Memorandum 115
Supplementary submission from Million
+
PRIORITISING ADDITIONAL
FIRST-TIME
ENTRANTS
1. The capacity of universities to recruit
additional first-time entrants is moderated by a variety of factors
including HE and student funding regimes, prior qualifications
and attainment, aspirations, socio-economic group, caring and
family responsibilities and life-style choices. It is by no means
solely determined by the admissions and recruitment and out-reach
work of universities.
2. The Minister stated (17 Jan) that DIUS
considered that the withdrawal of ELQ funding was required to
provide a further financial lever to ensure that universities
recruited more first-time entrants. There is no published evidence
to support this view and there were no discussions with institutions
as to whether this lever was required, its effects upon HEIs or
whether any other mechanisms could be adopted with greater effect.
In fact, the only courses on which ELQ students are likely to
substitute for first-time entrants are courses with capped numbers
(eg medicine and dentistry). These courses are included in the
exemptions and therefore there will still be public funding available
for these ELQ students, even at the expense of first-time entrants.
3. If universities fail to recruit the student
numbers agreed with the Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce),
they are already subject to claw back from their teaching fund
allocation. This lever is more likely to impact on universities
which recruit non-traditional, first generation and part-time
students (often the same universities which compete for more students
in clearing). There is no evidnce to suggest that these institutions,
with good track-records in widening participation, need any additional
financial levers to recruit first-time entrants.
REDUCTIONS IN
APPLICATIONS TO
HIGHER EDUCATION
4. UCAS statistics confirm that since 2002,
there has been a 10.5% reduction in the number of applications
for higher education from UK domiciled students to UK institutions
(Appendix 1, Table 1). This has been mirrored by falls in applications
from each individual socioeconomic grouping (with the exception
of "unknowns"). Applications from households describing
themselves as "higher professional", "lower professional"
and "intermediate occupations" were down 11.38% between
2002 and 2006, while applications from households describing themselves
as within socioeconomic groups 4-7 were down 8.75%.
CONVERSION OF
APPLICATIONS TO
ACCEPTANCES—THE
"LOST" STUDENTS
5. Similar statistics are presented in relation
to acceptances (Appendix 1, Table 2). Accepted applications from
households describing themselves as "higher professional",
"lower professional" and "intermediate occupations"
were down 21.93% between 2002 and 2006, while applications from
households describing themselves as within socioeconomic groups
4-7 were down 18.64%.
6. The reasons for this loss of potential
students (applications and acceptances) are likely to be complex.
However, it is unlikely that they can be accounted for purely
in relation to HEI recruitment strategies since there has been
a marginal increase in the proportion of acceptances to applications
since 1997 (76.1% to 77.5%). The rate reached 82.5% in 2002—falling
significantly between 2005 and 2006 (and likely to be accounted
for primarily by the Government's decision to introduce variable
fees in England).
7. The introduction of variable fees in
England has also impacted upon cross-border applications within
the UK. UCAS statistics confirm that 11.2% fewer Welsh students
and 5.4% fewer students in Scotland now apply to go to university
in England. (The 100,000 "lost" applicants to whom the
Minister referred in evidence to the Committee relate to UK domiciled
students in the UK as a whole and not just to England).
NON-PLACED
APPLICANTS
8. Recent UCAS research has confirmed that
the proportion of UK-domiciled applicants to higher education
who are non-placed applicants (NPAs) at the end of the application
cycle has remained relatively stable over recent years at around
19%. According to the UCAS research 37.5% of non-placed applicants
received no offer from any of the courses or institutions they
applied to, 6.1% had withdrawn from the process; 51.9% had declined
at least one offer with 4.6% unknown. A majority of NPAs therefore
either withdraw altogether or declined offers.
9. The research identified that women were
over-represented in the full NPA dataset as a whole, and particularly
in the withdrawn (67.1%) and no offer (66.2%) categories for 2003-2006.
