3 RESOURCES AND FINANCIAL ISSUES
Introduction
106. In its memorandum to our inquiry the Government
asserted that lack of financial support should "not present
a barrier to students who have the ability and wish to study in
higher education", that there was a "generous package
of support available in the form of grants and loans" and
that "no eligible full-time student has to pay their fees
before or during their studies".[213]
In addition, all students are able to apply for a loan to meet
their full variable tuition fees.[214]
107. The taxpayer via the Government assists students
with the costs of higher education though loans and grants. In
addition, universities in England provide undergraduate student
bursaries. All eligible[215]
full-time students can obtain assistance with tuition fees and
living costs through student loans. Students can take out two
loans per academic year: a student loan for tuition fees, to cover
the cost of tuition fees in full; and a student loan for maintenance,
to assist with accommodation and other living costs, the size
of which depends on household income. Both forms of student loan
have to be paid back but, unlike most conventional debts, repayments
only start when a student has completed the course and earns over
£15,000. In addition to loans, the Government has estimated
that around a third of new students are expected to qualify for
the full Maintenance Grant or Special Support Grant, and around
a further third for a partial grant. Grants do not have to be
repaid. Students may also qualify for extra help on top of student
loans, grants and bursaries if they are disabled, or have a mental
health condition or specific learning difficulty. Moreover, extra
help may also be available if a child or an adult depends on the
student financially.[216]
108. The main sources of financial help for part-time
students are different from those available to full-time students.
Depending on a student's circumstances, he or she may be able
to apply for the part-time Fee Grant and Course Grant. How much
the student will obtain depends on household income and personal
circumstances.[217]
Tuition fees
109. The Higher Education Act 2004 introduced variable
("top-up") tuition fees for higher education institutions
in England. This new regime allowed higher education institutions
to charge tuition fees of any amount up to £3,000 (increasing
annually in line with inflation). At the time this policy was
being debated there was considerable concern that the amount of
debt new graduates would be faced with could dissuade some potential
students from entering higher education altogether. Thus, as part
of the debate, the Government decided to establish the Office
for Fair Access (OFFA) to oversee the introduction of fees with
the intention of ensuring that such dissuasion did not occur.[218]
The term variable has turned out so far to have been something
of a misnomer. As Professor Brown, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool
John Moores University, put it: "everybody topped up so it
is not really a top-up fee, it is the new fee".[219]
(We know of one exception, Leeds Metropolitan University which
from 2006 set its fees at £2,000.[220]
But we note press reports that this policy may be under review
in the face of financial pressures.[221])
110. When he gave evidence to the Committee, John
Denham confirmed that the Government would review higher education
fees and funding in 2009-10, though he did not provide a detailed
timetable.[222] We
have deliberately not set out to review the question of tuition
fees and we make no recommendation as to the level at which variable
tuition fees should be capped or whether they should be abolished.
Tuition fees came up at several points during our inquiry and
we set out below observations which we hope will inform the review
of fees.
111. Most universities in England charge the maximum
fee permitted—in 2008-09 this was for most undergraduate
students £3,145. We asked students about their views on fees.[223]
Though we received anecdotal views that some people may have
been discouraged from applying to university, we note that the
students whom we met or took evidence from were not pressing concerns
that fees set at £3,145 across almost all universities were
deterring full-time students from applying to university. One
student, Edward Nussey, added a word of caution: "When I
applied to university, I have got older brothers and they were
on the old scheme, and the fact that the costs had gone up did
not really come to me that it would be an issue. I just accepted
it and went into education and I think it will only hit home when
I have to pay it off."[224]
112. What we did see was some greater appreciation
of the costs of higher education and focus on the value for money
provided by higher education institutions. For example, in the
e-consultation some students queried whether they were obtaining
value for money for their tuition fees. One said that he could
"not find £3,000 worth of value in my course, and I
have not received that level of learning back" but explained
that "paying the £3000+ fees doesn't really annoy as
the payback system is quite good once graduates have received
a job".[225] As
some students from whom we took evidence had started their studies
under the old fees arrangements they were able to make observations
on the effects of the increase. Adam Hodgson, a student paying
at the old rate, noted that the students in the year below were
paying twice the amount and commented that there was:
absolutely no visible difference as to the kind
of university experience they are getting. They get the same amount
of lectures, they get the same lecturers, they get the same amount
of support, so I would be hesitant to support in any way increasing
those fees because I do not see how that would benefit any student
at all. I have not seen the benefit between the £1,200 fees
to the £3,000 fees.[226]
Others were concerned that fees set following the
review at, say, £6,000 or £7,000 would deter applicants.[227]
113. We detected no evidence that variable tuition
fees at current levels were driving up quality on campus, which
is not surprising given that the fees hardly vary across the higher
education sector and so provide little incentive for students
to look for value for money between institutions. We found some
concerns that applicants might be deterred if the review of fees
led to a steep increase in fees.
114. We noted that some Vice-Chancellors have floated,[228]
and that Universities UK has modelled,[229]
the possibility of substantial increases in tuition fees. We
recommend that in its consultation on the review of fees the Government
seeks to commission and publish independent research to provide
for a detailed and informed debate and consultation on the matter,
in particular into the impact of a higher cap on course quality
and applications. We further recommend that any higher education
institution seeking to increase its fees provide detailed evidence
to support its proposals.
