Memorandum 1
Submission from the Open University
WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDING FOR EQUIVALENT OR LOWER
QUALIFICATIONS (ELQs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Open University (OU) is committed to enlarging
the opportunities for students to engage in lifelong learning
and skills development and our curriculum provides significant
opportunities for professional training and development. We are
making further investment in new curriculum and new teaching approaches
to improve vocational relevance and employer engagement and, with
support from HEFCE, we are working with other institutions to
develop our national role in these and other areas.
We also promote widening participation in higher
education by providing high-quality university education to all
who wish to realise their ambitions and achieve their potential.
We have a long track record in this area and we are constantly
working to improve the recruitment and retention of students from
disadvantaged groups.
The ELQ policy will undermine the OU's capacity to
deliver these objectives, and thus to support the Government's
lifelong learning and skills agendas, in two important respects:
— It will frustrate our attempts to
enable people of working age to update and broaden their knowledge
and skills in line with the changing needs of the economy and
of society more generally. Three-quarters of ELQ students at the
OU are studying wholly or partly for vocational reasons.
— It will reduce the resources we have
available for our core services and will jeopardise our plans
for growth and innovation. The total future funding either lost
or at risk from 2010-11 is £49 million per annum.
Government is committed to reviewing HE fees
and funding in 2009 and HEFCE has decided to make no further changes
to the funding method for part-time study until then.
In line with this strategy, and in order to
provide time for a considered assessment of the ELQ policy, we
urge that the decision should be suspended pending the planned
review of fees and funding in 2009.
THE POLICY
1. The Open University is opposed to the
withdrawal of funding from students with equivalent or prior qualifications
because:
(a) It departs from the Dearing Committee
principle that the State, employers and individuals should take
shared responsibility for the funding of higher education.
(b) It contradicts the Government's commitment
to the Leitch agenda on skills and lifelong learning and to its
pronouncements about nurturing the talents of all its people.
(c) It withdraws funding disproportionately
from the part-time sector.
(d) It hits hardest those institutions and
departments that are making the largest contributions to widening
participation and lifelong learning.
(e) It causes collateral damage to non-ELQ
students who may find whole programmes and courses withdrawn through
lack of funding.
(f) It will make it harder for institutions
to create flexible, part-time vocational provision that is financially
viable.
(g) It adds cost and complexity at a time
when Government is committed to reducing bureaucracy in public
administration.
2. We do not accept the Government's rationale
for introducing the policy. Like Ministers, The Open University
is committed to widening and increasing access for those who have
not previously experienced higher education. We have been working
successfully in this field for almost 40 years. We acknowledge
that more needs to be done and we are keen to play our part. But
there are two problems with the Government's current approach:
(a) Government assumes that potential first-time
students are being denied entry to university because places are
being offered instead to students who already have a degree. We
find no evidence in either the full-time or part-time sectors
that non-ELQ students are being turned away to make room for ELQ
students.
(b) Government claims employers are now willing
to contribute more towards the costs of university-level teaching.
Again there is no evidence to support this assumption. Richard
Lambert, the Director General of the CBI, said on 11 December,
in a speech critical of the ELQ policy, that:
"[Businesses] are not going to step up to
the plate just because the public purse is too constrained and
because students can't afford to pay either. They are not expecting
their employees to stay with them for a lifetime, and they have
lots of choice about where in the world they are going to find—and
locate—their talent".
Students are, in any case, often undertaking
courses to equip themselves for a new career and they are not
likely to be supported by their current employer.
3. We want to work constructively with Government,
the HEFCE and other stakeholders to increase participation in
HE amongst employers and employees. We do not believe that this
is achieved by a policy change that has the effect of suppressing
demand from one section of the population and offers no guarantee
of stimulating demand from any other.
