Memorandum 3

Submission from the Professor David Latchman

Master of Birkbeck College, (University of London)

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1. Birkbeck opposes the withdrawal of ELQ funding on several grounds:

 

2. It will affect the lives of many individuals who wish to re-skill in order to enhance their employability and who will be prevented from doing so. It will particularly discriminate against specific groups who need to re-skill to return to the workforce including women returners, individuals who have been made redundant and individuals who have become disabled.

 

3. It will disproportionately affect the part time sector at a time when this sector is key to the Government's widening participation and employer engagement agendas.

 

4. It has been introduced without consultation with the sector despite its major impact and the fact that it creates for the first time a new class of UK/EU students, who are being treated as non EU overseas students.

 

5. Birkbeck would suggest that the proposal is deferred pending a full review by the 2009 Fees Commission of the fee implications. Such a deferral would allow a review of options, other than the withdrawal of ELQ funding, for releasing funds for redistribution and the need for these redistributed funds.

 

6. If the policy is introduced, Birkbeck would suggest that its effects on individuals should be mitigated by exempting all those returning to study five years or more after their first degree, so as not to penalise individuals who are re-skilling, at a reasonable interval after their first degree.

 

7. Similarly, the effect on the severely hit institutions should be mitigated by allowing them to keep their funding/student numbers but requiring them to report over a period of years on how funding/numbers for ELQ students have been re-oriented in accordance with Government priorities.

 

The Author

 

8. Professor David Latchman became Master of Birkbeck in January 2003. Prior to that he was Dean of the Institute of Child Health, UCL and has published extensively in the field of genetics and molecular biology. He is the elected Chairman of London Higher, which represents London's Universities.

 

Submission from Birkbeck College

 

9. Birkbeck is a world-class research and teaching institution, a vibrant centre of academic excellence and London's only specialist provider of part time evening higher education. Birkbeck is recognised for providing the highest quality teaching that is informed by our outstanding research excellence. This is proven by our leading position each year in the UK's National Student Survey. 19,000 students study with Birkbeck every year and join a community that is as diverse and cosmopolitan as London's population.

This submission is structured around the five points on which the enquiry is focussing:

 

a) The arguments for or against the Government's decision to phase out support to institutions for students studying ELQs

 

The Skills Agenda

 

10. Government argues that the decision will focus support on those who have not yet had the chance of a university education and that it is in accordance with the Leitch agenda of 40% of the workforce having level four qualifications by 2020.

 

11. However, this argument is simplistic, both in terms of the overall skills agenda and the aspirations of individuals to develop their skills so as to enhance their employment prospects. Thus, the skills agenda requires not only up-skilling but also re-skilling so that individuals have the correct combination of skills to contribute effectively in a changing labour market.

 

12. Moreover, the vast majority of ELQ students study part time (71% on a full time equivalent (FTE) basis: UUK figures) whilst working and thereby continuing to contribute to the economy. At Birkbeck, 90% of students combine part time study with day time employment.

 

13. Indeed, at Birkbeck, significant numbers of individuals study part time for ELQs in subjects such as Computer Science/Information Technology, Management, Geology/Earth Sciences and Psychology (see section c below) precisely to enhance their employment prospects either in their current employment or in seeking a new position. These will include women returners who have spent time raising children or with other care responsibilities and whose first degree is inappropriate for their future careers; individuals attempting to re-train to work following redundancy; individuals who have become disabled and 'first generation' HE students who may have been poorly advised as to the appropriateness and utility of their first degree.

 

14. It cannot be in the interests of the economy that such individuals are denied the opportunity to take an ELQ aimed at vocational development. As the Prime Minister said (Greenwich University 31/10/07): "Educational opportunities should be lifelong, permanent and recurrent".

15. In a number of cases, the second ELQ qualifications will complement the first and allow individuals to fulfil a role which requires both qualifications. Thus, for example, students taking Birkbeck's part time accelerated LLB programme, for students who already have an unrelated degree, are frequently intending to combine their law qualification with their initial one to improve their work output. These include housing officers working for local authorities who acquire knowledge of landlord and tenant law, dispute resolution etc, and individuals working in the NHS (for example as nurses or pharmacists) who wish to work as legal claims managers. Similarly, students taking one year part time graduate courses in Economics include those such as Civil Engineers whose jobs increasingly involve economics or finance (e.g. cost benefit analysis) as they progress in their profession.