115. Nor—for the same reason as stated above—were
we able to form a view on the effects of variable fees on student
engagement with their studies and higher education institutions.
A student, Gemma Jerome, summarised two possible effects:
I think that there is a connection between students'
engagement in education and the money they are putting into it.
If you work out that you are paying £25 a lecture maybe you
are less likely to miss one. The fact that we do as students—maybe
it is our parents, maybe it is through a bursary or maybe it is
through a grant—pay for our education means that there is
a problem of seeing ourselves as consumers. I know that that can
go either way, negative or positive, and usually somewhere in
the middle. If you see yourself more as a consumer, are you less
likely to play a part in the decision-making process or do you
see it as the duty of your institution to make decisions on your
behalf because you are paying for them to do that?[230]
116. Towards the end of our inquiry the NUS produced
a policy document[231]
about the future funding of higher education, in which they argued
against a system based on fees with deferred repayments, as at
present, and in favour, effectively, of a graduate tax that would
endow a "People's Trust for higher education". We do
not here comment on the merits of the NUS policy, but we do agree
with them that the review of fees should look more widely at the
alternative methods of securing the funds. We recommend the
Government's review of fees look at the alternative methods of
securing the funds needed to sustain a strong higher education
sector and should not be concerned exclusively with the appropriate
level of fees within the current structure.
STUDENT INDEBTEDNESS
117. A key question which the review of fees will
have to address is the level of indebtedness—arising from
loans for fees and living expenses—with which students leave
university. Dr Hood, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford,
considered that insufficient time was spent on the "question
of what is an appropriate level of total indebtedness for a student
who comes through our degree programmes to graduate with? That
is a discussion that very much should be to the fore when the
question of any increase in fees is discussed".[232]
He said that once the level of indebtedness was settled other
issues could become "self-defining" and, for example,
"bursary programmes are going to complement the indebtedness".[233]
(We deal with bursaries below.) In our view the student and
the level of debt he or she could reasonably be expected to incur
has to be a central question for the forthcoming review of fees.
STUDENT INDEBTEDNESS AND FEES IN
THE USA
118. We found that our visit to the USA was educative
on fees and indebtedness. We became more apprehensive after the
visit if the American fee structures and level of student indebtedness
were to become the norm in this country. In the USA annual tuition
fees range from $3,500[234]
to $36,000.[235] With
the addition of living costs at $15,000 per year, a student after
the usual four year course in the USA can therefore graduate with
a debt of over $200,000. Unlike this country, the debt is financed
by loans from the banking sector at market interest rates accruing
from the day the debt is incurred. We were told of four deleterious
consequences:
a) graduating students gravitated towards
professions that offered the largest salaries and therefore speediest
debt reduction—typically the law and, until recently, financial
services;
b) science and professions such as teaching with
lower starting salaries were neglected with the consequence that
places on science courses were often filled by overseas students,
and government had to finance incentives for students to enter
public service, such as debt remission;
c) the banks had become vested interests within
the higher education sector resisting change because in setting
up the system the Federal Government had provided guarantees to
the banks with the consequence that student loans were very profitable
and almost risk free—it was estimated that if banks were
removed from the system of support the Federal Government could
save $100 million; and
d) in the face of the recession some private
universities were dropping what the Americans call "needs
blind" admissions, that is, selection of applicants that
took no account of ability to pay, and that progress in widening
access in these universities could be halted.
119. We should record one other aspect of the US
system. The wide range of fees appeared to lead many students
to start at (the less expensive) community colleges and then after
two years transfer to a state university. Others studied for a
period, left and then came back when they could afford the fees
with the credits they had previously earned to continue their
studies in higher education, so elongating the duration of their
studies.[236] We offer
these observations on the US system to be fed into the debate
on the review of fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE
FEES REVIEW
120. We have not set out to establish whether the
introduction of variable fees in England has acted as a deterrent
to applications to higher education; nor did we seek evidence
on this matter. As we have noted fees have hardly varied as nearly
all higher education institutions have charged the maximum amount
and the number of applications have increased—significantly
in 2009, as we note in paragraphs 12 to 20. We also note that
there has been an attempt to mitigate the effects of the increased
tuition fees by significant support such as grants and loans as
well as the subsidised interest rate on loans. The Government
will, however, as part of the review of fees need to examine whether
changes in the level of fees has a deterrent on applications to
higher education, and in particular on applications from those
from lower socio-economic groups and disadvantaged backgrounds.
We recommend that the Government commission independent research
into the effects of the introduction of variable tuition fees
in 2006 and into further increases in fees on applications to
higher education from those from lower socio-economic groups and
disadvantaged backgrounds. We further recommend that this research
be commissioned and published in time to inform the review of
fees. As part of the review of fees the Government needs to indicate
as part of its vision for higher education over the next 15 years
at what level it wants to see tuition fees reach, if it is to
persist with the current fee regime. If its objective is to raise
the cap on fees significantly towards levels that the market will
determine it needs to explain how it will ensure that the deleterious
effects we saw in the USA are to be avoided.
