22. Memorandum submitted by Coventry University
The Government published a White Paper on 22
January 2003, setting out its future strategy for Higher Education.
While the majority of the media coverage has been concerned with
issues relating to student fees and the finance of students, the
White Paper covers a very wide range of matters which will undoubtedly
have a substantial impact on the whole structure and purpose of
higher education in this country for many years to come.
This briefing comments in turn on each of the
main chapters in the White Paper, and finally sets out an overall
summary.
1. "RESEARCH
EXCELLENCE—BUILDING
ON OUR
STRENGTHS"
1.1 The main theme of this chapter is that
funds for "science and research" should be substantially
increased, but that there should be even greater concentration
of research activity and funding.
The growth planned is given as £1.25 billion
over the period 2002-03—2005-06, which is said to be a 30%
growth in real terms. This is a huge growth, which must be warmly
welcomed by the research community, especially the science research
community. However, it is evident that very little of this additional
resource will impact on many Universities, and some like Coventry
University, will suffer a damaging reduction in funding. Specifically:
(a) the admitted underfunding of the Research
Assessment Exercise of 2001, will to some extent be redressed,
but the vast majority if not all the additional funding promised
will go to the research-intensive institutions;
(b) at the same time funding for grades 4
and 3a, critical to over half of the HEIs in this country, will
be adversely affected by funding reductions;
(c) additional funding promised for larger
groups will have little benefit for Universities which are still
developing their research, since most of their groups are not
large;
(d) additional capital funding (£500
million per annum from 2004-05) is promised, but only for "research-intensive
universities" which clearly excludes the majority of Universities.
1.2 In an attempt to counterbalance the
impact of a high degree of concentration of research, with the
adverse effect on developing institutions and subjects, two specific
initiatives are proposed:
(a) a "Promising Researcher Fellowship
Scheme" for departments not scoring highly in the RAE will
allow such researchers to spend six months in a high-scoring department.
However the number proposed, 100 nationally by
2004, is so small as to have little impact. Moreover, since the
high scoring departments will be receiving substantial additional
revenue funding, they will be seeking to identify new researchers
to appoint, and this secondment scheme will inevitably result
in migration of promising researchers to research-intensive departments
to the detriment of the seconding University—in effect,
a funded transfer scheme. This will further denude the research
capability of many institutions;
(b) the Funding Council, HEFCE, is to be
asked to consider how it can support departments and subject areas
of potential for the future. No specific funding is identified
for such purposes, nor is its duration at all clear.
1.3 Overall, therefore, the huge injection
of additional revenue and capital funding into research over the
next three years will have minimal positive effect on those Universities
which are still in early stages of development. The ability of
Universities such as Coventry to develop research is critical
to their future. Research informs teaching, particularly honours
degree and postgraduate teaching, and the support which the University
can provide for industry, business, and the National Health Service.
It attracts staff with enquiring minds and creativity which benefits
undergraduate and postgraduate students alike. The ability of
modern Universities to deliver their local commitment of support
for industry and the transfer of technology is already impeded
by the concentration of research funding, and further concentration
will seriously damage the Universities' ability to realise their
potential in this regard.
2. "HIGHER
EDUCATION AND
BUSINESS—EXCHANGING
AND DEVELOPING
KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS"
2.1 The two main thrusts of this chapter
are that knowledge and technology transfer from higher education
to industry should be seen as a permanent and important feature
of universities, and that Foundation Degrees should be further
developed and extended to meet regional skills needs.
2.2 The Government's emphasis on the needs
for universities to work closely with industry and business in
improving their performance and competitiveness, is to be warmly
welcomed. However, the amount of funding to be committed (£80
million in 2004-05 rising to £90 million in 2005-06) is in
stark contrast to the £1 billion p.a. currently committed
to research, even before the dramatic increases in research funding.
2.3 The White Paper envisages "less
research-intensive universities" concentrating on applying
"acquired technology" rather than creating and licensing
new technologies. Unfortunately, this distinction is an entirely
false one. Universities working with local companies need to be
part of the development of technologies not just using those created
by others. It serves no one for universities to be funded to transfer
out-of-date technologies. Moreover, industry itself does not wish
to work with universities that are not themselves engaged in developing
new technologies—after all, why should they go to a university
for "acquired technologies" when they could acquire
them themselves?
2.4 The Government wishes to see Foundation
Degrees as the "major vehicle for expansion in HE" and
"the main work-focused HE qualification". To this end
it will provide very modest amounts of monies for bursaries for
students on Foundation Degree Programmes, and development funding
to help institutions design new Foundation Degrees. This is a
very risky strategy. Foundation Degrees are very much an unknown
quantity by employers and there appears to be the implication
that they could replace HNCs and HNDs which are trusted and clearly
understood by employers. There is a suspicion that the very title
"Foundation Degree" and short (two-year) duration undervalue
the definition of a "Degree". It appears to be expansion
of Higher Education on the cheap, since Foundation Degree courses
are of two-year duration, and therefore the total cost of achieving
such qualification is substantially less than achieving an honours
degree. One has to ask, what other motive could there be for the
Government to give such major emphasis to Foundation Degrees?
