Memorandum 3
Submission from Professor David Latchman,
Master of Birkbeck College, University of London
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Birkbeck opposes the withdrawal of ELQ
funding on several grounds:
2. It will affect the lives of many individuals
who wish to re-skill in order to enhance their employability and
who will be prevented from doing so. It will particularly discriminate
against specific groups who need to re-skill to return to the
workforce including women returners, individuals who have been
made redundant and individuals who have become disabled.
3. It will disproportionately affect the
part time sector at a time when this sector is key to the Government's
widening participation and employer engagement agendas.
4. It has been introduced without consultation
with the sector despite its major impact and the fact that it
creates for the first time a new class of UK/EU students, who
are being treated as non EU overseas students.
5. Birkbeck would suggest that the proposal
is deferred pending a full review by the 2009 Fees Commission
of the fee implications. Such a deferral would allow a review
of options, other than the withdrawal of ELQ funding, for releasing
funds for redistribution and the need for these redistributed
funds.
6. If the policy is introduced, Birkbeck
would suggest that its effects on individuals should be mitigated
by exempting all those returning to study five years or more after
their first degree, so as not to penalise individuals who are
re-skilling, at a reasonable interval after their first degree.
7. Similarly, the effect on the severely
hit institutions should be mitigated by allowing them to keep
their funding/student numbers but requiring them to report over
a period of years on how funding/numbers for ELQ students have
been re-oriented in accordance with Government priorities.
THE AUTHOR
8. Professor David Latchman became Master
of Birkbeck in January 2003. Prior to that he was Dean of the
Institute of Child Health, UCL and has published extensively in
the field of genetics and molecular biology. He is the elected
Chairman of London Higher, which represents London's Universities.
SUBMISSION FROM
BIRKBECK COLLEGE
9. Birkbeck is a world-class research and
teaching institution, a vibrant centre of academic excellence
and London's only specialist provider of part time evening higher
education. Birkbeck is recognised for providing the highest quality
teaching that is informed by our outstanding research excellence.
This is proven by our leading position each year in the UK's National
Student Survey. 19,000 students study with Birkbeck every year
and join a community that is as diverse and cosmopolitan as London's
population.
This submission is structured around the five
points on which the enquiry is focussing:
(a) The arguments for or against the
Government's decision to phase out support to institutions for
students studying ELQs
THE SKILLS
AGENDA
10. Government argues that the decision
will focus support on those who have not yet had the chance of
a university education and that it is in accordance with the Leitch
agenda of 40% of the workforce having level four qualifications
by 2020.
11. However, this argument is simplistic,
both in terms of the overall skills agenda and the aspirations
of individuals to develop their skills so as to enhance their
employment prospects. Thus, the skills agenda requires not only
up-skilling but also re-skilling so that individuals have the
correct combination of skills to contribute effectively in a changing
labour market.
12. Moreover, the vast majority of ELQ students
study part time (71% on a full time equivalent (FTE) basis: UUK
figures) whilst working and thereby continuing to contribute to
the economy. At Birkbeck, 90% of students combine part time study
with day time employment.
13. Indeed, at Birkbeck, significant numbers
of individuals study part time for ELQs in subjects such as Computer
Science/Information Technology, Management, Geology/Earth Sciences
and Psychology (see section c below) precisely to enhance their
employment prospects either in their current employment or in
seeking a new position. These will include women returners who
have spent time raising children or with other care responsibilities
and whose first degree is inappropriate for their future careers;
individuals attempting to re-train to work following redundancy;
individuals who have become disabled and "first generation"
HE students who may have been poorly advised as to the appropriateness
and utility of their first degree.
14. It cannot be in the interests of the
economy that such individuals are denied the opportunity to take
an ELQ aimed at vocational development. As the Prime Minister
said (Greenwich University 31/10/07): "Educational opportunities
should be lifelong, permanent and recurrent".
15. In a number of cases, the second ELQ
qualifications will complement the first and allow individuals
to fulfil a role which requires both qualifications. Thus, for
example, students taking Birkbeck's part time accelerated LLB
programme, for students who already have an unrelated degree,
are frequently intending to combine their law qualification with
their initial one to improve their work output. These include
housing officers working for local authorities who acquire knowledge
of landlord and tenant law, dispute resolution etc, and individuals
working in the NHS (for example as nurses or pharmacists) who
wish to work as legal claims managers. Similarly, students taking
one year part time graduate courses in Economics include those
such as Civil Engineers whose jobs increasingly involve economics
or finance (eg cost benefit analysis) as they progress in their
profession.