 

Employer Funding

 

16. The Government solution to these skills needs is that they should be funded by employers. In accordance with this, HEFCE is introducing significant numbers of co-funded places in which employers will pay half the normal HEFCE contribution. Unfortunately, employers are unenthusiastic about these proposals (see Richard Lambert, CBI Director General, UUK Inaugural lecture 11/12/07). This is particularly the case in London where employers report that they can obtain suitably skilled individuals from overseas and question the value to them of funding the training of UK citizens (London Skills and Employment Board: The London Story).

 

17. Critically, the policy assumes that the interests of the employer and the employee are co-incident, which is often not the case. At Birkbeck many students will not tell us who their employer is, since it would be obvious that they intend to leave on completion of their qualification. Indeed, a recent survey of Birkbeck students three years after their graduation, showed that 39% had moved employment compared to 15% in a control group (Jamieson A, Benefits of Study 2007). Overall therefore, it is unlikely that employers will fund the skills needs of large numbers of individuals affected by the ELQ policy

 

Part Time Study

 

18. In his speech at the UUK conference (13/09/07), the Secretary of State, John Denham called for universities to introduce more evening courses to allow mature adults in employment to study part time. Only in this way can the Leitch target be achieved in a situation where 70% of the 2020 workforce has already left full time education.

 

19. Unfortunately, the ELQ proposals will significantly impact on the institutions best able to deliver this agenda and discourage others from enhancing their part time provision. According to UUK figures, 16% of part time students will suffer loss of funding due to the ELQ decision compared to only 1.6% of full time.

 

20. As discussed in section e) (see below) this loss of funding will impair the ability of the part time sector to respond to the Skills agenda, at precisely the time when the importance of this sector has finally been recognised. Moreover, non ELQ students will suffer since some courses may be withdrawn as fee increases put off ELQ students (see section d) below).

 

b) The timing of the decision and implementation of the change

 

21. The change was announced in September 2007 with no prior consultation with the sector. The President of UUK was informed one hour before the announcement and it is unclear whether (or when) a discussion was held at the HEFCE Board. HEFCE then launched a consultation on how (but not whether) the decision should be implemented but it was made clear that £100 million must be saved from ELQ funding. It is intended that the HEFCE Board will decide the final details of the implementation in January so that these can be reflected in the 2008-09 funding letters issued to institutions in March.

 

22. This lack of consultation/speed of implementation is all the more surprising since this decision raises a major issue of principle. This is the first time that UK/EU students on an otherwise fundable university course, will not be funded and will be effectively treated as overseas students. Clearly, this could be applied in many other ways, once the principle is conceded.

 

23. The speed of implementation has had several specific consequences:

 

1) The need to use retrospective (2005-06) data to calculate grant withdrawals. This has the effect of imposing a retrospective fine for recruiting students who were fundable at that time.

2) No discussion of other alternatives for saving £100 million. We understand the HEFCE executive proposed several alternatives to Government and the ELQ option was selected. The others have not been discussed with the sector.

3) No discussion on the merit of the proposals for redistributing the £100 million saving. As the Minister of State said in evidence to the Committee (28/11/07), this is only 0.2% of the overall HE budget and it is unclear why it needs to be redistributed so rapidly. If it is for employer co-funded places (see section a) above) it could be better to expand more slowly, after fuller discussions with employers. If it is intended to release funding to allow 20,000 'hard to reach' students to attend university, then the Secretary of State has repeatedly acknowledged that the great majority of these students will study part time (UUK Conference 13/09/07, House of Commons 08/01/08). Given that this is the case, it is necessary to ensure first that part time students and the institutions which teach them are properly supported so as to facilitate the recruitment of such students.

 

24. Overall, therefore, we believe this proposal should be deferred for further discussion. In view of the implications for student fees of the ELQ decision (see section d) below) we believe it would be appropriate to refer it to the 2009 Commission on Fees.

