25. Memorandum submitted by Professor
Paul Light, Principal, King Alfred's College, Winchester
Thank you for your invitation to offer comment
in relation to the current Education and Skills Committee inquiry
into the Government's White Paper. By way of context, I should
note that King Alfred's is a College of Higher Education with
some 5,000 students ranging from undergraduate level to PhD. We
are very clearly a teaching led institution and welcome the recognition
of the importance of teaching which runs through the White Paper.
Nonetheless the White Paper begins with a chapter on research,
and I will follow the order of the White Paper in my comments,
which are personal rather than institutional at this stage.
The research proposals in the White Paper seem
to be predicated on a "big science" model which is not
readily applicable to the arts, humanities or social sciences.
The capability funding provided for research in some of these
areas since the publication of the White Paper is welcome, though
we would strongly urge the inclusion of Education in such funding.
The withdrawal of funding from 3a units of assessment and the
reduction of funding (together with insecurity about future funding)
for the 4s signals a "pulling up of the ladder". I see
no justification for ever increasing research selectivity outside
of capital intensive science and technology. Colleges like this
one, where all units of assessment increased their RAE ratings
by one or more grades in 2001, have given enormously good value
for limited research funding in recent years. Some continued core
funding for research at institutional level will be necessary
if this is to be sustained and built upon.
I welcome the introduction of a permanent third
funding stream for knowledge transfer and engagement with the
community, and welcome also the intention to focus this on non-research
intensive HEIs. I am already using our staff to link with business
and the community in "communities of learning" and look
forward to developing this further both institutionally and in
the context of knowledge exchange consortia. I would urge that
HEIs of all types, including HE Colleges such as King Alfred's,
be given adequate opportunity to engage with the knowledge exchange
agenda. Our engagement with the burgeoning cultural industries
and with key public sector constituencies fit us extremely well
for this role.
As a provider (inter alia) of vocational
higher education, we are well used to working with employers and
professional bodies. As a Church College, we have engaged strongly
with the active community initiative and would welcome further
investment in this area. It is extremely important to preserve
the community focused aspects of HEIF. All government departments
ought to be involved in the direction of this funding. Turning
to teaching, I endorse the need for teaching to be fully recognised
in terms of reward and promotion. While recognising the need for
market supplements etc, it is not clear how we shall achieve the
general salary uplift which is needed, not least in the context
of national negotiations on new pay structures.
Centres of Excellence in teaching need to be
very distinct from existing LTSN provision. There may need to
be more flexibility as regards funding levels than the White Paper
suggests if this is to be truly available to excellent departments
regardless of size. There seems a good case for considering thematic
and collaborative proposals for Centres of Excellence.
I strongly support the proposed extension of
University title to institutions holding taught degree awarding
powers and meeting other appropriate criteria without the need
for a further scrutiny process (at present King Alfred's does
not hold taught degree awarding powers though we aspire to do
so). The resistance of UUK institutions to this aspect of the
White Paper is not surprising, but nor is it justified. The Bologna
declaration is being laid as a false trail (indeed I suspect Bologna
may cause more trouble for Foundation Degrees than anything else
if taken seriously). Also, it is misleading to represent the White
Paper proposal as "the creation of teaching only universities".
Most of the institutions which might make application are (like
this one) at least as strong in their research base as many existing
post-92 universities, and in receipt of just as much research
funding proportionately. Thus if one is to term the newcomers
"teaching only universities" then we would have to acknowledge
that there are a good number of these already.
In fact we see ourselves as a teaching but not
a teaching-only institution. The extension of university title
set out in the White Paper will helpfully remove a perverse incentive
which might otherwise lead institutions in receipt of taught degree
awarding powers to direct their development heavily towards research.
At the same time it will very considerably assist marketing and
clarity of information for students. University College title,
meanwhile ought to be made available to all HEIs with or without
taught degree awarding powers. College of Higher Education has
little currency or distinction as a title in today's market place;
the quality of our offer, as the White Paper recognises, deserves
better than this.
I am glad to see that the 50% participation
target stands and am happy to recognise that much of the necessary
expansion should be at Foundation Degree or equivalent level.
I agree that the concept of Foundation Degree needs development
so that they can become a generally accepted and well-recognised
HE qualification, but am concerned that the task of building demand
from both employers and prospective students remains a massive
one. The incentives in relation to both supply and demands which
are presaged in the White Paper seem broadly fit for purpose,
but they will need to be very substantial if they are to achieve
the desired effect. I am not convinced that sustaining the HNC/D
brand "welded on to" the Foundation Degree brand will
do any service to either.
I strongly support strengthening HE/FE relationships
and regard the consortium model as more appropriate for the future
than the franchise model in most cases. Direct funding of FECs
for HE activity should be limited to exceptional circumstances.
I am not convinced of the need for Foundation Degrees Forward.
I welcome the roll out of EMAs for 16-18 year olds and am playing
a leading role in Partnerships for Progression sub-regionally
because I believe that this is a key initiative for securing more
socially inclusive HE recruitment in the future. Stronger and
more secure funding for this will be needed if it is to deliver
its full potential.
I support the use of more sophisticated data
for access indicators. Meanwhile HEFCE's recent move to take account
of student entry qualification patterns in their funding is welcome.
I favour the use of access and retention benchmarks as targets,
but am unconvinced of the need for an Access Regulator to achieve
this.
Recognising the need for strong support of leadership
and management training, I am concerned that this should not relate
only to the highest levels within institutions. I support close
working between HE and FE in this area. On endowments it needs
to be recognised that many Colleges like this one are starting
from a very low base, in our case with an historic legacy of alumni
who are mainly schoolteachers. There is certainly more that can
be done in this area but it is important to avoid unrealistic
expectations.
I welcome the abolition of upfront tuition fees
and the reintroduction of a means tested maintenance grant. Particularly
welcome is the commitment of government to provide income to HEIs
matching the fee level to be recovered subsequently from graduates.
I see the proposed freedom to vary fee levels between £0
and £3,000 per annum as a flawed proposal which seems to
have been ill thought out in terms of the likely behaviour of
HEIs. Moreover the maintenance grant proposed, at £1,000
per annum, is far too low. The improved financial support for
part-time students is welcome, but likewise does not go far enough.
Overall I welcome the White Paper as a radical
follow-through of the Dearing (1997) agenda, which recognises
the current realities of higher education while seeking to change
them in important respects. King Alfred's College sees itself
as very well placed to deliver many aspects of the HE agenda set
out in the White Paper. Indeed there is a very clear resonance
with our existing Strategic Plan. If I have a general concern
about the White Paper it is that it occasionally leans towards
rigidity and typecasting. This could potentially not only "cramp
the style" of institutions like King Alfred's, but could
also over time, limit the value of what we can add to "The
Future of Higher Education".
March 2003
| 
