Memorandum 2
Submission from the National Union of
Students
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1. The National Union of Students (NUS)
is a voluntary membership organisation comprising a confederation
of local student representative organisations in colleges and
universities throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland
which have chosen to affiliate and which pay a membership fee.
NUS has 600 constituent members from virtually every college and
university in the country and, as such, represents the interests
of more than 7 million students.
2. NUS welcomes the opportunity to provide
written evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Select
Committee's inquiry into funding for equivalent or lower qualifications
(ELQs).
3. NUS strongly supports the widening participation
agenda in higher education, and as such has consistently supported
the principle that additional funding be directed at those who
have yet to experience higher education. NUS does not, however,
accept that the Government's decision to phase out ELQ funding
is the appropriate way to achieve this, and is concerned that
the unintended consequences of this policy could prove detrimental
to the widening participation agenda. NUS does not believe that
this was the Government's intention, and we therefore call for
this policy to be reconsidered in light of the concerns expressed
from across the higher education sector and beyond.
4. NUS has significant concerns that the
withdrawal of ELQ funding will have the greatest impact on those
institutions that are at the forefront of increasing and widening
participation, as well as their students and staff. This is in
direct opposition to the Government's stated intentions, including
the Prime Minister's goal to "expand opportunity, not just
one chance but second, third and fourth chances for people throughout
their lives."[1]
5. Targeting funding changes at those higher
education institutions (HEIs) that have proven best able to deliver
the Government's important agenda appears to be contradictory
and counterproductive. Institutions have warned that they will
be force to cut "economically unviable" courses, which
have depended until now on a mixture of ELQ and non-ELQ students.
NUS is concerned that there will also be risks to the jobs of
teaching staff, reductions in the range of available courses,
and the social mix of the student body.
TIMING OF
THE DECISION
AND IMPLEMENTATION
6. There was no prior consultation with
stakeholders or the public and no parliamentary debate in advance
of the decision to withdraw funding for ELQs. NUS believes that
such consultation is crucial for effective and joined-up policy
making, and that the Government should have sought the views of
the HE sector, including student representatives. It is vital
that such significant changes are discussed with the sector before
decisions on long-term funding are taken.
7. The Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) has only consulted over how this decision
is to be implemented, rather than the principles behind the policy.
NUS believes that the Government should have sought views on alternative
ways to produce savings from the HE budget, rather than presenting
this policy as a fait accompli.
8. In July 2007, the incoming Secretary
of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills called for a
debate about the size, shape and role of higher education in advance
of the Government's 2009 review of higher education fees and funding.[2]
NUS welcomed this call and therefore believes that ELQ funding
should form part of that wider debate and holistic review, rather
than being considered in isolation from other HE funding issues
or before an adequate assessment of its potential impact has been
made.
9. NUS is also concerned at the lack of
detail as to how, when and to which institutions the proposed
£100 million worth of savings in the HE budget will be allocated,
and believe that this should have been made clear from the Government's
initial announcement in September 2007. HEFCE have merely announced
that this funding will be reprioritised "to agreed priorities
yet to be decided."[3]
NUS believes that these priorities and a detailed explanation
should have been provided before the Government's decision was
announced.
IMPACT ON
STUDENTS AND
INSTITUTIONS
10. The withdrawal of funding for ELQs will
have a hugely disproportionate effect on part-time students. According
to HEFCE, as many as a fifth of part-time students in England
will become unfunded after 2008-09, compared with only 2% of full-time
students.[4]
11. According to Universities UK research,
part-time students "are far more diverse than full-time students
in their socio-economic mix."[5]
Part-time students are more likely to be women, students with
disabilities and from black and ethnic minority (BME), as well
as frequently having work, family and caring commitments. NUS
is concerned that the Government's ELQs policy is therefore likely
to have a deeper impact on non-traditional students, who are already
under-represented in higher education.
12. NUS fear that significant numbers of
adults will discontinue their lifelong learning because they will
be unable to pay increased fees. According to UUK research, part-time
students are more "price sensitive" and this "reinforces
scepticism in the sector as to whether part-time fees can be raised
without a significant drop in numbers."[6]
These students are more likely to be deterred by cost, and less
able to travel greater distances. This would be further exacerbated
by the fact that part-time fees, unlike full-time fees, are currently
paid upfront.
