Appendix: Government response
Introduction
1. The Government welcomes the opportunity to
respond to this report by the Select Committee and has considered
the wide ranging and substantial number of recommendations carefully.
We are pleased that a range of the recommendations of the Committee
refer to action already in train. We are somewhat disappointed
that the Committee has not reflected in its report, the very strong
and positive evidence about the UK higher education sector which
was given during the inquiry. We believe that the picture of our
higher education system which emerged in the report was far less
positive than is in fact the case.
2. The Government agrees with the Committee that
students are and should be at the heart of the higher education
system and that their perspectives are vital in developing and
maintaining a sector which is respected internationally for excellence.
The performance of our universities and colleges, both through
world class research and high quality teaching is crucial in ensuring
that the UK has the intellectually and vocationally equipped people
needed to succeed in a global economy.
3. The Government has provided significant funding
for higher education over the last ten years—an increase
of around 25% in real terms. We have also expanded and diversified
the student population—presiding over an increase of 21%
over this period. The Government is pleased that the Committee
welcomes so many of our recent policies to widen participation.
The proportions of entrants to higher education from low participation
neighbourhoods and state schools have increased, and are now at
their highest ever level. This shows the impact that the Government's
long term investment in widening participation is having. We remain
committed to the expansion of our higher education system and
to raising aspirations and standards in schools and to ensuring
that all young people fulfil their potential. Of course expansion
must be managed carefully in order to retain our position as a
world leader in providing quality higher education.
4. The UK has an internationally excellent higher
education sector with high levels of reported satisfaction both
from students and employers. Government does not directly control
higher education; higher education institutions are autonomous
bodies with individual missions and priorities. Together, the
sector and Government must strive for continuous improvement.
We need to ensure that taxpayers are well-served by their investment
and so we and our agencies are committed to inspiring excellence
and encouraging the UK higher education sector to offer a high
quality experience for all its students.
5. There are a significant number of conclusions
in the Committee's report and we have set out our response in
Part 2. Some responses have been grouped and as the report notes
in paragraph 32 some conclusions and recommendations will be for
consideration by others in the higher education sector. Due to
the devolved responsibility for higher education the Government's
comments refer to England only unless otherwise specified.
Part Two: Conclusions and Recommendations
FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
1. We support the approach of the former Secretary
of State, John Denham, in examining the function and structure
of higher education ahead of reaching decisions on funding. We
regret, however, that the Government did not initiate and complete
the examination of the function and structure of higher education
in time to allow the review of fees to be completed in 2009 and
therefore ensure the matter is fully aired in the run up to the
next General Election. (Paragraph 9)
2. We recommend in responding to this Report
the Government set out a detailed timetable for publishing the
higher education framework. (Paragraph 10)
1. Over the last year the Government has stimulated
a wide ranging debate and discussion about the future of our higher
education sector. We are grateful to have received a number of
learned contributions. Our document setting out the Higher Education
Framework for the next decade will be published this Autumn and
will provide the context for the independent review of tuition
fees which will commence later this year. The Framework will set
the context within which higher education will operate over the
next 10-15 years, one which recognises the challenges of global
competition at the same time as meeting the needs of our society
and developing and maintaining the UK's world class status in
higher education.
FUTURE SCRUTINY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
3. Two areas our successor committee might find
rewarding to examine are: international students and postgraduate
students, including those studying for masters degrees and also
including the terms under which universities require postgraduate
students to teach undergraduates. We have deliberately kept our
focus on the undergraduate. (Paragraph 11)
2. The Government has noted the Committee's recommendation.
The Government has indicated that it intends to undertake a review
of postgraduate policy which will report in June 2010 and will
be happy to report on this activity to the successor Committee.
DEMAND FOR PLACES IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
IN 2009
4. We recommend that in responding to this Report
the Government provide a detailed breakdown of the 4,805 full-time
places (Additional Student Numbers) announced in October 2008,
in particular how 1,800 ASNs were required for year two and three
students. (Paragraph 14)
3. The Government remains committed to ensuring
that all those who can benefit from higher education can do so.