Bursaries
121. A condition of charging higher fees from 2006
was that higher education institutions should invest a proportion
of their additional fee income in additional access measures,
primarily bursaries, to attract applications from low income and
other under-represented groups.[237]
The minimum level of bursary is the difference between the
maximum state support a student can get (through, for example,
Higher Education Maintenance Grant and Special Support Grant)
and the fee level set by the institution. Thus when variable tuition
fees were introduced, institutions, in most cases, were required
to offer at least £300 bursaries to those in need. Most bursaries
are means-tested on the student's parents' income (unless the
student is over 25) and so most students will not qualify for
any bursary support. Like grants, bursaries do not have to be
repaid. Universities' access agreements do not have to specify
the exact mechanics of how their bursaries will work, but they
have to specify whether it will be in the form of fee remission
or "cash-in-hand" to the student and how eligibility
will be determined.[238]
The thresholds used for eligibility[239]
for, and calculating, bursaries have been increased annually.
The current rates are set out in the box below.
Box 2: Fee and grant rates for 2008-09[240]
Basic tuition fee £1,255 Maximum higher tuition fee payable £3,145
Higher Education Maintenance Grant/Special Support Grant £2,835
|
122. In 2007-08, a typical annual bursary for a student on full
state support at a higher education institution was around £1,000
but the range ran from £305 to £3,100. Of higher education
institutions charging the full fee (£3,145), 84% were offering
bursaries to students above the statutory level for students on
full state support (72% also offered bursaries to students in
partial state support while 11% defined their own threshold levels).[241]
Institutions have used the flexibility to provide a range of bursaries—and
this was confirmed by the universities we visited.[242]
We heard evidence that bursaries had made a considerable difference,
which implied to us that the base level of student support (through
loans and grants) was insufficient to provide adequately for students'
needs. Lucy Davidson, who was studying nursing at Anglia Ruskin,
told us:
there's a lot of girls on my course where if you were to take
the bursary away you would lose all the nurses. We would all walk
because we have children, childcare and petrol to pay for and
my bursary pays my childcare and my petrol […] without it
I couldn't do the course.[243]
123. Other submissions were critical of the present bursary arrangements.[244]
The NUS, for example, said:
we've got a widely variable bursary scheme where in Million+
[group of universities], for example, the average annual bursary
awarded in 2006/7 was just £680; in Russell Group universities
it was £1,790 and the issue is this: you could have one student
at the University of Cambridge with exactly the same financial
needs and experience as someone at the university down the road,
at Anglia Ruskin. One will have an all-singing, all-dancing bursaries
package which will help them out through their hardship at Cambridge
and the other one will have a less generous bursary for Anglia
Ruskin. That is not because Anglia Ruskin is mean-fisted, it is
because they are more successful at widening participation.[245]
Student support, widening participation and fair access
124. We consider that the Government needs to be clear about the
purpose of bursaries and to be able to show the benefit of the
arrangements in terms of public policy. We identified three possible
purposes for public policy in this area: (1) student support and
the alleviation of need; (2) widening participation; and (3) making
access fairer.
125. If the purpose is student support, NUS's criticisms
have identified a weakness with the current arrangements. If bursaries
are regarded as part of the student support arrangements, whose
purpose is primarily to alleviate student need, then it seems
to us anomalous that a student with lesser need, who happens to
attend a university with few poor students, should receive more
by way of support than another with greater need at a different
university. We conclude that the current bursary arrangements
cannot be justified on the grounds of equitably matching student
support with student needs.
126. Similar considerations appear to apply to widening
participation. In an evidence session last year Sir Martin Harris,
Director of Fair Access at OFFA, told us that one of his roles
was to make sure there was "the most generous possible support"
for those from families with low incomes in terms of support both
from the Government and through the bursary systems from individual
universities.[246]
He also explained that when the legislation that became the Higher
Education Act 2004 was under consideration there was a fear that
there would be a substantial reduction in applications from lower
socio-economic groups but that this had not happened. Sir Martin
pointed out that "the proportion of students from the poorer
groups has not fallen".[247]
Although he did not claim that OFFA was wholly responsible, he
said that it was "certainly a contributor".[248]
127. The assessment underlying Sir Martin's view
appears to be that the bursary system has prevented the introduction
of variable fees leading to a significant deterioration in the
proportion of those entering higher education from poorer socio-economic
groups and that bursaries can be used as a tool to widen participation.
We have not, however, in this inquiry carried out a detailed examination
of the effects of the present bursary arrangements on widening
participation, although, in our view, they cannot meet Sir Martin's
call for "the most generous possible support" for those
from families with low incomes, because the amount of support
a student receives does not depend on his or her needs, or the
means of his or her parents, but on which university the student
attends and how many other students from poor backgrounds attend
that university. We conclude that the current bursary arrangements,
which have led to large variations between higher education institutions
in support for students with similar needs, cannot be justified
on the grounds of widening participation in higher education.