Black and minority ethnic groups were over-represented, with black
applicants particularly heavily over-represented in the no offers
group, with 48.7% in this group (2003-2006) compared with 37.5%
of NPAs overall. However, younger applicants are under-represented
in the NPA dataset. For example, 76.6% of all applicants are 20
and under but only 60.7% of the non-placed applicant category
fall into this age group, with concomitant increases for non-placed
applicants in the older age categories. In addition, the higher
an applicant's socio-economic status, the higher their likelihood
of being accepted.
10. However, 38% of all NPAs from 2003-2006
re-applied at some stage and, of those, 80% were placed. Universities
which have excelled at widening participation in higher education
(and which are likely to lose ELQ funding) score highly in recruitment
of women, BME, more mature students, students with non-traditional
qualifications and overall have much more inclusive socio-economic
profiles. While the UCAS research requires further consideration,
the researchers themselves conclude that further research is required
and that NPAs also make positive labour market, family and caring
decisions unrelated to HEI recruitment and admissions policies.
DEEPENING PARTICIPATION
BY FIRST-TIME
ENTRANTS
11. All universities select students each
year and will manage intense competition for some course programmes.
However, a significant number of universities recruit from clearing
for some courses and have a recognised track-record in widening
participation. These universities conduct their own surveys to
investigate the reasons why first choice acceptances do not progress
to HE. They have previously asked for DfES (now DIUS) to commission
research to help determine why not all applications are translated
into acceptances and why many thousands of acceptances are not
translated into enrolments each year in order to identify the
Government policy, funding and institutional adjustments which
need to be considered to improve recruitment of first-time entrants
to higher education. These institutions would have welcomed the
opportunity to contribute to the evidence base and to work with
DIUS on a concerted strategy to improve and further deepen participation
by first-time entrants.
REDISTRIBUTION OF
ADDITONAL STUDENT
NUMBERS (ASNS)
12. The Secretary of State's letter to HEFCE
confirms that the latter has been asked to carefully consider
those institutions most affected by withdrawal of funding for
ELQ students for additional student numbers (ASNs).
13. This is not an easy "solution"
to the loss of ELQ funding and potentially misunderstands the
position of many universities which may be reluctant to risk bidding
for additional student numbers which could ultimately put them
at risk of future claw back from their teaching fund allocation.
Universities have to make estimates of course and student demand
which vary from year to year and these estimates are more difficult
for some courses and universities than others eg HEIs will be
able to guarantee that all medical education places will be filled.
These estimates are made against a background of changing Government
policy, student and employer demand. Notwithstanding the increase
in the number of 18-24 year olds, there is no evidence of a significant
increase in applications (Appendix 2 Million+ analysis 2007 UCAS
statistics). ASNs are therefore not necessarily an easy "quid
pro quo" for the loss of ELQ funding especially since
no additional or targeted resources are being offered to meet
the costs of recruiting and retaining hard to reach first-time
entrants. Conversely and bearing in mind these trends, the allocation
of ASNs to a small number of "selecting" HEIs has the
potential to reduce the market and sustainability of HEIs which
educate the majority of HE students, including first-time entrants.
PART-TIME
PREMIUM AND
INCREASE FROM
£20 TO £30 MILLION
14. The proposed £20 million addition
to the part-time premium only improved the unit of part-time resource
from 10% to 13.1%. While welcome, the additional £10 million,
if confirmed by Hefce, will not make a significant inroad into
the real cost of part-time provision or take into account the
fact that many English HEIs are unable to charge part-time students
(who unlike their full-time counterparts still have to pay fees
up-front) pro-rata of the full-time fee of £3,070
per annum since their part-time students cannot afford to pay
pro-rata fees.