THE TIMING
OF THE
DECISION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF
CHANGE
4. The Open University is concerned about
the timing of the decision and of the date of implementation for
a number of reasons:
(a) There was no prior consultation with
stakeholders and therefore no opportunity to influence the decision
and its implementation. Important considerations have been overlooked,
such as the curious decision uniquely to include OU students in
Northern Ireland within the scope of the policy (para 22 below).
Others have been underestimated, such as the significant additional
costs and complexity of administering a policy that cannot be
policed and cannot be applied uniformly and equitably across the
sector.
(b) The Department does not appear to have
met its legal duty to assess the impact of the policy decision
on groups protected by equality legislation and for ensuring that
appropriate sector-wide measures are in place to mitigate the
likely impacts.
(c) The Department has not allowed time for
institutions to adjust their curriculum and student support strategies,
their marketing and fees strategies, or their staffing levels
and financial plans. When HEFCE announces the results of its consultation
exercise in February 2008, the OU (and all universities) will
be already enrolling students for 2008-09.
(d) The decision penalises institutions that
have enrolled ELQ students in previous years when they were of
equal priority with other students in national policy terms.
(e) The calculation of the amount of grant
to be withdrawn from institutions in respect of ELQ students is
based on data that were collected for a different purpose and
are unsuited to present purposes.
EXEMPTIONS
5. Ministers have made some exemptions to
the ELQ policy and HEFCE has proposed others but the exemption
categories are arbitrary and they do not go far enough. Only 4.6%
of HEFCE-funded ELQ students at the OU will be exempt under the
current proposals.
(a) Professional groups: Government plans
to exempt courses leading to practice as a teacher, nurse, midwife,
social worker or other related healthcare professionals. We see
no reason why these professions should be advantaged over others
of value to the economy, society and culture. Some of the sciences
(but not all) and some other `strategically important and vulnerable
subjects' are protected for three years but there is no undertaking
to exempt these subjects on a permanent basis or to provide for
growth above 2005-06 levels. Other subjects of obvious importance
are not exempt either—IT, management, psychology and economics
to name but a few. Moreover, exemption (where it applies) covers
only initial training. It does not include subsequent training
and development. We see no reason why those undertaking professional
updating in all of these important areas should not also be eligible
for public support.
(b) Foundation degrees: HEFCE proposes that
foundation degrees should be exempt because they give students
the technical and professional skills in demand from employers
and they keep open a route for ELQ students who wish to acquire
new skills for use in the workplace. However, there are many other
modules, courses and qualifications that do this as well as or
better than foundation degrees (HNCs, HNDs, degrees with workplace
learning). They, too, should be exempt.
(c) Co-funded places: HEFCE plans a major
expansion of co-funded places for ELQ and other students. Expecting
employers to spend more on undergraduate teaching is a high risk
strategy: our latest research reveals that only 15% of OU students
studying 30 and 60 credit courses receive any help from employers
towards tuition fees. Richard Lambert sees no to reason to suppose
that employers will spend more in the future.
6. Others: We believe that the following
should also be exempt:
(a) Students who received their awards more
than five years previously. In modern, high-skill labour markets
the level of a qualification is not always the best indication
of its currency or value. The knowledge and skills contained within
degrees and other qualifications need periodic updating and refreshing.
It is reasonable to assume that the State, as a major beneficiary
of graduate development, should join with employers and individuals
to help maintain the employability of those whose qualifications
are losing their market value.
(b) Students who are unemployed, on benefit
or unwaged (such as carers, including those preparing for a return
to paid employment). Institutions will only be able to support
such students if they study a foundation degree or train for one
of the exempt professions. This is a crude and inappropriate instrument
for women, for example, choosing to access flexible study during
pregnancy and the early years of childcare, for carers needing
to re-skill when returning to work after years of child or elder
care responsibility, or for the long-term unemployed trying to
get back into the workforce.
(c) Students on low incomes. People in low
paid employment, and particularly those in part-time jobs, are
less likely to be able to afford the costs of study and much less
likely to be offered employer support for higher education.
