Memorandum submitted by the CMU Universities
Group
INTRODUCTION
1. CMU represents over 30 universities (referred
to as modern universities in this submission) with a commitment
to and a record of success in widening participation and promoting
excellence in teaching, research and innovation.
BACKGROUND
2. Modern universities are based on institutions
which have provided professional and other education, often in
highly specialized disciplines for over a hundred years. Some
modern universities have been education providers since the early
to mid 19th century. The majority became independent corporations
in 1988 and achieved teaching and research degree-awarding powers
and their right to university title as a result of the Further
and Higher Education Act of 1992. In fact by 1992, these institutions
were teaching as many undergraduates as institutions already awarded
university title. In one sense to describe these universities
as "modern" or the "new" universities is something
of a misnomer. They have long-standing records as institutions
and have continued their commitment to access, "student-centredness"
and flexible provision following their award of university title—a
fact reflected currently in their inclusive student profiles.
PROMOTING THE
VALUE AND
ROLE OF
ALL UNIVERSITIES
3. The 1992 Act ended the binary divide,
ensured quality, capacity for expansion of undergraduate and postgraduate
students and delivered for students and staff, institutional recognition.
A decade later, Kenneth Clarke MP was quoted in the Times Higher
Educational Supplement (28 June 2002) as stating that "the
ending of the binary divide was an obvious step to take ... the
polytechnics would have been described as universities in any
other country in the world".[50]
In the event, public policy statements, funding regimes, the media
portrayal of "new" universities and the factors used
to determine the university League Tables (all Tables are constructs
of newspapers and not the Government), have not always endorsed
this view. All too often, "excellence" has been and
continues to be deployed only to describe those universities which
have been historically funded to compete in terms of international
and world-class research. The sustainability of the higher education
sector will depend on narrow descriptions of excellence being
challenged and the values which currently inform public funding
regimes being amended.
4. All British universities and higher education
institutions are subject to rigorous quality assurance arrangements
and regulation by professional bodies where course programmes
require it. For students entering Year 11 in 2007 and considering
applying to university for entry in 2009, the binary divide is
something to be read about in histories of education. Moreover,
as Robbins and subsequent Governments recognised, wider access
to and "mass-participation" in higher education (to
use the Committee's own current terms of reference) could not
be delivered by a small number of universities nor can Britain
compete internationally in higher education provision on the basis
of a small number of research-intensive institutions.
5. The future sustainability of British
higher education is therefore dependent not only on funding regimes
but also on the political and public endorsement of the contribution
of all universities—an endorsement that in value terms needs
to be promoted not only by DfES but also by HMT, OSI and other
Government departments.
6. It would be useful for the Committee
to consider how Government might further take a lead in promoting
to all stakeholders, including business and industry, the value
and contribution of all publicly funded universities and their
students. The sustainability of the sector relies on it and students
(the majority of whom have attended or will attend universities
other than the research-intensive institutions) deserve it.
LEAGUE TABLES
7. Many stakeholders and indeed students
do not realise that the university League Tables are not produced
by or based on DfES / Government guidelines. As Professor Roger
Brown has asserted "The main purpose of league tables is
to sell newspapers. Whilst we don't know how much Times Newspapers
Ltd makes (or used to make) from its league tables, we do know
that its American equivalent—America's Best Colleges—is
a considerable money spinner for its publisher US News and World
Reports. League tables are big, or at least healthy, business".[51]
8. The point is often made (for example
by Yorke and Longden, 2005) that the league tables reflect the
value judgements of those who compile them. This is an understatement.
The other main purpose of league tables is to promote a particular
kind of higher education as being intrinsically superior: "the
kind of higher education provided by those institutions that regularly
appear in the higher positions. As a corollary, the education
offered by institutions that do not rank highly is devalued".[52]
9. The newspaper League Tables continue
to value factors largely determined by research and RAE income.
They are neither a transparent nor an equitable means of promoting
the value of British universities. The tables are closely (although
unsurprisingly) linked to institutional prosperity rather than
student or staff success. However, they are influential with employers
and in domestic and international markets and they lend credence
to a mission and funding model which applies to only a small number
of institutions. The Committee is asked to consider the merit
of the Government at least modifying the effects of the press
League Tables with its own analysis.
MODERN UNIVERSITIES—FIT
FOR PURPOSE
Responding to stakeholders
10. Modern universities have long-standing
records at local, regional and national level of responding to
student, employer, Government and market demand, matching the
challenges of social and industrial change with higher education
provision. In many cases, these universities are the drivers of
regional regeneration providing new avenues in areas which have
experienced the decline of long-standing industries eg in Sunderland
and Teesside but also responding to new requirements eg graduate
programmes in nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to
medicine, children's and adult services and teacher training—all
disciplines in which modern universities have taken the lead.
Modern universities have responded to new markets and ventures
eg biotechnology, computer games, have led the way in the development
of applied science departments eg London Metropolitan, UCLan and
have significant arts, humanities and social science provision.
Employer Engagement
11. Modern universities are already delivering
in the important area of employer engagement in both the private
and public sectors and will respond to any new Government initiatives.
However, the latter must be based on the employment needs of the
learner (with progression) and not just on the workforce needs
of the employer, is not necessarily a cheap option and must be
both incentivesed and sustainable in funding terms. An agreed
objective must also be that any additional employer engagement
should avoid substitution of funds that the employer would have
spent anyway, including on the funding at full economic cost of
the many courses already agreed with and provided for employers
by modern universities. Crucially, initiatives in employer engagement
should not substitute for fully funded growth and the full funding
of the costs of widening participation to which we refer later.
NHS-funded programmes
12. Employer engagement and workforce development
are not without their risks for higher education institutions.
This has been demonstrated in particular by the 25% cut in MPET
funds for nursing, midwifery and professions allied to medicine
courses implemented by the Department of Health in 2006-07 and
applied in different degrees by Strategic Health Authorities.
Modern universities which have led this provision have faced (and
continue to face) flooring of contracts with minimum notice in
respect of programmes that also require professional body accreditation
and associated staff-student ratios. Thus, lack of coherence in
planning and / or inadequate notice of amended employer workforce
requirements, including in the public sector, can pose significant
financial and strategic risks for modern universities with diverse
funding streams.
