CMU Evidence: Education & Skills Committee
23rd February 2005
'Tuition Fees and Student Bursaries'
SUMMARY
Tuition Fees
1. As predicted by CMU universities,
the so-called 'market' in respect of tuition fees has largely
failed to emerge. To date and almost without exception, universities
have confirmed that they will charge tuition fees of £3,000
per annum to full-time students.
Variable Bursaries
2. Institutional income from full-time
fees has to be set against expenditure on bursaries. In spite
of representations from CMU universities that variable bursaries
would produce a market which would be both complex and confusing
for students as well as complex and administratively onerous to
manage, the Government declined to adopt a standard national bursary
scheme. Instead, the Government permitted variable bursary schemes
with the exception of a minimum standard bursary (MSB) of £300
p.a. for the poorest students for every £3,000 p.a. tuition
fee charged.
3. To date, the Government
has failed to address perverse outcomes of the fees-bursary regime
applicable from 2006, notwithstanding the fact that such outcomes
could be mitigated without interference with primary legislation.
Impact upon institutional funding
of tuition-bursary system from 2006
4. By failing to take into account
socio-economic profile of students recruited by universities,
patterns of institutional recruitment in respect of full-time
and part-time modes of study and the effect of variable and minimum
standard bursaries upon institutional fee income, the Government
has perpetuated inequity in terms of the funding and the student
resource available to higher education institutions after 2006.
5. These inequities are perverse
and affect disproportionately those universities which have been
the most successful in widening participation, recruiting students
from low income backgrounds and low participation neighbourhoods
as well as black and ethnic minority students, disabled students
and mature students.
6. These are also the same universities
which have been most successful in providing opportunities for
students to access higher education in their twenties and thirties,
thereby frequently adding to the skills base and enhancing professional
skills. As such, these universities have contributed significantly
to meeting DfES and the Government aspirations of providing access
to higher education for those in the 18 to 30 age range.
7. Unless Ministers amend present
arrangements, CMU universities and others with similar student
profiles will receive proportionately less additional fee income.
This means (in a nutshell), that the universities which have been
most successful at ensuring that social class is not a barrier
to higher education, will have the least money to spend on their
student populations which on every measure - socio-economic class,
age, black and ethnic minority profile and disability - are the
most representative in the sector and of the population at large.
8. CMU universities believe that
their students, their families and their staff are entitled to
ask what is fair about the perpetuation of inequities in institutional
income which could be avoided or at least mitigated and to further,
request the Committee to enquire of Ministers why the following
perversities have not been addressed:
(i) Impact upon institutional
income of minimum standard and variable student bursaries
(ii) Administrative costs of
the bursary-fee system and the remit of the Student Loans Company
(iii) Cash flow problems and
potential delays in the payment of student bursaries arising from
proposals to pay fee income to institutions by instalments
(iv) Inequities in institutional
income arising from exclusion of part-time undergraduates from
scope of fees-bursary provisions of the HE act
PROPOSALS
9. In order to mitigate disproportionate
effects upon institutional fee income CMU believes that:
(i) A central fund should be
established to cover the payment of minimum standard bursaries.
Such a fund would not require the allocation of additional
money but could be established by top-slicing from the funds allocated
to cover tuition fees.
(ii) The administrative costs
of Student Loans Company assessments should be funded from the
allocation to the sector as a whole and not by individual institutions.
Ministers should also confirm that the remit of the SLC will be
extended to cover the assessment and administration of bursaries
and that, if required, the SLC will be permitted to transfer funds
from tuition fees / a central fund which would reimburse the costs
of minimum standard bursaries.
(iii) From 2006, institutions
should receive tuition fee payment in the November of the autumn
term based on notification to the Student Loans Company that a
student has registered. Ministers should also confirm that proposals
to pay additional fee income to universities by instalment, will
not be pursued.
(iv) DfES should advise HEFCE
to safeguard the unit of funding for part-time provision for all
institutions for the 2006 academic year so that universities with
a significant profile in terms of part-time provision are not
disproportionately affected by loss of potential fee income.