As we look to the future, we need to ensure that any increase
in student numbers is managed in the interests of students, the
economy and the universities themselves. In recent years, there
has been faster growth in the student population than was planned.
Unplanned growth places extra pressures on publicly funded student
support budgets. The balance that we must strike is not allowing
so much unplanned expansion that student support costs to the
public purse exceed expectations.
4. The Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) allocates funds to institutions based on agreed strategic
priorities. This includes taking account of widening participation.
In 2008 HEFCE allocated 9,953 Additional Student Numbers of which
4,805 were full time and 5,148 part time. The full time figure
of 4,805 includes an estimated 3,000 additional first year entrants.
The balance would be used to cover subsequent years of study by
previous years' new entrants and the strategic development and
growth plans of institutions. This approach meant there was a
significant increase in the overall student population this year
due to previous years' entrant growth and numbers will still be
at a historical high. The Secretary of State announced a further
10,000 places for 2009-10 to meet unprecedented demand. Not everyone
who applies for a place in higher education can get one and securing
a place has always been a competitive process, but we can reasonably
predict that around 50,000 more applicants, in 2009/10, will accept
a place than in the academic year 2006/7.
5. We recommend that in making future statements
about the provision of additional places in higher education the
Government provide a breakdown between full-time and part-time
places and state clearly how many of the additional places will
be available for new entrant, first-year undergraduates. (Paragraph
17)
5. The Government rejects this recommendation.
The Government notes the comments on the provision of figures
for new entrants. However, the balance between new full time and
part-time places should not be ordained by Ministers months in
advance of final information about the demand for places from
students. The process for the allocation of Additional Student
Numbers (ASN) needs to allow institutions a degree of flexibility
to respond to the decisions of prospective new entrants. In addition,
and crucially, it needs to respect institutions' autonomy in matters
of recruitment. So, the ASN process has never been simply about
setting a number for new entrant undergraduate places and then
asking institutions to deliver this.
6. Instead, the overall total of full time equivalent
places that will be fully funded is set by the Government usually
through the annual grant letter to HEFCE. It is then for the Funding
Council, working with institutions to determine the precise balance
of places, bearing in mind a number of factors. These include
allowing for growth to cover subsequent years of study by previous
years' new entrants and the strategic development and growth plans
of institutions. Therefore, at the time the Government announces
the number of ASNs for a particular year it cannot be known what
the balance of provision will be, particularly between full and
part time study.
6. We did not have the opportunity to take evidence
on the Government's Written Ministerial Statement made in July
2009. While we welcome a potential increase in student numbers,
these measures do not appear to meet all our concerns and have
the potential to set an unfortunate precedent in that no additional
teaching grant is being made available, particularly for science
subjects where the costs are higher. Moreover, in our view, the
pressure caused by the strong increase in demand for places in
higher education in 2009 may still require the attention of our
successor committee later in the year, after this year's A-level
results are published, and we therefore flag this up as an issue
for our successor committee. (Paragraph 18)
7. We therefore welcome that part of the Written
Ministerial Statement which states that the "Government will
pay the student support costs for extra places in courses"
related to the agenda set out in the policy statement "Building
Britain's Future—New Industry, New Jobs" (20 April
2009) such as science, technology, engineering and maths. We agree
that new places in higher education should meet the strategic
needs of the country for STEM graduates, subject to our concerns
in the previous paragraph. (Paragraph 19)
8. We highlight the provision and education of
STEM graduates as an issue for our successor committee, and also
it may be an issue that we examine as part of our revised remit
of scrutinising science and technology across government. (Paragraph
20)
7. The Government has noted these suggestions
for areas of future scrutiny by the new Committee.