128. On fair access, we found no evidence that the
present bursary arrangements have led to more students from poor
backgrounds attending those universities that offer the highest
bursaries (which are the most selective universities and the ones
for whom fair access is an issue). According to the published
performance indicators in 2005-06 (before bursaries were introduced)
20.4% of students at universities in England in the 1994 and Russell
Groups were from the poorer socio-economic groups. In 2006-07
(the first year of the new bursary arrangements) the proportion
had reduced to 20.2%, and in 2007-08 it had continued to reduce
to 20.0%.[249] We note
that Sir Martin Harris said in February 2009 that:
all current evidence suggests that the choice
of whether or not to go into [higher education] at 18, or whether
to choose a particular institution, is not determined primarily
financially, least of all by the precise financial package available
at that point. The money is not what motivates people. Their decisions
are made for other reasons and often very much earlier than at
age 18. Choices are made, largely unconsciously, in families,
among peer groups, and usually in 11-16 schools.[250]
It appears to us that bursaries have not improved
fair access to the most selective universities.
129. We conclude that the present bursary arrangements
do not contribute to the national policies of widening participation
or fair access. Nor are they an instrument to maximise the affordability
of higher education for students from poor backgrounds, which,
in our view, is what student support arrangements should be concerned
with.
Information about bursaries
130. OFFA's Access Agreement Monitoring Report:
Outcomes for 2007-08 showed that 25% of higher education institutions
spent less than 90% of the expenditure that they had predicted
to spend on financial support for lower income students.[251]
We found evidence that students were not aware of bursaries. Steve
Topazio, a former student, told us that he did not know about
the bursaries until his final year "when the NUS told me
they existed and that [our university had under-spent] by a few
hundred thousand pounds, so obviously it wasn't a big issue for
the university".[252]
This point was echoed in the e-consultation where one student
said: "the possible sources of Grants and Bursaries were
never made clear with the exception of from the Armed Forces,
whose bursaries are well publicised. Also, Universities don't
necessarily make 'all' of the costs of a degree known, Books and
Field Trips for example are […] not mentioned".[253]
Another said that bursaries "were something I was less clear
on, and I was somewhat bemused that students in certain faculties
get bursaries at my university whilst others do not".[254]
NUS said that the current bursary arrangements were "complex,
and create difficulties for students in making comparisons between
different packages of financial support on offer at different
institutions."[255]
131. We take the view that it is essential that those
considering applying to higher education are made aware of the
full financial support, including bursaries, that is available
and to be able to have an accurate idea of the costs of attending
university. If, following the review of fees, bursaries remain
to be set by each institution, we conclude that all higher education
institutions must ensure that prospective students are made aware
of the bursaries available and can easily establish eligibility
and calculate an indicative level of bursary and that at least
basic information about a specific institution's approach is provided
as part of its pre-admission documentation provided to applicants.
(Information about bursaries could also be one of the items required
to be included by the code of practice on information for prospective
students—see paragraph 98.)
NATIONAL BURSARY SYSTEM
132. The key issue on bursaries is whether the current
arrangements should be replaced with a national bursary system.
NUS favoured a national bursary system, and it was noteworthy
that the question of a national bursary system was about the only
major issue on which we detected significant disagreement between
the groups representing higher education institutions.
- The 1994 and Russell Groups
opposed a national bursary system which transferred resources
generated from additional fee income by one university to provide
bursaries for students at other institutions. Professor Grant
from the Russell Group challenged the view "that the way
of rectifying the inequality of bursaries was to remove money
from those institutions who were paying higher bursaries and to
transfer it to those institutions who were paying lower bursaries.
In other words, I would need to explain to students coming to
UCL that part of their fee being paid to UCL would be paid to
support education at UCL and part would be paid to support education
elsewhere. Have a national bursary scheme—yes. Do not have
a cross-transfer which runs completely contrary to the whole point
of introducing variable tuition fees."[256]
- Million+ was in favour of a national bursary
system and took a view similar to that of NUS. It told us: "It
is completely preposterous that students get a size of bursary
not depending on their need but depending on which university
they go to. It is as logical as getting a different-sized pension
depending on which post office you go to."[257]
The University Alliance,[258]
GuildHE[259] and the
157 Group[260] also
supported a national bursary system.
133. The Russell and 1994 Groups put to us their
strong belief that all the additional fee income "belongs
to" their member institutions and can only be spent on "their"
students. This is not, in our view, a principle that is either
demonstrable or sustainable.
134. Critics of the present arrangements—the
NUS[261] and the majority
of universities[262]—have
argued for a national bursary. A national bursary scheme would
ensure that students across England would receive the same level
of bursary based on need irrespective of the university they attended
or the number of students from a similar background at the university
they attend. We consider therefore that, in contrast to the current
variable bursary arrangements, a national bursary scheme would
appear to be able to meet the Government's policy objectives of
widening participation and alleviating student hardship. It would
also have the benefit of making eligibility for bursaries more
transparent.