(v) In the long term, the Government
should commit to deferral of fees for part-time students. This
would also ensure that students who have to switch between full-time
and part-time modes after 2006 are not faced with two different
funding regimes (i.e. fee deferral when full-time, payment up
front when part-time).
Detailed evidence in support of these
proposals follows. Appendix A provides specific case-studies,
evidence and statistics relating to effects upon fee income that
have been provided by individual universities.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Variable tuition fees were
introduced by the Government under the 2004 Higher Education Act
as a mechanism to address the under-funding of higher education
and a decline in the student resource which had taken place over
the previous twenty years. Under the legislation agreed by Parliament,
the income available from increased (but deferred) tuition fees
from 2006 is therefore a vital additional revenue funding stream
for universities. It is of particular importance and significance
for CMU universities because
(i) they have been disadvantaged
by historic mechanisms adopted to distribute research funding
which has been further exacerbated by current Government policy
of increased selectivity and allocation of public funds for research
by departmental star rating
(ii) the under-funding of teaching
has not been addressed [1]
2. VARIABLE STUDENT BURSARIES
2.1 Institutional income from
full-time fees has to be set against expenditure on bursaries.
In spite of representations from CMU universities that variable
bursaries would produce a market which would be both complex and
confusing for students as well as complex and administratively
onerous to manage, the Government declined to adopt a standard
national bursary scheme. Instead, the Government permitted variable
bursary schemes with the exception of a minimum standard bursary
(MSB) of £300 p.a. for the poorest students for every £3,000
p.a. tuition fee charged. As the statistics in Appendix A confirm,
CMU universities will be committed to returning significant sums
from fee income in the form of student bursaries from 2006 as
a result of their student profiles.
3. MINIMUM STANDARD BURSARIES
- Impact upon institutional income
3.1 From 2006, the poorest full-time
undergraduate students (eligibility to be determined by means-testing
of family income) will be entitled to receive a minimum standard
bursary of £300 p.a. for any course charged at £3,000
p.a. This £300 has become known as the minimum standard bursary
(MSB). Its payment has been confirmed as a requirement by OFFA.
At present, it is proposed that the MSB will be deducted from
individual institutional tuition fee.
3.2 It is self-evident that universities
which have been in the forefront of widening participation and
encouraging and supporting students from low income households
will have a high number and percentage of their student population
eligible for a minimum standard bursary.
3.3 CMU universities have largely
met and exceeded targets in terms of these students. They will
therefore disproportionately lose out in terms of additional fee
income since, under current proposals, universities will receive
fee income of £2,700 p.a. for every student who qualifies
for an MSB by virtue of low family income rather than the £3,000
p.a. for students from better-off families. The more low income
students a university has, the less it will receive in fee income.
In fact, the fees for these students will come from DfES via the
Treasury and is not subject to fee deferral or future payback
by the students concerned.
Solution
3.4 The loss of additional
fee income which will affect universities disproportionately can
be avoided by the establishment of a central fund to cover the
payment of minimum standard bursaries. Such a fund would not require
the allocation of additional money but could be established by
top-slicing from the funds allocated to cover tuition fees.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF
THE BURSARY-FEE SYSTEM AND THE REMIT OF THE STUDENT LOANS COMPANY
4.1 The Student Loans Company
(SLC) has been identified as the potential agency to undertake
means-testing of student income to establish entitlement to fee
remission and minimum standard bursaries in the regime which will
come into effect from 2006. This is to be welcomed and is likely
to avoid the prospect of students in the same financial circumstances
being assessed by institutions as having different entitlements.
It may however, also require Ministers to amend the remit of the
SLC.
4.2 It is currently proposed that
administrative costs of assessments, including assessment for
entitlement to minimum standard bursaries are borne by the sector.
There is a pending consultation with institutions whereby the
latter will be asked whether they want to buy into SLC services
and how administrative costs should be covered. For some institutions,
administrative costs may not be a significant concern. However
for CMU universities with significant numbers of students with
an entitlement to MSBs and student populations with lower family
incomes / from lower socio-economic groups, administrative costs
are a key issue.