BALANCE OF FUNDING
9. The apparent disparity of funding in favour
of young full-time students raises questions about the justification
of the balance of the allocation of resources in higher education
funding between young full-time, young part-time, mature fulltime
and mature part-time students. The allocation of resources between
these groups and the broader question of a single funding stream
for higher education and further education are matters that our
successor committee with responsibility for both further and higher
education may wish to examine. (Paragraph 37)
8. The Government has noted the Committee's suggestion.
THE USE AND APPLICATION OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
10. We commend the University of Leeds for its
programme of entry for students from disadvantaged backgrounds
and conclude that this should be standard practice across the
sector. In our view this practice will require higher education
institutions to develop programmes for entry, which take account
of contextual factors giving a discount on A-level requirements,
to ensure fair access. (Paragraph 47)
11. We recommend that the Government require higher
education institutions, in receipt of public funds, to take contextual
factors into account and to set out which ones it requires higher
education institutions to take into account. (Paragraph 48)
12. We recommend that, within the next year, the
Government review and report on the extent to which higher education
institutions have adopted the findings of the Schwartz Review
on Admission to Higher Education. The review also needs to examine
the extent to which contextual factors are applied consistently
across the sector. We also recommend that the Government put in
place arrangements to monitor the consequences of the use of contextual
factors on measures such as completion rates. (Paragraph 48)
9. The use of contextual data is not a new issue,
as the report notes. It was discussed in the 2004 Schwartz Higher
Education Review Group report on 'Fair Admissions to Higher
Education: Recommendations for Good Practice'. A review of
the recommendations in the Schwartz report already undertaken
and published in December last year found that over half of higher
education institutions responding thought that an applicant's
educational context should be considered in admissions decision-making.
It is right that universities will want to make sure that they
are attracting people to their courses with the talent and potential
to succeed at the highest levels. Taking into account the full
range of information available to institutions to recruit students
will help them to get the best possible candidates from a wide
range of backgrounds and circumstances with the potential to succeed.
The Secretary of State has already said that there was a strong
case for using contextual information to identify talented young
people (in his speech at Birkbeck College on July 27th 2009).
Government has no power to intervene directly in recruitment procedures.
The way in which each institution chooses whether and how to use
such data about its candidates is for it to determine as an independent,
autonomous organisation but we expect there to be a fair and transparent
recruitment process.
10. SPA, the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions
Programme, has as one of its objectives for the next three years
to work with providers of higher education to develop principles
of good practice in the use of contextual or additional data to
support fair student recruitment and admissions decision-making.
The Higher Education Framework will be the place where the Government
lays out the future path for widening participation and in particular
fair access.
CODE OF PRACTICE ON ADMISSIONS
13. In our view the principle of fair access to
higher education is the paramount principle that must govern admissions
and we have no reservation in stating that it overrides other
standard assumptions of the sector such as institutional autonomy.
In our view it is unacceptable for any part of the higher education
sector to cite higher education institutional autonomy as a reason
to sidestep the requirement to ensure fair access. (Paragraph
49)
11. The Government agrees that the principle
of Fair Access is paramount. The existing Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA) Code of Practice includes a section on admissions - 'Admissions
to Higher Education'.
14. We consider that there is a role for government
working with the higher education sector to agree a set of principles
that apply to the admission process, which should be promulgated
as a code of practice on admissions to higher education across
institutions. We stress that we are not calling for a common admissions
process or for government to specify the actual admissions and
selection rules, but, given the diversity of higher education
institutions, we conclude that the sector should have arrangements
that reduce the elements of randomness and chance in the system
and help ensure students to get a fairer deal. (Paragraph 51)
12. The Government does not believe that this
should be led centrally. It is important to remember that the
Schwartz Review concluded that the admission system was generally
fair. The sector led Delivery Partnership and the Supporting Professionalism
in Admissions programme are already developing good practice to
ensure that admission systems develop and continue to be fair.
This year the Government has already, through HEFCE, asked all
higher education institutions to produce widening participation
strategic assessments containing their policies on fair admissions
and the broad level of resource that institutions commit to widening
participation.