Collaboration with other education provider in
Britain and internationally
13. Modern universities have been in the
forefront of working collaboratively with other education providers
in the UK including schools but also further education colleges.
Some HEIs have progressed mergers with the latter eg Thames Valley
University and Reading College (wef January 2004) and modern universities
have been in the forefront of working to ensure the quality delivery
of foundation degree programmes, both directly and also in collaboration
with further education colleges.
14. Modern universities have spearheaded
international partnerships and recruitment, established campuses
overseas, provided flexible opportunities through e-learning for
domestic and international students and are key contributors to
UK exports and trade in higher education (estimated to be a total
contribution to the economy of £2.9 billion of GDP out of
a total of £1,044.1 billion in the year 2003).[53]
They are also involved in initiatives and collaborations
with institutions in developing countries.
15. Accordingly by history and current activity,
modern universities are well placed to respond to the need for:
— a dynamic and responsive higher education
sector.
— the deepening of access and widening
of participation in higher education.
— an increasingly graduate workforce
with life-long and flexible access to higher education.
— a dynamic research base including
applied research.
— expansion of knowledge transfer activities.
— the promotion of learner progression
based on the employability needs of students.
— collaboration with other education
providers and employers.
— a British higher education sector
that is attractive and can meet the challenges of the international
market.
— a British higher education sector
that continues to contribute to education and civic development
in developing countries.
16. Modern universities are successfully
involved in all of these activities. The extent to which they
will be enabled to do so in the next decade will be dependent
upon public policy and Government funding models that incentivise
their contribution and support student participation. We believe
that this should be a key focus of the Committee's Inquiry.
Student profile
17. CMU Member Universities have their own
diversity. As institutions, many are former polytechnics but others
have backgrounds in religious foundations eg Roehampton and Gloucestershire.
Some member institutions were awarded university title more recently
eg Northampton. They have been united by a common consensus about
the role of a university, the principle that access to higher
education should be a right and not a privilege and that students
themselves should be entitled to equity of resource wherever they
choose to study.
18. In summary, CMU universities have characterized
themselves as:
— creative and lively learning environments
where students come first
— committed to relevant research
— socially and culturally inclusive
— innovative and responsive
19. In terms of student profile, CMU member
universities dominate the top 20 universities for intake by socio-economic
groups 4, 5, 6 and 7, low-participation neighbourhoods, admission
from state schools and ethnic inclusivity (Appendix A). It should
be noted that the first two criteria are particularly relevant
to widening participation, bearing in mind that admission from
state schools while significant, is not indicative per se of first
generation university students or social class.
20. In addition, modern universities have
approximately the same number in total of part-time students as
the Open University. Part-time students now comprise between 42
and 45% of the total student cohort. Part-time students are frequently
also mature students and in modern universities, a significant
number of part-time students fall into the widening participation
cohort. The average age for full and part-time students in modern
universities is the mid-twenties.
Adjusting funding to match the student profile
21. Notwithstanding this student profile,
institutional funding models continue to reflect a student profile
which is full-time and "constant" ie students who "seamlessly"
complete a degree programme. It is crucial therefore that funding
policies are adjusted to reflect and take account of the institutional
and administrative costs of supporting and educating students
who themselves take risks to fulfill personal aspirations, who
access higher education with non-traditional qualifications, may
need to switch between modes of study (eg full-time to part-time),
will currently face differing student support regimes and may
have significant family or care commitments.
Inequity in institutional funding
22. The more inclusive student profile of
modern universities is one of the sector's and Britain's most
important assets. It is therefore particularly ironic that institutional
public funding regimes have failed not only to reflect the student
profile of modern universities but also to maintain equity of
value between teaching and research in spite of the support of
previous and the current governments for expansion and widening
participation.
23. We raise specific issues in relation
to institutional funding in the following paragraphs. It would
be helpful if the Committee could consider inequities in institutional
funding further.
The Role of Universities: Teaching and Research
24. It is important to emphasis that the
success of modern universities has been predicated on the principle
that universities deliver teaching and research. We see no merit
for students, employers or for the UK in public policy deviating
from this principle notwithstanding the discriminatory effects
for students and institutions of current research funding models.
Policy approaches which have the effect of "siloing"
some universities into teaching, research or knowledge transfer
institutions fundamentally misunderstand the interaction between
these activities and will have the effect of limiting capacity,
including the capacity of modern universities (their staff, students
and graduates) to contribute to the success of the UK economy.
25. As indicated by the activities of modern
universities previously outlined, the acceptance of this principle
ie the inter-relationship between teaching and research and the
role of universities in society, does not detract from universities
as institutions being "outward-facing" or engaged in
other related activities to differing extents—nor does it
presume that all universities will or should be funded to compete
internationally in terms of research.
26. A "silo" approach to universities'
missions also runs the risk of undermining the potential of UK
higher education to trade on a global basis. Partner institutions
and international as well as domestic students recognise and value
teaching, research capacity and applied research. The link between
research infrastructure, the delivery of applied research capacity,
informed teaching and international engagement of higher education
needs to be better understood and specifically promoted in public
policy and investment.
27. All definitions of the role of universities
from Socrates, Newman, John Stewart Mill to the Magna Carta Universitatum
which underpins the Bologna Declaration rely on the concept of
curiosity driven teaching and research and the principle that
all universities and their students should be able to engage in
education, questioning, be open to new ideas and "not succumb
to orthodoxies of the day".
28. The Magna Carta Universitatum to which
British universities subscribe states that:
— The university is an autonomous institution
at the heart of societies differently organised; it produces,
examines, appraises and hands down culture by research and teaching.
To meet the needs of the world around it, its research and teaching
must be morally and intellectually independent of all political
authority and economic power.
— Teaching and research in universities
must be inseparable if their tuition is not to lag behind changing
needs, the demands of society and advances in scientific knowledge.
— Freedom in research and training
is the fundamental principle of university life, and governments
and universities, each as far as in them lies, must ensure respect
for this fundamental requirement.
29. We would encourage the Committee to:
— endorse this definition as the underpinning
principle of British higher education policy for the next decade.
— examine the funding and related policies
required to secure this principle in the context of the dynamic
and responsive and expanded sector that is required.
