Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-94)
BILL RAMMELL
MP AND PROFESSOR
DAVID EASTWOOD
28 NOVEMBER 2007
Q80 Chairman: I do not want to go
into the Scottish system, but I would like an answer to Dr Harris's
basic question, it seems to be perfectly reasonable, that the
Government have put a very significant amount of resource into
student support both in 1998 and of course particularly in terms
of the new fee structure. Is it not reasonable that a piece of
research is carried out to see whether in fact that is actually
achieving the objectives which the Government have set which are
about widening participation and indeed to find out whether in
fact it is deterring another cohort of students from going? Does
that not seem reasonable?
Bill Rammell: Yes, it does and
we do regularly, for example, commission and fund the student
income and expenditure survey which gives us all sorts of detailed
information, and we do also look at the independent surveys that
are undertaken by a whole host of other organisations to monitor
the impact of the system. Having done that, and we do not reach
a baseline and stop, it happens on an ongoing basis, I am convinced
from all the evidence that I have seen that a lack of student
finance is not acting as a deterrent for young people applying
to university, but we need to go further.
Professor Eastwood: The comment
I wanted to make is that, if you look at the trend data on applications
from 2002 onwards, with the exception of 2005 when there was a
spike, there is basically a linear increase, and we can provide
the Committee with the data. Now, Dr Harris is quite right to
say that counterfactually, had the 2006 change not occurred, a
different pattern might have prevailed, but actually what is suggested
about the data is that it is broadly linear. What is interesting,
but again amenable to a number of explanations, is that since
2006 applications in England have increased, they flatlined in
Scotland and they have fallen in Wales. One of the things I take
away from that is that applicants are quite discriminating and
one of the things they are looking at is quality of provision
and they do see a link between quality and funding and they do
recognise that what is emerging in England is a mixed economy
for funding.
Q81 Dr Harris: But I want to see
hard research, not surveys, not other people's surveys, but commissioned,
independent, published and peer-reviewed research to back up your
opinion which you have just given again, that they are looking
at quality. You may be right, I do not know, I do not know the
answer, but the stakes are so high here that I would urge you
to consider commissioning research and, if you do not, the allegation
might be that you do not want to know what the research shows.
Bill Rammell: With respect, I
would dispute that. I have already said for the record that there
is research regularly undertaken. There is, for example, the recent
Class of `99 Study which gives a whole host of information based
on graduate experience, based on their experience of going through
the system, and there is a whole host of other studies which are
undertaken that we look at regularly.
Chairman: It would be very useful if
you could let us have a note in terms of the research which is
carried out to actually respond to that particular point and then
at least we have it on our record.
Q82 Dr Harris: My final question
in this area is to ask you about the situation where a student
from an inner-city comprehensive which has never sent anyone to
a top university gets three Bs and someone from a so-called top
private school, say, Eton, gets two Bs and an A. Is it fair to
give the place on the basis of UCCA scores? Is it anywhere near
fair to the person with the huge advantages that they have had
from resources, educational background and extra resources rather
than to recognise that probably the brightest student there and
the one that is most likely to benefit is the one that, despite
all the disadvantages, has managed to get those sorts of results?
If you think there is a question there, would it not be good to
do research to see who gets the better degree comparing those
two because, if you do not do that, you are just allowing discrimination
to take place by this similar qualification requirement for all
students?
Bill Rammell: Let me say a couple
of things to that and, firstly, to make clear that the admissions
process is historically, and remains, a matter for the universities
and not for government. Secondly, universities have always, and
I think this is a positive thing, made judgments about an application
based upon their attainment to date, but also their potential
to succeed on a particular university course, and they use contextual
information to reach those judgments. I think that is properly
a matter for universities and I think that does help ensure that
you measure and see people develop their potential, but I also
think there is an issue around advice and guidance. One of the
things we need to do very strongly is ensure, through the school
system, through the connection system, that young people are given
as much advice and support as possible to apply to university,
to apply as early as possible and to apply to the university that
will best suit the individual's talents.
Chairman: I am pretty sure we will come
back to this in the years to come.
Q83 Dr Blackman-Woods: I am going
to ask a couple of questions about public engagement. We know
from the Strategic Plan that HEFCE is piloting an initiative,
Beacons for Public Engagement, with, I think, the aim of getting
better co-ordination that will reward, recognise and indeed build
capacity for public engagement. Has there been any success so
far from this initiative?