4.3 Under current proposals, administrative
costs will be further expenditure that will have to be set against
fee income. Such costs are likely to again affect CMU universities
disproportionately. The prospect that the level of administrative
costs will be further determined by the number of institutions
opting to buy into the services of the SLC only adds to these
concerns.
Solution
4.4 The administrative costs
of Student Loans Company assessments should be funded from the
allocation to the sector as a whole and not by individual institutions.
Ministers should also confirm that
the remit of the SLC will be extended to cover the assessment
and administration of bursaries and that, if required, the SLC
will be permitted to transfer funds from tuition fees / a central
fund which would reimburse the costs of minimum standard bursaries.
5. CASH FLOW PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL
DELAYS IN THE PAYMENT OF STUDENT BURSARIES ARISING FROM PROPOSALS
TO PAY FEE INCOME TO INSTITUTIONS BY INSTALMENTS
5.1 The Department has proposed
that from 2006 institutions will receive tuition fee income by
instalments in February and in the summer semester / at the end
of the academic year. Ministers appear to believe that the majority
of universities currently operate instalment plans for the payment
of up-front tuition fees by students. In fact, this is decidedly
not the practice in CMU universities.
5.2 Given that income from tuition
fees from 2006 will be provided by the Treasury / DfES in the
first instance, pending recovery from graduates from 2010, CMU
universities can see no reason why institutions should not receive
the additional income from fees in the autumn term. This would
be particularly important to the CMU part of the sector. Indeed,
to pay institutions by instalment will cause institutional cash
flow problems.
5.3 There is no doubt, in addition,
that students will expect to be in receipt of bursary payments
as soon as they have registered. However, under current proposals,
universities will not be in receipt of additional fee income until
the following February at the earliest. This raises the prospect
of a delay in bursary payments, pending receipt by institutions
of additional fee income.
Solution
5.4 There are some suggestions
that HEFCE grant payment might be brought forward. However, Ministers
need to address the question of cash flow in the autumn semester.
There is no practical impediment to institutions receiving tuition
fee payment in the November of the autumn term. Currently, the
Student Loans Company is notified on the day on which a student
registers (via the SAC file). This notification releases the student
loan payment. There is no reason, in principle, why the same notification
could not release the tuition fee payment to institutions.
Ministers should be asked to confirm
that from 2006 institutions will receive tuition fee income in
the autumn term and that proposals for payment by instalment will
not be pursued.
6. OFFA
6.1 The Office for Fair Access
was established under HE legislation. Universities are required
to submit Access Agreements to indicate their commitment to attracting
applications from students who are members of groups currently
under-represented in the sector as a whole.
6.2 Notwithstanding the well-established
track record of CMU universities in widening participation, some
CMU institutions have been advised by OFFA that they should reconsider
their proposals in respect of bursary support "in relation
to (their) position in the market" (Appendix A paras 4.4
& 6.3).
6.3 CMU universities accordingly
have concerns that with little or no empirical evidence that OFFA
is:
(i) prejudging 'the market'
(ii) has failed to appreciate
that there are different starting points in the sector
(iii) is seeking to 'bid-up'
access agreements in universities which will receive the least
additional fee income under current proposals.
7. INEQUITIES IN INSTITUTIONAL
INCOME ARISING FROM EXCLUSION OF PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATES FROM
SCOPE OF FEES-BURSARY PROVISIONS OF THE HE ACT
7.1 The 2004 HE Act does not provide
for the deferral of fees by students studying part-time. As a
result, CMU institutions have very real concerns that the levy
of an annual tuition fee for part-time students on a pro-rata
basis against a £3,000 full-time undergraduate fee for the
same course, will simply act as a deterrent to participation by
students who under current policy, will have no access to fee
deferral in 2006.
7.2 If universities do not charge
a pro-rata fee for part-time courses, they will inevitably receive
less fee income compared to institutions which have done little
to promote flexible learning opportunities and / or have a full-time
undergraduate student population. (These are often the very same
institutions which have been least successful to date in widening
participation.)