135. When we asked the former Secretary of State,
John Denham, about bursaries, he explained that the idea of the
present bursary scheme was:
to allow institutions to vary the bursary; that
was the whole idea of it when people could experiment with whether
they wanted to attract particular types of students or support
particular types of students, have a heavier weighting in one
area or another. It was the idea of being able to see how a more
varied bursary system would develop that lay behind the original
rejection of a national bursary scheme. My own view is that this
has to be one of the issues that we put into the fees and funding
review later this year because we do need to allow people to assess
what is the evidence. If people have particular types of structures
and they said were going to attract this type of student, has
it actually worked and has it delivered what people wanted.[263]
136. We consider that the former Secretary of State
is right that the question of bursaries and the question of student
support needs to be part of the review of fees and we hope the
review will approach this question from the perspective of student
need, not institutional strategy. We consider that the forthcoming
review of fees should comprehensively examine student need and
support in higher education. We recommend that the Government
include in the terms of reference of the forthcoming review of
fees two key guiding principles. First, student need, rather than
the characteristics of the university that the student attends,
should determine the support that students receive. Second, any
arrangements such as bursary arrangements recommended by the review
must be shown to contribute to the national policies both of widening
participation and fair access. Any arrangements based on these
principles will ensure that student support is available to students
in higher education institutions across the county in an equitable
manner determined according to their need.
137. We consider that it follows from these principles
that those universities with small numbers of poor students should
provide a fair share of their fee income towards the support of
students from poor backgrounds wherever they may be in the higher
education sector. A national bursary based on student need financed
by contributions drawn from all higher education institutions
and allocating bursaries based on need would meet the principles
we set out. We consider that a national bursary scheme should
also enable students to calculate the total level of support they
could expect when making applications to higher education institutions.
We favour a national bursary scheme, which would set a realistic
national minimum bursary for all students across England. We recommend
that the Government draw up and publish as part of the review
of fees, and invite comments on, a national bursary scheme. We
recommend that the indicative scheme set national minimum amounts
for bursaries calculated on the basis of need to which all students
in higher education institutions in England would be eligible
to apply.
138. We have not taken evidence on the detailed operation
of a national bursary scheme. We identified two issues that will
need to be addressed in any examination of a national bursary
scheme during the review of fees: (1) the risk of duplicating
the current arrangements; and (2) the consequences of fees becoming
truly variable.
139. On the first issue, when we put the idea of
a national bursary scheme to the former Secretary of State, he
said that a national scheme would "become indistinguishable
from add-ons to student financial support and it would not be
clear why you were bothering to have two mechanisms delivering
the one outcome".[264]
We consider that he has a point. We acknowledge that a national
bursary system that duplicated the existing student grant arrangements
may not be the best way to proceed. We consider that, if the Government
can show that the principles we have set out above can be effectively
met by another route—for example, by a redistributive mechanism
pooling a percentage of each higher education institution's fee
income and redistributing it as additional grant—then that
may be a more sensible way forward.
140. As we have noted at paragraph 109, until now
nearly all higher education institutions have charged the same
fees and they have not varied. This may, however, change after
the review of fees. If there were to be a significant increase
and differentiation in tuition fees between institutions, the
Government would have to assess, as part of the review of fees,
whether the minimum national bursary should have an addition linked
to the fees charged by an institution and raised directly from
the variable tuition fees charged by the institution. Alternatively,
the Government could require those institutions charging the higher
fees to select students on a "needs blind" basis and
provide to those in receipt of national bursaries additional bursaries
to meet the costs of the higher fees.
If following the review, fees vary significantly,
it is essential that students from poor backgrounds have no financial
disincentive from attending high-fee institutions and we conclude
that the review of fees should ensure that there are arrangements
to provide these students with adequate financial support. Such
arrangements could include an addition above the national minimum
bursary or a top-up bursary provided by the institution charging
the higher fees.
141. Finally, the arrangements we suggest in this
section would not preclude universities—nor should they,
in our view—from providing support to students out of the
fee income that they receive, or from other resources through
bursaries or scholarships.
Part-time and mature students
UKCES 2009 REPORT ON AMBITION 2020:
WORLD CLASS SKILLS AND JOBS FOR THE UK
142. In April 2009 the UK Commission for Employment
and Skills (UKCES) published its assessment of progress towards
making the UK a world leader in skills, employment and productivity
by 2020.[265] The Government's
aim is for the UK to become one of the top eight countries in
the world for skills, jobs and productivity.[266]
The UKCES report cites the Global Competitiveness Report, produced
by the World Economic Forum, which ranks countries according to
a range of measures and on the basis of a "global competitiveness"
index. The Forum currently rates the UK economy as the 12th
most competitive in the world, a fall of three places from the
previous year. The UKCES report noted, on the most relevant measures
contributing to this index, that the UK was ranked 8th
on labour market efficiency and 18th on higher education
and training. The UKCES report points out that the:
"Higher education and training" [measure]
includes a range of eight indicators including secondary and tertiary
enrolment; measures of quality (based on an executive opinion
survey); and staff training. On all bar one, the UK is adjudged
to be at a "competitive disadvantage". Indeed, an "inadequately
educated workforce" is identified in the survey as the fourth
most problematic factor for doing business in the UK.[267]
143. The Government's strategy to make the UK a world
leader in skills, employment and productivity by 2020 rests on
implementing for England the targets in the Leitch Report,[268]
which includes delivering improved higher skill levels by broadening
learning opportunities beyond traditional full-time provision,
improving the interaction between higher education institutions
and employers, and driving up teaching quality and individual
choice.[269]
Other countries
144. During the inquiry it became clear to us that
other countries are not going to remain at the same speed and
allow the UK to overtake them. When we visited the USA in April
2009 we found that changes were underway. President Obama, in
a speech at Georgetown University on 14 April 2009, made it clear
that he wanted to see an education system that "prepares
our workers for a 21st century economy". He explained
that in:
the 20th century, the GI Bill[270]
sent a generation to college, and for decades, we led the world
in education and economic growth. But in this new economy, we
trail the world's leaders in graduation rates and achievement.