Professor Eastwood: We in fact
announced the beacons two[1]
weeks ago, so it is early days, but what is actually very interesting
is that we funded six beacons in a co-ordinating centre, we had
82 applications and many of the unsuccessful bidders are in fact
taking forward public engagement-type activities and one of the
key criteria for the scheme was that there had to be formal recognition
for public engagement activities, so it was not just an investment
that we might make, but that the institutions would themselves
have to reward it through appraisal and through capturing public
engagement as part of the whole initiative criteria. All the successful
beacons will do that, but what is interesting is that a number
of those who bid and were unsuccessful are doing precisely that,
so yes, I think we are getting some benefit. This is, as you rightly
say, a pilot and we will evaluate the pilot through the National
Co-ordinating Centre located at Bristol and then we will determine,
resources permitting, how far we can roll out the scheme subsequently.
Q84 Dr Blackman-Woods: Is one aim of
this to improve public engagement in research and to get greater
understanding amongst the public of research that is undertaken
in the universities?
Professor Eastwood: Absolutely,
and when we launched it at the press conference, with me was Nancy
Rothwell from Manchester and Cathy Sykes from Bristol and they
both actually instanced precisely the way in which those dialogues
had actually reshaped some aspects of the research agenda, so
it is something that sits very passionately at the heart of the
scheme. This is not public understanding in the old sense of academics
simply telling people what they needed to know, but it is conversationally
based, so there is listening as well as speaking in this formal
way.
Q85 Dr Gibson: Would it help if all
universities developed an academy in their area?
Professor Eastwood: I think from
the point of view of a public engagement scheme, that sits outwith
the way in which universities are engaging with schools, but a
recent survey has demonstrated that all universities engage with
schools and a number have multiple partnerships.
Q86 Dr Gibson: But you have to put
a lot more money in to get universities to come out of their ivory
towers and go in thereand you hear of £1.2 million
recentlyto engage with the public. How are they going to
do that?
Professor Eastwood: Well, in the
case of the UEA, they are going to build on the very successful
public engagement that they had around their Festival of Science
in 2006. In the case of the University of Manchester and its partners
at Manchester Met and Salford, they are going to build on dialogues
they are already having in East Manchester and Moss Side with
difficult-to-reach communities in part actually around some rather
interesting science questions, but in part around questions of
social inclusion and social depravation.
Bill Rammell: If I can just pick
up the point, universities do have good links and we want them
to reinforce those links with schools, and academies is part of
the way forward. We have got 25 universities pursuing those initiatives
at the moment and also trust schools where there are a further
25 engaged in that process, and I do think that link between universities
and schools is really important.
Q87 Dr Blackman-Woods: Can I just
come back briefly to the issue of research. Are you gathering
evidence that this dialogue between the public and academics is
actually shaping research differently or is it just ensuring that
what is carried out already in the universities is communicated
more effectively to the public or is it both?
Professor Eastwood: It is both
actually and the National Co-ordinating Centre in Bristol is charged
with, as it were, advising on best practice, but also on, in real
time, reviewing the effectiveness and impact of the public engagement
initiatives and, if they are not achieving those aims, then we
will make interventions to ensure that they do.
Q88 Mr Marsden: David, the Government
has accepted the thrust of the Leitch Report, and the Minister
has made the points already this morning that we obviously need
to focus on economically valuable skills, that all those providers
need to have a new learning culture and that it needs to have
a significantly greater demand-led element. What evidence is there
so far, given that Leitch came out nearly a year ago now, that
some of the traditional higher education institutions, particularly
the Russell Group of institutions, understand the challenges and
the implications of Leitch for changing their own governance and
teaching cultures?
Professor Eastwood: I think I
would make two comments. Firstly, I see the Leitch agenda as a
broad-ranging agenda. If we are talking about higher-level skills,
we are talking about skills which comprise Masters-level qualifications,
and what is the MBA if it is not an employer-facing skill, and
it reaches right across the PhDs as well. There are, however,
in Leitch and in our grant letter(?) new challenges, including
the challenge of securing co-funded provision jointly between
higher education institutions and employers. That was widely thought
to be a hard ask, that was widely thought to be something that
the sector would not be able to step up to. As of yesterday, we
have funded 15 institutions around employer co-funded numbers,
there are a further six major projects in the pipeline and by
2009-10 I confidently expect about 40 institutions at least to
be involved in that and that will actually cover the range of
universities.
Q89 Mr Marsden: You are talking there
about actual projects and funding, but of course there is a subtler
implication to Leitch and that is the culture of teaching and
learning. Again I repeat my question: what evidence have you got
that some of the implications of that are feeding through to the
Russell Group, but not to other universities?
Professor Eastwood: I think what
we are seeing are two things. We are already seeing universities
having a fresh impetus to delivering learning in different ways
and in different locations, including in the workplace, and there
are some quite surprising institutions coming forward
Q90 Mr Marsden: Do you want to name
one or two?