15. We consider that where universities agree
to recognise each other's students—either applicants who
have met their admission criteria, including those who have earned
a discount on the usual entrance requirements, or students who
have earned credits— such an approach could make a significant
contribution to credit transfer and portability for students wishing
or needing to transfer between higher education institutions and
in expanding both participation and diversity in the student body.
We recommend that the Government require those higher education
institutions in receipt of public funds to enter mutual recognition
agreements and for the terms of all agreements to be published.
(Paragraph 52)
13. The higher education sector is already developing
national arrangements for academic credit. The higher education
credit framework for England was issued by the sector in August
2008. Higher education institutions have been asked (not required)
to credit-rate their main provision for the start of the 2009/10
academic year. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), Universities
UK (UUK) and GuildHE are currently surveying the sector to get
a full understanding of the use of credit in higher education
in England, the degree to which arrangements in institutions are
aligned with the national guidance and whether institutions will
be making their credit values publicly available.
14. The Government will continue to encourage
the use of academic credit. But, it will remain a matter for each
institution to decide on admissions to its programmes and in particular
whether a credit rated achievement at another institution is a
suitable qualification to join a programme that it runs. This
is important, not simply because of the autonomy of institutions
but because without the ability to make individual judgments there
is a risk of students entering programmes for which they are unsuited.
15. The Government is also working closely with
a group of research intensive universities to pilot a range of
approaches to target and support the most able, but least likely
students to apply to these universities. The "Realising
Opportunities" project was begun by a group of 11 research
intensive universities. It will inform the development of a nationally
available scheme from 2012. One element to be tested through the
pilot phase is mutual recognition of outreach activities undertaken
with any of the participating institutions. Indeed, many universities
are already working together in this area and the HEFCE report
'Compact Schemes in Higher Education Institutions' (2008/32)
provides details of a wide range of progression agreements across
the sector.
FAIR ACCESS TO UNIVERSITIES IN THE RUSSELL GROUP
AND 1994 GROUP
16. We consider that fair access must be seen
as important by the whole higher education sector, particularly
those higher education institutions that historically have generated
the highest lifetime earnings and most social capital for their
graduates. (Paragraph 56)
WIDENING PARTICIPATION
17. It appears that not only are levels of attainment
between state and independent schools diverging at Level 3 but
also large numbers of able young people are not studying to Level
3, the main entrance gate to benefit from higher education. (Paragraph
61)
18. We recommend that the Government carry out,
before the next Spending Review, a full review of the provision
of education at Level 3, including the Qualifications Framework
and all routes into higher education, to ensure that those who
have the ability to benefit from higher education have the opportunity
to fulfil their potential. (Paragraph 62)
16. There is steady progress in widening participation.
Data shows that between 2002/03 and 2007/08 the gap in participation
in higher education between higher and lower socio-economic classes
narrowed by 7 percentage points, and the proportions of higher
education entrants from low participation neighbourhoods and state
schools are increasing.
17. The 'New Opportunities—Fair Chances
for the Future' White Paper published in January 2009 set
out plans to support a richer and a fairer nation in the upturn.
This includes support for high performing pupils from low income
backgrounds to progress to higher education. The Government will
be considering the implications of the report by the Panel on
Fair Access to the Professions (the Milburn report August 2009)
in this area. The Milburn report adds to a key debate for this
country on social mobility.
18. The Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) have
reviewed (in 2008) what more could be done to remove barriers
to level 3 attainment. Officials at both DCSF and the LSC are
continuing to take forward the detailed recommendations of that
review. The 14-19 qualifications strategy will deliver more streamlined
and simpler qualifications and will ensure that all young people
have access to an attractive and coherent offer of qualifications
that enable them to achieve their full potential. The strategy
will also help employers and universities to better understand
the qualifications that young people have gained, and be confident
that they are equipping them well for further study and the world
of work. We shall review general qualifications in 2013 once we
are able to see how they fit with new options like the Diploma,
to check that they remain fit for purpose.
