Memorandum 95
Submission from the Bloomsbury Colleges
of the University of London
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Bloomsbury Colleges are six specialist
Colleges of the University of London. The Colleges have features
that mean that, as a group, they are particularly adversely affected
by the ELQ proposals.
2. This impact reflects the specialist nature
of the Bloomsbury Colleges, focused on professionally relevant
qualifications and the re-skilling and up-skilling of the London
and UK workforce. As a result, the ELQ proposals will create additional
impediments to the Colleges contributing to the UK's need for
higher level skill development.
3. The Colleges do not believe that the
relative impact of these changes on the UK's overall economic
effectiveness has been adequately evaluated. Given the disproportionate
impact of the proposals on certain types of institution, with
attendant consequences for students, the Colleges believe that
the implementation of the proposals should be deferred pending
a more fundamental review, in the context of the review of tuition
fees as a whole.
This submission is made on behalf of the Bloomsbury
Colleges, University of London by:
Professor Paul Webley. Chair of the Bloomsbury
Colleges and Director and Principal of SOAS.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Bloomsbury Colleges are six specialist
colleges of the University of London based in or around the Bloomsbury
area. They comprise Birkbeck, Institute of Education, London School
of Hygiene and Tropical medicine, Royal Veterinary College, School
of Pharmacy and School of Oriental and African Studies. These
six Colleges are independent university institutions. However,
they work collaboratively together in order to better pursue their
specialist missions.
2. The Bloomsbury Colleges collectively
provide specialist learning experiences for over 30,000 students
annually.
Why are the Bloomsbury Colleges making this submission?
3. The Bloomsbury Colleges are specialist
institutions. Their specialisms are either disciplinary, focusing
on particular subjects or groups of subjects, or related to the
types of students that they serve. The individual Colleges are
either leaders in their disciplinary fields or in the modes of
study that they provide.
4. Analysis of the impact of the introduction
of the ELQ policy indicates that:
— 15 of the 20 institutions experiencing
the largest percentage decrease in income as a result of the policy
are London based institutions. Of the total reduction in funding
for students studying for ELQ's, 31% will fall on London based
institutions; and
— 11 of the 20 institutions experiencing
the largest percentage decrease in income as a result of the policy
are specialist institutions, with four of the six Bloomsbury Colleges
amongst the 20 worst affected;
— The policy will impact disproportionately
on post-graduate provision as opposed to undergraduate provision.
In general, post-graduate taught courses will experience a 13.1%
reduction in funding, compared to a 3.6% reduction for undergraduate
courses, with the impact being most severe on post-graduate part-time
courses.
5. These features of the impact of the ELQ
policy mean that the Bloomsbury Colleges, as specialist, London
based institutions with a high (and in some cases almost exclusively)
post-graduate populations will be disproportionately affected
by the proposals. Consequently, the Bloomsbury Colleges are submitting
this collective submission to the Select Committee enquiry.
Why is the impact on the Bloomsbury Colleges significant?
6. The Bloomsbury Colleges are leading providers
of high-quality professionally relevant courses and qualifications.
Their work is of substantial regional as well as national and
international significance. With strong links supporting the professional
and academic development of key professional groups across healthcare
and education, and in re-skilling part-time learners across a
range of disciplines, the Bloomsbury Colleges play a key role
in developing the skills of London's and the UK's workforce. Some
illustrative examples of these contributions are:
— support for women graduates returning
to the workforce after bringing up families through re-skilling
on a part-time basis on a Birkbeck degree course;
— support for highly qualified scientists
who have made the transition to teaching and wish to develop their
professional understanding though a Masters in Science Education
at the Institute of Education;
— support for healthcare professionals
seeking to develop specialist skills in the control of infectious
diseases through post-graduate study at the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine; or
— late entrants to Pharmacy with other
relevant qualifications, needing to achieve the 4-year undergraduate
Master of Pharmacy degree qualification, followed by one-year's
pre-registration training, in order to secure registration with
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
7. The Bloomsbury Colleges are concerned
that the ELQ proposals will divert resources away from supporting
high-level skills development that is fundamental to the economic
competitiveness of the UK, to lower level qualifications that
will have a less significant impact. The prioritisation of entry
level qualifications over the need for up-skilling and re-skilling
appears to the Bloomsbury Colleges to run counter to the Government's
own skills agenda. The disproportionate impact of the ELQ proposals
on certain institutions (as outlined above) is also likely to
weaken the financial sustainability of the very institutions best
placed, through their strong professional links and specialist
missions, to contribute to the delivery of the skills agenda.