EMPLOYER FUNDING
16. The Government solution to these skills
needs is that they should be funded by employers. In accordance
with this, HEFCE is introducing significant numbers of co-funded
places in which employers will pay half the normal HEFCE contribution.
Unfortunately, employers are unenthusiastic about these proposals
(see Richard Lambert, CBI Director General, UUK Inaugural lecture
11/12/07). This is particularly the case in London where employers
report that they can obtain suitably skilled individuals from
overseas and question the value to them of funding the training
of UK citizens (London Skills and Employment Board: The London
Story).
17. Critically, the policy assumes that
the interests of the employer and the employee are co-incident,
which is often not the case. At Birkbeck many students will not
tell us who their employer is, since it would be obvious that
they intend to leave on completion of their qualification. Indeed,
a recent survey of Birkbeck students three years after their graduation,
showed that 39% had moved employment compared to 15% in a control
group (Jamieson A, Benefits of Study 2007). Overall therefore,
it is unlikely that employers will fund the skills needs of large
numbers of individuals affected by the ELQ policy
PART TIME
STUDY
18. In his speech at the UUK conference
(13/09/07), the Secretary of State, John Denham called for universities
to introduce more evening courses to allow mature adults in employment
to study part time. Only in this way can the Leitch target be
achieved in a situation where 70% of the 2020 workforce has already
left full time education.
19. Unfortunately, the ELQ proposals will
significantly impact on the institutions best able to deliver
this agenda and discourage others from enhancing their part time
provision. According to UUK figures, 16% of part time students
will suffer loss of funding due to the ELQ decision compared to
only 1.6% of full time.
20. As discussed in section e) (see below)
this loss of funding will impair the ability of the part time
sector to respond to the Skills agenda, at precisely the time
when the importance of this sector has finally been recognised.
Moreover, non ELQ students will suffer since some courses may
be withdrawn as fee increases put off ELQ students (see section
d) below).
(b) The timing of the decision and
implementation of the change
21. The change was announced in September
2007 with no prior consultation with the sector. The President
of UUK was informed one hour before the announcement and it is
unclear whether (or when) a discussion was held at the HEFCE Board.
HEFCE then launched a consultation on how (but not whether) the
decision should be implemented but it was made clear that £100
million must be saved from ELQ funding. It is intended that the
HEFCE Board will decide the final details of the implementation
in January so that these can be reflected in the 2008-09 funding
letters issued to institutions in March.
22. This lack of consultation/speed of implementation
is all the more surprising since this decision raises a major
issue of principle. This is the first time that UK/EU students
on an otherwise fundable university course, will not be funded
and will be effectively treated as overseas students. Clearly,
this could be applied in many other ways, once the principle is
conceded.
23. The speed of implementation has had
several specific consequences:
(1) The need to use retrospective (2005-06)
data to calculate grant withdrawals. This has the effect of imposing
a retrospective fine for recruiting students who were fundable
at that time.
(2) No discussion of other alternatives for
saving £100 million. We understand the HEFCE executive proposed
several alternatives to Government and the ELQ option was selected.
The others have not been discussed with the sector.
(3) No discussion on the merit of the proposals
for redistributing the £100 million saving. As the Minister
of State said in evidence to the Committee (28/11/07), this is
only 0.2% of the overall HE budget and it is unclear why it needs
to be redistributed so rapidly. If it is for employer co-funded
places (see section a) above) it could be better to expand more
slowly, after fuller discussions with employers. If it is intended
to release funding to allow 20,000 "hard to reach" students
to attend university, then the Secretary of State has repeatedly
acknowledged that the great majority of these students will study
part time (UUK Conference 13/09/07, House of Commons 08/01/08).
Given that this is the case, it is necessary to ensure first that
part time students and the institutions which teach them are properly
supported so as to facilitate the recruitment of such students.