19. We recommend that the review include an examination
of expanding higher education provided in further education colleges,
to assist those who currently could, but do not, go forward into
higher education. (Paragraph 63)
19. The Government is committed to ensuring that
everyone who can benefit can access higher education. We recognise
that further education colleges are important providers of higher
education courses, and HEFCE supports them to develop this provision.
This work aims to help them build on strengths, develop distinctive
provision, respond to local demand, develop education and training
in higher-level skills, widen participation, and increase the
accessibility of higher education. A study undertaken by Professor
Joy Carter on the progression from vocational and applied learning
to higher education is helping to inform development of Government's
Higher Education Framework. This study emphasises the need to
see higher-level learning as a system, comprising a range of providers
- higher education, further education, private training providers
and employers themselves. Around 10 per cent of undergraduate
entrants are taught in English further education colleges. Over
121,934 higher education students were studying in further education
colleges in England in 2007/08. These students participate in
a wide range of higher education provision including Foundation
degrees and other franchised provision, and some of the further
education colleges are applying for degree awarding powers. Some
45% of part-time, and 63% of full-time, Foundation degree students
between 2001/02 and 2007/08 were taught in further education colleges.
The Government set out its policy on delivery of higher education
in further education colleges in the March 2006 White Paper 'Further
Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances' (Cmd 6476)
and we believe the position set out there remains valid.
BENCHMARKS
20. We conclude that the performance indicators
which the Higher Education Statistics Agency publishes on the
composition of students from under-represented groups in individual
higher education institutions provide a useful focus for the higher
education sector on widening participation and should continue
to be published annually. We consider, however, that benchmarks
should not be used as targets and that failure to meet benchmarks
should not be used to criticise higher education institutions
until they are better developed to discount all confounding factors.
(Paragraph 68)
20. The Government has noted the Committee's
recommendation.
SCHOOLS AND FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES
21. We welcome the outreach to local schools and
colleges that many universities undertake and the growing co-operation
between higher education, schools and further education, which
has the potential to widening participation in higher education.
We encourage all higher education institutions to develop such
partnerships. We recommend that the Government put arrangements
in place to enhance the co-operation between schools, further
education colleges and higher education to facilitate widening
participation in higher education. We recommend therefore that
the Government and HEFCE urgently examine ways in which both higher
education institutions and staff are incentivised to instigate
and carry out outreach initiatives. This might, for example, include
ring-fenced funding of a relatively modest nature to support widening
participation specifically to encourage new outreach initiatives
and to recognise the specific contributions of individual lecturers
and staff at higher education institutions. (Paragraph 73)
21. Effective outreach, involving stronger relationships
between schools, colleges and higher education institutions is
a key plank of our widening participation agenda. From this year
(2009/10) HEFCE will redistribute £30 million within the
main teaching grant to better recognise working intensively with
schools and colleges.
22. In addition, HEFCE will be reviewing widening
participation strategic assessments provided this Summer. These
assessments, which are a condition of institutions' continuing
receipt of the widening participation element of the funding allocation,
will set out details of individual institutions' outreach activity
and form the basis of future bilateral discussions between the
institution and the Funding Council. Institutions will also be
expected to report annually in December on progress with widening
participation, including outreach activity.
23. HEFCE is using research to engage academic
staff in the widening participation (WP) agenda, for example,
through the £2 million invested in a widening participation
strand of the Economic and Social Research Council's (ESRC) Teaching
and Learning Research Programme to support a number of WP research
studies. This approach supports investigation of widening participation
issues as an academically credible research topic which will both
add to the robustness of the evidence base and encourage more
researchers to engage with the agenda. In addition, HEFCE have
introduced the Annual Aimhigher Awards which, while having a strong
focus on learners' involvement, also include awards that recognise
the work of practitioners and individuals who have excelled in
representing the Aimhigher programme and their contribution to
widening participation.