The Role of Universities and Research Funding
30. One of the most significant factors
determining the differentials in institutional funding and the
student resource available in different universities, has arisen
as a result of the distribution of research funding made available
through the Science and Innovation Budget and in particular, through
the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
31. The much higher levels of Government
investment in research and development since 2004 have been welcomed
by CMU but assumptions behind the Government's strategy continue
to give rise for concern. The Government's strategy can be summarised
as seeking to:
— increase the level of funding substantially,
especially for science research.
— concentrate HEFCE (Higher Education
Funding Council for England) research funding (RAE) in fewer universities
(strictly speaking in fewer "departments") in the belief
that this will enable a few universities to be ranked close to
"the world's best" like Harvard and Yale.
— ensure that university research remains
sustainable by ensuring that research projects are funded to cover
their full costs (although for any given level of funding this
implies fewer projects, thereby leading to further concentration).
32. It can be argued that the Government
has sought to buttress this strategy by questioning the existence
of a link between research and teaching quality, removing research
performance and research degree awarding powers from the criteria
for university title and providing some compensating streams of
funding through HEIF (the Higher Education Innovation Fund) to
universities that do not get significant research funding. In
fact, the distribution of the latter (£150 million), while
important, has continued to benefit research-intensive institutions.
33. CMU submitted a paper to the Higher
Education Research Forum in July 2004[54]
which suggested that a number of assumptions behind the science
and investment strategy needed to be tested.
34. Accordingly, the Committee may also
wish to consider the following questions in its consideration
of investment and funding strategies:
— Could extra funding for research
based on the current system of distribution, simply lead to high
cost (for teaching and research staff and facilities) with no
significant increase in output or quality?
— Will concentration (of research funding)
reduce competition?
— Is the gap between Oxbridge and Harvard
realistically bridgeable and would the cost of trying to bridge
the gap be excessive for a country the size of the UK?
— Given that research-intensive universities
concentrate on "blue sky" research, has and will concentration
crowd out the more directly applicable business and policy research
done by other universities?
35. While there has always been concentration
of funding in research intensive universities, considerable emphasis
has hitherto been placed on the essential need to build research
capacity and performance in all universities. For the first time,
the degree of concentration being implemented threatens to reverse
decades of successful capacity building right across the UK higher
education sector for both advanced teaching and research.
36. Further questions for the Committee
to consider include:
— What assessment has been undertaken
of the effect upon the future volume and quality of UK research
through high levels of concentration?
— If there is no link between teaching
and research, why fund universities to do research? Why not simply
set up independent research organisations?
— What effect will increased concentration
have upon UK institutional capacity to compete in the international
market?
— What effect will increased concentration
have upon student resources and institutional research infrastructure
(both staff and facilities)?
37. The development of knowledge in all
areas of the university curriculum is moving faster and faster
and the need for the curriculum to be informed by the latest research
is growing. Accordingly, an active policy of building and reinforcing
the links between teaching and research could give UK universities
a competitive lead in the world higher education market. Failure
to do this may mean that subjects which are generally not taught
in research-intensive universities (eg nursing, art and design)
will be excluded from benefiting from the strong research-teaching
link found in such areas as medicine.
38. CMU's paper also raised questions about
the effects of "over"-concentration on hard science
and the lack of incentives for collaboration, noting that while
"few would question the desirability of increasing funding
for science research in universities ... .many of the challenges
faced by modern societies and many of the opportunities available
to the UK economy are not associated with the hard sciences. There
is considerable need to build our understanding of society, communities
and social problems in order to inform policy in a wide range
of areas that affect the quality of life and promote social cohesion.
(For example), one of the great strengths of the UK economy is
its cultural industries—an area that has been neglected
in research funding ... Distribution of research funding by subject
(should) be driven by a well informed understanding of the needs
of the economy and society and (should) not continue to be driven
merely by the historical patterns of research described by the
RAE".
39. On collaboration, CMU stated that "a
large part of the research done in universities is not "hard
science" research and does not require the high levels of
infrastructure investment" (though even in the arts the use
of specialist IT equipment is growing). In most areas the case
for enforced or coordinated collaboration is less clear and the
benefit of competition between universities is perhaps greater.
40. Nevertheless a framework of support
and a funding system which encourages pooling of effort and the
sharing of new ideas across the sector may be beneficial. In the
arts, humanities, social science, business and management and
the non-experimental human and physical sciences the establishment
of national centres like the NBER (National Bureau for Economic
Research) and others in the US or the CNRS in France, may provide
a useful model of collaboration. Such centres could, at a regional
or national level, bring together physically and virtually the
best researchers from right across the country regardless of which
university they teach in. Such centres need not have any permanent
research staff but could recruit university teachers seconded
full-time or part-time for say, one semester up to, say 5 years.
41. On the proposition that universities
are "overtrading" and the present volume of research
activity is not sustainable, CMU argued that further concentration
of funding would result in "less research at a higher cost"
and argued for "a dynamic research sector that would allow
universities which are able to deliver value for money (lower
direct costs and overhead costs) to compete for research project
funding".
Research in Modern Universities
42. The social and economic impact of research
in 35 Universities (primarily but not exclusively CMU Members)
was assessed in an independent survey undertaken by the international
consultancy firm, Arthur D. Little (ADL) and published in May
2006.[55]
The Arthur D Little report concluded that:
"The research base of institutions of the
type broadly represented by the Participating Universities (PUs)
represents an important, distinct and valuable component of the
wider UK research base. It is a component which, while smaller
than that of the research-intensives, adds to the diversity, accessibility
and knowledge transfer capability of UK higher education. It is
in many respects complementary, not merely additional, to the
work of the research-intensive universities.
Building on a modest investment in research from
the funding councils and the research councils, the Participating
Universities attract very substantial additional contract research
from a diverse range of customers. The scale of this leverage
effect, compared to that at other universities, is striking. It
is over two and half times as great as for other Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) with respect to contract research from UK
public bodies; over twice as great with respect to UK industry;
and four times as great with respect to EU funding."
43. The ADL report highlighted the strong
role played by modern universities in "supporting the regional
regeneration and economic development agendas ... the physical
location of many of the Universities in urban areas where there
are no research-intensive Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
enables them to make a contribution, within a local and regional
context, that would not be otherwise provided. (These) Universities
play an important role in helping to ensure the necessary skills
supply, both of graduates trained through specific research experience,
and of those whose undergraduate teaching has benefited from being
undertaken in an institution with a vibrant research community
able to attract high quality academic staff."