15. The Government's announcement of an
improved package of student support (July 2007) related only to
full-time students. From 2008-09, all full-time students in England
will receive fee loans to cover all tuition fees regardless of
family income, access to maintenance loans and access to some
grant for household income up to of £60,000. Over two-thirds
of part-time students in England are unable to access the Government's
part-time financial support because of restrictions related to
study criteria and in any case the cut-off point for course grant
is household income of £25,646. In fact, the Secretary of
State's letter makes no reference to any requirement for the funding
council to improve resource allocation for part-time or widening
participation students. It also remains the case that any additional
part-time premium will not be paid to institutions until 2009-10
in spite of the fact that the HEIs will start to lose ELQ funding
in 2008-09 based on retrospective student numbers.
16. As a result, the HE funding drivers
remain with full-time provision in spite of the suggestion by
the Minister in oral evidence to the Committee that many of the
20,000 additional fte numbers would be converted into part-time
student provision.
ANNUAL REVIEW
OF EXEMPTIONS
(THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
TO BE
REVIEWED IMMEDIATELY,
IE IN
TWO MONTHS)
17. The review of theological studies will
protect some institutions and some courses. The retention of Islamic
studies in exemptions and the exclusion of other faith studies
may not meet the positive duties of the religious discrimination
legislation (although this is a matter for Hefce).
18. The annual review of exemptions to which
the Minister referred takes no account of the further administrative,
bureaucratic and monitoring requirements upon HEIs which will
increase in any case as a result of this decision. It will further
complicate student guidance and recruitment and takes little account
of the flexible opportunities to commence study offered by those
HEIs (eg Middlesex, UEL, Derby, TVU ) which offer courses commencing
in January and February and not just on a single annual September
/ October start date. HEIs are being expected to manage on an
annual basis changing and mixed economies of ELQ full-cost, ELQ
Hefce-subsidised, other Hefce funded, employer co-funded and international
students on different modes of study (full, part-time and distance
learning). Furthermore in evidence, the Minister confirmed that
future exemptions would always have to "add-up" to ensure
that £100 million is re-directed away from ELQ funding ie
exemptions would only be amended on a like-for-like funding basis.
PHASED WITHDRAWAL
OF FUNDING
19. In order to implement the policy on
the time-scale dictated by the Government, Hefce has proposed
that funding is withdrawn based on retrospective ELQ numbers and
data sets which were not intended for this purpose. The Hefce
modelling for institutions indicates the funds to be phased out
and HEIs can deduce effect / loss of funding over the three year
phase-in period. From 2009-10 the supplement to the part-time
allocation is introduced. HEIs can therefore calculate the net
loss over the period. The Government has suggested that HEIs will
be protected by a safety net. However as this university case-study
illustrates, in the majority of cases, HEIs will not be entitled
to safety net funding.
University case-study (figures £k)
20. Based on ELQ student numbers in 2005-06,
Hefce modelling has suggested that this HEI will lose a total
of £2.1 million of ELQ funding
PHASED WITHDRAWAL
OF FUNDING
21. ELQ funding is to be phased out over
a three year period and has been calculated as follows (taking
into account the part-time premium). This leaves, a further 1.6
million still to be phased out. At no point do the effect of these
changes result in an actual cash reduction in the University's
funding, so "safety net" funding is not applied or received.
22. However, this represents a considerable
cut in real terms and will have the effect of moving the University
down the contract range. The proposal removes funding at the standard
price, but the University is on the minus side of the permitted
tolerance.
| Year | Funds Phased Out
| Addition to Part-time Funds | Net Effect
| Cumulative Phased Out | Cumulative Net Effect
|
| 2008-9 | 416 | 0
| 416 | 416 | 416
|
| 2009-10 | 150 | 248
| -98 | 566 | 318
|
| 2010-11 | 509 | 254
| 255 | 1075 | 573
|
UPSKILLING VS
RESKILLING: THE
LEITCH REPORT
23. While emphasising the importance of upskilling, the
Leitch Report itself does not recommend that reskilling at higher
level skills should be financed solely by individuals and employers
and regardless of financial circumstances. In addition, the Report
concludes that there will be a future need to reskill at all levels.
