial forecasts and annual operating statements' in January 2003. This report is based on information provided by higher education institutions in July 2002. The forecasts were based on assumptions reflecting the prevailing general economic climate and the funding announcements made at the time and so do not take account of the Spending Review settlement for 2003–04 to 2005–06. Projected levels of surplus are significantly affected by exceptional items, such as gains or losses on property transactions.

The forecast income and expenditure position for the sector as a whole is set out in Table 1 of the report, which is shown.

Table 1: Actual and forecast income and expenditure£ million

Actual 1999–2000 Actual 2000–01 Forecast 2001–02 Forecast 2002–03 Forecast 2003–04 Forecast 2004–05 Forecast 2005–06

Total income 10,465 11,069 11,585 12,237 12,796 13,280 13,799

% Increase — 5.8 5.5 5.6 4.6 3.8 3.9

Total expenditure 10,370 11,100 11,598 12,250 12,754 13,213 13,711

% increase — 7.0 5.9 5.6 4.1 3.6 3.8

Surplus after — — — — — — —

Depreciation of assets of valuation and tax 125 44 13 (10) 143 109 94

Surplus as % of total income 1.19 0.40 0.10 (0.09) 1.10 0.81 0.67

Historical cost surplus as % of total income 1.95 1.25 0.92 0.51 2.11 1.37 1.02

Exceptional items — 77 26 3 101 41 6

	Actual 1999–2000	Actual 2000–01	Forecast 2001–02	Forecast 2002–03	Forecast 2003–04	Forecast 2004–05	Forecast 2005–06
Total income	10,465	11,069	11,585	12,237	12,796	13,280	13,799
% Increase	—	5.8	5.5	5.6	4.6	3.8	3.9
Total expenditure	10,370	11,100	11,598	12,250	12,754	13,213	13,711
% increase	—	7.0	5.9	5.6	4.1	3.6	3.8
Surplus after	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Depreciation of assets of valuation and tax	125	44	13	(10)	143	109	94
Surplus as % of total income	1.19	0.40	0.10	(0.09)	1.10	0.81	0.67
Historical cost surplus as % of total income	1.95	1.25	0.92	0.51	2.11	1.37	1.02
Exceptional items	—	77	26	3	101	41	6

27 Feb 2003 : Column 675W

The only year where there is a forecast deficit for the sector as a whole is 2002–03 when the deficit is estimated at £10 million or 0.9 per cent. of the total budget of over £12 billion.

The number of universities and colleges forecasting deficits is shown in table 2 of the report.

Table 2: Actual and forecast surpluses and deficits

Number of HEIs forecasting operating deficits Number of HEIs forecasting historical cost deficits

2000–01 47 (35%) 35 (26%)

2001–02 55 (41%) 35 (26%)

2002–03 60 (45%) 35 (26%)

2003–04 44 (33%) 24 (18%)

2004–05 39 (29%) 21 (16%)

1005–06 33 (25%) 22 (16%)

	Number of HEIs forecasting operating deficits	Number of HEIs forecasting historical cost deficits
2000–01	47 (35%)	35 (26%)
2001–02	55 (41%)	35 (26%)
2002–03	60 (45%)	35 (26%)
2003–04	44 (33%)	24 (18%)
2004–05	39 (29%)	21 (16%)
1005–06	33 (25%)	22 (16%)

As a result of the latest Spending Review announcements, Government spending on higher education will rise by more than 6 per cent. a year above inflation over the next three years.

NUT Annual Conference

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will arrange for a Minister from his Department to attend the National Union of Teachers' annual conference this Easter. [99157]

Mr. Miliband: No Minister will attend the NUT's annual conference this year.

Research Authorities

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reflect greater selectivity in the research authorities of the higher education sector, with particular reference to those rating above 5. [99561]

Mr. Charles Clarke: In "The Future of Higher Education" we announced our intention to identify the very best of the Departments rated 5* in the last Research Assessment Exercise and give them an uplift in funding over the next three years in order to focus resources on the strongest performers. We are asking the Higher Education Funding Council for England to consider how best to implement this proposal.

St James School, Colindale

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to make a decision on the application by St. James School, Colindale for consent to build an all-weather pitch on its playing fields. [99615]

27 Feb 2003 : Column 676W

Mr. Miliband: The Secretary of State expects to make a decision on this application within the next few days.

Student Drop-Outs

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list those universities with over 20 per cent. of students expected to drop out of their courses without finishing their degrees, using the latest figures compiled by the Higher Education Funding Council; if he will estimate the cost to public funds for each student; what initiative he is taking to reduce drop outs; and if he will make a statement. [90465]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The latest information is shown in the table. The cost to the Exchequer of students who drop out from UK universities depends on factors such as the timing of drop outs within academic years, the level of public funding associated with individual courses, whether or not students transfer to other HE institutions and whether or not students return to HE at a later date. Figures for the cost are not compiled centrally.