44. The report further concluded that modern
universities used "a modest publicly funded research base
to attract very substantial additional contract research from
a diverse range of customers" with a significantly greater
multiplier effect (Table 1):
Table 1
FUNDING COUNCIL INVESTMENT TO PUs,* RUSSELL
GROUP AND 1994 GROUP HEIs
|
| Funding Council Investment
| "Multiplier"[56]
|
|
| Russell Group | £794,647,255
| 1.77 |
| 1994 Group | £195,205,139
| 1.18 |
| PUs* | £57,135,924
| 3.03 |
|
Source: HESA.
* the 35 Participating Universities in the research project.
45. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of research income into
the standard categories used by the Higher Education Statistical
Agency (HESA) as proportions of the total. The Research Council
grant funding accounts for a much smaller proportion of research
and contract income for modern universities than for other HEIs,
reflecting the largely applied emphasis of their research portfolios.
Figure 1: Proportion of research grant and contract
income in PU and other HEIs
Applied research and research contracts in modern universities
46. The Arthur D. Little Report concluded that:
"in the public and private sectors, much research is
commissioned (from modern universities), initially at least, for
the customer's internal purposes. This means that in many instances
researchers are precluded from publishing the results of their
research in peer-reviewed academic journals and elsewhere because
of undertakings of confidentiality—commercial and otherwise.
This can result in these Universities attracting less attention
and winning less esteem for their research than they might merit.
In addition, much of the research carried out ... is "applied"
and the outputs of such research can take unconventional forms
which do not lend themselves to traditional peer-review forms
of academic audit."
47. These Universities were also found to:
— be highly effective in attracting EU funding to
UK
— have research relationships with multinational
and national industries as well as small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs)
— be particularly well placed to provide the necessary
research base for emerging industries
— have established research collaborations with
national and international industry with the Universities (as
a group) having research contracts with many leading R&D investors
including the top 10 UK R&D spenders listed in the 2005 DTI
R&D Scoreboard
— have won a substantial number of contracts with
larger businesses and that the average value is substantial, at
approximately £250,000. (The largely applied research portfolio
of the Universities made them "particularly well suited to
working with the end-users of their research output"—see
Figure 2.)
Figure 2: Average value and average number of research
contracts at PUs
Source: Arthur D. Little analysis of HESA data.
Regional Regeneration, economic development and research
48. The study gathered "substantial evidence pointing
to the leading role that is played (by modern universities) in
the support of regional economic development." Analysis of
data from the 2005 "Higher Education—Business and the
Community" survey yields a clear and consistent message—that
(these) Universities see the regional and sub-regional dimensions
of their interaction with business and the community as highly
significant with contributions to regional agendas cited as:
— support of SMEs through access to specialist facilities.
— continuing Professional Development and more general
consultancies.
— provision of incubator facilities and innovation
services.
— support for "cluster" schemes in industries
such as textiles, digital media and food production.
— promoting of social policy initiatives in areas
such as diversity awareness, domestic violence, children's needs
and employment.
— developing public and mental health services.
— promoting community based arts and cultural events
such as dance, cinema and theatre.
— assisting regional tourism and heritage activities;
and
— collaborating in urban regeneration projects.
Modern universities and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
49. The Universities were also assessed as performing
"exceptionally well in research-based links to SMEs as reflected
in high degree of participation in Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
(KTPs)". It was noted that "the applied aspects of (their)
research base are particularly valuable to SMEs, which lack in-house
R&D capabilities and which benefit from mechanisms such as
consultancy, training services and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
(KTPs)". The performance of these Universities in KTPs compares
very favourably with that of both the Russell Group and 1994 Group.
Table 4 shows that 35% of the income from KTPs is spent at (these)
Universities (£9 million out of a total of £25.7 million).
Table 4
AVERAGE NUMBERS OF KTP PROJECTS FOR RUSSELL GROUP, 1994
and PUs
|
| Average number of current KTPs
| Average KTP income (£1000s)
|
|
| PUs | 9 |
258 |
| Russell Group | 10
| 151 |
| 1994 Group | 7
| 194 |
| All HEIs excluding PUs | 5
| 123 |
|
Source: HESA data.
50. Crucially, the Arthur D. Little Report concluded
that "all the KTPs are dependent on the research portfolio
of the University involved and any reduction in their research
activity would undermine the capacity of these Universities to
deliver the current level of knowledge transfer".
51. The ADL Report concluded by stating that the study
"clearly demonstrated that the research capability of the
Participating Universities represents an important component of
the broader UK research portfolio and is a key contributor to
its diversity and breadth. Their research is complementary to,
rather than a smaller scale and less prestigious version of, the
research carried out at the research-intensive institutions.
Overall, the Participating Universities contribute a breadth
and diversity to the UK academic research community which would
be hard to achieve given the strong disciplinary structure and
research focus in the research-intensive universities. This is
clearly of huge value to a wide range of customers and users both
in large and small business and in the public sector, at local,
regional, national and (in the case of multi-national companies
and EU collaborations) international level. These institutions
complement the major research-intensive universities in building
and sustaining for the UK a research capability of excellence
and relevance, constituting a national asset of enormous significance."
Effects and review of the Research Assessment Exercise
52. Notwithstanding the ADL and other reports eg from
the Institute of Fiscal Studies[57]
indicating the importance to the UK of a retaining research capacity
and a dynamic research base, it is feasible for universities to
be carrying out research at a national level ie of national significance,
but to receive no Funding Council Quality-related (QR) funding,
notwithstanding the role that DfES, the Funding Council and Ministers
have all acknowledged is played by QR funding. The latter provides
"a foundation allowing University leaders to take strategic
decisions about the research activities of their own institutions.
It funds the basic research infrastructure—including the
salary costs of permanent academic staff, support staff, equipment
and libraries—that gives institutions the base from which
to undertake research ... QR must continue to support research
capacity and capability; it should support long-term research;
and it should enable speculative research" (para. 2.11 &
3.7 DfES Consultation, "Reform of the Research Assessment
Exercise").
53. HEFCE's decision following the 2001 RAE to provide
QR funding for only 5 / 5* departments notwithstanding improvements
in quality across the sector, reduced further the number of universities
in receipt of QR funding.