It is therefore difficult to see how the Report itself provides
support for the policy decision to withdraw ELQ funding (see extracts
below, emboldened text Million+ emphasis).
PROSPERITY FOR
ALL IN
THE GLOBAL
ECONOMY-WORLD
CLASS SKILLS
Leitch final report Dec 2006 (extracts)
"People need to be able to afford to learn. Support
to meet the costs of learning at all levels must be targeted at
those who face the biggest barriers and credit constraints."
"In the new global economy, economic security cannot
be provided by trying to protect particular jobs, attempting to
hold back the tide of change. Instead, economic security can only
come from ensuring people have the support they need to stay in
employment, taking new opportunities as they arise. Skills are
a central part of this, equipping people with the flexibility
they need to change jobs and careers as the economy changes. Increasingly,
world class skills are essential to delivering world class employment
and reduced child poverty. These are UK-wide challenges."
(para 7.7)
"Too many of us have little interest or appetite for
improved skills. We must begin a new journey to embed a culture
of learning. Employer and individual awareness must increase.
To reach our goals, we as a society must invest more. It is clear
who will pay. It is all of us—it is the State, employers
and individuals. But this will be the best investment we could
ever make."
SKILLS PROJECTIONS
FOR 2020
"History tells us that no one can predict with any accuracy
future occupational needs. The Review is clear that skill demands
will increase at every single level. Better skills will be needed
at higher levels to drive leadership, management and innovation—these
are key drivers of productivity growth. Intermediate skills must
be improved to implement investment and innovation. Basic skills
are essential for people to be able to adapt to change. People
lacking basic skills will be most at risk of exclusion in a global
economy.
Improving the skills of young people, while essential, cannot
be the sole solution to achieving world class skills. Improvements
in attainment of young people can only deliver a small part of
what is necessary because they comprise a small proportion of
the overall workforce. Demographic change means that there will
be smaller numbers of young people flowing into the workforce
towards 2020.
More than 70% of the 2020 working age population are already
over the age of 16. As the global economy changes and working
lives lengthen with population ageing, adults will increasingly
need to update their skills in the workforce. (paras 29-31)
January 2008
Appendix 1
Table 1
APPLICATION RATES BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP
| 1997 | 1998
| 1999 | 2000 |
2001 | 2002 | 2003
| 2004 | 2005 |
2006 |
| Higher managerial and professional | —
| — | — | —
| — | 71,054 | 69,700
| 70,059 | 69,631 | 63,982
|
| Lower managerial and professional | —
| — | — | —
| — | 99,404 | 100,465
| 102,737 | 105,698 | 90,061
|
| Intermediate occupations | —
| — | — | —
| — | 51,002 | 49,803
| 50,500 | 52,423 | 42,215
|
| Small employed and own account workers |
— | — | —
| — | — | 24,535
| 24,616 | 24,663 | 25,394
| 22,715 |
| Lower supervisory and technical | —
| — | — | —
| — | 15,559 | 16,540
| 16,054 | 16,348 | 14,071
|
| Semi-routine occupations | —
| — | — | —
| — | 43,485 | 44,834
| 45,789 | 50,563 | 40,283
|
| Routine occupations | —
| — | — | —
| — | 19,905 | 19,243
| 19,358 | 20,392 | 17,355
|
| Unknown | — | —
| — | — | —
| 76,910 | 84,767 | 84,174
| 104,181 | 81,821 |
| Grand Total | 398,327 | 389,588
| 388,691 | 389,091 | 399,645
| 401,854 | 409,968 | 413,334
| 444,630 | 372,503 |
Source: UCAS.