8. In addition to this overarching contradiction
with a key Government priority underpinning the UK's economic
competitiveness, the ELQ proposals also appear to run counter
to a range of other Government policy priorities. For example,
Ministers have as yet declined to confirm that the ELQ policy
will not impact differently on teachers in FE Colleges in comparison
with those in the Schools sector, where certain exemptions have
been announced. If this is the case, then the professional development
of the teaching and lecturing staff that will be instrumental
in delivering the basic skills agenda will be undermined at precisely
the time when Government is seeking to raise standards.
9. Similarly, Pharmacists are recognised
as an area of skills shortage within the UK, appearing on the
UK Skills Shortage Occupations list and with 6.5% of Junior Pharmacists
posts in the NHS vacant. DH and WAG supported research has indicated
that over the next 10 years, the numbers of pharmacists will need
to grow by 5% per annum. However, in order to achieve these growth
targets will require an expansion in non-traditional entry routes
including re-training. The ELQ proposals will impose significant
barriers on those needing re-training to enter Pharmacy and so
create a impediment to achieving the required level of expansion.
10. The specialist missions of the Bloomsbury
Colleges place constraints on their ability to mitigate the impact
of the ELQ proposals. Across Healthcare and Education, employer
co-funding would require additional public funds from other Government
Departments. The Colleges are unaware of any agreements that have
been reached on how employer co-funding, where the employer is
a public body, will operate following the introduction of these
proposals. Other relevant Departments (for example DCSF or DH)
appear not to have been consulted prior to the proposals being
made.
11. Furthermore, the Bloomsbury Colleges
are not well positioned to develop proposals that might respond
to the prioritisation of entry level qualifications over higher-level
skills. For example, as predominantly post-graduate institutions,
neither the Institute of Education nor the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine provide programmes that might contribute
directly to the further widening of participation. If they were
to do so, for example by the Institute of Education developing
a substantial undergraduate offering, this would undermine their
specialist missions, reduce the diversity of the HE sector as
a whole and be unlikely to deliver cost-effective provision for
students.
What do the Bloomsbury Colleges think should happen
now?
12. The Bloomsbury Colleges believe that
the impact of the ELQ proposals on institutions, on the economic
competitiveness of the UK and on the diversity of the HE sector
will be substantial. The proposals will have a disproportionate
impact on institutions that are pursuing specialist missions;
based in London, with its substantial demand for high skill employees
in the Labour market; and focused on high-level or post-graduate
skills development. The Bloomsbury Colleges do not believe that
the impact of the proposals on individuals, institutions and on
the economy as a whole has been subject to sufficient analysis.
13. In this context, the Colleges believe
that the implementation of the proposals from September 2008 would
be premature. Deferring implementation would allow wider consideration
of the implications of the proposals across public policy priorities
and in relation to their impact on UK skills development and economic
competitiveness. It would also enable these proposed changes in
funding arrangements for certain categories of students to be
considered in the context of the wider review of tuition fees
for students as a whole. There appears to be no clear rationale
for moving forward with one aspect of the balance of private and
public funding for HE study in advance of the planned review of
this issue in 2009.
14. The Bloomsbury Colleges therefore recommend
to the Committee that it should advise Government to defer implementation
of the ELQ proposals subject to a more thorough review, in the
context of the overall review of tuition fees.
January 2008
| 