24. Overall, therefore, we believe this
proposal should be deferred for further discussion. In view of
the implications for student fees of the ELQ decision (see section
d) below) we believe it would be appropriate to refer it to the
2009 Commission on Fees.
(c) Exemptions from the withdrawal
of funding proposed by the HEFCE
25. In its consultation document, HEFCE
has proposed certain exemptions on the basis of subject or employer
involvement. If the policy goes ahead (which we believe should
not be the case), we would propose an exemption for all individuals
returning to study five years or more after their initial qualifications,
so as not to penalise those who are re-skilling, at a reasonable
interval after taking their first degree.
26. Even in terms of the exemptions proposed,
these appear to have been drawn up with the £100 million
target in mind and so fail to include obvious work-related courses
such as Computer Science/IT or Management.
27. Moreover, they include a number of anomalies:
(1) Although Medicine/Veterinary Medicine
are exempt, other medically related subjects such as Pharmacy
are not. Similarly, Psychology (a major ELQ subject at Birkbeck
and nationwide) is not exempted despite its obvious medical relevance.
For example the BSc in Psychology at Birkbeck has 32% ELQ students
and is approved by the British Psychology Society as a pre-requisite
for professional training courses in areas such as Clinical Psychology,
Neuropsychology and Educational Psychology. Similarly, postgraduate
Psychology courses at Birkbeck have 33% ELQ students and train
students for jobs as Family Therapists, Counsellors, and Psychotherapists
in the NHS and elsewhere.
(2) Similarly, Mathematics is exempted but
not Economics even though, as taught at Birkbeck, Economics is
highly quantitative and stresses the mathematical, statistical
and numeral aspects of the subject.
(3) Foundation degrees are exempt from the
withdrawal of ELQ. However, it is unclear whether students will
continue to be exempt if they progress to a Bachelors degree,
even though such a progression route must be in place, before
a Foundation degree can be introduced.
(d) The impact upon students
28. As noted above (section a), the proportion
of part time ELQ students is ten times that of full time ELQ students.
It is highly likely that the fees charged to part time ELQ students
will have to rise considerably if HEFCE funding is withdrawn.
In 2007-08 undergraduate students will pay fees of £1,248
per annum at Birkbeck and the College will receive on average
£2,853 per student through HEFCE teaching funding. If fees
were to increase to cover the loss of such funding for ELQ students,
they would have to rise to £4,101 per annum, increasing the
cost of a four year degree from £4,992 to £16,404.
29. The vast majority of ELQ students would
not be able to afford increases of anything like this amount.
For example, in a UUK survey, 31% of part time students had a
gross income of less than £15,499 and 50% reported that,
at current fee levels, unaffordable costs were a barrier to full
participation in their course of study. (Survey of students' attitudes
and experiences of part time study and its costs 2005-06).
30. The Minister of State (Letters, Independent
newspaper 22/11/07) has argued that fees will not necessarily
rise since students can "shop around for the best deal".
Even if this is the case it could only be achieved by cross subsidy
from the fees paid by other part time and full time students reinforcing
the case for the ELQ decision to be referred to the 2009 Fees
Commission.
31. Clearly, if increased fees prevent a
significant number of students from studying, this will result
in non ELQ students also suffering due to withdrawal of non viable
courses. Moreover, even when courses continue, the educational
experience for the non ELQ students and their drop out rates will
increase, in the absence of the contribution to the class of those
with prior university experience.
32. Hence, all part time students will suffer
from this measure. Overall, part time students are 62% female
compared to 54% female full time students. This indicates the
important role of the part time sector in assisting women re-entering
the work force after bringing up children or caring for other
family members.
33. Evidently, the part time sector attracts
all ages of student, compared to the predominately 18-21 year
old full time students. Interestingly, 64% of Birkbeck undergraduates
are over 30 and this proportion rises to 73% for ELQ students.
The mean age for ELQ students at Birkbeck is 35 and the largest
age category is 31-40 (39% of ELQ students). In the UUK Survey
of part time students (see above) 46% of students in this age
group, indicated that they were studying in order to change jobs,
compared to 38% of all part time students. This is evidently an
age group who are in mid-career and are the most in need of and
will benefit from re-training, yet are unlikely to have the means
to pay significant fee increases.
(e) The impact of the change on institutions
34. In view of the disproportionate number
of part time compared to full time ELQ students, it is not surprising
that the most significant impact of the ELQ funding withdrawal
is on the specialist part time institutions:—Birkbeck and
the Open University.