They are certainly not employer-led nor institution-led, and current
demand demonstrates that they are not sought after by students.
2.5 One specific proposal in the White Paper
relating to Foundation Degrees is totally unnecessary and a complete
waste of public money. It is suggested that there should be a
new national network of universities to underwrite quality (i.e.
to validate) Foundation Degrees delivered in Further Education
Colleges. The cost of this network is estimated to be £3
million a year from 2005-06. There is absolutely no evidence in
the Paper, or elsewhere, that such a network is necessary. Further
Education Colleges can obtain validation from neighbouring universities,
and indeed that is currently the model. It ensures that there
is good articulation between the curriculum of the Foundation
Degree and the higher education provision thereby facilitating
the transfer of students from one sector to the other. There is
no evidence whatsoever that a national network to validate Foundation
Degrees is necessary or desirable.
2.6 The Government would thus appear to
be taking a significantly increased role of intervention in the
missions of institutions and the programmes which they provide.
While it is clearly a responsibility of Government to ensure that
public funding is properly directed, both these proposals in this
chapter betray a lack of understanding of the factors critical
for success.
3. "TEACHING
AND LEARNING—DELIVERING
EXCELLENCE"
3.1 This in many ways is the most disappointing
chapter of the whole White Paper. Whereas the Government makes
impressive statements regarding its commitment to raising the
standing and status of teaching and learning in higher education,
a more careful analysis demonstrates that there is no additional
funding whatsoever for the main core of teaching. Indeed, an analysis
in The Times Higher (31 January 2002) suggests that the real terms
increase in core funding of teaching in 2003-04 will be 0.1%,
followed by real terms reductions in the amount of funding per
student in each of the subsequent two years. This is in stark
contrast to the 30% real terms increase in funding for research
over the same period. The differential treatment of research and
teaching in relation to needs is misguided and a betrayal of the
needs of students.
3.2 There are several developments set out
in this chapter which have already been announced, and are accepted
by the sector. They include improvements on the information published
for prospective students and other stakeholders, a review of the
honours classification system, the introduction of an independent
adjudicator for student complaints, and the formation of a "teaching
quality academy". None of these addresses in any way whatsoever
the chronic underfunding of teaching which the Government itself
has acknowledged needs to be addressed.
3.3 The consolidation of additional funding
for attracting, retaining and rewarding staff, has arose from
publication "Bett Report", is to be welcomed, as is
the provision of additional baseline funding (albeit with conditions)
to improve teaching quality.
3.4 However, there are some specific proposals
which are far less sensible;
(a) the provision of "golden hellos"
for academics in shortage subjects is hardly something in which
Government should be engaged. The number proposed (100 a year
from 2003-04) implies less than one on average per institution,
and the bureaucracy of managing such small amounts of itself would
challenge the viability of such a scheme;
(b) the proposal to establish 70 "Centres
of Excellence" by 2006 for the very best teaching departments
appears on the face of it to be a useful initiative. However,
the mechanism for establishing such Centres, given the enormous
cost of the now abandoned Quality Assurance Agency method of subject
assessment, can in no way justify the possible benefits of such
a scheme. In any case, to establish 70 centres nationally over,
say, 150 institutions each offering perhaps 50 subjects, suggests
a measure of selectivity which is untenable. To identify just
70 such Centres would imply that the huge majority of teaching
departments within British universities are not excellent, and
this will have an adverse effect on the image of British higher
education internationally.
3.5 The proposal that university titles
should not require research degree awarding powers is also extremely
damaging for UK higher education. It implies a redefinition of
the term "university" in this country, by creating teaching-only
universities. The analogy with the United States in wholly inappropriate.
Throughout the European Union, the term "university"
is only awarded to institutions undertaking real research. To
suggest otherwise for England would be extremely damaging to the
whole university sector, and certainly to its international image.
Moreover, the implication of this proposal is that existing universities
could have their ability to undertake research, attract research
funding, and award research degrees in some way inhibited, thereby
downgrading them to "teaching-only" institutions. The
impact on the whole University sector, and the support given by
individual Universities to their local economies could be very
serious indeed.
3.6 In summary, as far as the chapter is
concerned, the proposals and the funding identified do not live
up to the rhetoric. The White Paper professes to give substantial
commitment to improving teaching and learning, but its proposals
will not do this to any significant extent. Despite its critical
need for better funding for teaching, Universities will see little
if any benefit in this regard from the White Paper.
