Memorandum 37
Submission from the Heads of Department
of Mathematical Sciences
INQUIRY ON FUNDING FOR EQUIVALENT OR LOWER
QUALIFICATIONS
HoDoMS is the body that represents UK departments
of Mathematics and Statistics by co-ordinating senior members
of these departments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The HEFCE proposals would, through its effect
on the funding of part-time education, be likely to stem the improvement
of mathematical knowledge and skills at HE level in the adult
working population of England, running counter to Government policies
on up-skilling the workforce and the Leitch agenda. This in turn
would have a negative impact both on solving the problem of inadequate
mathematics teaching in schools and on the competitiveness of
English business and industry.
We would recommend that HEFCE should fund ELQ
students on all mathematics and statistics HE modules, not just
those on substantially mathematical degrees. We also recommend
that funding of mathematics and statistics as a strategically
important and vulnerable subject is assured beyond 2011.
Moreover the proposed static targeting of allocations
to SIVS would appear to run contrary to the Government's policy
of growing these areas. We thus recommend the proposal that inhibits
growth be removed.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT'S
DECISION TO
PHASE OUT
SUPPORT TO
INSTITUTIONS FOR
STUDENTS STUDYING
ELQS
1. The HEFCE proposals and Secretary of
State John Denham make it clear that the principal effect of ELQ
proposals will be on the provision of part-time education. We
in the mathematical community are concerned that this will have
a detrimental effect on the efforts of those in employment, for
most of whom part-time study alongside their job is the only realistic
study option, to improve their mathematical knowledge and skills,
which have been a continuing and major concern of employers and
government for many years. This is incompatible with the Government's
laudable commitment to up-skilling the workforce and the Leitch
skills agenda.
2. A principal cause of this knowledge and
skill deficit has for some time been recognised as being the shortage
of suitably mathematically qualified schoolteachers. The Government,
through its departments of state and agencies such as the Training
and Development Agency for Schools and HEFCE, has made helpful
attempts to address this problem. For instance: improved financial
incentives to train as a mathematics teacher; establishing the
National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics
(NCETM); and sponsoring the More Maths Graduates project to try
to reverse the serious drop seven years ago in the number of school
pupils studying A Level mathematics (an undesired consequence
of Curriculum 2000). However, these valuable initiatives do not
touch the problem of the inadequate mathematical knowledge of
many generations of adults in the workplace caused by the long-standing
problems with mathematics in schools. And the ELQ proposals will
seriously undermine the efforts of those HE institutions which
have for years had a beneficial effect on rectifying these deficiencies.
3. The HEFCE proposals do to some extent
recognise the special national need for mathematics by suggesting
that ELQ students studying a degree with at least 50% mathematical
content will remain eligible for funding until 2011. We welcome
this, although we would be very concerned if this arrangement
were to lapse in 2011, as compensating for the deficiencies of
the past will take many years to remedy, so that this element
of funding can be built into budgets well beyond 2011. We recommend
that funding of mathematics and statistics as a strategically
important and vulnerable subject is assured beyond 2011.
4. However, even for the period until 2011,
couching the budgetary amelioration in terms of degrees fails
to recognise that a significant number of part-time ELQ students
are not necessarily studying for a whole degree, but are nevertheless
studying sufficient mathematics modules at an appropriate level
to provide major benefits both in the workplace and to society
more widely through their new knowledge and skills. The major
provider of part-time mathematics and statistics higher education
to adults is the Open University, which has around 75% of the
part-time HE mathematics and statistics students in terms of Full
Time Equivalents (approx 3250), with about 12,000 individuals
studying about 15,000 student courses (that is, 30 or 60 CATs
point modules) each year. Around half of these student courses
are being taken by ELQ students. A proportion of these students
do intend to complete a degree (in 6 to 8 years of part-time study)
with a high enough mathematical content to be funded under HEFCE's
proposals. But a greater proportion only want a smaller number
of mathematics and statistics modules, sufficient either for direct
application to their work or to improve their ability to contribute
at work. An important example of this latter group is given by
graduates contemplating a career change or a return to work after
a career break, into mathematics school teaching. For this purpose,
where they are so desperately needed to help solve the problem
of mathematics in schools, they need only study modules up to
HE Level 2 to have the mathematical insights, at a high enough
level beyond the material being taught, to be very effective at
teaching A levels. Likewise, those wanting to teach mathematics
effectively to ages up to16 could reap the required benefit by
studying only one or two modules at HE Level 1, alongside modules
improving their mathematical pedagogy. The effect of the HEFCE
proposals as they stand will be that such students would be unfunded.
We recommend that HEFCE should fund ELQ students on all mathematics
and statistics HE modules, not just those on substantially mathematical
degrees.
5. Whilst adamant that SIVSs need protecting,
we are not convinced that this should be done by means of a targeted
allocation as proposed by HEFCE: " . . . our aim in this
allocation is to protect existing SIVS provision, rather than
incentivise future growth." In particular, for mathematics,
because of the adverse effects Curriculum 2000 (as alluded to
in paragraph 2 above) there will be several cohorts of non-mathematics
graduates who might otherwise have taken mathematics degrees and
who will now be well-placed to do so. For this reason, whilst
the protection of existing SIVS provision is clearly vital, the
use of historical data to fix allocations would appear to run
counter to the Government's desire to improve this area and that
future growth should indeed be incentivised. We recommend that
HEFCE should be more flexible in its funding allocations for ELQ
students in SIVSs, and in particular not limit numbers based on
historical data.
6. For any HE mathematics department, one
course of action to be able to continue teaching such students
would be to increase their fees by a factor of about 4; and it
has long been known how sensitive the part-time sector is to fee
increases even just a bit over inflation, so that fewer adults
(into the 1000s allowing for the large numbers studying at the
OU alone) would then take the opportunity of improving their mathematics.
If fees were not raised, there would be an inevitable substantial
drop in the quality of support to students, which would of course
impact on all students, including those without conventional university
entrance requirements who, in the case of the OU, remain at the
heart of the OU's mission and are the supposed beneficiaries of
the proposed HEFCE funding changes. Both courses of action would
thus damage the mathematical up-skilling of the adult workforce
which is desired by Government and business.
7. It is not at all clear that employers
of ELQ mathematics students would fill the financial breach left
by the withdrawal of funds. If this gap was to be filled by raising
fees, those employers who already help students with course fees
might not feel inclined to pay the higher fees.
8. In summary, the HEFCE proposals would
be likely to stem the improvement of mathematical knowledge and
skills at HE level amongst adults which is a vital national need.
This in turn would have a negative impact both on solving the
problem of inadequate mathematics teaching in schools and on the
competitiveness of English business and industry. This can only
be avoided by HEFCE funding all, including ELQ students, on all
mathematics and statistics HE modules, not just those on substantially
mathematical degrees.
January 2008
| 