54. Accordingly, modern universities welcomed the Government's
decision to conduct a consultation on the reform of the RAE (May-Oct
2006) and submitted evidence that argued that the success of any
new system should be determined by a broad definition of quality
and judged against a number of criteria including:
— the responsiveness of any new system to commercial
urgency;
— the link between research capacity, innovation
and teaching;
— future requirements for advanced graduate level
skills;
— the need to promote trans-disciplinary approaches
which transcend the boundaries of conventional academic disciplines;
— regional economic regeneration; and
— the contribution of the HE sector itself to exports
and the inter-relationship of the latter with HEI research capacity.
55. In advocating that evaluation of any new method should
be judged against these criteria, CMU also drew attention to the
EU Commission Communication "Delivering on the modernisation
agenda for universities". This identifies the need for more
money for R&D, places economic and social value on higher
education, research and innovation, improved quality of teaching
and closer links between education and business.
56. Notwithstanding concerns about the consequences for
applied research and research capacity of the current RAE method
(which is largely a retrospective process), the DfES / Funding
Council response to the consultation has, by and large, preserved
the status quo at least for the next 5 years.
57. However, the objectives of the 2004 10-year Investment
Framework for Science and Innovation stressed the importance of
business-university collaboration, a world class research base,
effective knowledge transfer and the creation of social and economic
value from public and private investments. It remains CMU's view
that in order to meet these challenges, a more dynamic funding
system is required in which quality, infrastructure, research
capacity and applied and trans-disciplinary research are supported.
Both the public and private sectors require research capacity
and applied research (and not just knowledge transfer support
and interchange) from modern universities. Over-reliance on a
small number of research-intensive institutions will limit capacity
and place the UK at a disadvantage both globally and regionally.
Bearing in mind the outcome of the RAE consultation, CMU has argued
that the Spending Review should support the inclusion of a specific
stream of funding for research infrastructure and research capacity
and that these principles should also be promoted in future Funding
Council settlements.
Research infrastructure and capacity: base-line research funding
58. The principle advocated by DfES and the Funding Council
that QR should support a basic research infrastructure leads axiomatically
to the premise that there should be an element of base-line funding
within QR to support that infrastructure for all universities,
including a proportion of the salary costs of permanent academic
staff, support staff, equipment and libraries. Whilst, probably,
forming only a small proportion[58]
of total research funding, such funding would:
— make explicit the desire to support research infrastructure;
— support the role of universities as teaching and
research institutions;
— allow universities to be in a position to bid
for research work supported from other funding sources;
— support research capacity, applied research and
linked activities;
— contribute to the achievement of quality; and
— counter some of the consequences of increased
concentration and the inequities in the student resource that
have arisen.
Inequities for students
59. There are also consequences for students of current
public policy investment decisions in relation to research and
research concentration. These relate to the principle of research-informed
teaching and curricula and the student experience (although it
should be noted that in modern universities students are more
likely to be taught not only in small groups but also by qualified
academic staff rather than postgraduate students).[59]
Crucially, a significant differential in the institutional student
resource has been created as a result of both the failure to expand
higher education on the principle of base-line funding for research
and teaching in all universities and as the result of increased
concentration.
60. The differential in value and funding between research
and teaching which now exists has been exacerbated by Funding
Council settlements. For example the Secretary of State's letter
to HEFCE for the 2006-07 academic year provided for an uplift
of 8% for research (revenue and capital). However, once growth
in numbers had been taken into account, the uplift for teaching
was 2.5%. This confirms a pattern of HEFCE funding settlements
which act to the obvious disadvantage of universities which receive
less QR funds.
61. The institutional disparities what have been created
by the RAE and the failure to afford equal value to teaching in
terms of public investment are startling. The University of Edinburgh
has three times the turn-over of the University of East London
but the same number of students. Oxford, Cambridge and their colleges
have a combined turn-over of £650 million and support 17,500
(fte) students. Bristol and Nottingham, with turnovers of £250
million, support combined student numbers of 16000. This compares,
for example, with some modern universities which have 20,000+
(fte) students and annual turnovers of circa £125 million.
Table 5, the index of teaching and research income per weighted
fte student for 2004-05, illustrates the point.
Table 5
INDEX OF TEACHING AND RESEARCH INCOME PER WEIGHTED FTE
STUDENT 2004-05
|
| Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
| 247% |
| The University of Oxford | 236%
|
| The University of Cambridge | 222%
|
| University College London | 207%
|
| London School of Economics & Political Science
| 193% |
| Institute of Education | 184%
|
| The University of Edinburgh | 152%
|
| King's College London | 143%
|
| The School of Pharmacy | 141%
|
| Median | 74%
|
| University of Worcester | 57%
|
| The Nottingham Trent University | 57%
|
| Newman College of Higher Education | 56%
|
| The University of Wales, Lampeter | 55%
|
| Trinity College, Carmarthen | 55%
|
| York St College | 54%
|
| The University of Huddersfield | 53%
|
|
NB: Percentages are of the mean averages, the table shows
the median value in each case. Source: Brown and Ramsden, 2006.
62. These figures also need to be considered alongside
the more socially and culturally inclusive student profile of
modern universities. The outcome is that those universities which
are the most inclusive and recruit the most disadvantaged students
are the least well funded, creating an inequity in the student
resource which should be unacceptable in public policy terms,
bearing in mind in addition the increasing contribution required
of students and graduates to their higher education.
63. The Committee is asked to consider the socio-economic
benefits, including for students and of the UK, of sustaining
both research capacity throughout the sector and the applied research
undertaken in modern universities and is requested in particular
to consider the merits of base-line research funding for all universities.