4. "EXPANDING
HIGHER EDUCATION
TO MEET
OUR NEEDS"
4.1 The Government's reaffirmation of its
commitment to the 50% target is strongly to be welcomed. There
are many who have sought to ridicule this target, but it is necessary
for both economic and social reasons. Coventry University strongly
supports the Government's commitment.
4.2 However, there are indications in this
chapter that the Government is seeking this expansion "on
the cheap", as referred to in section 2 of this briefing.
To focus on 2-year Foundation Degree Programmes rather than 3-year
honours degrees, appears to be based not on demand but on cost.
Moreover, the suggestion that deregulation of fees will allow
Foundation Degrees to be competitively priced, implies that Government
expects that tuition fees for such courses will be less than those
for honours degrees. Currently, following a serious study by the
Funding Council as to the relative costs, funding for HNDs is
the same as for honours degrees. To suggest that Foundation Degrees
will in some way be cheaper for students further indicates that
the drive towards Foundation Degrees is financially led.
4.3 Similarly, the Government's proposal
that there should be a pilot scheme for "compressed two-year
honours degrees" (on the basis that two academic years of
45 weeks is the same study time as three academic years of 30
weeks) also suggests that the Government is seeking to reduce
the unit costs of higher education. The Government should be reminded
that a very extensive and thorough pilot scheme was undertaken
by the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education
(NAB) in the 1980s, and that at the end of that pilot every single
one of the universities involved determined not to continue with
the scheme, on the basis that it was not adjudged by the institutions
or by the National Advisory Body to have been a success.
4.4 While Coventry University strongly supports
the commitment to the 50% participation target, it has serious
doubts that the Government's mechanisms for doing this are soundly
based.
5. "FAIR
ACCESS"
5.1 The Government's fundamental commitment
to widening participation in higher education is to be strongly
endorsed. (However, the terms "fair access" and "access"
generally are used, rather than the more modern and more appropriate
descriptor "widening participation". "Social inclusion"
is not used at all).
5.2 Much emphasis has been given in the
press to the proposal that there should be an "Access Regulator"
to ensure fair admissions to higher education institutions. The
purpose of this is clear, and the principle is to be applauded.
However, there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that
universities adopt particular strategies, policies, targets, which
do not require an additional "Regulator" and the imposition
and bureaucracy that that implies. For example, there is a QAA
code of practice for admissions which could be strengthened; the
HEFCE could require submission of appropriate commitment and monitoring
data as a condition of grant (as it does for several other matters).
5.3 The increase in the funding premium
from 5% to 20% for students from non-traditional backgrounds is
to be applauded. The Select Committee suggested an even higher
figure, as did the Funding Council's own review. The main problem
with this proposal is that unless there is additional money available
then all that will happen is that there will be a redistribution
of the existing funding. This has been widely demonstrated by
HEFCE's funding distributions for 2003-04; the "additional"
funding for the postcode premium and the "new" funds
for improving retention, are achieved only by cutting the core
unit funding of teaching by 5.5% plus inflation, i.e. 7.75%.
6. "FREEDOMS
AND FUNDING"
6.1 The abolition of up-front tuition fees
is to be warmly welcomed. There is no doubt at all, at least as
far as Coventry University is concerned, that the requirement
to pay just over £1,100 a year on enrolment has been not
only a deterrent for many students, but also has resulted in substantial
hardship of students during their academic studies. The majority
of students at Coventry University undertake paid employment during
term time, many to the extent of 20 hours per week or more, to
the detriment of their studies. Moreover, many students fail to
complete or significantly underachieve because of the financial
burden and its consequences on study intensity. In that context,
therefore, the introduction of the "Graduate Contribution
Scheme" payable on graduation and after a threshold earnings
has been achieved, is very much welcomed.
6.2 However, when coupled with the deregulation
of fees, the Government is taking an enormous risk that the new
arrangement will not be a greater deterrent than the current one.
The Government acknowledges that universities are grossly underfunded,
but (see above) it has not provided any additional public funding
for core teaching of students from public funds. Instead, it has
identified that the additional funding required must be provided
by students. If universities do not charge additional fees, then
they will continue to be underfunded, which they are already by
the Government's own admission. On the other hand, if they do
increase tuition fees significantly, there will inevitably be
a real deterrent to the less well-off students. Compared with
the present arrangement, students with family incomes over £25,000
p.a. will expect to incur tuition fee debt of at least £9,000
on graduation from a three-year programme (plus inflation) compared
with a "pay-as-you-go" current situation of £1,100
per annum. It is a huge gamble that students from less well-off
backgrounds will not be deterred even more by the new arrangement
than the existing one.