(d) Students with disabilities. People with
disabilities are less likely to be in work than others. Some will
choose to study beyond their first degree to maintain an active
lifestyle. Others will study to refresh their skills for a return
to paid work. Neither group will have ready access to employer
support and this will reinforce inequality amongst an already
disadvantaged group.
IMPACT ON
STUDENTS
7. The policy will withdraw Government support
from most graduate development. This will lead to higher fees
for ELQ students and will create a disincentive to continuing
professional development (CPD). Some may be able to afford higher
fees or persuade employers to contribute; some may find exempt
provision that meets their needs. Most will find it more difficult
to improve their skills. There is a risk, therefore, that the
main economic benefits of CPD will be lost.
8. Most ELQ students are studying for vocational
reasons. At the OU, ELQ students are spread across the major academic
subject areas (Table 2 of the Statistical Appendix), with business
studies, mathematics, computing, technology, science, education
and languages topping the list. OU ELQ students are also evenly
spread across the age groups between 25 and 49 (Table 4). Survey
research conducted following the policy change indicates that
three-quarters of OU ELQ students are taking courses partly or
wholly for vocational reasons (Table 6). Amongst this group, the
commonest reasons for studying are to improve career prospects,
change career, and update or refresh knowledge (Table 7).
9. Most ELQ students are paying their own
fees. Only 13% of ELQ students at the OU receive any fee contribution
from their employers; just 10% have all their fees paid by their
employer (Table 9). We know from pricing research undertaken both
by UUK and by the OU that part-time students are extremely price
sensitive. There is a high risk that thousands of ELQ students
studying for vocational reasons and paying their own way will
be priced out of CPD by the Government's ELQ policy.
10. Certain groups of students will be particularly
affected. Research undertaken by UUK has revealed that employers
have tended to offer support mainly to full-time workers from
the wealthiest households [Part-time Students in Higher Education,
UUK Policy Briefing 2006, para 4.7]. Part-time employees, the
self-employed and those on low incomes will be disadvantaged as
will those such as carers who are temporarily out of employment.
Current OU ELQ students have written to us making the same point:
"I'm self-employed, so `support by employer'
is basically the same as paying my own fees. I'm studying with
the OU Business School . . . I can barely afford it as it is."
"I am a single mum trying to survive on
a less than average `public service' salary in expensive London
. . . these changes would effectively bar me from the opportunity
to help myself!"
"Part-time study while working is difficult
enough as it is; adding a large financial burden will most likely
provide the justification for not bothering in the first place."
"If even part of the funding was to be withdrawn,
there is no doubt whatsoever that I would never be able to complete
the qualification that would lift me out of benefits and into
decent employment . . . "
IMPACT ON
INSTITUTIONS
11. The Part-time Sector. As HEFCE recognises,
the policy affects the part-time sector particularly badly. The
full-time sector will lose funding for 2% of its FTE students;
the part-time sector for over 20%. This imbalance will further
exacerbate the under-funding of part-time provision.
12. Part-time under-funding. The part-time
sector is already under-resourced in two respects. First, it has
not been able to benefit as much as the full-time sector from
increases in student fees or from the generous fee loan arrangements
available through the Student Loans Company. Second, the part-time
premium/allocation (currently +10%) fails fully to compensate
institutions for the per-capita costs of supporting part-time
students (put at +15% to +40% by the JM Consulting report commissioned
by HEFCE).
13. The Open University. Within the part-time
sector it is two institutions, the OU and Birkbeck, that will
bear the brunt of the loss of numbers and grant funding. The Open
University will lose funding for about 25% of its 140,000 students
in England. HEFCE has estimated the loss in grant at £32
million.
14. The Loss of funding. Ministers have
claimed that the OU has overstated the financial impact. They
point out that once transitional measures and safety netting are
taken into account, the actual reduction in grant will be around
£12 million by 2010-11 (equivalent to 3% of current OU turnover).
But this misses the point. Our principal concern is for the period
beyond 2010-11 when the transitional measures and safety netting
come to an end.