7.3 There is an element of employer
subsidy for part-time provision but this is variable from course
to course. Ministers have suggested that employer subsidy runs
at 60% of part-time undergraduate students. No CMU institution
can confirm this level of employer subsidy and all report significantly
lower levels of support. However, even where these higher degrees
of subsidy allegedly exist, 40% of part-time undergraduates are
self-funded. Further, a number of sponsors may be small employers
and a doubling of the part-time fee may result in them only being
able to sponsor half the number of students than at present.
7.4 CMU institutions support more
part-time undergraduates than the OU and Birkbeck combined and
have estimated that they stand to lose between £1.25m and
£5m per year in additional fee revenue because they will
be unable to lift part-time fees in line with full-time fees.
7.5 The failure to bring part-time
undergraduate students within the scope of the fees-bursary regime
from 2006 and the perversities this potentially creates in terms
of fee income into those institutions with a significant proportion
of part-time undergraduate students, many of whom are themselves
from lower socio-economic groups, are often older students accessing
higher education in their twenties and thirties, and frequently
with caring responsibilities in their own right, is a critical
issue for CMU universities.
7.6 While HEFCE has been asked
to undertake a review of part-time provision but this will not
start until 2005, will not report until 2006 and will not address
inequities in terms of institutional income from 2006.
Solution
7.7 DfES should advise HEFCE
to safeguard the unit of funding for part-time provision for all
institutions for the 2006 academic year so that universities with
a significant profile in terms of part-time provision are not
disproportionately affected by loss of potential fee income. One
way of achieving this would be to bring the fee element of the
part-time student grant in line with the increase in implied fees
e.g. £1,500 for a 50% programme.
In the long term, the Government
should commit to deferral of fees for part-time students. This
would also ensure that students who have to switch between full-time
and part-time modes after 2006 are not faced with two different
funding regimes (i.e. fee deferral when full-time, payment up
front when part-time).
APPENDIX A
1. University of Derby
1.1 The University of Derby is
a diverse institution. Diversity is reflected in the many different
types of students, often from low participation groups, and modes
of study as well as the broad range of activities present. It
has an applied, vocational, learner-led mission serving 23,000
students with a very large proportion of students (63%) having
a domicile within 50 miles of Derby. Derby is a relatively modest
University in financial terms with a turnover of approx £73m
but has many funding streams including all major teaching sources
- HEFCE, TTA, NHS and LSC and consequent accountabilities. The
professional orientation of programmes also brings with it accountability
to many professional standards bodies. It has introduced a wide
range of Foundation degrees in recent years. In academic year
2003/04 full time undergraduate students represented 36% of student
headcount but 58% of income. Part time students (including e-learning
and learning through work) represent 40% of the student body but
only 19% of income. The balance of student numbers is made up
of full time FE, overseas students, and franchise students.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
1.2 If the future composition
of the student body remains as in 2003/04, the majority of Derby's
full time undergraduate students will be eligible for some financial
support under the government's maintenance grant proposals with
53% eligible for the full £2,700 and a further 12% eligible
for a proportion. Under the bursary proposals currently before
OFFA, 65% of students would thus be in receipt of a bursary from
the University on introduction of the new fees regime. Over 50%
will be in receipt of bursaries worth at least £1,000 as
part of Derby's commitment to maintaining participation from under-represented
groups. Of the implied uplift of approximately £1,800 per
student on introduction of the £3,000 fee, we shall therefore
be returning £1,000 per student to over 50% of the student
body. In total we anticipate that Derby's proposals currently
before OFFA imply returning to the student almost 60p in every
£1 raised in financial support. For 9,323 full time undergraduate
students (in steady state), that would imply income rising by
£16.8m and payments to students taking £10.1m, leaving
a very modest sum available for University infrastructure and
improvements to the student experience, as compared with other
universities with a socio-economic composition which less fully
reflects low participation groups. Derby will not be proposing
large bursaries for academic high flyers from low participation
groups as this initiative seems to be about re-distributing between
competing institutions students that would go to university anyway,
as opposed to ensuring that students that would otherwise be discouraged
are enabled to enter.
