Memorandum 7
Letter from Graham Stringer MP, Member,
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee to the
Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities
and Skills
Following our exchange at the Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills Committee on Wednesday, I agreed that I would
write to you with some examples of where I thought the demand
led nature of both the capital and revenue programmes at the Learning
and Skills Council had led to relatively affluent areas receiving
a disproportionate amount of funding when compared to deprived
inner city areas such as Manchester.
I gave the example of Bournemouth and Poole on £102
million, within Greater Manchester, Aquinas College (a small selective
Catholic college) has received £40 million and Stockport
College has received £20 million with a further £52
million already allocated. This compares starkly with the money
allocated for Manchester College. Other obvious examples are East
Surrey College on £55 million, Hasting College of Arts and
Technology £72 million, Herefordshire College of Technology
£30 million, Hertford Regional College £27 million,
compared to a trivial £23-4 million for Bradford College.
One could go on.
I also mentioned the funding methodology and
Student Learner Number (SLN) applications. Our Government's objectives
are to intervene and engage where there is disadvantage. Why then
does the Learning and Skills Council methodology not support this
aim? Manchester College covering the areas of highest deprivation
within Greater Manchester has received a much lower ratio than
many colleges in Greater Manchester. The Manchester College SLN
ratio is 1.32. Colleges covering much more affluent areas receive
more funding via this formula: Stockport 1.68; Bury 1.48; Cheadle
and Marple 1.65. Other inner city colleges also have similarly
lower SLN ratios ie Newcastle on 1.27 and Sheffield on 1.25.
On top of all this, if I use Manchester College
as an example again, the Government wants it to increase its learner
numbers but its Additional Learning Support (ALS) as a proportion
of overall funding has decreased by 10%. This seems perverse when
a recent inspection found its ALS to be outstanding.
I am copying this letter to Phil Willis and
the Committee Clerk as part of the evidence to our inquiry and
I will do similarly to your reply, which I will look forward to.
May 2009
|