15. Long term impact. The extent of our
vulnerability is illustrated in Table 1 and Chart 1 of the Statistical
Appendix. Some £28 million of our HEFCE funding for teaching
is either temporary (ELQ teach out monies and safety netting)
or subject to review (the SIVS and part-time students allocations)
and cannot be relied upon beyond 2010-11. A further £8 million
is at risk if corresponding adjustments are made to widening participation
and capital funds. Another £13 million will have been lost
through failure to index our teaching grant in line with inflation
over three years. The total future funding either lost or at risk
from 2010-11 is £49 million per annum (12.3% of turnover).
16. Managing risk. We cannot plan and invest
sensibly with this degree of risk. We need the DIUS and HEFCE
either to confirm that the above allocations will continue beyond
2010-11 and that money allocated to institutions for safety netting
will be rolled into their baseline grant once the £100 million
saving has been achieved in 2010-11 or they should suspend this
policy and all its associated transitional measures until they
conduct the planned review of fees and funding in 2009. We believe
the latter is the sensible option.
17. The £100 million. Ministers claim
that the OU will, in competition with the rest of the sector,
share in the reallocated £100 million if it recruits new
students. We will be working hard to do so but replacing 29,000
students with an equivalent number of hard to reach students over
a very short period is not achievable. Reconfiguring our programmes
will incur additional cost at a time when our teaching funding
is being reduced. We shall therefore be looking to HEFCE for significant
sums of money for realigning and restructuring our business.
18. Administration. The stated aim of Government
and HEFCE is to reduce the burden of accountability but the implementation
of the ELQ policy will result in a major increase in bureaucracy
and cost. Checking existing qualifications, understanding the
provenance and status of overseas awards, determining the equivalence
of existing qualifications to planned study aims, advising students
of the fee implications of their choices, setting and collecting
differential fees, and determining eligibility for institutional
grant (for students funded at 0%, 50% and 100% of standard rates)
will add very significantly to administrative costs. It will be
at best expensive and at worst physically impossible to police
a system that incentivises students to conceal qualifications
and requires institutions to uncover them by reference to an inadequate
or non-existent national database. The scheme will lead to a reduction
in confidence in the allocation of public funds by HEFCE and DIUS.
OTHER COMMENTS:
OU STUDENTS IN
NORTHERN IRELAND
19. The HEFCE advise us that our ELQ students
in Northern Ireland have been deemed unfundable whereas those
at Queen's University and Ulster University have not. The OU has
been treated as an English institution rather than as an institution
operating in Northern Ireland on the same basis as QUB and Ulster.
This runs counter to The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland)
Order 1993 which recognises the OU as an HE provider in Northern
Ireland on the same basis as in Wales and Scotland (under the
FHE Act and the FHE (Scotland) Act of 1992 respectively). Ministers
in both Westminster and Belfast should confirm that the ELQ policy
is not to apply to OU students in Northern Ireland.
January 2008
Appendix 1
Table 1: Financial impact on The Open University
of the withdrawal of ELQ funding from the HEFCE.
Figure 1: 2006-07 HEFCE grant income with projected
loss.
Table 2 and Figure 2: ELQ students at The Open
University by academic unit.
Table 3 and Figure 3: ELQ students at The Open
University by gender.
Table 4 and Figure 4: ELQ students at The Open
University by age.
Table 5 and Figure 5: ELQ students at The Open
University: years since gaining qualification.
Table 6 and Figure 6: ELQ students at The Open
University: reasons for studying.
Table 7 and Figure 7: ELQ students at The Open
University: vocational reasons for studying.
Table 8 and Figure 8: ELQ students at The Open
University: average contribution towards fee from different sources.
Table 9 and Figure 9: ELQ students at The Open
University: proportion receiving a full or partial contribution
towards fees from employers.
