Memorandum 104
Submission from English Heritage
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document demonstrates that the historic
environment sector is comprised of professions that require substantial
training and access to further qualifications in order to meet
their professional requirements. We argue that the removal of
funding under the ELQ proposal will hit historic environment training
disproportionately and will hamper the implementation of the imminent
draft Heritage bill as a result. A recommendation for exemption
of the sector is made with an alternative recommendation that
a bursary scheme be established to offset the potential impact.
1. THIS DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared for the Select
Committee of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills'
inquiry into the Government's decision to phase out support given
to institutions for students taking second qualifications of an
equivalent or lower level (ELQs) to their first qualifications.
It has been written by Bob Hook, Head of Training and Standards
and Lizzie West, Head of Heritage Protection Research Policy on
behalf of Dr. Adrian Olivier, Strategy Director of English Heritage
2. WHAT IS
ENGLISH HERITAGE?
English Heritage is the Government's advisor
on the historic environment in England. We are an Executive Non-Departmental
Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport and we report to Parliament through the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport. Funding is provided in part by the
Government and in part from revenue earned from our historic properties
and other services. We work in partnership with central government
departments, local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private
sector to conserve and enhance the historic environment; broaden
public access to it; and increase people's understanding of it.
3. WHY THE
PROPOSALS PRESENT
A PROBLEM
FOR OUR
SECTORS AND
ACTIVITIES
The proposals have specific and detrimental
effects on future skills and training provision and on participation
in heritage education. They also have a potentially broader impact
on the ability of Government and the heritage sector to deliver
manifesto commitments and agreed White Paper policy to reform
the way in which the historic environment is managed in England
and Wales.
This legislative reform of heritage protection,
soon to be published as a draft Bill, will lead to an increased
demand in accredited training for the sector workforce. Present
strategies to deliver the skill sets and knowledge required to
operate the new processes and structures envisage this training
taking place through higher education institutions. Most of the
sector workforce hold at least a first degree and many are qualified
to masters level so the additional financial burden imposed by
the proposals will act as a barrier to building an adequately
trained workforce in the time available. The ELQ proposal has
the potential to compromise our ability to deliver the HPR reforms.
4. WHO WILL
BE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY
THESE PROPOSALS?
HEFCE proposals rightly aim to broaden participation
and access to learning, unfortunately for our sectors in their
current form, the proposals actively restrict them.
The cultural heritage sector is disproportionately
impacted by the ELQ proposals due to the high number of career
changers and mature entrants with degree level qualifications
in other subjects. 90% of those employed in archaeology in the
UK are graduates. Many have graduated in other subjects at a similar
or higher level before re-training in order to change their career
path.
The impact is compounded by the fact that the
sector makes particuar use of higher and continuing education
courses in order to maintain and develop its standards of professional
practice. Because of the structure of the archaeology sector in
particular, with most employers having less than 10 employees,
this activity is principally undertaken by individuals at their
own expense. The sector is characterised by pay rates typically
20% below national average. The effect of the proposals by increasing
their CPD costs would be to reduce uptake of courses, leading
to the closure of courses and the loss of retraining routes at
the very time when legislative change will drive an increased
need for access to retraining and upskilling.
Additionally, the volunteer community would
be adversely affected through the loss of access to courses providing
the skills necessary to undertake activity to an appropriate level.
Of the 400,000 volunteers actively engaged in the heritage sector
as a whole a significant number hold degree or higher degree level
qualifications and many contribute to the financial viability
of courses by undertaking further study to pursue their interests.
5. SPECIFIC RESPONSES
TO THE
HEFCE CONSULTATION
QUESTIONS
Q1. Courses offering qualifications in archaeology,
architectural history and other historic environment qualifications
such as conservation and restoration are not currently included
in these regulations, but need to be considered for additional
exemption as set out above.
Q2. We recognise the valuable contribution
made by foundation degrees in meeting some of the skills needs
of the sector and support the proposals for continued public funding.
Q4. We recognise the work undertaken to
identify SIVS, but feel that qualifications in the historic environment
disciplines meet the criteria stated for SIVS but have not to
date been included. These courses will be increasingly relevant
and necessary to plug skills gaps, expand diversity in the workforce
and meet Government aims for heritage protection and planning
reform. Currently the vulnerability of particular areas of study
are recognised by AHRC. The Historic Environment is disproportionately
affected by proposals and is therefore particularly vulnerable
because over 33% of students on certain courses rather than the
8% average for full time courses are affected by the ELQ proposal.
