Memorandum 39
Submission from the Council for the Mathematical
Sciences
The Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS),
comprising the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications,
the London Mathematical Society, the Royal Statistical Society,
the Edinburgh Mathematical Society and the Operational Research
Society, is pleased present its evidence to the Innovation, Universities
and Skills Select Committee Inquiry on Funding for Equivalent
or Lower Qualifications.
The CMS aims to provide an authoritative and
objective body able to speak on the role of the mathematical sciences
in UK higher education, research, business, industry and the public
sector, and to engage with and respond to policy decisions that
affect the mathematical sciences in these areas.
This submission has been prepared on behalf
of the CMS via a working group comprising representatives of the
five mathematical sciences bodies named above and approved by
the Chair, Professor Sir David Wallace.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Phasing out support for ELQ students
would run counter to the Leitch agenda on skills and lifelong
learning policies
— Specifically, we are concerned that
the policy would work against the government's targets for increasing
the number of specialist teachers in strategically important subjects
by introducing disincentives to retraining or upskilling in these
areas
— HEFCE's proposals for protection
for strategically important and vulnerable subjects (SIVS) are
not dynamic, and fail to recognise the significance of encouraging
the study of even a small number of Higher Education mathematics
and statistics modules
— The concept of qualifications being
at an "equivalent level" is not well-defined in relation
to integrated masters courses and free-standing masters qualifications
and could be problematic.
ARGUMENTS FOR
AND AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT'S
DECISION TO
PHASE OUT
SUPPORT TO
INSTITUTIONS FOR
STUDENTS STUDYING
ELQS
1. The need for retraining and upskilling
in mathematical sciences is well recognised—it is vital
to the health of the economy and is a key part of government policy
and the Leitch agenda on skills and "lifelong learning".
2. The need for suitably-qualified mathematics
teachers has also been recognised.[46]
Phasing out support for students studying ELQs works counter to
the government's targets by placing financial barriers between
qualified teachers and opportunities to improve their knowledge
with HE mathematics modules.
3. The most realistic way in which this
upskilling of the workforce can be achieved is by part-time study,
and it is vital therefore that changes to funding do not discourage
this. However, HEFCE's consultation acknowledges that part-time
study will be the hardest hit by the withdrawal of funding for
ELQ students.
4. To quote from a recent White Paper on
Higher Education:[47]
"This is truly an era of lifelong learning. Today's generation
of students will need to return to learning—full-time or
part-time—on more than one occasion across their lifetime
in order to refresh their knowledge, upgrade their skills and
sustain their employability." A review of the funding of
part-time education was promised during the implementation of
this Paper; we would urge that any implementation of such a policy
should be done only alongside such a review.
THE TIMING
OF THE
DECISION AND
OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE CHANGE
5. The implementation of the policy relies
on the ability to determine which qualifications are at an equivalent
"level". It is not clear from the Government's proposal
or HEFCE's consultation paper that a student with an integrated
master's qualification (referred to as MMath below, but including
MPhys, MSci etc) could still receive HEFCE funding for an MSc
course, given that both qualifications would be at the "second
cycle" level in terms of the Bologna Process. It is important
to realise the different purposes that MMath and MSc courses can
serve. Many mathematical MScs act as a "conversion"
for specialism in an area useful for employment—such specialism
would not normally be available on an MMath course. The suggestion
that completing an MMath course would disqualify a student from
funding for a more specialist MSc course would be very unfortunate
and damaging. MSc courses can also serve as training for those
who are returning to the discipline after a period in employment
and who would be using the course as a route to a PhD or another
career.
THE EXEMPTIONS
FROM THE
WITHDRAWAL OF
FUNDING PROPOSED
BY HEFCE
6. HEFCE's proposals include some welcome
protection for the funding of current levels of students classified
as studying a Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subject (SIVS),
but the methods for the "targeted allocation" proposed
are not dynamic and would prevent the UK from responding to changes
in national needs. HEFCE states that the proposals have not been
developed in order to incentivise growth, but it is precisely
the strategically important and vulnerable subjects that need
to be grown beyond current levels—this has been acknowledged
by the Government and HEFCE.
7. The mathematical sciences community is
grateful for HEFCE's support for projects such as more maths grads,[48]
and for the government's recognition of the shortage of suitably
qualified specialist mathematics teachers. It is hard to see any
coherence in policy in trying to encourage more graduates and
promote growth in this strategically important area while simultaneously
removing the funding that would allow more people to improve their
skills or change their career paths appropriately.
8. If the policy is to be implemented, we
would strongly recommend that support for mathematical sciences
is in the form of a complete exemption from the ELQ policy, rather
than via the targeted allocation that HEFCE proposes.
9. We also have serious reservations over
the criterion suggested by HEFCE for deciding which students would
be classified as studying a SIVS, as we believe that the ability
to acquire even relatively small amounts of mathematical sciences
training is of disproportionate benefit and must not be hindered.
10. ELQ students contemplating a career
change into school mathematics teaching or those already teaching
and wishing to enhance their teaching of mathematics will often
derive the relevant knowledge and skills from just a few mathematical
sciences modules, and this needs to be recognised by the policy.
Likewise, many other graduates in employment become better equipped
to contribute effectively within their jobs through study of a
relatively small amount of mathematics, compensating for the shortcomings
of school mathematical education over so many years. The need
to be enrolled on a full degree programme with more than 50% based
in a strategically important subject in order to qualify for the
proposed support indicates that HEFCE has not recognised this.
11. National needs would be best met by
regarding a much greater number of part-time mathematics ELQ students
as exempt (or at least eligible for some degree of support) than
just those studying for a full degree programme with "substantial"
mathematical content. The sums involved would be very small as
a proportion of the total mathematics spend, but would have a
substantial impact on take-up of the opportunities for valuable
retraining and upskilling.
12. "Mathematics" is listed as
a SIVS in Annex C of the HEFCE consultation document. We would
expect HEFCE to interpret "mathematics" in this context
as including pure and applied mathematics, statistics and operational
research (ie the "mathematical sciences") when considering
support for SIVS.
THE IMPACT
UPON STUDENTS,
INCLUDING WHETHER
THE CHANGE
WILL AFFECT
SOME GROUPS
OF STUDENTS
MORE THAN
OTHERS
13. HEFCE's consultation recognises that
the policy will hit part-time learners the hardest, and it is
reasonable to conclude that a substantial proportion of these
will be women wanting to retrain before returning to work after
a career break.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
CHANGE UPON
INSTITUTIONS, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO THE
LONG-TERM
IMPLICATIONS FOR
SPECIALISED INSTITUTIONS
SUCH AS
THE OPEN
UNIVERSITY AND
BIRKBECK COLLEGE
LONDON
14. It seems likely that only near-market
disciplines would be able to attract funding from employers to
support ELQ students, despite what HEFCE suggests. We understand
that take-up of part-time study is very sensitive to price changes,
and that the increases in fees required would dissuade huge numbers
from enrolling. Conversely, if fees are not raised the withdrawal
of funds would undermine the quality of support for all students,
including those entering HE for the first time. Either way the
policy appears to threaten the viability of the major providers
of part-time Higher Education courses.
January 2008
46 For instance, paragraph 7.7 (and elsewhere) in The
Race to the top: A review of Government's science and innovation
policies (Lord Sainsbury of Turville, October 2007). Back
47
The Future of Higher Education (Department for Education
and Skills, 2003). Back
48
See www.hefce.ac.uk/aboutus/sis/stemprojs/moremath.htm and www.moremathsgrads.org.uk
for further information. Back
| 