Pattern of public expenditure on education 1997-2007—the
funding of teaching in higher education
64. Modern universities have welcomed the value placed
on education since 1997 and in particular, the investment committed
since 2001. The reasons provided by the Government for the pattern
of investment which has emerged in which the school sector and
further education have been prioritised over higher education,
are well documented. The consequences in relation to public investment
by education sector and student funding have been tracked by and
will be well known to the Education and Skills Committee. The
effects are illustrated in Tables 6-8:
Table 6
REAL TERMS FUNDING PER STUDENT/PUPIL, 1998-99 to 2003-04
(1999-2000 = 100)
|
| 1998-99
| 1999-00 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
| 2003-04 | 2004-05plans
| 2005-06plans |
|
| Schools | 96
| 100 | 107
| 111 | 115
| 119 | 124
| 130 |
| FE | 93 |
100 | 104
| 112 | 113
| 120 | 122
| 127 |
| HE | 101 |
100 | 100
| 100 | 101
| 104 | 105
| 105 |
|
Source: Departmental Report 2005, Department for Education
and Skills, Cm 6522, London: TSO, Tables 12.5 (derived from figures
given), 12.6 and 12.7. Figures for 1998-99 derived from Departmental
Report 2004, Tables 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
Table 7
EDUCATION EXPENDITURE (REVENUE AND CAPITAL FUNDING), BY
SUB-SECTOR, 2000-01 to 2005-06, ENGLAND
|
| 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
| 2003-04 | 2004-05
| 2005-06 | Change2000-01 to2005-06
|
|
| Schools (DfES) | 4,918
| 5,870 | 8,849
| 9,344 | 10,151
| 10,981 | +123%
|
| FE, Adult | 5,674
| 6,587 | 7,104
| 7,773 | 7,927
| 8,394 | +48%
|
| Higher Education | 6,541
| 6,545 | 6,680
| 6,959 | 7,191
| 7,529 | +15%
|
| Other | 1,258
| 1,754 | 2,339
| 2,657 | 2,467
| 2,801 | +123%
|
| Total (DfES) | 18,389
| 20,756 | 24,572
| 26,733 | 27,736
| 29,705 | +62%
|
| Total (all education) | 39,837
| 43,741 | 45,438
| 49,686 | 52,419
| 55,021 | +38%
|
|
Adapted from HM Treasury (2006) Public Expenditure Statistical
Analyses 2006, CM 6811, table 3.1
Table 8
REAL TERMS FUNDING PER STUDENT/PUPIL, 2001-02 to 2007-08
|
| 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
| 2004-05 | 2005-06(plans)
| 2006-07(plans) |
2007-08(plans) |
|
| Schools | 100
| 104 | 109
| 113 | 120
| 124 | 129
|
| FE | 100 |
100 | 108
| 106 | 117
| 116 | 117
|
| HE | 100 |
100 | 102
| 102 | 105
| 106 | 107
|
|
Source: DfES (2006) Departmental report, CM 6812,
tables 8.4, 8.7 and 8.8. Numbers in italics derived from stepped
time series shown in tables.
Growth in Student Numbers in Higher Education
65. In the period tracked by the Tables 6-8 (1997-2007),
expansion of student numbers in higher education has been largely
driven (as it was in the previous decade) by modern universities.
It has been supported and enhanced by the commitment of these
universities to widening participation. This commitment is confirmed
in all official statistics. However, as Tables 6-8 confirm, in
spite of growth in student numbers, real term increases in public
funding per student in higher education has been substantially
less than that applied to or projected for schools and further
education.
Introduction of Variable Tuition Fees, Bursaries and Part-time
Provision
66. It can be argued that the introduction of variable
tuition fees in England will improve the funding of teaching.
However, the cost of providing income-contingent loans to full-time
undergraduate students in England from 2006 is accounted for "off-balance"
sheet with the clear intention by Government of maximising recovery
during the 25 year loan period post-graduation. In any case, income
derived from the levying of variable tuition fees is heavily moderated
in modern universities by commitments to bursary support as a
result of the diverse and widening participation student profile
of these universities and the fact that part-time students are
unable to access income-contingent loans under the 2004 HE Act.
Moreover, at the time of the introduction of variable fees for
full-time students in England, Members of Parliament and universities
argued that increased co-payment by graduates should not be at
the expense of further public investment in the student resource.
67. Modern universities have been reluctant to charge
pro-rata of the increased full-time tuition fees to part-time
students because the latter (unlike full-time students from 2006)
have to continue to pay fees up-front. Universities fear (justifiably
according to recent research for UUK)[60]
that in many cases an increase in the tuition fee for part-time
students will damage access and the market for part-time provision.
As a result universities are not receiving even pro-rata income
from admitting part-time students even though the resourcing of
part-time study is in administrative and teaching terms more expensive
than full-time students. The UUK evidence confirms that part-time
students are unable to pay upfront even pro-rata of the £3000
per annum tuition fee received by universities for full-time students
and repaid by the latter on an income-contingent basis after graduation.
The Education and Skills Committee heard evidence on the anticipated
"unintended consequences" for those universities with
significant numbers of part-time students of the HE Act 2004,
on 23 February 2005 (Appendix B[61]).
68. In November 2005, the Government recognised the need
for some institutional support for universities and made marginal
improvements in the part-time student support package. However,
these measures are entirely inadequate.
69. Unless institutional support for universities with
a significant cohort of part-time students is extended into the
next Spending Review period and the state support package for
part-time students is improved, there is the very real prospect
that part-time provision will become increasingly uneconomic for
both universities and students, notwithstanding the fact that
flexible provision has proved attractive to widening participation
students. Universities will have no option but to withdraw from
part-time provision if the latter remains disadvantaged in terms
of funding and the unit of resource.
70. The Committee is invited to consider this further
bearing in mind the need to both protect and promote the part-time
market in the period up to and including the fee review in England.
Specific proposals for part-time student support appear at paras
88 and 89 but their introduction would not obviate from the need
for institutional support.
Demography—increasing number of 18-year-olds
71. Demographic trends tracked in the Treasury's analysis
of the CSR[62] confirm
that during the next five years the number of 16-18-year-olds
actually increases and that the proportion of young people in
the population remains more or less the same during the next decade.
Priorities for future HE expansion
72. The Government has suggested that during this period
the primary area of expansion and public investment will be in
foundation degrees and employer engagement initiatives. There
has to be concern that such an approach fails to recognise that:
— there will be an increased number of 18-year-olds
for the first five years.
— neither part-time nor full-time mature students
are necessarily engaged in permanent employment or by employers
willing or in a position to support their higher education studies.
— access by mature students as full-time undergraduates
may be undermined.
73. Mature entry undergraduates are part of the widening
participation cohort which the Government values. (Male applicants
in their early twenties go some way to addressing the gender imbalance.)
There is already concern that the "study now, pay later"
regime may be less attractive to mature applicants and UCAS figures
have indicated that this was one of the most significant areas
of decline in 2006.[63]
Accordingly, over-reliance on foundation degrees and employer
initiatives—particularly during the next five years—may
be counter-productive and counter-intuitive to the widening participation
agenda that the Government has promoted.