As set out above, one solution to this problem
in the light of proposals is to provide a HEFCE Historic Environment
Targeted Allocation. We would be happy to work with HEFCE to further
refine this proposal.
Q5. We agree that a supplement should be
provided for part-time courses, but feel that £20 million
is not adequate. One uuniversity alone, for example, estimates
a loss of 1 million pounds [per annum] in HEFCE income to its
Continuing Education courses. Another institution has told us
that "it looks increasingly likely that we may withdraw from
shorter course provision altogether as a direct result of ELQ
ruling, and have to look very seriously at our part time degree
programme as now uneconomic as well. We think that our (Life Long
Learning) activity in archaeology has about 40% ELQ students on
it; the faculty is losing about 500,000 a year (and this being
"cut" from the block grant, whatever we do we can't
avoid it), much of which is ours". The loss of courses of
this nature will reduce the capacity to re-train and up-skill
our workforce.
Q7. English Heritage, with sectoral partners,
are presently working to improve the recruitment of black and
minority ethnic students and students with disabilities into historic
environment careers. The current HEFCE proposals will provide
further barriers to entry.
Additionally the historic environment professions
are poorly renumerated across the range of specialisms. Archaeologists,
for example earn 20% lower than the national average, and the
rate of increase in wages during the period 1997-2003 was 50%
of the average increase. This makes it even more difficult for
students to pay off the greater training costs necessitated by
the specialist training demands of the sector. This will potentially
skew further the demographics of the sector to those with disposable
income or parental support.
5. Overall we feel that the implementation
of the ELQ proposals in their present form would be detrimental
to the continued development of an appropriately skilled workforce
in the historic environment sector. It would have deleterious
effects on the access to courses for non-specialists and volunteers
who are part of the 70% of all adults who actively engage with
assests in the care of the sector and want to understand more
about them. It has the potential to narrow access to qualifications
in the sector when our programmes are trying to increase diversity
in the workforce and to train the people needed to cope with structural
and legislative change. We would welcome the opportunity to work
with Hefce in any way to avoid the consequences we forsee if the
ELQ proposal is implemented in its present form.
6. HOW CAN
THIS DAMAGE
BE OFFSET?
1. Exemptions
In point 11 of their on-line Questions and Answers,
HEFCE stated that they would consider requests for additional
exemptions to the ELQ policy, where they are clearly in the public
interest, minimise conflicts with other HEFCE policies, are based
on current Government strategies, and limits to the number of
students that can be exempted from this policy.
We recommend an exemption is granted to all
courses offering qualifications in archaeology, architectural
history and other historic environment qualifications such as
conservation and restoration.
Our proposal fits in with all of these as follows:
— 70% of all adults visited an historic
environment site in 2005-06. In addition to the provision of an
adequately staffed and skilled workforce to deliver historic environment
services as a contribution to the quality of life in society,
many of the part-time and continuing education courses impacted
by the ELQ policy are pursued by non-heritage specialists for
life long learning or personal interest reasons. There is therefore
a strong public interest argument for their exemption.
— In welcoming the announcement of
employer-focussed higher education provision the HEFCE website
notes "The Leitch Review of Skills identified that 40% of
adults need to be qualified to Level 4 or above by 2020 if the
national workforce is to remain world class. To realise this goal
it concluded that the higher education system needs to work in
partnership with employers to create and fund more flexible courses."
Under the new rules, most our our workforce would be excluded
from attending courses at HEFCE supported fee levels when attempting
to re-qualify or update their existing qualification.
— Current government strategies involve
legislative and structural change in the historic environment
and planning sectors by the delivery of Heritage Protection Reform,
a Marine Bill which covers underwater historic assets and a bill
re-shaping the Planning System. All of these have training implications
for the sector and the principle training route is via higher
education.
— Although the percentage of those
retraining on these courses is high, the absolute numbers are
low, meaning that the adverse impact to the viability of such
courses is disproportionate to the savings effected.
7. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
TARGETED ALLOCATION
Alternatively we recommend that English Heritage
administers a HEFCE funded bursary scheme to support individuals
and courses likely to suffer adversely from the drop in numbers
or cost of courses caused by the implementation of the proposals
in their current form.
January 2008
| 