Part-time Fees
1.3 The University of Derby part-time
market is unlikely to be able to sustain fees much higher than
those currently in force and will not sustain pro-rata rates without
such students having access to other means of support.
2. University of Gloucestershire
2.1 Access and widening participation
figures for Gloucestershire for 2003/4 confirm that the University
attracts 45% of its full-time undergraduate students from the
local and surrounding areas. 6% of full-time undergraduate are
from ethnic minority groups, 16% are mature students over 25,
10% are students with a disability. Of the University's part-time
undergraduates 47% were from the local and surrounding area, 7%
were from ethnic minority groups, 67% were mature students over
25 and 12% were students with disabilities.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
2.2 As with many universities,
Gloucestershire will either be basing their bursary packages on
'residual income' or the related 'Maintenance Grant' awarded by
LEAs. The Student Loan Company (SLC) holds both of these data
elements on their systems and it is essential that this central
data source can be used to calculate 'University top-up bursaries'.
Impact of plans to pay tuition fee
income to institutions by instalment
2.3 The University has modelled
the impact of the proposed 2 instalment payment profile from SLC/Government.
On the assumption that ALL students (new and returning) opt to
defer their fees in 2006-07 and take out a 'Fee Loan', then the
cumulative monthly cash impact between September 2006 and a 1st
instalment in February 2007 would total £3 million. (The
£3m represents the difference between fee receipts in 2004-05,
compared with projected net fee receipts in 2006-07.)
2.4 To put this value in context:
- Monthly salary costs are approximately
£2.3m.
- It is almost the total value of
extra fee income to be generated through top-up fees.
- It represents around a third of
the total fee income expected during 2006-07 from home full-time
undergraduate fees.
- It represents around 20 days of
usual monthly expenditure.
- The University cash balances and
short-term investments at the end of July 2004 stood at £2.6m.
Gloucestershire are extremely concerned
about this and consider the proposal as serious and potentially
damaging.
Part-time Fees
2.5 The recent announcement of
increased support package for maintenance in 2005-06 is welcomed,
but these levels of support reflect current fee rates. If the
University were to increase part-time fees in 2006-07 pro-rata
to FT fees, then the support package currently announced would
not be sufficient and may therefore have a detrimental impact
on recruitment levels.
3. Kingston University
3.1 The Kingston approach to bursaries
is for the main part to reward students identified as necessitous
using the same criteria and assessment applied by LEAs in the
determination of student loan eligibility. There will be
additional support for students who are the first generation in
their family to participate in HE who are identified in Kingston's
progression compacts with local schools and colleges.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
3.2 There are currently 18,500
students at Kingston University, made up of 92% (17,000) UK &
EU and 8% (1,500) overseas. 83% (15,300) of the student population
are studying at undergraduate level and of these 93% (14,250)
are of UK/EU fee-status. The University is consistently successful
in attracting students from traditionally low participation backgrounds.
Based on financial background, 50% of the current student population
would be eligible for the statutory bursary of up to £300
and a university bursary award based on a sliding scale; 20% of
students receiving a further £700, 20% receiving a further
£300 and 10% receiving a further £100. Kingston also
supplies a £300 local scholarship for eligible students from
selected colleges and schools in accordance with the University's
widening participation strategy. Based on projections using the
current student number profile, and including administrative costs,
the bursary scheme is expected to absorb approx 22% of additional
fee income (£1.2m in 2006/07 rising to £4.9m in 2009/10).
4. London
Metropolitan University
4.1 London Met is London's largest
unitary university with over 35,000 students. The University have
demonstrated a sustained commitment to widening participation
and continues to make a disproportionate contribution to the national
agenda of raising participation rates among previously under-represented
groups. 55% of our full-time first degree students are under 25,
of which 96% are from state schools or colleges, with 37% from
social classes IIIM, IV and V. 12% are from low participation
neighbourhoods. 45% are mature entrants to higher education. 55%
of our students are non-white. London Met believes that the introduction
of top-up fees, with increased student debt, will cause a significant
proportion of our prospective students to reconsider their decision
to enter higher education - many of the mature students already
have debt when they join and have families to support. Many younger
students are from families with no experience of debt of this
sort and Islamic students have religious objections to debt.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
4.2 Although the University intends
to charge the maximum £3,000 fee, they plan to provide a
bursary of up to £1,000 for the poorest students, reducing
on a sliding scale to a minimum bursary of £350 for those
with net eligible income of £35,000. Although the notional
increase in the University's income from the introduction of a
£3,000 fee is over £18m, the net additional income to
the University, after administration costs, is estimated at approx
£9m - already eroded by increases in costs not controlled
by the University, such as increased employer contributions for
non-academic staff to the London Pension Fund to recoup the substantial
deficit on that fund.