74. The Committee may wish to consider further the Government
proposals to expand higher education numbers through foundation
degrees and employer initiatives, particularly bearing in mind
that the Leitch report has recommended that increased investment
in level four skills should be funded by individuals and employers
(and by implication not be subject to increased public investment).
75. Against this background, modern universities consider
that the differential which has emerged in public investment in
the student unit of resource in higher education between 1997-2007
(which follows from a decade when the unit of resources declined
and a period during the 1980s when the polytechnics were themselves
funded less equitably than universities) must be addressed by
funding research capacity through the following funding priorities:
A. FULLY FUNDED
GROWTH IN
STUDENT NUMBERS
WITH NO
FURTHER PRESUMPTIONS
RE: CO-PAYMENT
EITHER BY
STUDENTS OR
EMPLOYERS BETWEEN
2007 AND 2012
76. Modern universities are in the forefront of employer
engagement and working collaboratively on the development of foundation
degrees and the skills agenda. However, the latter are not a substitute
for funding growth in full-time student numbers, particularly
during a period when the number of young people will increase
and given the Treasury's own demographic predictions that the
overall population in England will increase and that the proportion
of young people will remain more or less stable.
77. The Government is committed to supporting the education
of a graduate workforce (one of the stated objectives of the CSR).
Accordingly, teaching and the unit of resource for teaching need
to be placed on an equal value to research. The 2007 spending
review and Funding Council settlements should address the disparity
in the pattern of public investment in education which has emerged.
78. This differentiation (in value and in funding of
different parts of the education sector and between research and
teaching) has acted to the disadvantage of students in modern
universities, notwithstanding their more representative profile
in terms of socio-economic group, diversity and ethnicity.
79. The Committee is asked to consider whether it is
sustainable for the Government to rely solely on co-payment by
students and/or future voluntary co-payment by employers, to increase
investment in higher education. The 2007 Spending Review and future
Funding Council priorities undoubtedly provide opportunities to
address the funding of the unit of resource for teaching. This
in turn would assist in addressing not only disparity student
resource but also support the delivery of the graduate, professional
and skilled workforce which is a CSR objective.
B. SUPPORT FOR
WIDENING PARTICIPATION
AND RETENTION
BY FULLY
FUNDING:
(i) The teaching of the current level and number of widening
participation students
(ii) A substantial and targeted uplift in spending related
to an agreed and improved target / aspiration for increased participation
in the next five years (to 2012)
80. The most recent HESA figures (July 2006 for 2004)
indicated a slight decline in participation by the 18-30 age group
which has hovered at 42-43%. However, the Performance Indicators
confirm once again that modern universities are a great success
story in offering new opportunities to students and that they
are key drivers of access to the graduate and technical skills
which the economy needs in the English Regions and in Scotland
and Wales, thus meeting key Treasury and Government objectives
for the labour force, regeneration and inclusion.
81. DfES's own "narrative" on social mobility
"Narrowing Social Class Educational Attainment Gaps"
(which provided the background materials for the previous Secretary
of State's speech to IPPR, 26 April 2006) has few specific aspirations
for HE but accepts the principle that targeted and universal measures
are required to address differential achievements by socio-economic
group. "Widening Participation" is a targeted measure
in higher education but is grossly under-funded.
82. In 2005 HEFCE estimated that in England, universities
were under-funded by £90-100 million per annum for the current
level of participation by under-represented groups. A HEFCE study
similarly assessed the cost of widening participation to be +
35%. Currently, universities receive +20% from HEFCE for widening
participation students. Although described as "a premium"
by HEFCE, the amount provided is not a premium since it does not
cover cost.
83. Widening participation is not just about balancing
the student profile of older universities through relatively small
increases in numbers of students recruited at eighteen from under-represented
groups (welcome though that might be). Many of these universities
have no current aspirations to expand undergraduate numbers. Rather
widening participation is about motivating communities, inspiring
and making it possible for individuals to participate as mature
students and with non-traditional qualifications as well as through
qualifications achieved at eighteen and providing the teaching
and institutional support to ensure that these students succeed.
84. Any new aspirations for level 4 skills set by the
Leitch Review should not be allowed to fudge the need to fully
fund a participation target in higher education in the 2007 Spending
Review period.
85. Bearing in mind the Government's objectives (graduate
and technical labour force, economic regeneration, and social
inclusion), DfES and the Treasury should accept the added economic
and social value of fully funding the widening and deepening of
participation. The added value of this approach should be based
on a comparison of the added economic value of students from non-traditional
backgrounds / with non-traditional qualifications participating
in HE compared to these students not being involved at all. There
are also clear regional benefits as a result of the activities
and the work of universities which have a regional and local focus
eg in terms of the recruitment of students.
Value-Added Performance Indicators
86. CMU and Universities such as Wolverhampton have confirmed
in submissions to HEFCE, Government Ministers and the Permanent
Secretary[64] that value-added
performance indicators would be particularly useful in presenting
and monitoring the contribution of those institutions working
more extensively in the widening access field to the overall effectiveness
of the sector in delivering national objectives and in informing
funding regimes. HEFCE Performance Indicators are also used by
the press to construct the University League Tables. However,
to date DfES officials have suggested that this would be a major
project and have given no commitment to the development of value-added
measures.
87. The Committee is invited to consider the merits of
the development and application of value-added performance indicators
by the Government for the higher education sector.
C. IMPROVE AND
EXTEND THE
STATE STUDENT
SUPPORT PACKAGE
FOR PART-TIME
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
BY INCREASING
EARNINGS ENTITLEMENT
OF STUDENTS
AND LOWERING
CURRENT 50% STUDY
THRESHOLD
88. Even in advance of the UUK Report, the 2006 HESA
Performance Indicators confirm the analysis of modern universities
that on average, part-time undergraduate students study 2.4 modules
per annum (each module equivalent to 14.3% of fte) ie an average
35-36% of fte per annum. However, the part-time state support
package is means-tested and only available for 50% fte. Only students
whose income is less than £15,345 in the last full tax year
qualify for grants. There is a need to review the part-time student
support package so that eligibility is triggered at a lower threshold
than 50% of study and entitlement to earned income is increased.