Professor Eastwood: Well, for
example, we have just funded the University of Leicester and,
interestingly, at the same meeting we will fund the University
of Leicester and Leicester de Montfort both in employer engagement
initiatives and I think what that demonstrates is the kind of
sector-wide commitment that we are beginning to see to this agenda.
Q91 Mr Marsden: Bill, can I turn
to you now again on this issue of changing culture and everything
that goes with it. One of the things that is also clear, I think,
from the discussion that has followed Leitch is the observation
that higher education and further education are melding closer
together, and that is an observation not least on the amount of
HE that is now delivered by FE colleges, but it actually seems
to be a very strong objective of government, that there should
be much closer links between HE and FE. Do you think, therefore,
that we are doing enough structurally to assist the connections
between HE and FE, and I am thinking particularly of the issue
of portability between HE institutions and portability of courses
between HE and FE institutions?
Bill Rammell: Well, the review
of credit arrangements that Professor Burgess led for the sector,
which will mean by the end of the decade that every institution,
if they are signed up to it, has to have a credit rating for their
courses that can enable that degree of interchangeability, I think,
will be important. I think there are greater links between the
two sectors and we have got about 11% of students being educated
to degree level in the FE sector at the moment, but, as we look
at our options of what we do, and we are going back to consultation
in the New Year about the new structure, 14 to 19 funding will
be routed through local authorities, post-19, what structures
do we look at, one of the issues that we are reflecting upon is
what are the best ways that we can actually maximise the output
from both sectors. At this stage, and this is genuinely the case
because we are looking at this on a week-to-week basis, I do not
want to rule anything in or anything out, but I do think we need
to see the best fit between the two sectors.
Q92 Dr Gibson: How can they ever
be equal when one is doing top-flight research and you are funding
them and the others are not? There is always going to be that
kind of inherent snobbery in higher education, or they would have
joined together in one institute.
Bill Rammell: Well, I think if
you look, for example, at foundation degree level and you measure
the outcomes, and in any degree programme, if you look at the
QAA framework, there has to be a research input, but I think the
outcome in many FE colleges at the moment, and their provision
is delivered by the higher education sector, is very, very positive.
One of the changes that we made during the FE and Training Bill
which has just secured Royal Assent is the ability for highly
performing FE colleges to be able to award their ownand
I have probably anticipated the next questionfoundation
degrees and I think that is about ensuring that there is as much
flexibility and innovation within the system to respond to the
needs of business while maintaining an absolutely rigorous focus
on quality.
Dr Gibson: But the research is so expensive.
Q93 Mr Marsden: You have indeed pre-empted
my next question, but, given that we are all singing from the
same hymn sheet about co-operation and collaboration between FE
and HE, do you think the spat over the validation process of FE
colleges doing their own foundation degrees, has that helped or
harmed the prospect of the collaboration between HE and FE because,
and I am not making a value judgment, there is no doubt that a
large number of university vice chancellors, not least those in
the House of Lords, got themselves very exercised on the issue?
Bill Rammell: I made the point
earlier that I have got the highest admiration for the university
sector, but they defend their territory whatever change comes
forward. My very strong sense, from talking to people, is that
they have now accepted this and they are working at it. For example,
one of the commitments that we made within that Bill is that you
have to have an articulation agreement to demonstrate, if you
have got a foundation degree, how, if that suits you, you can
go on to get a full honours programme, and that inevitably involves
significant co-operation with a higher education institution.
It is also the case that, even for those high-performing FE colleges,
they may for a variety of reasons choose not to break their relationship
in terms of accreditation and validation with the university because
they are happy with it, fine, but this is about maximising the
flexibility and innovation in the system and I do think it was
an important change.
Q94 Mr Marsden: And not too much
blood on the floor?
Bill Rammell: No.
Professor Eastwood: Indeed before
that debate took place, HEFCE had already consulted on revising
its approach to the funding of HE and further education, and we
have agreement to that being strategic, that further education
colleges which provide higher education will provide now strategic
statements of the way in which they do it and the issue you raised
a moment ago, Mr Marsden, about progression and portability will
be a part of that as will issues around quality of provision and
so forth. I think what we can see from the way in which we take
that forward is strong collaboration, irrespective of whether
an FEC is itself seeking a foundation degree or not.
Chairman: On that note, we will bring
this session to an end. Can we thank Bill Rammell, the Minister
for Lifelong Learning, and Professor David Eastwood, the Chief
Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council, for their evidence
this morning. Thank you both very, very much indeed.
1 Note from Witness: three weeks, the Beacons
launch took place on 8 November Back
|