Impact of plans to pay tuition fee
income to institutions by instalment
4.3 The impact of payment to higher
education institutions by instalment would not be particularly
marked for London Met, as long as they are in receipt of a rephasing
of grant to compensate for the loss of the 50% first instalment
at enrolment. The University already suffers the problem of delay
in receipt of fees from the Student Loans Company (SLC), the first
payment being made in February. London Met also has a significant
number of students who apply late to the LEA for assessment, with
the complication of part-funding and delays in documentation leading
to very late payment from the SLC.
OFFA
4.4 OFFA's response has
been to request information on the additional activities London
Met will undertake to widen access. The University takes the stance
that all current work already delivers widening access, so the
point on additionality is not relevant to anything like the same
extent as for institutions with a different mission. OFFA fails
to recognise the different starting-points in the sector.
Part-time Fees
4.5 The part-time fee issue is
significant for London Met as they already have many situations
of part-time students in the middle of their degrees coming to
re-enrol and deciding not to continue because of changes in the
financial support mechanisms.
5. Middlesex University
5.1 Middlesex University is a
large and diverse institution with 22,000 students and 9,000 students
at collaborative institutions in the UK and overseas. Middlesex's
UK student profile includes 97% of students from state schools,
38% from the lowest socio-economic groups and 47% from ethnic
minority groups.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
5.2 On administration and funding
of bursaries and instalments, Middlesex anticipates that
extra administration will cost £100,000+ p.a. and that payments
of bursaries will cost approx £1.5m p.a. by year 3.
Part-time Fees
5.3 This is a very unclear area
under the new fees regime. If the changes agreed for 2005/6 are
continued into 2006/7 and it remains the case that part-time students
are not eligible for a fees loan, then there will be a mismatch
between what a part-time student can receive in cash towards fees
versus a full-time student.
6. Roehampton University
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
6.1 Roehampton has a track record
of recruiting a high proportion of its students from under-represented
groups, and consistently admits a percentage of students from
lower socio-economic groups that is above the national average,
but the university now finds itself penalised financially for
doing so. Payment of the Minimum Standard Bursary (MSB) will cost
Roehampton in excess of £250,000 p.a. - despite Roehampton's
own market research suggesting that this will not have a material
effect in our recruitment of under-represented groups. Universities
like Roehampton are required to redistribute a higher proportion
of their fee income than those universities with a much less diverse
social mix. This means having a lower proportion of additional
income to invest in students, despite the recognition in the White
Paper that there is an additional cost to educating and supporting
students from less traditional backgrounds (Para 6.24). It also
means that, in the educational market created by the HE Act, universities
like Roehampton are disadvantaged by having less control over
the usage of additional income to attract potential students.
OFFA
6.2 The HE Act quite correctly
required universities to do all they can to attract applications
from prospective students who are members of groups currently
under-represented in higher education, and to provide financial
assistance to students. Roehampton does this well already, and
will continue to be committed to widening access. The aim of MSBs
is, according to OFFA, 'to minimise the perceived deterrent of
tuition fees'. The Director of the Office for Fair Access predicts
that universities will be paying up to £200m p.a. in financial
support schemes to students from under-represented groups. There
is, however, no evidence that spending this substantial sum of
money will have the desired effect. The University's market research
conducted in south London suggests that it will not.