13. In the future, new ELQ students are
likely to also be repaying debts accumulated from their earlier
HE studies. NUS believes it cannot be assumed that these students
will be in a position to finance their studies in the future.
14. The Government's suggestion that these
students will receive funding from their employers to undertake
their studies is not borne out by evidence. For instance, only
13 per cent of ELQ students at the Open University receive any
contribution towards their fees from their employers.[7]
This was reinforced by a recent speech by Richard Lambert, Director-General
of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) during which he
asked, "Why should businesses in the future be expected to
fund a much bigger share of higher education teaching?"[8]
15. When public funding is withdrawn, HEIs
will face three options:
(i) To charge fees based on the full cost
of running a course—putting it beyond the financial ability
of many
(ii) To cross-subsidise the course—diverting
much needed resources from other activities.
(iii) To cancel the course because it is
no longer affordable to run
16. All three options will have a negative
impact on students, reducing choice and weakening the higher education
experience, as well as damaging the Government's widening participation
and skills agendas.
17. A number of higher education institutions
(HEIs) excel at offering opportunities to first generation students,
many of whom are from non-traditional backgrounds. It should be
noted that their courses are frequently studied both by first
time HE students and ELQ students, and the Government's policy
could, on this basis, have a negative impact on their attempts
to encourage first time and first generation applicants.
18. NUS is also concerned that this will
affect students at a wide range of HEIs and their students. While
Birkbeck stands to lose 38.3% of relevant teaching funding by
2014-15 and the Open University stands to lose 22.7%, these are
by no means the only institutions affected. City University London,
Thames Valley University, the University of Bedfordshire, the
University of East London and London Metropolitan University all
stand to lose more than 10% of relevant teaching funding in the
same period, despite being among the HEIs who have led the way
in delivering the Government's widening participation agenda.
Meanwhile, the University of Oxford, the University of Sunderland
and Coventry University all lose more than £2 million of
relevant teaching funding by 2014-15. This will inevitably impact
on the students at these institutions and particularly on excellent
adult and lifelong learning faculties and expertise that has often
been developed over many years.
19. The withdrawal of ELQ funding has the
potential to adversely affect women returning to work after career
breaks and older men. In addition, a number of the hardest hit
institutions, including London Metropolitan and University of
East London, are particularly successful in recruiting black and
minority ethnic (BME) students.
20. There may also be a disability equality
issue where a person with a pre-existing HE qualification who
becomes disabled in later life may require retraining in order
to pursue a new career. The withdrawal of most student support
for ELQ students has already limited opportunities for such students
to undertake new HE qualifications. To remove HEFCE funding altogether
would make such study all but impossible, which is neither in
the spirit of disability equality nor in the aims of the Leitch
review or general Government policy to help disabled people find
fulfilling employment.
21. No equality impact assessment has been
published in relation to the Government's ELQs policy. NUS believes
that the considerations outlined above demonstrate that this is
vitally important.
SKILLS AND
EMPLOYMENT
22. NUS supports the Government's attempts
to meet the targets set by Lord Leitch, and whilst the report
calls to increase the proportion of adults with HE qualifications,
it is entirely consistent and commensurate with the aims of Leitch
to ensure that funding for higher education qualifications remains
available to those who already have equivalent or lower qualifications
(ELQs). It should also be noted that Lord Leitch did not suggest
or consider withdrawing funding for ELQ students as an appropriate
response to the skills challenge faced by the UK.
23. ELQ students are frequently precisely
those who are re-skilling, updating professional skills and accessing
the lifelong learning that Lord Leitch recommended in his review
of skills. This review concluded that, "without increased
skills, we would condemn ourselves to a lingering decline in competitiveness,
diminishing economic growth and a bleaker future for all".[9]
ELQs clearly have a vital role to play in responding to this challenge.
24. Lord Leitch concluded that individuals
would increasingly be required to up-skill and to re-skill. According
to his report, 70% of the 2020 workforce have already completed
their compulsory education. In a global economy that is constantly
shifting, a qualification relevant 10 years ago may no longer
be of the same relevance. This is particularly the case with subjects
that are closely related to technological and scientific innovation.
25. The shifting demands for skills and
the increased mobility of the labour market places a strong emphasis
on the need for re-skilling capacity, but also on the need to
attain additional skills in other disciplines. A true knowledge
economy with an increasing emphasis on innovation surely relies
on the workforce being able to form linkages of evidence and ideas
across subject boundaries.
