Memorandum 17
Submission from the Council for Industry
and Higher Education (CIHE)
WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDING FOR EQUIVALENT OR LOWER
QUALIFICATIONS (ELQs)
ABOUT CIHE
1. The CIHE is a unique high-level partnership
between leaders from businesses, universities and colleges. Our
aim is to foster close working and understanding between business
and higher education. We want world-class learning and research
to improve the international competitiveness of both sectors and
the capabilities of graduates and those already in the workforce.
2. We have undertaken research in the area
of workforce development to examine and determine how best the
recommendations of the Leitch review can be implemented. Our recent
reports include Workforce Development: how much engagement
do employers have with higher education? [25]and
Workforce Development: What works and why? [26].
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. In light of the Government's commitment
to providing education and training to up-skilling the UK workforce
thus becoming "world leaders in skill by 2020"[27]
; the CIHE and its Trustees feel it is imperative to voice concern
at the proposed decision to phase out support for institutions
facilitating ELQ learning. We are thus pleased to make this submission
to the Select Committee on behalf of our Trustees and members:
BACKGROUND
4. In the rush to settle the Comprehensive
Spending Review (CSR) the Treasury had sought offsetting "efficiency"
savings and that DIUS had offered the sought £100 million
in the form of removing institutional funding for students undertaking
ELQs. The Government states that it had taken this decision because
it believes that teaching such students "is not . . . usually
as high a priority for public funding as support for students
who are either entering higher education for the first time, or
progressing to higher qualifications".[28]
OUR RESPONSE
5. We make the following observations:
(a) It is unfortunate that such an important
decision was taken without wide consultation and in such haste.
This can only lead to inconsistencies in policy, unintended consequences
and, in this case, the widespread condemnation of what many consider
to be an ill thought through policy.
(b) It is particularly unfortunate that this
policy appears to fly in the face of the Government's aim to up-skill
the workforce, implement the challenging targets in the report
on skills by Lord Leitch[29]
and encourage greater engagement on continuing professional development
(CPD) between universities, colleges, businesses and individual
learners. The international competitiveness of the UK rests on
the pillars of greater innovation, more higher value adding businesses
and a more highly skilled workforce[30].
The Government needs to have consistent policies to achieve this.
(c) We appreciate that the case for supporting
out of the public purse those who already have a full degree is
less strong than supporting those who have no experience of higher
education. However continued support should be provided to those
who need to top up their award to ensure they have the skills
needed in the workplace. For example, graduates in the creative
industries may need an additional module to help them start a
business while some students may need to augment their IT skills
to get a job. It would not serve the public interest if the ELQ
policy deprived students from adding the capabilities they found
they needed to get a job.
6. We make the following suggestions:
(a) HEFCE should confirm that the exemption
on co-funding applies also to total employer funding of students.
They are proposing to exempt co-funding but should also exempt
individuals who are having their full fees paid by employers.
(b) An additional exemption should be made
for those students undertaking a top-up module such as in business
skills, self-employment or IT where the student can show this
will reinforce their employability skills.
(c) Longer-term safeguards than those proposed
should be made for those institutions such as the Open University,
Birkbeck University of London and some specialist institutions
that will be particularly badly affected by this policy.
We hope this is helpful to the Committee in
reflecting a partnership view from academia and business.
January 2008
25 Workforce Development: how much engagement do
employers have with higher education? Madeleine King, CIHE,
March 2007. ISBN 1 874223 61 0 Back
26
Workforce Development: what works and why? Helen Connor
CIHE, July 2007, ISBN 1 874223 65 3 Back
27
Comments from Lord Leitch, DIUS 18 July 2007 Press Release The
power to change lives: Government publishes new skills ambitions. Back
28
Letter from John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities
and Skills, dated 7 September 2007 Back
29
Leitch Review of Skills: prosperity for all in the global economy;
HM Treasury, 2006 Back
30
See eg Lord Sainsbury, The Race to the Top, HM Treasury, October
2007 and International Competitiveness; businesses working with
UK universities, CIHE, 2006 Back
| 
