Examination of Witness (Questions 500-515)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2003
SIR HOWARD
NEWBY
500. That is the logic of that target?
(Sir Howard Newby) No, because their benchmarks incorporate
precisely those admissions.
501. You say moving on from benchmarks entirely
to those targets presumably will be based on social class background?
(Sir Howard Newby) You used the word discriminate,
I have to say there is no evidence and the NAO report last year—which
I appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to debate with
them—found no evidence that universities were discriminating.
502. I am not talking about what is happening
now, I am talking about what could happen if there is a regime
of targets. If you have a target you discriminate to achieve that
target. If that target is reliant on the basis of social class
origin you are discriminating on the basis of social class origin.
Do you think that would be legal?
(Sir Howard Newby) No.
503. Chairman, I wonder whether I could somehow
question whether this issue is not so complex that it cannot be
left simply to administrative discretion. We have seen disagreement
between ministers recently about whether there should be targets
or not. Ministers come and go, councils come and go and executives
come and go. Does Sir Howard think it would be appropriate for
Parliament to give guidance in the legislation which might specifically
rule out the setting of targets by institutions which would discriminate
against people on the basis of social class background?
(Sir Howard Newby) The initial access regulator will
of course require legislation so the powers and duties of the
access regulator and the powers and duties of the funding council
in relation to the access regulator will require legislation.
It is very important there is a very clear statute which sets
out not only the powers of the access regulator but the terms
and conditions under which the regulator would process vis
a vis the institutions. If that is not clear we are really
heading down a very difficult road which we have seen in the United
States.
Chairman
504. Sir Howard, in terms of having an access
regulator did you not feel rebuffed by that suggestion? It almost
implies you have not been doing the job as well as you could have
been doing in terms of widening access?
(Sir Howard Newby) No, not at all, actually rather
the contrary. I think it was a recognition that, again as I said
earlier, in response to a different question in a different context,
there is a public interest which needs to be secured through the
funding council and the particular public interest we are seeking
to secure here on behalf of Parliament is that in a more variable
fees regime being introduced into higher education the interests
of students from poor backgrounds is indeed going to be secured
and they are not going to be deterred from entering into higher
education, which is what we would all wish. I think it is really
rather important that there are measures taken to secure that
and I am particularly pleased that the proposal at the moment
is that it is the funding council that should do it. I am very
pleased to see that the funding council is widely regarded as
part of the solution to this issue and not part of the problem.
505. Sir Howard, some of us on this Committee
would say that it is very clear that for a very long time the
independent sector has been extremely good at what I would suggest
is glossing up their students in order to hit the high targets
for entry into higher education. Your research and the Warwick
research shows they do not perform as well as state school students.
Here we are, the Government and yourselves charged with bringing
a fairer system and we have this scurrilous campaign from the
Daily Mail and elsewhere, and we know why there is a scurrilous
campaign, because it will impinge on what is seen as a right to
get their children into the best higher education institutions
in this country through a preferred route. Now is that not what
the fuss is about? They have had an easy ride for a long time,
have they not?
(Sir Howard Newby) I think there is what I would describe
as something of a moral panic taking place in some sections of
the press about this at the present time. I think that is rather
unfortunate because I think some of the side effects of that will
be to deter precisely those students that we want to attract to
the high demand universities.
506. Why have you not, as HEFCE, listened
to Sutton Trust research, Peter Lampl's work on SATs where the
American experience seems to suggest, and the pilot that has been
carried out, that SATs actually identifies and cuts through that
glossy process and identifies potential in a better way, or certainly
a good supplementary way, to the way that A levels do?
(Sir Howard Newby) I think we remain
to be convinced that SATs or the equivalents to SATs will identify
students in a better way. What we have done instead is to invest
in a whole range of activities such as summer schools, placements,
pre-entry, taster courses and so on which we believe can deliver
the same objective in a more effective way. To remind the Committee—well
I cannot remind you, we are about to announce it in an hour or
so's time—we are putting £255 million next year into
supporting the costs for institutions of these kinds of activities.
We think in terms of value for money at the present time there
is a more effective way of delivering these students into higher
education than some of the initiatives that you have described.
I have had extensive discussions with Peter Lampl and Sutton Trust
about this. I am not against that, I just think at the moment
we can deliver more effectively in other ways.