6.3 Given Roehampton's situation,
and the extremely successful track record of working effectively
to recruit under-represented students, the University sought an
Access Agreement which committed it to increasing tried and tested
work in widening participation, as well as to providing the MSB
to students in receipt of the full state grant. This was returned
by the Office for Fair Access, with the comment that 'it would
be of benefit to your application…[to] consider, particularly
in relation to your position in the market, whether an increase
in bursary investment would be appropriate'. Apparently the £300
bursary is 'significantly below the average levels for individual
bursary levels, overall investment and investment in bursaries
that we have seen so far from other comparable institutions'.
Roehampton are therefore now being asked to increase the amount
of money redistributed to students not on the basis of addressing
student need, but in response to OFFA's perception of our position
in the market. As they are advised that to talk to other universities
about these issues could put them in breach of competition law,
this puts Roehampton at rather a loss in that they do not know
what the 'market' is thinking of doing, although OFFA apparently
does. However, the University regards it as odd that OFFA should
be 'bidding up' access agreements in this way, especially given
the lack of research into whether this will have any effect in
increasing participation.
7. The University of Wolverhampton
7.1 THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON LEADS THE
COUNTRY IN THE RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS FROM SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED
BACKGROUNDS WITH OVER 50% OF ITS INTAKE FROM SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS
4, 5, 6 AND 7 COMPARED TO A NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 29% AND A BENCHMARK
OF 37%. THE UNIVERSITY, WHICH HAS A TURNOVER EXCEEDING £100M,
HAS 23,000 STUDENTS, MOST OF WHOM TAKE VOCATIONALLY-ORIENTATED
COURSES. IT WORKS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES ON
THE 14-19 AGENDA AND THE RDA ON REGIONAL SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT,
MAKING IT A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REGENERATION
IN THE BLACK COUNTRY. THE UNIVERSITY HAS RECENTLY BEEN DESIGNATED
BY HEFCE AS A NATIONAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
(CETL) IN ENABLING ACHIEVEMENT IN A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY.
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
7.2 The University expects over
half of its students to qualify for the minimum standard bursary,
which will cost the University at least £1m p.a. They have
proposed to OFFA a package of bursaries and fee discounts which
will mean that more than half of their students will have £3,000
p.a. 'cash in hand' while they study, whether from DfES maintenance
grants or University bursaries. The cost of these schemes to
the University is likely to absorb between one-third and one-half
of the additional income raised.
Part-time Fees
7.3 The University expects to
have approximately 8,500 full-time undergraduates paying fees
of £3,000. They also have a further 5,000 part-time students
who under the current rules will not be able to defer payment
of fees, and will not be eligible for the same level of means-tested
maintenance grant support to which full-time students will have
access. The loss of income to the University represented by these
students, to whom are unlikely to be able to charge top-up fees,
is estimated to be £4.5m p.a.
8. University of Teesside
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
8.1 Teesside anticipates that
25% of its student population will qualify for the Minimum Standard
Bursary (MSB). A further 30% will come from backgrounds with a
family income below £25,000. The University is committed
to spending 47.7% of fee income in the first year (33.8% by year
3) on measures intended to support the participation of students
from less affluent backgrounds, and a further 26.6% (7.65% by
year 3) in direct support for students in order to protect developing
and important other areas of provision.
Role & Remit of Student Loan
Company (SLC)
8.2 The precise role of the SLC
is still unclear and even the information that it will provide
to institutions is likely to be relatively late in the applications
cycle - after applicants for the most part have made firm choices.
It is not clear if this will exceed information about entitlement
to MSBs. Because the role and remit of the SLC remains unclear,
Teesside anticipates that it may need to establish its own system
in parallel, in order to enable applicants to make informed decisions.
There is a danger that applicants could need therefore to make
two sets of applications or that there could be a divergence between
the two systems.
8.3 This is particularly likely
given the practice of not announcing the levels of statutory student
support until the November preceding the academic year since the
projected bursary scheme relies, in part, on family income levels
related to the statutory system. Early understanding of financial
support was always important to applicants - but now it varies
considerably between institutions and the information is likely
to be less clear.