That is why we have set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability
to compete for the high-wage, high-tech jobs of the 21st
century: by 2020, America will once more have the highest proportion
of college graduates in the world.
To meet that goal, we have already dramatically
expanded early childhood education. We are investing in innovative
programs that have proven to help schools meet high standards
and close achievement gaps. We are creating new rewards tied to
teacher performance and new pathways for advancement. I have asked
every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher
education or career training, and we have provided tax credits
to make a college education more affordable for every American.[271]
SUPPORT FOR MATURE AND PART-TIME
STUDENTS
145. As we have noted,[272]
part-time students are ineligible for the same level of fee or
maintenance support that full-time students can obtain. The 157
Group pointed out, as already mentioned,[273]
that three-quarters of the funding in 2010-2011 would "go
on full-time 17 to 20-year-olds",[274]
and thus the remaining quarter supports other part-time students
under 21 and part-time and mature students over 21 years of age.
Part-time and mature students have, however, an additional source
of support—employers—but as the 157 Group noted only
"half of employed students in full-time work and therefore
studying part-time are actually supported by the employers, and
then usually only fees—nothing else".[275]
The Group said that it had students saying to its colleges: "'Please
don't tell our employers that we are studying', because that may
not go down very well".[276]
The Birkbeck Students' Union made the point that the part-time
sector needed to be funded on the same basis as the full-time
sector because "part-time institutions require full-time
services, buildings, student support and libraries".[277]
It also condemned the negative impact on both students' opportunities
and universities' admissions policies which the withdrawal of
funding by the Government had caused for those wishing to study
an equivalent or lower qualification (ELQs) to that they had already
obtained. The Students' Union said that in some instances the
problem also affected "students seeking to take a higher
qualification when they are not suitable for admission, or entering
a course which is exempted by the Government and seeking at a
later stage to covertly switch into the ELQ-affected modules".[278]
THE POSITION OF PART-TIME AND MATURE
STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
146. Professor Longden of Liverpool Hope who, with
his colleague Professor Yorke from the University of Lancaster,
had examined the position of part-time students told us that many
of the part-time students he surveyed felt that they were "invisible"
and that they were treated as if they were "full time".[279]
Professor Yorke said that he had been examining:
foundation degrees, where people do quite a lot
of stuff in the workplace as well as in the education institution,
and you begin to get the response from students that as much as
they are getting out of this bonding with others is the strength
they get from working with other people. That helps and sustains
them and helps develop self-esteem, and all the things that go
with that. It does happen, but I think probably the way you go
about the teaching and learning, and the student experience issue,
plays a part in doing that. If you just bring people in and lecture
them and then they go away again, they are not going to have much
chance of making that bonding. If they work in a group kind of
way they are much more likely to make that kind of bonding.[280]
Edward Nussey, a student, echoed Professor Yorke's
findings. He told us that he was involved in sport within the
university and that "mature students and part-time students
who have made commitments toward sport have benefited everyone
in the club, no question, because it just brings a wealth of experience
and knowledge about several areas that help the university."[281]
CHANGES TO ASSIST PART-TIME AND
MATURE STUDENTS
147. Professor Baker from GuildHE considered that
part-time students had a "raw deal because we are still stuck
in a mindset that assumes that the vast majority of students are
full-time and 18 years old.[282]
He said that "life simply is not like that" and he hoped
that the sector could "move away from a division between
full-time and part-time and just call them students who are learning
in different modes."[283]
Professor Craven from the University Alliance said that to "make
it much more flexible for students to be able to complete a course,
sometimes doing what one would call a full-time load and sometimes
not doing a full-time load, is very important. That is something
the fees review […] has to look into, to make that more flexible."[284]
The Birkbeck Students' Union also made the point that flexibility
was important, "particularly with more mature students and
part-time students who are juggling care and responsibilities,
full-time jobs, and also if you are travelling a long distance
onto a campus."[285]
148. Some of the changes underway in higher education
look likely to assist part-time and mature students. Professor
Burgess explained that the Higher Education Achievement Report
(HEAR) (see paragraph 261 and following) would meet "the
requirements of portability and flexibility" and that it
would "suit part-time students because you would be able
to have a running record of what you had achieved. […] I
think in that sense we have looked at something which suits the