Table 1
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE OU OF THE WITHDRAWAL
OF ELQ FUNDING FROM THE HEFCE
| Notes |
Description
|
2007-08 | 2008-09
| 2009-10 | 2010-11
| 2011-12 | 2012-13
| 2013-14 |
| (PTO) |
| £ | £
| £ | £
| £ | £
| £ |
| 1 | Mainstream teaching grant non ELQ
| 100,777,907 | 103,498,911
| 106,293,381 | 109,163,302
| 112,110,712 | 115,137,701
| 118,246,419 |
| 1 | Mainstream teaching grant ELQ exemptions
| 2,061,610 | 2,117,274
| 2,174,440 | 2,233,150
| 2,293,445 | 2,355,368
| 2,418,963 |
| 1,2 | Strategically Important & Vulnerable subjects' allocation
| 4,896,640 | 5,028,850
| 5,164,629 | 5,304,074
| | | |
| 1,4 | Transitional funding to be phased out over 6 years
| 31,628,519 | 22,955,962
| 10,062,074 | 7,666,933
| | | |
| 1,3 | Supplement to part-time allocation
| 0 | 0
| 4,652,429 | 4,777,018
| | | |
| 1 | Total teaching grant funding
| 139,364,676 | 133,600,997
| 128,346,953 | 129,144,477
| 114,404,156 | 117,493,069
| 120,665,381 |
| 1,4 | Safety net funding
| | 5,763,681
| 11,017,723 | 10,220,199
| | | |
| Rounding
| 1 | -1
| 1 | 1
| | | |
| 1 | Funding on 2007-8 cash basis
| 139,364,677 | 139,364,677
| 139,364,677 | 139,364,677
| 114,404,156 | 117,493,069
| 120,665,381 |
| 5 | 5-year financial forecast of July 2007
| 139,218,318 | 142,977,213
| 146,837,597 | 150,802,212
| 154,873,872 | 159,055,467
| 163,349,964 |
| Lost teaching grant compared to previous forecast
| | -3,612,536
| -7,472,920 | -11,437,535
| -40,469,716 | -41,562,398
| -42,684,583 |
| Other implications due to reduction in funded numbers:
| | | |
| | | |
| 6 | Reduction in Widening Participation
| | -3,607,006
| -3,704,396 | -3,804,414
| -3,907,134 | -4,012,626
| -4,120,967 |
| 6 | Reduction in Capital grant
| | -3,866,692
| -3,971,093 | -4,078,312
| -4,188,427 | -4,301,514
| -4,417,655 |
| Lost grant after WP & capital reductions
| | -11,086,234
| -15,148,409 | -19,320,262
| -48,565,276 | -49,876,539
| -51,223,205 |
| Inflation uplift
| | 2.70%
| 2.70% | 2.70%
| 2.70% | 2.70%
| 2.70% |
Notes to Table 1
1. Figures in bold are taken from the "modelling
of the impact on institutions, subjects and mode of study"
published by HEFCE in October 2007 as part of Circular 2007-27.
Figures not in bold are extrapolations by the OU of funding streams
using the inflation uplift quoted above.
2. Para 33 of HEFCE Circular 2007-27 states:
"This allocation will remain fixed in real terms up to
and including the 2010-11 academic year. At this point, we will
review the effectiveness of the allocation.
We will also reconsider the list of SIVS, and the population
of students studying for ELQs in SIVS at each institution."
It follows that the allocations are not secure beyond 2010-11
and no funding has been assumed by the OU after that year.
3. Para 35 of HEFCE Circular 2007-27 states:
"This supplement will be subject to review in 2011-12."
It follows that the allocations are not secure beyond 2010-11
and no funding has been assumed by the OU after that year.
4. Para 37 of HEFCE Circular 2007-27 states:
"We will aim to supply this funding until the end of
the current Comprehensive Spending Review period in 2010-11.
At that point, we will review whether this safety net is still
required."
It follows that the allocations are not secure beyond 2010-11
and no funding has been assumed by the OU after that year.