22. We consider that the Government should encourage
higher education institutions to pilot initiatives that have potential
to increase higher education/school co-operation and facilitate
wider participation. (Paragraph 74)
24. Higher education institutions work with schools
in a rich variety of innovative and collaborative ways to enhance
the life-chances of young people, helping them to fulfil their
potential and make the most of higher education and the benefits
it brings. Evidence provided by higher education institutions
to the National Council for Educational Excellence (NCEE) underlined
the extent of current links and partnerships with schools. Universities
UK published a special report describing many of the ways in which
universities work with schools to raise awareness of higher education,
identify the potential in students and improve attainment in schools
Higher education engagement with schools and colleges:
partnership development (Universities
UK May 2009; ISBN 978 1 84036 203 9); www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/HEengagementwithschools.pdf
Separately, a recent assessment by the Government
showed that well over half of the universities in England are
now involved in the Academies programme, and the number continues
to increase. In the Trust Schools programme, two-thirds of 'live'
Trusts have a higher education institution partner and more than
70 universities are working with over 250 schools looking to acquire
trust status.
25. The Committee's recommendation follows a
reference to STEM-related support initiatives they had experienced
during their visit to the USA. In this country, as part of the
Government's wide range of work to engage more young people in
STEM subjects at all levels, we are involving higher education
institutions to support schools through a number of programmes.
This includes the triple science GCSE support programme where
higher education institutions provide facilities and equipment
to support teaching and learning, and host visits by pupils to
nurture aspirations. There is similar institution engagement in
the further mathematics support programme, and institutions are
also being encouraged to get involved in the work of the regional
network of physics A level support centres that will start in
September 2009 and which aim to widen participation in physics,
particularly among girls.
26. There is also the Student Associate Scheme
(SAS)—a key part of the drive to increase the number of
STEM teachers—which enables science and mathematics undergraduates
to spend time in schools supporting teachers and deciding whether
to become teachers themselves. The Training and Development Agency
for Schools have annually increased the numbers of students undertaking
their 3 week placements in schools covering STEM subjects. In
the academic year 2008/09, 4,866 SAS placements related to STEM
subjects—approximately 57% of the total. The numbers in
2006/7 and 2007/8 were 3,620 and 4,241 respectively. A recent
independent survey that reported in May 2009, showed that 64%
of all SAS students go on into teacher training, where retention
rates for this group are generally high. About half of these had
been in STEM placements.
27. HEFCE is also providing funding of £20
million over three years for the National higher education STEM
programme. The programme will build on the activity, experience
and expertise developed within four pilot projects: Chemistry
for our Future, Stimulating Physics, the London Engineering Project
and More Maths Grads. The professional bodies and learned societies
that are already leading these demand-raising projects in schools
will continue to be involved in the national phase of the initiative.
As well as increasing and widening participation in the key STEM
disciplines, the national programme will address the needs of
students and employers through helping to develop more responsive
and flexible STEM curricula and raising the skills of the current
workforce.
28. NCEE recognised however, that now is the
time to be more ambitious in promoting collaboration, and that
is the basis for the seven recommendations they made last year
to extend and strengthen further the links and partnerships between
higher education institutions and schools
National Council for Educational Excellence: Recommendations
(DCSF and DIUS October 2008);
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/ncee/docs/7898-DCSF-NatCouncilEd.pdf.
29. The Government, along with partners and relevant
stakeholders, are working together to implement the NCEE recommendations
and to mobilise the different parts of the education world behind
them. Good progress is being made and we expect in the Autumn
to publish a "one year on" progress report from the
NCEE. This will highlight what has been achieved in key areas
such as starting aspirations-raising work earlier in primary schools;
promoting participation in STEM subjects and modern foreign languages;
and improving information, advice and guidance (IAG) in secondary
schools.
30. The Government will also continue its programme
of transforming IAG by publishing a new Information Advice and
Guidance strategy in the Autumn which will bring together a number
of policies into a coherent strategy that explains what we are
doing to improve support for young people to help them progress.
The strategy will send out strong messages to schools, colleges
and local authorities to improve the quality of IAG as a major
contributor to raising aspirations and supporting our drive towards
Raising the Participation Age. It will be a powerful driver of
progress and expectation and the first substantive policy document
on IAG since 2004.