26. It is also important to note that the
demographic downturn of more than 12% of the 18-20 age cohort
between 2011 and 2020 will make mature students, part-time and
non-traditional recruitment particularly key to the financial
and long-term stability of many institutions and the wider economy.[10]
27. Given the scale of the Leitch agenda,
it is disingenuous to suggest that the skills required by the
UK can be achieved by proposing that one group of learners must
sacrifice their learning opportunities to allow others to take
their place. NUS believes that this underestimates the scale of
the skills challenge faced by the UK.
COURSE EXEMPTIONS
28. NUS is concerned that the neither the
Government or HEFCE have not presented a clear rationale for including
or excluding subjects from the list of exemptions from the decision
to withdraw funding for ELQs. Any such explanation should consider
the benefit both to individuals and society of lifelong learning.
Without such an explanation, the composition of the list of protected
subjects risks appearing arbitrary.
29. It is crucial to ensure the list of
exceptions in student support regulations fits DIUS and wider
Government policy. NUS understands that the list includes some
qualifications that are required for entry into certain key professions,
and that a student could not attain entry to the profession through
other routes such as postgraduate study.
30. There are however many questionable
omissions from the list of courses protected by the decision to
phase out funding for ELQs, including business, management, law,
post-compulsory certificates of education for FE teachers, languages,
economics, computer sciences, pharmacy, psychology and housing.
It is not clear what the rationale is for including or excluding
exemptions from this list. It is clear however that if excluded
subjects were added to list of protected subjects, there would
be additional pressure to find £100 million of funding cuts
by removing other courses from the list.
31. NUS has asked that either HEFCE or DIUS
confirms that this list of exceptions has therefore been fully
reviewed and whether any other qualifications were considered
for the list and then rejected, and if so for what reasons.
32. NUS welcomes the Government's commitment
to review the list of Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects
(SIVS) in 2010-11 but would ask that HEFCE ensure that the sector
is consulted when any changes to the list are made, particularly
if subjects are to be removed from it. Although the protection
of Foundation Degrees is welcome, it should be noted that this
mode of study is often not the most appropriate form of provision
for all prospective students, particularly those who are in employment
and who plan to study part-time.
CONCLUSION
33. NUS believes that the Government's decision
to withdraw funding for ELQs, which was taken without consulting
students, institutions, professional bodies or employer organisations,
is unacceptable, and will have a raft of unintended consequences
for students and their institutions. NUS is concerned that the
Government's widening participation and skills agendas will be
adversely affected by this policy.
34. NUS calls for questions about the future
funding of ELQs to be referred to the review of higher education
funding due to commence in 2009. This will allow the following:
(i) A variety of options for "reprioritisation"
in the higher education budget can be presented
(ii) A full and meaningful consultation can
be undertaken before any decision is made
(iii) An assessment can be made of the impact
any policy would have on the widening participation and skills
agendas, and on part-time students
(iv) A full equality impact assessment can
be undertaken and published
35. NUS calls for the decision to withdraw
funding for ELQs to be reconsidered in light of the concerns expressed
from across the higher education sector and beyond.
January 2008
1 Gordon Brown, Speech at the University of Greenwich,
31 October 2007 http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13675.asp Back
2
Fabian Review, Summer 2007: The Education Issue Back
3
HEFCE, Frequently asked questions (ELQs), 2007 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/faq/elq.htm£q16 Back
4
Modelling of the impact on institutions, subjects and mode of
study, HEFCE, October 2007 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2007/07_27/07_27s.xls Back
5
Part-time students in higher education, Universities UK, Policy
Briefing November 2006, p.10 http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/policybriefing0.pdf Back
6
Part-time students in higher education, Universities UK, Policy
Briefing November 2006, p. 10 http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/policybriefing0.pdf Back
7
Open University, 8 January 2008 http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=12780 Back
8
Richard Lambert, Universities UK inaugural annual lecture, 11
December 2007 http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/speeches/show.asp?sp=77 Back
9
Leitch Review of Skills, December 2006 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/review_leitch_index.cfm Back
10
Demand for Higher Education to 2020 and beyond, HEPI, 21
June 2007 http://www.hepi.ac.uk/pubdetail.asp?ID=234&DOC=reports Back
| 