 

c) Exemptions from the withdrawal of funding proposed by the HEFCE

 

25. In its consultation document, HEFCE has proposed certain exemptions on the basis of subject or employer involvement. If the policy goes ahead (which we believe should not be the case), we would propose an exemption for all individuals returning to study five years or more after their initial qualifications, so as not to penalise those who are re-skilling, at a reasonable interval after taking their first degree.

 

26. Even in terms of the exemptions proposed, these appear to have been drawn up with the £100 million target in mind and so fail to include obvious work-related courses such as Computer Science/IT or Management.

 

27. Moreover, they include a number of anomalies:

 

1) Although Medicine/Veterinary Medicine are exempt, other medically related subjects such as Pharmacy are not. Similarly, Psychology (a major ELQ subject at Birkbeck and nationwide) is not exempted despite its obvious medical relevance. For example the BSc in Psychology at Birkbeck has 32% ELQ students and is approved by the British Psychology Society as a pre-requisite for professional training courses in areas such as Clinical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Educational Psychology. Similarly, postgraduate Psychology courses at Birkbeck have 33% ELQ students and train students for jobs as Family Therapists, Counsellors, and Psychotherapists in the NHS and elsewhere.

2) Similarly, Mathematics is exempted but not Economics even though, as taught at Birkbeck, Economics is highly quantitative and stresses the mathematical, statistical and numeral aspects of the subject.

3) Foundation degrees are exempt from the withdrawal of ELQ. However, it is unclear whether students will continue to be exempt if they progress to a Bachelors degree, even though such a progression route must be in place, before a Foundation degree can be introduced.

 

d) The impact upon students

 

28. As noted above (section a), the proportion of part time ELQ students is ten times that of full time ELQ students. It is highly likely that the fees charged to part time ELQ students will have to rise considerably if HEFCE funding is withdrawn. In 2007-08 undergraduate students will pay fees of £1,248 per annum at Birkbeck and the College will receive on average £2,853 per student through HEFCE teaching funding. If fees were to increase to cover the loss of such funding for ELQ students, they would have to rise to £4,101 per annum, increasing the cost of a four year degree from £4,992 to £16,404.

 

29. The vast majority of ELQ students would not be able to afford increases of anything like this amount. For example, in a UUK survey, 31% of part time students had a gross income of less than £15,499 and 50% reported that, at current fee levels, unaffordable costs were a barrier to full participation in their course of study. (Survey of students' attitudes and experiences of part time study and its costs 2005-06).

 

30. The Minister of State (Letters, Independent newspaper 22/11/07) has argued that fees will not necessarily rise since students can 'shop around for the best deal'. Even if this is the case it could only be achieved by cross subsidy from the fees paid by other part time and full time students reinforcing the case for the ELQ decision to be referred to the 2009 Fees Commission.

 

31. Clearly, if increased fees prevent a significant number of students from studying, this will result in non ELQ students also suffering due to withdrawal of non viable courses. Moreover, even when courses continue, the educational experience for the non ELQ students and their drop out rates will increase, in the absence of the contribution to the class of those with prior university experience.

 

32. Hence, all part time students will suffer from this measure. Overall, part time students are 62% female compared to 54% female full time students. This indicates the important role of the part time sector in assisting women re-entering the work force after bringing up children or caring for other family members.

 

33. Evidently, the part time sector attracts all ages of student, compared to the predominately 18-21 year old full time students. Interestingly, 64% of Birkbeck undergraduates are over 30 and this proportion rises to 73% for ELQ students. The mean age for ELQ students at Birkbeck is 35 and the largest age category is 31-40 (39% of ELQ students). In the UUK Survey of part time students (see above) 46% of students in this age group, indicated that they were studying in order to change jobs, compared to 38% of all part time students. This is evidently an age group who are in mid-career and are the most in need of and will benefit from re-training, yet are unlikely to have the means to pay significant fee increases.

 

e) The impact of the change on institutions

 

34. In view of the disproportionate number of part time compared to full time ELQ students, it is not surprising that the most significant impact of the ELQ funding withdrawal is on the specialist part time institutions: - Birkbeck and the Open University.