The UK has one of the best completion rates in the world. The latest Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Performance Indicators (Pis) put the national rate of non-completion at 17 per cent. This rate has stayed broadly the same since 1991–92, a period of considerable expansion of student numbers. But there is room for improvement. That is why we have asked HEFCE to "bear down" on non-completion, in particular by identifying examples of good practice in student retention and disseminating them across the sector; by working more closely with those institutions whose performance indicator for non-completion fails to meet expectations; and by working with the Department in establishing a sector target for non-completion.

HE Institutions in the UK with non-completion rates of more than 20 per cent. Full-time students starting first degree courses in 1999–2000

Non-completion rate

Institution Projected⁽¹²⁾ Benchmark⁽¹³⁾

England — —

Anglia Polytechnic University⁽¹²⁾ 27 21

Bolton Institute of HE⁽¹²⁾ 30 25

University of Central Lancashire⁽¹²⁾ 33 26

Coventry University 22 21

Dartington College of Arts 24 17

University of Derby 24 22

University of East London⁽¹²⁾ 33 26

University of Greenwich 26 23

University of Huddersfield⁽¹²⁾ 25 20

Kingston University 21 21

Liverpool Hope University College 23 23

Liverpool John Moores University⁽¹²⁾ 22 19

London Guildhall University⁽¹²⁾ 30 25

University of Loton⁽¹²⁾ 26 21

Middlesex University 22 23

University College Northampton⁽¹²⁾ 29 20

University of North London⁽¹²⁾ 45 27

School of Oriental and African Studies⁽¹²⁾ 29 17

South Bank University 28 26

Staffordshire University 23 20

University of Sunderland⁽¹²⁾ 28 21

University of Teeside⁽¹²⁾ 27 22

Thames Valley University⁽¹²⁾ 29 22

Trinity College of Music⁽¹²⁾ 39 17

University of the West of England 21 19

University of Westminster 23 23

Scotland

University of Abertay Dendee⁽¹²⁾ 24 17

Glasgow Caledonian University⁽¹²⁾ 29 17

University of Paisley⁽¹²⁾ 31 17

Wales

University of Glamorgan 25 23

University of Wales, Lampeter 26 21

University of Wales College, Newport⁽¹²⁾ 26 21

North East Wales Institute 26 23

Swansea Institute of Higher Education⁽¹²⁾ 30 19

	Non-completion rate
Institution	Projected⁽¹²⁾	Benchmark⁽¹³⁾


England	—	—
Anglia Polytechnic University⁽¹²⁾	27	21
Bolton Institute of HE⁽¹²⁾	30	25
University of Central Lancashire⁽¹²⁾	33	26
Coventry University	22	21
Dartington College of Arts	24	17
University of Derby	24	22
University of East London⁽¹²⁾	33	26
University of Greenwich	26	23
University of Huddersfield⁽¹²⁾	25	20
Kingston University	21	21
Liverpool Hope University College	23	23
Liverpool John Moores University⁽¹²⁾	22	19
London Guildhall University⁽¹²⁾	30	25
University of Loton⁽¹²⁾	26	21
Middlesex University	22	23
University College Northampton⁽¹²⁾	29	20
University of North London⁽¹²⁾	45	27
School of Oriental and African Studies⁽¹²⁾	29	17
South Bank University	28	26
Staffordshire University	23	20
University of Sunderland⁽¹²⁾	28	21
University of Teeside⁽¹²⁾	27	22
Thames Valley University⁽¹²⁾	29	22
Trinity College of Music⁽¹²⁾	39	17
University of the West of England	21	19
University of Westminster	23	23
Scotland
University of Abertay Dendee⁽¹²⁾	24	17
Glasgow Caledonian University⁽¹²⁾	29	17
University of Paisley⁽¹²⁾	31	17
Wales
University of Glamorgan	25	23
University of Wales, Lampeter	26	21
University of Wales College, Newport⁽¹²⁾	26	21
North East Wales Institute	26	23
Swansea Institute of Higher Education⁽¹²⁾	30	19

⁽¹²⁾ The projected outcomes are calculated on the assumption that the progression paths of new entrants will be the same as those for students currently in the system. Those institutions whose projected value is significantly worse than their benchmark are marked with an asterix.

The benchmark is an expected value which allows for the entry qualifications of the students and the subject mix of the institution.

Source:

"Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by HEFCE.

27 Feb 2003 : Column 677W

Next Section

Index

Home Page