89. Part-time students are frequently also mature students.
The recent HEA research study (Changing Fee Regimes and their
Impact on Student Debt: June 2006) concluded that older people,
particularly those aged 25-39 and new to higher education were
more price-sensitive to increases in HECS in Australia and that
nearly 17,000 fewer mature student applications were lodged each
year from 1997 onwards in that country. While the evidence on
the full impact on university enrolments of the new funding regimes
in 2006 has yet to be published, the UUK Report reaffirms the
issue of price-sensitivity for part-time students. Accordingly,
at least until the fees review there is a continuing need to address
the inequity in institutional funding/income which arises for
institutions which have a significant part-time student profile.
Investment in the part-time student support package and institutional
investment would complement the Government's progression and widening
participation agenda
Improve and extend the Childcare Support Package for full-time
and part-time students
90. There is a also a need to review further and again
to improve eligibility to the student childcare support package.
This would assist in particular part-time and mature students.
Future Funding—review of variable fees for full-time
students
91. Modern universities are of the view that it is crucial
for the effects of variable fees for full-time students in England
to be the subject to a review that is evidence-based and includes
a full assessment of the present scheme and the likely impact
of any amending proposals. In particular, evidence should take
into account impact upon:
— the full student cohort ie full and part-time
students;
— those who were qualified but did not pursue applications;
— institutional funding across the sector;
— institutional, individual and public funding implications
of bursary support;
— cost-benefit analysis in terms of public investment;
and
— administrative, collection and repayment systems.
92. The review should include a full equality impact
assessment of the outcomes of the current scheme and the likely
impact of any alternative proposals, be guided by the fact that
participation and public investment in higher education in Britain
lag significantly behind that in other OECD countries and be informed
by the need to improve participation.
93. Future funding and investment policies also need
to take account of the fact that historic public funding regimes
continue to perpetuate differential state funding of British universities
with consequences and inequity for students and limitation of
the higher education sector's UK and international capacity.
Endowments
94. It should also be noted that future funding policies
which rely exclusively on private investment and / or endowments
will risk simply perpetuating institutional and student inequity
(see Table 9 below).
Table 9
ENDOWMENT INCOME AND INTEREST
|
| University of Cambridge | £40.9 million
|
| University of Oxford | £23.9 million
|
| University of Manchester | £12.3 million
|
| University of Edinburgh | £12.3 million
|
| Average | £1.76 million
|
| University of Worcester | £0.16 million
|
| Anglia Ruskin University | £0.15 million
|
| University of Chester | £0.12 million
|
| Liverpool Hope University | £0.04 million
|
|
Source: RSM Robson Rhoades, 2006.
University Title and Foundation Degrees
95. Modern universities have expressed reservations about
the extension of university title to private providers. However,
there are anomalies and a further review of criteria for title
could helpfully be undertaken and could incorporate the proposal
to extend foundation-degree awarding powers to further education
colleges which has been included without consultation with higher
education providers, as Clause 19 in the Further and Education
and Training Bill. Subsequent government consultation has focused
on the operation of the extension of foundation-degree awarding
powers rather than the principle.
96. As previously outlined, modern universities have
been active in promoting and delivering foundation degrees (relatively
new qualifications introduced in 2001) including in conjunction
with further education colleges. Support from and collaborations
with universities have provided the basis for successful learner
progression from foundation degree to honour degree programmes
(as evidenced by the QAA) and this has been backed by joint capital
projects (described by Lord Sawyer and others in debate at Second
Reading in the House of Lords on 13 December 2006).
97. Evidence submitted to the Committee in relation to
its Inquiry on Bologna outlined the reasons why modern universities
consider that the Government's proposal to be outwith the Bologna
Process. In any case, modern universities do not consider Clause
19 of the FE & Training Bill as tabled to be a helpful basis
upon which to progress the widening participation, access and
employer engagement which it was envisaged that foundation degrees
would support (Appendix C).[65]
Clause 19 could be helpfully remitted to a wider review of university
title and governance arrangements rather than progressed in the
current legislation.
CONCLUSION
98. Modern universities regard the Committee's wide-ranging
Inquiry as an important opportunity to consider key aspects of
public policy and funding regimes and the future sustainability
of the higher education sector. Accordingly, representatives from
CMU and CMU Member universities should be pleased to be called
to give oral evidence on the issues and key questions raised in
this Evidence.
50
"The new university decade 1992-2002", David Watson
& Rachel Bowden, 2002, p. 13. Back
51
Annual league tables are published by The Times, The Sunday Times,
The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the Times Higher Education
Supplement, also America's Best Colleges and the Australian Good
Universities Guides. Back
52
"League Tables-do we have to live with them?" Prof
Roger Brown, Perspective, 30 June 2006. Back
53
Parliamentary Answer, Stephen Timms MP, 17 Jan 2005. Back
54
"Public Funding of Research in Universities", Prof
M. Driscoll (CMU), July 2004. Back
55
"A report into the social and economic impact of publicly
funded research in 35 universities", Arthur D Little Ltd,
May 2006. Back
56
The "multiplier" is derived by dividing the Research
Grants & Contracts (RG&C) Income by the Funding Council
investment (QR, PhD allocation, capability funding) for each member
institution within a group, and then taking the average value
for that group. Back
57
"University research and the location of business R&D",
Abramovsky, Harrison & Simpson, IFS, May 2006. Back
58
At current funding levels even 10% of QR money would result in
almost £140m for infrastructure support. Back
59
"The academic experience of students in English higher education
institutions", HEPI, Nov 2006. Back
60
"Part-time students in higher education: supporting higher-level
skills & lifelong learning", Prof Claire Callender, pub
UUK, Oct 2006. Back
61
Not printed. See Education and Skills Committee, Oral and Written
Evidence, Tuition Fees and Student Bursaries, 23 February
2005, HC369-i, Session 2004-05 Back
62
"Long-term opportunities and challenges for the UK",
pub 29 Nov 2006. Back
63
Parliamentary answer to Dari Taylor MP by Bill Rammell MP, 21
June 2006-decline in applications from over 24 year olds: 5.4%. Back
64
Letters to Bill Rammell MP & David Bell from Prof Caroline
Gipps, 24 Oct & 17 Nov 2006. Back
65
CMU Briefing Note "The Further Education and Training Bill
(Clause 19), Second Reading: House of Lords, Wednesday 13 December
2006". Back
| 