 

35. HEFCE have calculated that in 2005-06, Birkbeck had 2,614 FTEs with ELQs, out of a total of 5,867 student FTEs. According to HEFCE proposals, 578 of these are exempt from the funding withdrawal due to the subject studied or because they are doing Foundation degrees. Therefore, 2036 FTEs will be non-fundable, resulting in a withdrawal of £7,866,367 per annum or 38% of our total teaching grant (HEFCE figures).

 

36. Although this will be mitigated by various factors including a small increase in the part time teaching premium/allocation, Birkbeck will still require £4.6 million of safety net funding in 2010-11 to maintain our teaching grant in cash terms. Such safety netting is welcome. However, there is currently no guarantee that this safety netting will continue beyond 2010-11. Moreover, from 2008-09 Birkbeck will not receive normal inflationary uplift to its teaching grant, resulting in a loss of approximately £600,000 per annum, year on year. In addition, the College is likely to lose approximately £900,000 per annum of its HEFCE widening participation funding since this is calculated on the basis of total fundable student numbers and is not apparently safety netted. Hence, Birkbeck will lose £1.5 million per annum in real terms even after safety netting is taken into account.

 

37. The College would therefore face an unsustainable deficit even before the guaranteed safety netting ends in 2010-11. We are very keen to respond to Government desires to enhance widening participation and employer engagement, since they are entirely appropriate to its core mission. However, it is hard to do so with diminishing funding and uncertainty about the future, in a situation where funding deficits would have to be dealt with and any successful initiative would simply reduce the need for safety netting rather than providing any additional funding.

 

38. This problem is compounded by the poor resourcing of the part time sector, which existed even prior to the ELQ decision. Thus, a HEFCE-commissioned review in 2003 (JM Consulting) concluded that the actual costs of part time provision can be up to 44% more on an FTE basis than for full time. However, currently HEFCE pays only a 10% premium for part time students, rising to approximately 13% under the current HEFCE proposals for mitigating the effects of ELQ funding withdrawal.

 

39. Similarly, we are constrained in the fees that can be charged by relatively poor Government support for part time students. No loans are available and fees must be paid up front. In 2006-07, 33% of Birkbeck undergraduate students applied for Government means tested support with their fees. However, such fee support for the poorest students is capped at a level of approximately 50% of the fee level which would be pro-rata to the full time fee. Thus, for a 0.75 FTE course such as Birkbeck's (three year full time degree taken part time in four years) the fee should be £2,250, (i.e. 75% of the £3,000 full time fee) but the maximum fee rebate for the poorest students is £1,150 so our fees have been set at around this figure. Moreover, the amount that can be claimed decreases rapidly as the students' income rises and the thresholds for this decrease are much less generous that for the full time students (Million+ report: Student Finance Regimes, 2007).

 

40. These factors led to the Education and Skills Committee (Eighth Report 2006-07) calling for better support for part time students and the institutions which teach them and for students to be seen as one group with a variety of needs of support rather than being arbitrarily divided into categories of part time and full time.

 

41. The position has now been significantly worsened by the ELQ decision which impacts disproportionately on the part time sector. Paradoxically, this comes at a time when Government has recognised that its widening participation and employer engagement agendas can only be delivered by the part time sector.

 

42. Birkbeck can play a leading role in this agenda. It cannot do so in a situation where its future resourcing is highly uncertain and where any successful student recruitment initiatives, merely reduce the size of safety netting funding required, rather than providing new resources.

 

43. We strongly oppose the ELQ funding withdrawal decision and suggest that it is deferred for consideration by the Fees Commission in 2009. However, if it is implemented we would suggest that to mitigate its effects, the most hard hit institutions should be allowed to keep their funding (with inflationary uplift) and student numbers but should have to demonstrate over a period of years how the funding/numbers have been reoriented away from ELQ students and in accordance with Government priorities.

 

44. This would allow Birkbeck to play a key role in the Government's widening participation and employer engagement agenda without the difficulties and uncertainties that the ELQ funding cuts would introduce.

 

45. We must emphasise however, that such a solution would not help support the career aspirations of ELQ students. Our preferred option therefore remains the deferral of the proposal, to allow a full discussion of other options and consideration of the fee implications by the 2009 Fees Commission.

 

January 2008