5. The University's assumptions are in line with those
required by HEFCE Circular 2007-10 dated May 2007 entitled "Annual
monitoring and corporate planning statements and financial forecasts
2007", where para 3a of Annex F stated that
"institutions may assume that the unit of teaching funding
that underpins the HEFCE core teaching grant for all price groups
will be maintained in real terms each year".
6. HEFCE Circular 2007-27 is silent on these grants;
however, historically the amount allocated has been in direct
proportion to the amount of teaching grant and so the amounts
calculated above by the OU are at risk.
Figure 1
2006-07 HEFCE GRANT INCOME WITH PROJECTED LOSS
Table 2
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY ACADEMIC UNIT
(Student numbers are expressed on the same basis as HEFCE's
modelling, ie FTE students in England and Northern Ireland in
2005-06 who completed their courses; 1 FTE roughly equates to
2.5 OU students)
| Academic Unit | All students (FTEs)
| ELQ students (FTEs) | ELQ students as % of all students
|
| Business | 3,106 | 872
| 28.1% |
| Maths, Computing and Technology | 6,677
| 1,826 | 27.4% |
| Science | 4,377 | 1,179
| 26.9% |
| Education and Languages | 4,346
| 1,115 | 25.7% |
| Arts | 7,716 | 1,871
| 24.2% |
| Social Sciences | 6,185 |
1,266 | 20.5% |
| Health and Social Care | 3,884
| 349 | 9.0% |
| Other | 171 | 58
| 33.9% |
| Total | 36,462 | 8,536
| 23.4% |
Figure 2
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY ACADEMIC UNIT: PROPORTION OF ALL STUDENTS
(See the note to Table 2 for the basis of the student count)
 /
Table 3
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY GENDER: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY
(See the note to Table 2 for the basis of the student count)
| Gender | All students (FTEs)
| ELQ students (FTEs) | ELQ students as % of all students
|
| Female | 21,056 | 4,225
| 20.1% |
| Male | 12,610 | 3,547
| 28.1% |
| Total | 33,666 | 7,772
| 23.1% |
| % Female | 63% | 54%
| |
| % Male | 37% | 46%
| |
Figure 3
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY GENDER: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: PROPORTIONS
(See the note to Table 2 for the basis of the student count)
 /
Table 4
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY AGE: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY
(See the note to Table 2 for the basis of the student count)
| Age band | All students (FTEs)
| ELQ students (FTEs) | ELQ students as % of all students
|
| 0-17 | 120 | 0
| 0.0% |
| 18-20 | 838 | 9
| 1.1% |
| 21—24 | 2,984 | 358
| 12.0% |
| 25-29 | 4,911 | 1,025
| 20.9% |
| 30-34 | 5,117 | 1,119
| 21.9% |
| 35-39 | 5,841 | 1,193
| 20.4% |
| 40-44 | 4,984 | 1,147
| 23.0% |
| 45-49 | 3,455 | 898
| 26.0% |
| 50-54 | 2,122 | 673
| 31.7% |
| 55-59 | 1,536 | 575
| 37.4% |
| 60-64 | 914 | 390
| 42.6% |
| 65+ | 845 | 384
| 45.5% |
| Total | 33,666 | 7,772
| 23.1% |
| % aged 0-17 | 0% | 0%
| |
| % aged 18-20 | 2% | 0%
| |
| % aged 21-24 | 9% | 5%
| |
| % aged 25-29 | 15% | 13%
| |
| % aged 30-34 | 15% | 14%
| |
| % aged 35-39 | 17% | 15%
| |
| % aged 40-44 | 15% | 15%
| |
| % aged 45-49 | 10% | 12%
| |
| % aged 50-54 | 6% | 9%
| |
| % aged 55-59 | 5% | 7%
| |
| % aged 60-64 | 3% | 5%
| |
| % aged 65+ | 3% | 5%
| |
Figure 4
ELQ STUDENTS (EXCLUDING PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS) AT THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY BY AGE: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: FTE STUDENTS AT
COMPLETION
(See the note to Table 2 for the basis of the student count)
Table 5
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: YEARS SINCE GAINING
AN EQUIVALENT OR HIGHER HE QUALIFICATION
(These data are based on an electronic survey of a sample
of OU students carried out in December 2007. The sample was drawn
randomly from all OU students taking 30 points or more regardless
of domicile or level of study. There were 1603 responses, representing
a response rate of approximately 45%).