507. Sir Howard, when we went to the United
States as a Committee what we were impressed by was the fact that
there were a broad range of criteria accepted by all the leading
institutions on which they could evaluate a student in the round
or indeed at Stamford we were told if we interviewed there would
be more people like us. They do not interview in the Ivy League
universities, as you know. They would be seen to have a system,
A levels plus interview, that actually reinforces the prejudice
towards the one particular group of students coming into the best
higher education institutions and bars others. Why can we not
broaden the criteria so we find where the true potential lies?
(Sir Howard Newby) I am open to suggestions but I
have to remind the Committee that the participation rate of the
lower socio-economic groups in the universities in America is
actually below that in this country.
508. Not across the piece?
(Sir Howard Newby) Pretty much across the piece. The
graduation rates are far worse than in this country.
Mr Jackson
509. Hear! Hear!
(Sir Howard Newby) I am not trying to slap down the
notion of SATs I just believe that the policies we are putting
in place, the resources we are now giving to universities to provide
the support that these students require in value for money terms
at this point in time is the more effective route.
Valerie Davey: Absolutely.
Paul Holmes
510. There are lots of groups who feel that
differential fees will deter students from lower socio-economic
backgrounds to go to university. Going back to your comments earlier,
there is one political party which still thinks you should put
tax up so you can scrap fees altogether. Do you think that with
differential fees any increase in students from lower socio-economic
groups will go to the core universities who you do not think will
charge £15,000?
(Sir Howard Newby) I think there is that danger. I
think the proposals of course in the White Paper that students
will not pay the fee upfront will help, and that is very welcome.
From a purely personal point of view, because student finance
is not our concern, I simply feel that the proposals on the maintenance
awards are less than generous and I think even when I was at Universities
UK I made the point constantly the issue was not the fee, it was
the maintenance award that was the real deterrent. It was the
cost of maintenance at universities rather than the fee itself
which I was concerned about and remain concerned about.
511. You have been fairly positive about the
access regulator. One of the witnesses last week said that the
access regulator proposals were a nightmare, a mish-mash and a
political fig leaf.
(Sir Howard Newby) We do not have any proposals yet
so I do not know how that comment could be made. The White Paper
has three short paragraphs on this issue. To go back to an earlier
comment, Mr Jackson, it remains to be seen how the statute can
be drafted—
Mr Jackson
512. Or amended.
(Sir Howard Newby)—which will set out with great
clarity what the terms and conditions are going to be. I have
not seen a draft yet so I think it is really very premature to
use that sort of language to be honest.
Jeff Ennis
513. In over 20 years' teaching experience in
places such as Wolverhampton and Sheffield it was always my experience
that the best schools were the ones that had a very good social
mix where you have got children from deprived backgrounds mixing
with children from better off backgrounds. Is this not just simply
the access question is a question of common sense and should not
the university admissions tutors be working towards that particular
maxim to create a good social mix within the university?
(Sir Howard Newby) I would go further than that. We
are working this through our scheme called Partnerships for Progression
which is part of the Government's Aim Higher Programme.
We are encouraging the funding of universities
now to be far more active than they have been in the past with
the schools and FE colleges because the social mix you describe,
I think, as students from poor backgrounds who have traditionally
not aspired to higher education needs to be given that sense of
aspiration. It is not just aspiration, it is also achievement
and working with them and they need to be pulled through—if
I can use that phrase—from the age of 13 or 14 onwards to
see that higher education is a realistic alternative. We need
to get the universities, the colleges, the schools, the school
teachers, parents, all working together on this. There are some
elements of really good practice around the country.
Jonathan Shaw
514. Given the point you said about fees and
maintenance, do you think it would be a better idea that everyone
paid post course fees and the money saved from that, the money
that the Government would otherwise spend, would be put into front
end maintenance grants for children from poorer backgrounds?
(Sir Howard Newby) That is almost what is being proposed,
is it not, now? The issue, I think, is the quantum. I think £1,000
a year for maintenance allowance is frankly too low and I hope
the Government will in time, when resources become more available,
have another look at that. We talked about fee levels earlier,
just one minor caveat is that of course when we are talking about
home students these days, we are talking also about students from
the European Union who have to be treated in a somewhat similar
manner. Whether the fees can be recovered after graduation with
the same felicity elsewhere in Europe as they can in this country
remains to be seen.
Chairman
515. Sir Howard, as usual it has been a pleasure
to have you in front of the Committee. Thank you for your full
and frank responses to our questions. I hope with the benefit
of the Mayor's congestion system you will now be able to get speedily
to your press conference.
(Sir Howard Newby) Thank you very much,
Chairman. As always I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