Note: We do not provide a breakdown of applications
by socioeconomic grouping between 1997 and 2001 as the classification
of socioeconomic grouping changed between 2002 and 2002 making
annual comparisons difficult
Table 2
ACCEPTANCES BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP
| 1997 | 1998
| 1999 | 2000 |
2001 | 2002 | 2003
| 2004 | 2005 |
2006 |
| Higher managerial and professional |
| | | |
| 61,419 | 59,472 | 59,679
| 59,670 | 48,529 |
| Lower managerial and professional |
| | | |
| 83,476 | 83,113 | 84,628
| 87,107 | 66,823 |
| Intermediate occupations | |
| | |
| 42,112 | 40,576 | 40,790
| 42,222 | 30,649 |
| Small employed and own account workers |
| | |
| | 20,056 | 19,992
| 19,881 | 20,668 | 15,926
|
| Lower supervisory and technical |
| | | |
| 12,830 | 13,457 | 13,114
| 13,454 | 10,030 |
| Semi-routine occupations | |
| | |
| 34,647 | 35,254 | 35,516
| 38,866 | 29,309 |
| Routine occupations | |
| | | | 15,855
| 15,183 | 15,199 | 16,062
| 12,577 |
| Unknown | |
| | | | 61,330
| 66,895 | 65,488 | 82,195
| 75,386 |
| Grand Total | 303318 | 298220
| 303065 | 308718 | 325472
| 331,725 | 333,942 | 334,295
| 360,244 | 289,229 |
| Ratio of Acceptances to Applications | 0.76
| 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.79
| 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.81
| 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.77
|
Source: UCAS.
Note: We do not provide a breakdown of acceptances
by socioeconomic grouping between 1997 and 2001 as the classification
of socioeconomic grouping changed between 2002 and 2002 making
annual comparisons difficult.
Appendix 2
UNIVERSITY THINK-TANK
MILLION+: ANALYSIS
2007 UCAS FIGURES
The university think tank Million+ has urged that the 2007
figures for higher education applications and acceptances published
by UCAS, the university admissions service are judged against
an increasing number of 18 year olds in the population.
INCREASE IN
NUMBER OF
16-24 YEAR OLDS
The 2007 social trends population data published by the Office
of National Statistics (ONS) confirm that between 2001 and 2005
the number of 16-24 year olds in the population increased by over
half a million (579,000). ONS has also predicted that this age
group will increase by an additional 248,000 in the period from
2005-2011. It would therefore be extremely surprising if UCAS
applications and acceptances had not increased in 2007 although
this is not to detract from the work of universities and Government
in encouraging participation.
2007 COMPARED TO
2005
2005 is a better comparator year for the 2007 statistics,
bearing in mind the impact of variable fees upon applications
in England in 2006. Once this comparison is made the picture is
much more disappointing. The 2007 UCAS statistics confirm that
there were just 1,320 more applicants accepted for university
places in the 20 and under age group and 1,180 more applicants
accepted for university places in the 21-24 year age group compared
to 2005.
MATURE APPLICANTS
The figures also confirm that the number of accepted applicants
for those over 25 (mature applicants) rose by only 400 in 2007
compared to 2005. In view of the Government's commitment to educational
opportunities, it has to be a concern that participation by mature
students is not increasing at a faster rate. These figures call
into question the extent to which the student support packages
are attractive to more mature students. The 2007 figures also
suggest that the failure of over 100,000 applicants to translate
their interest in higher education into acceptances has continued.
The reasons for this requires much more research and could be
a key to increasing access to higher education.
ENROLMENTS
The number of UCAS applications and acceptances are not the
real indicator of success in encouraging participation in higher
education. This can only be judged by the number of actual enrolments.
Enrolments for the 2007 UCAS figures will not be reported until
January 2008. However, the Higher Education Statistics Agency
(HESA) reported (10 January 2008) that the number of first-time
enrolments in English HEIs decreased by 2% in 2006-07, notwithstanding
the increase in numbers in this age group. The UK is therefore
some way from reaching the levels of participation in higher education
achieved by other OECD countries.
|