contemporary university with the way in which students go along
different routes, full-time, part-time, modular, and so on."[286]
We were also pleased to note that employers had detected more
flexibility in the sector. John Harris from SEMTA said that when
universities were able to deliver learning in a flexible, part-time
way, this was "obviously to the advantage of the employee
and the employer. In fairness to universities, they are responding
to that. There is a big change going on."[287]
149. We were, however, reminded by Professor Roger
Brown that "flexibility always costs more money".[288]
He pointed out, for example, that if universities adopted a credit
accumulation and transfer system, the examination of which we
recommend at paragraph 84, or "if you have more teaching
in the evenings and you have people working at weekends it all
adds up to money and it increases the demands on the universities
and it is not at all clear where that resource will come from."[289]
150. One of the students on the panel, Ricky Chotai,
who came back to give evidence in April raised a concern about
the effect of the review of fees on sandwich degrees. He asked
whether universities would still be charging the full amount or
would they be charging 50% for the one year in a four-year course
in which the student was placed in industry. Speculating on an
annual fee set at £9,000 he said that 50% of £9,000
was £4,500, "which is a lot of money for a year in industry"
when "the wages during that year in industry are pretty much
minimum wage, and taking into account fees as well, it is a deep
consideration for students when they are looking to apply."[290]
CONCLUSIONS ON PART-TIME AND MATURE
STUDENTS
151. We have welcomed John Denham's desire to create
a framework for higher education over the next 10 to 15 years,
and we hope that the Machinery of Government changes do not lead
to a delay in the framework's publication. An essential part of
that framework will be how it contributes to Ambition 2020 and,
in particular, to the provision for part-time students who will
play a critical part in meeting those objectives. The higher education
sector has shown that it can respond to the needs of part-time
students—though as we identify at paragraph 147 and following,
there are systematic problems that it still needs to address—but
that is the first stage of the journey to Ambition 2020. If as
a country we wish to improve the skills, and reskill, a significant
proportion of the adult population we need to start changing the
framework of higher education now.
152. In our view, the case for improving the treatment
of part-time and mature students is compelling. In equity all
students must be treated in the same manner. Any system that does
not achieve this will discriminate against groups—in this
case part-time and mature students—and this is unacceptable.
Nor does it make sense, given the scale of the improvement in
education and skills that the Government wants to see by 2020,
to deny support to part-time and mature students, who have a crucial
part to play in achieving this objective. We recommend that the
forthcoming review of fees examine all aspects of support for
part-time and mature students, including both the direct financial
support to part-time students and the nature of changes required
which will enable the sector to develop greater flexibility to
meet the needs of part-time students. We further recommend that
this assessment set a deadline by which the treatment of, and
support for, undergraduate students becomes broadly similar, irrespective
of whether students study full-time or part-time.
153. We note that there are currently schemes in
existence or being developed to assist groups into higher education
such as those leaving the armed services.[291]
We recommend that the Government review the existing schemes
to assist groups into higher education—such as those leaving
the armed forces—to establish the lessons that could be
applied to assist other groups.
213 Ev 175, para 13 Back
214
Ev 175, para 13 Back
215
Regulations are made annually by the Secretary of State to make
provision for the payment of grants and loans to eligible students
in connection with their undertaking or attendance on designated
higher education courses. For the academic year starting in October
2009 the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2008
(S.I. 2008/1582) as amended by the Education (Student Support)
(Amendment)(No.2) Regulations 2008 (S.I.2008/2094) and the Education
(Student Support) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2008 (S.I.2008/2939)
make provisions and provision is made for the academic year starting
in October 2010 in the Education (Student Support) Regulations
2009 (S.I. 2009/1959). The eligibility criteria include "personal"
criteria-where the prospective student is "ordinarily resident",
whether he or she has taken a higher education course before and
age-and "course and institution eligibility" criteria. Back
216
DIUS, How to get financial help as a student, Get the Facts on
Student Finance, Information about Higher Education, February
2009; supplemented with information from "Student finance:
an introduction" from the directgov website: www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
Back
217
As above Back
218
Higher Education Act 2004, Part 3 Back
219
HC 370-i, Q 47 Back
220
"Leeds Metropolitan University; University guide 2006",
The Sunday Times, 10 September 2006 Back
221
"Leeds Met fees set to rise after v-c resigns", The
Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 January 2009; "Jobs
at risk as Leeds Met faces £7m shortfall", The Times