35. HEFCE have calculated that in 2005-06,
Birkbeck had 2,614 FTEs with ELQs, out of a total of 5,867 student
FTEs. According to HEFCE proposals, 578 of these are exempt from
the funding withdrawal due to the subject studied or because they
are doing Foundation degrees. Therefore, 2036 FTEs will be non-fundable,
resulting in a withdrawal of £7,866,367 per annum or 38%
of our total teaching grant (HEFCE figures).
36. Although this will be mitigated by various
factors including a small increase in the part time teaching premium/allocation,
Birkbeck will still require £4.6 million of safety net funding
in 2010-11 to maintain our teaching grant in cash terms. Such
safety netting is welcome. However, there is currently no guarantee
that this safety netting will continue beyond 2010-11. Moreover,
from 2008-09 Birkbeck will not receive normal inflationary uplift
to its teaching grant, resulting in a loss of approximately £600,000
per annum, year on year. In addition, the College is likely to
lose approximately £900,000 per annum of its HEFCE widening
participation funding since this is calculated on the basis of
total fundable student numbers and is not apparently safety netted.
Hence, Birkbeck will lose £1.5 million per annum in real
terms even after safety netting is taken into account.
37. The College would therefore face an
unsustainable deficit even before the guaranteed safety netting
ends in 2010-11. We are very keen to respond to Government desires
to enhance widening participation and employer engagement, since
they are entirely appropriate to its core mission. However, it
is hard to do so with diminishing funding and uncertainty about
the future, in a situation where funding deficits would have to
be dealt with and any successful initiative would simply reduce
the need for safety netting rather than providing any additional
funding.
38. This problem is compounded by the poor
resourcing of the part time sector, which existed even prior to
the ELQ decision. Thus, a HEFCE-commissioned review in 2003 (JM
Consulting) concluded that the actual costs of part time provision
can be up to 44% more on an FTE basis than for full time. However,
currently HEFCE pays only a 10% premium for part time students,
rising to approximately 13% under the current HEFCE proposals
for mitigating the effects of ELQ funding withdrawal.
39. Similarly, we are constrained in the
fees that can be charged by relatively poor Government support
for part time students. No loans are available and fees must be
paid up front. In 2006-07, 33% of Birkbeck undergraduate students
applied for Government means tested support with their fees. However,
such fee support for the poorest students is capped at a level
of approximately 50% of the fee level which would be pro-rata
to the full time fee. Thus, for a 0.75 FTE course such as Birkbeck's
(three year full time degree taken part time in four years) the
fee should be £2,250, (ie 75% of the £3,000 full time
fee) but the maximum fee rebate for the poorest students is £1,150
so our fees have been set at around this figure. Moreover, the
amount that can be claimed decreases rapidly as the students'
income rises and the thresholds for this decrease are much less
generous that for the full time students (Million+ report: Student
Finance Regimes, 2007).
40. These factors led to the Education and
Skills Committee (Eighth Report 2006-07) calling for better support
for part time students and the institutions which teach them and
for students to be seen as one group with a variety of needs of
support rather than being arbitrarily divided into categories
of part time and full time.
41. The position has now been significantly
worsened by the ELQ decision which impacts disproportionately
on the part time sector. Paradoxically, this comes at a time when
Government has recognised that its widening participation and
employer engagement agendas can only be delivered by the part
time sector.
42. Birkbeck can play a leading role in
this agenda. It cannot do so in a situation where its future resourcing
is highly uncertain and where any successful student recruitment
initiatives, merely reduce the size of safety netting funding
required, rather than providing new resources.
43. We strongly oppose the ELQ funding withdrawal
decision and suggest that it is deferred for consideration by
the Fees Commission in 2009. However, if it is implemented we
would suggest that to mitigate its effects, the most hard hit
institutions should be allowed to keep their funding (with inflationary
uplift) and student numbers but should have to demonstrate over
a period of years how the funding/numbers have been reoriented
away from ELQ students and in accordance with Government priorities.
44. This would allow Birkbeck to play a
key role in the Government's widening participation and employer
engagement agenda without the difficulties and uncertainties that
the ELQ funding cuts would introduce.
45. We must emphasise however, that such
a solution would not help support the career aspirations of ELQ
students. Our preferred option therefore remains the deferral
of the proposal, to allow a full discussion of other options and
consideration of the fee implications by the 2009 Fees Commission.
January 2008
| 