6.3 Given the Government's commitment to
widening participation, it has introduced a number of provisions
which it hopes will ameliorate this situation:
(a) the first £1,100 of fees (current
prices) will continue to be means-tested. However, this will not
be the case for any additional fees, so the new situation is bound
to be more of a deterrent than the current one;
(b) grants will be reintroduced as a "Higher
Education Grant" of up to £1,000 per annum from 2004-05.
Not only is this amount very low, but it will only apply to those
whose family income is below £10,000 per annum. Family incomes
of above £20,000 per annum will not qualify for any grant
whatsoever. This range and the threshold are far too low.
6.4 Universities are really being placed
in an extremely difficult position. If they were to increase tuition
fees, albeit repayable by students on graduation, they would undoubtedly
introduce a deterrent for many students. If, on the other hand,
they were to maintain the current fee levels, and not increase
them significantly, Universities would be acknowledging that they
can and wish to be underfunded for teaching; their image internationally
(let alone nationally) would be adversely affected.
6.5 Overall, whilst the Government has clearly
addressed the major deterrent of the current system (up-front
tuition fees), its decision to allow universities to meet their
funding shortfall by raising tuition fees could seriously counteract
the benefits so realised. It is, an enormous gamble that the new
arrangement will not be more of a deterrent than the existing.
The reintroduction of grants is also to be welcomed, but their
impact will be minor. Universities will have to decide whether
to continue to be underfunded, and thus not be able to provide
their students with the quality of experience being provided by
richer Universities, or whether to increase fees and thus not
be able to serve the needs of large numbers of students, particularly
local students, who could not afford higher fees.
7. OVERALL SUMMARY
7.1 While the Government has clearly attempted
to provide a new strategic direction for higher education, and
to address some of the major shortcomings of the current situation,
the impact of its proposals for the majority of students will
be at best minimal and potentially negative.
7.2 The main beneficiaries will undoubtedly
be the research-driven universities. Although these Universities
will not benefit directly for their core activity of teaching,
the availability of huge amounts of capital and recurrent funding
will result in their numbers of tutors increasing, and core facilities
such as library, computing and social needs will be enhanced.
Students will thus enjoy a better resourced learning environment
in those Universities receiving enhanced funds for research.
7.3 The impact of the proposals is very
likely to improve the UK's research output, and improve the research
standing of UK universities. To that extent, the strategy is to
be welcomed. However, the impact of the majority of universities,
and the vast majority of higher education students in this country,
could, in fact, be seriously adverse. Many Universities will see
very little if any benefit from the additional funding being provided
for research. Indeed, there are at least implications that the
research activity in most universities will be impeded and damaged.
The impact of this will be:
(a) curricula will be less well informed,
especially for taught postgraduate courses which are of critical
importance to many local companies;
(b) inability to attract the best and most
creative academic staff;
(c) inability to support the technological
and business needs of local companies at the high technology and
science-based levels expected and required;
(d) a serious damaging of the reputation
of such Universities nationally and internationally with major
impact on the local economy.
7.4 The issue of gross underfunding of teaching
is wholly inadequately addressed by the White Paper. The additional
funding identified in the White Paper is not for core activity;
it will not directly impinge upon the educational experience of
University students in any significant way and certainly not for
several years. It means that all Universities will be forced seriously
to consider increasing their tuition fees (within the band specified)
in order to maintain and develop a quality of provision which
those students deserve.
7.5 The dangers in increasing fees are that
students who currently see many Universities as providing the
educational and personal opportunities which they seek will actually
be deterred from participating in higher education. The impact
on their local communities will be substantial, given that for
many Universities the local University is the only viable option
(for example nearly 30% of Coventry University's full-time UK
students come from Coventry and Warwickshire, with 60% from a
50-mile radius).
7.6 The overall impacts of the Government
policy on tuition fees will only be to the benefit of those universities
which attract well-off students. Such students will not be deterred
by the prospect of tuition debts of £9,000 at the conclusion
of their studies. The better-off universities will therefore be
able to attract substantially more income from their students,
and will therefore be able to provide even better educational
and personal development opportunities for them than they do now—better
social and recreational facilities, more tutors, better libraries,
better computing facilities, etc. Conversely, those universities,
such as Coventry, which serve the needs of less-well off students
(approximately 37% of our full-time UK undergraduate students
come from backgrounds of social class IIIm, IV, and V) and which
therefore will not be inclined to charge increased tuition fees,
will not be able to provide the same quality of provision as other
universities. In effect, better-off students will receive a better
provision of facilities and support for their studies. This does
not align with the Government's policy of social inclusion; rather,
it further increases the divide between the privileged and the
disadvantaged.
7.7 The Government's strategy for higher
education will thus be of benefit only to the well-off Universities
which provide for well-off students; it will be to the detriment
of the majority of Universities, students and local communities.
March 2003
|