Impact of plans to pay tuition fee
income to institutions by instalment
8.4 This will inevitably cause
some cash flow issues for the University - which will only partially
be addressed by phasing the payment of bursaries. The University
reluctantly accepts that the timing of bursary payments must be
dictated by the timing of the receipt of additional fee income
rather than by understandings of student need if the latter is
subject to February or later instalment payment.
Part-time Fees
8.5 Teesside has committed itself
to retaining part-time fees at approximately current levels -
i.e. approx £600 (£1200 FTE). This decision is based
on the University's desire to ensure that students for whom part-time
is the only effective option are not disadvantaged by the relatively
limited financial support available. The University believes that
to charge fees at a level established by the full-time fee could
lead to a collapse in part-time participation unless such an increase
were matched by corresponding access to loans to pay fees.
8.6 Much of the work with part-time
students is informed by the University's mission of providing
opportunities since these are often adult returners. The capacity
to charge a higher fee of up to £3,000 is a response to the
under-funding of teaching generally - but it addresses the under-funding
of full-time provision only. If the same funding were available
to support the part-time work the University would have additional
revenue of £5.4m (based on FTE of approximately £3,000)
9. University of Central
Lancashire (UCLan)
Additional fee income/impact of
bursaries and administration costs
9.1 UCLan has decided to award
flat-rate bursaries of £1,000 to all students paying/eligible
for the £3,000 fee, up to a lead family income of £60,000
p.a. UCLan estimates that this will consume 55% of the additional
money raised by moving to £3,000 fees. The additional cost
of administering our fees and bursary policy is calculated at:
2004/05 - £360,000
2005/06 - £600,000
Impact of plans to pay tuition fee
income to institutions by instalment
9.2 The current plans to pay fee
invoices by instalments commencing in February 2007 will cause
serious cash-flow problems for UCLan and will compromise the ability
to pay bursaries at the time students need them most.
Part-time Fees
9.3 UCLan has decided that it
is simply too risky to put up part-time fees in 2006 and are therefore
keeping them the same. As one of the largest providers of part-time
HE this is a very serious and major issue for the University.
10. University of East London
(UEL)
10.1 UEL supports the development of
the Thames Gateway and its peoples. Diversity statistics for full-time
EU undergraduate students are: 7% in receipt of Disabled Student's
Allowance, 20% over 25 years of age, 57% from black/minority ethnic
groups. According to figures supplied by the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (table T1b), 43% of UEL's full-time students
under the age of 25 fall into socio-economic groups 4, 5, 6 &
7; i.e. making them "working class".
Additional fee income/impact
of bursaries and administration costs
10.2 UEL will be losing 20% of the
extra income in scholarships, bursaries and additional outreach
activity - see following Table:
| 2006-07
| 2007-08
| 2008-09
|
| Extra fee income
| £1,800
| £1,845
| £1,891
|
| Gross income
| £4,860,000
| £9,132,750
| £13,190,597
|
| SMB | £300
| £308
| £315
|
| Cost of SMB
| £388,800
| £730,620
| £1,055,248
|
| Scholarships
| £100,000
| £190,000
| £271,000
|
| Bursaries
| £324,000
| £864,000
| £1,350,000
|
| Outreach |
£80,000 |
£80,000 |
£80,000 |
| Total Cost
| £892,800
| £1,864,620
| £2,756,248
|
| 18.40%
| 20.40% |
20.90% |
Part-time Fees
10.3 At most 20% of UEL's EU undergraduate
part-time students are employer-sponsored. The University strongly
suspects that at the new implied fees only vocational part-time
higher education will survive. UEL proposes that the Government
raises the fee element of the part-time student grant in line
with the increase in implied fees; i.e. £1,500 for a 50%
programme. However, if the Government went most of the way (e.g.
to £1,200) UEL, for one, would be willing to respond by bridging
the gap with part- time bursaries.
1 Sir Howard Newby, Chief Executive
HEFCE, evidence session of the Science & Technology Committee
on 7th February 2005: "…I do not think the
kind of investment has been put in on the teaching side from government
that has been put in on the research side…..Most of them
[universities] are going to charge the £3,000 maximum fee,
but……the actual net gain they receive will be very variable,
even though the fee they charge will be broadly similar." Back
| 
