Memorandum 99
Submission from the University of Warwick
The University objects to the withdrawal of
funding for students with equivalent or lower qualifications for
the following reasons:
1. The policy will impact on the flexible
approach to learning introduced by many institutions to allow
for students to take a series of courses at the same level but
which do demonstrate progression. An example would be the progression
of students from postgraduate certificate or diploma to Masters
courses. Even if this is addressed in future, the funding associated
with these students in the 2005-06 cohort has already been lost.
2. The mainstream funding to be phased out
totals £180 million, while a total of £328 million has
had to be identified and will have to be monitored to achieve
savings of £100 million. The resources for "safety netting"
institutions and transitional funding, will be freed over time
but no use has been identified for them.
3. The teaching grant is being increasingly
disaggregated into targeted allocations, such as that for SIVS,
and there is associated increasing administrative complexity in
monitoring the student numbers related to these allocations. This
is contradictory to the aims agreed with the Higher Education
Regulatory Review Group (HERRG).
4. The extremely short notice and lack of
consultation was entirely inappropriate given the impact on institutions.
The impact is immediate as institutions will not receive the level
of grant expected, but it is now too late to change admissions
policies, fees structures or course offering for 2008 entry.
5. The criteria used for exempting some
ELQ students may not remain exempt in the future. This creates
instability and uncertainty in planning terms. An example is the
University of Warwick's postgraduate entry undergraduate level
degree course leading to a first registerable qualification as
a medical doctor. Withdrawal of funding for such courses would
place the future viability of the medical school at risk and would
undermine local healthcare provision.
6. The proposal is clearly contradictory
to other government policies of strategic importance, in particular
that of skills development in the workforce, as set out in the
Leitch report. It will inevitably impact on widening participation
and the part-time sector indirectly as courses or departments
which are engaged in these activities will also be those which
typically also recruit ELQ students. Hence the exemptions set
in place will not protect the those areas of strategic national
importance as courses and departments become increasingly unviable.
In addition, the use of Foundation degrees and co-funded numbers
to identify employer engagement activities does not accurately
reflect the range of teaching provision offered by the sector
to meet the needs of employers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
7. That the HEFCE reconsider the introduction
of the ELQ policy and consider alternative, more appropriate ways
of making the required savings, in consultation with the sector
and over a more suitable timescale.
January 2008
| 
