Memorandum 116
Submission from Oxford University Department
for Continuing Education
Use of HESA 2005-06 data for calculating level
of grant to be withheld from universities as a result of the ELQ
policy
Executive summary: The use of historical data
by HEFCE to calculate the level of grant to be withheld from universities
as a result of the implementation of the ELQ policy is troubling.
The data was collected and returned by universities for other
purposes and may misrepresent the incidence of ELQ students in
individual university populations. HEFCE should only withhold
grant where ELQ students are present in reality rather than as
a consequence of a coding decision taken for reasons unrelated
to the ELQ policy.
1. There are real concerns about the fitness
for purpose of the HESA 2005-06 data used for calculating the
levels of grant to be withheld from universities as a result of
the implementation of the ELQ policy. Universities collected and
returned data on students and their courses in 2005-06 in good
faith and according to the requirements of the HESA coding manual.
The data was not collected and returned with a view to underpinning
the ELQ policy. Had that been the case universities might well
have interpreted the guidance of the coding manual differently
in some areas and presented the data in a way more focused to
meet the exigencies of the new ELQ policy.
2. Oxford University is aware that something
in excess of £1 million is included within the calculation
of teaching grant to be withheld which, in its judgement, should
not be included. The data returned to HESA for 2005-06, while
appropriate in terms of the requirements of that exercise, misrepresent
the number of ELQ students in that university's population from
the perspective of the new policy. Our student record system for
large enrolment accredited open access lifelong learning short
courses uses a number of default values in fields which, under
the ELQ policy, now become highly significant. This has resulted
in HEFCE inferring higher levels of non-ELQ students in our population
and not picking up on SIVS subjects within the programme. If the
Government intends to introduce this new policy, it should be
applied only where ELQ students exist in reality rather than as
a result of a coding decision taken for reasons unrelated to the
ELQ policy.
3. Accredited short course lifelong learning
programmes with large enrolments are particularly susceptible
to the use of default values in student record systems. The use
of historical data for calculating the level of grant to be withheld
may very well be masking a higher incidence of non-ELQ students
in individual university populations. A similar reason accounts
for why large numbers of students on such lifelong learning programmes
taking, for example, modern languages are not identified as such,
and therefore as SIVS students. Often a generic default value
is given for the programme subject matter.
4. It is to be hoped that HEFCE will investigate
carefully any appeals by universities against its categorisation
of students into ELQ and non-ELQ populations, when this has been
done on the basis of data which was collected and returned for
very different purposes.
January 2008
| 