| Years since gaining ELQ | %
|
| 1-5 years | 24 |
| 6-10 years | 20 |
| 11-15 years | 15 |
| 16-20 years | 14 |
| Over 21 years | 27 |
| 100 |
NB Three-quarters of the ELQ students had gained their previous
highest qualification over 5 years ago.
Figure 5
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: YEARS SINCE GAINING
AN EQUIVALENT OR HIGHER HE QUALIFICATION
Table 6
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: REASONS FOR STUDYING
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
| Study Aim | Non-ELQ Students (%)
| ELQ Students (%) | All students (%)
|
| Wholly personal | 8.4 | 8.1
| 8.3 |
| Mainly personal | 17.8 |
16.9 | 17.5 |
| Half and half | 39.0 | 31.4
| 36.5 |
| Mainly vocational | 14.7 |
14.7 | 14.7 |
| Wholly vocational | 20.1 |
28.9 | 22.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0
| 100.0 |
NB: 75% of ELQ students give vocational reasons for studying
(roughly the same as for non-ELQ students) and they are more likely
to be studying for wholly vocational reasons.
Figure 6
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: REASONS FOR STUDYING
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
Chart
Table 7
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: VOCATIONAL REASONS
FOR STUDYING
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
| Reasons for Study | Non-ELQ Students (%)
| ELQ Students (%) |
| To generally improve career prospects | 81
| 72 |
| To gain new qualifications to change my career
| 63 | 63 |
| To update/refresh my knowledge in this area
| 54 | 59 |
| To improve my performance in my present job
| 41 | 47 |
| To gain promotion in my current line of work
| 34 | 21 |
| To gain a new specialism in my current line of work
| 32 | 37 |
| To re-enter the job market | 28
| 22 |
| To improve my salary in my present job |
27 | 20 |
| My employer requires me to do it | 10
| 7 |
| To learn about running my own business |
9 | 8 |
| My professional body requires me to undertake this study
| 9 | 4 |
| To enter the job market for the first time |
4 | 2 |
NB: Amongst those studying for vocational reasons, the commonest
reasons for studying are to improve career prospects, change career
and update or refresh knowledge.
Figure 7
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: VOCATIONAL REASONS
FOR STUDYING
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
Table 8
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS FEE FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
| Contributors to Fee Payments | Non-ELQ Students (%)
| ELQ Students (%) |
| Self | 47 | 71
|
| Family | 3 | 1
|
| Bank | 0 | 0
|
| OU loan scheme | 15 | 9
|
| OU/Gov't financial support | 22
| 6 |
| Employer | 12 | 11
|
| Other | 2 | 1
|
| Total | 100 | 100
|
NB: ELQ students are more likely to be paying the whole fee
themselves
Figure 8
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS FEE FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
Table 9
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: PROPORTION RECEIVING
A FULL OR PART CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS FEES FROM EMPLOYERS
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
| Contribution to Fee Payments from Employers
| Non ELQ Students (%) | ELQ Students (%)
|
| None | 85 | 88
|
| Part | 7 | 3
|
| All | 8 | 9
|
| Total | 100 | 100
|
NB: overall, just 15% of all students are receiving some
financial help from an employer.
Figure 9
ELQ STUDENTS AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: PROPORTION RECEIVING
A FULL OR PART CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS FEES FROM EMPLOYERS
(2007 survey; see the note to Table 5 for details)
|