Higher Education Supplement, 15 May 2009; we note that the
University of Greenwich also set its fees below the maximum permitted:
£2,900 in 2008-09. Back
222
Q 496; see also para 8. Back
223
HC 370-i, Q 136; HC 370-ii, Qq 360-63; Ev 157-58 (Informal meeting
with students at Imperial College London); Ev 160 (Informal meeting
with Liverpool Hope students); Ev 163-64 (Informal meeting with
University of Oxford students) Back
224
HC 370-i, Q 140 Back
225
Ev 170; see also HC 370-iii, Q 416 Back
226
HC 370-i, Q 136 Back
227
HC 370-i, Q136 (Ms Rowley); see also HC 370-ii, Q 360 (Ms Tye);
HC 370-ii, Q 362 (Mr Child). Back
228
"Oxford University losing £8,000 per student",
The Guardian, 27 April 2009; "Top universities say
tuition fee limits are damaging institutions", The Times
Higher Education Supplement, 29 April 2009 Back
229
Universities UK, Changing landscapes: future scenarios for variable
tuition fees, March 2009 Back
230
HC 370-i, Q 136 Back
231
Funding Our Future Blueprint: Summary Report; for an alternative
higher education funding system, NUS, June 2009 Back
232
HC 370-ii, Q 199 Back
233
As above Back
234
For in-state students at a community college Back
235
For example, at Georgetown University and George Washington University Back
236
This Report deals with credit accumulation and transfer and community
colleges at paragraph 81 ff. Back
237
OFFA, Access agreement monitoring Outcomes for 2006-07, January
2008/01, para 3 Back
238
OFFA, Producing Access Agreements: OFFA guidance to institutions,
November 2004/01, para 42 Back
239
See footnote 215 Back
240
OFFA, Annual Report 2007-08, Presented to Parliament pursuant
to schedule 5 sections 7 (3) and 8 (2) of the Higher Education
Act 2004, 2008 p 11 and OFFA, OFFA guidance on reviewing access
agreements following revised income threshold levels for maintenance
grants from 2008-09, 2 August 2007, annex C Back
241
OFFA, Annual Report 2007-08, Presented to Parliament pursuant
to schedule 5 sections 7 (3) and 8 (2) of the Higher Education
Act 2004, 2008, p 11 Back
242
HC 370-i, Q 54; HC 370-ii, Q 196 Back
243
HC 370-ii, Q 269 Back
244
Q 227 (Ms Jerome); Q 270 (Mr Topazio, Mr Raja and Mr Harris);
Ev 167 (E-Consultation); Ev 314 (Million+); Ev 499 (UCU), para
26; see also Ev 511 (NAO), paras 43-45. Back
245
Q 149 Back
246
Oral evidence taken before the Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee on the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) on 2
June 2008, HC (2007-08), 598-i Q 21 Back
247
As above Back
248
Oral evidence taken before the Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee on the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) on 2
June 2008, HC (2007-08) 598-i, Q 4 Back
249
"Table T1b - Participation of under-represented groups in
higher education: Young full-time undergraduate entrants 2005/06",
"Table T1b - Participation of under-represented groups in
higher education: Young full-time undergraduate entrants 2006/07",
"Table T1b - Participation of under-represented groups in
higher education: Young full-time undergraduate entrants 2007/08",
HESA, www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1434&Itemid=141
Back
250
Record of HEPI Seminar at the House of Commons Seminar, Fair
Access Revisited, 24 February 2009 at www.hepi.ac.uk/downloads/Fairaccessrevisited.doc
Back
251
OFFA, Access agreement monitoring Outcomes for 2007-08, March
2009/02 Back
252
Q 270 Back
253
Ev 167 Back
254
As above Back
255
Ev 262, para 14 Back
256
Q 64 Back
257
Q 64 (Professor Ebdon) Back
258
Q 119 (Professor Craven) Back
259
Q 118 Back
260
Q 119 (Ms Bacon) Back
261
Q 149 and Ev 262, para 14-15 Back
262
Q 64 (Professor Ebdon, Million+); Q 118 (Professor Baker, GuildHE);
Q 119 (Professor Craven, University Alliance) Back
263
Q 528 Back
264
As above Back
265
UK Commission for Employment and Skills, The 2009 Report on Ambition
2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK, April 2009 Back
266
UK Commission for Employment and Skills, The 2009 Report on Ambition
2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK, April 2009, p 3 Back
267
UK Commission for Employment and Skills, The 2009 Report on Ambition
2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK, April 2009, para
1.2.2 Back
268
HM Treasury, Leitch review of skills: Prosperity for all in the
global economy-world class skills, Final report, 2006; see also
DIUS, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills
in England, Cm 7181, July 2007, DIUS, Investing in our Future:
Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7392, May 2008; and see para 6. Back
269
UK Commission for Employment and Skills, The 2009 Report on Ambition
2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK, April 2009, para
2.3 Back
270
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act, known as the GI Bill provided
college and vocational education for US soldiers returning from
the Second World War. Back
271
Obama's Remarks on the Economy, New York Times, 14 April
2009 Back
272
At para 108 Back
273
At para 37 Back
274
Q 80 Back
275
Q 117 (Ms Bacon) Back
276
Q 117 (Ms Bacon) Back
277
Ev 217 Back
278
Ev 218, para 11 Back
279
HC 370-i, Q 78 Back
280
HC 370-i, Q 80 Back
281
HC 370-i, Q 142 Back
282
Q 117 (Professor Baker) Back
283
Q 117 (Professor Baker) Back
284
Q 117 (Professor Craven) Back
285
Q 124 Back
286
Q 320 Back
287
HC 370-iii, Q 395 Back
288
Q 394 Back
289
As above Back
290
HC 370-iii, Q 416 (Mr Chotai) Back
291
Ministry of Defence, The Nation's Commitment: Cross-Government
Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans, Cm 7424,
July 2008, para A.8 Back
|