31. The Government has also rolled out Aimhigher
Associates nationwide, following a pathfinder phase which started
last year. 5,500 Associates—undergraduates mainly from disadvantaged
backgrounds—will be helping 21,000 young people from similar
backgrounds through educational transitions and into higher education.
Schools and universities work together to identify the right young
people, provide training for Associates and school staff and facilitate
the mentoring sessions.
32. In recognition of the additional costs involved
in developing deeper, more structural links with schools, HEFCE
have transferred £30 million into the widening participation
allocation to enable institutions to enhance and develop such
links. HEFCE have also funded 11 projects to evaluate existing
models of engagement between higher education institutions and
schools in terms of the robustness of the relationships and their
effectiveness in achieving the aims and objectives of both partners.
Further funding will be provided for up to three of the existing
projects to enhance and possibly extend current models and seek
to transfer either whole models or elements of them to other institutions.
23. We have not examined in detail in this Report
the relationship between higher education and further education
and this is an issue that our successor committee with responsibility
for further education and higher education may wish to consider.
(Paragraph 75)
33. The Government has noted the Committee's
recommendation.
FOUNDATION DEGREES AND FOUNDATION YEARS
24. In our view, if the community college credit
system model operating in the US were adopted in England, it would
provide much greater flexibility in higher education in this country,
which will be essential to widening participation. We consider
that one route to the introduction of the model is to expand the
provision of higher education in further education colleges. We
conclude that the Government should accelerate the expansion of
higher education provided in further education colleges. (Paragraph
83)
34. The Government agrees that there is an important
role for the provision of higher education within the further
education sector. Our priorities of developing programmes that
reflect higher level skills needs through partnerships with employers
will create further opportunities for colleges. But the balance
of provision between universities and further education colleges,
including the pace of future growth, should be an outcome of student
and employer choice, rather than central planning.
25. When the Government comes to set out its vision
for higher education over the next 10-15 years it is essential
that it explains how students with the required cognitive abilities
but without matching learning skills will be supported and assisted.
The Government needs to set out how it wishes to see the current
foundation degree arrangements evolve—particularly, how
many entrants to higher education it expects to commence with
a foundation year and what financial support they can expect.
We recommend that the Government take immediate steps to introduce
a credit transfer system which will allow credit transfer and
portability between tertiary education institutions in England—that
is, between further and higher and within higher education institutions.
(Paragraph 84)
35. A Foundation Year is a type of bridging course
designed to prepare students for higher education generally. It
can be a specialist programme, as is common in Art and Design
or STEM subject areas for instance. Or it can be a general 'access'
programme designed to enhance study skills and critical analytical
skills that will be needed for degree level study. There is no
necessary connection between Foundation Degrees and Foundation
Years.
36. A Foundation degree (Fd) is an employment-related
higher education qualification located at Level 5 on the Framework
for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), an Honours degree
is Level 6. After completing their Foundation degree some students
go on to study for an Honours Degree but a Foundation degree is
a free standing qualification in its own right, designed with
employers to meet their needs. Fds are delivered by a wide range
of institutions—both universities and further education
colleges.
37. Foundation degree students are entitled to
the same financial student support as all other higher education
students. The annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding
Council for England sets out the aspiration to an Fd participation
rate of 100,000 by 2010. The current number of students is almost
87,000. Both Foundation Degrees and Foundation Years in their
very different ways and at different levels contribute to the
creation of higher education pathways for people from a range
of backgrounds.
38. The Government's response to recommendation
15 confirms that an English higher education credit framework
is in place. Progress is being made in joint work between the
further education and higher education sectors in establishing
a set of overarching principles and shared operational criteria
for a common approach to credit.
26. In our view, a prerequisite for a system of
credit transfer is a national system that validates quality assurance
and the standards of credits earned by students. (Paragraph 85)
39. The Government has noted the Committee's
comment.
COMPLETION OF COURSES
27. We conclude that higher education institutions
should both identify and promote good practice—for example,
by systematically collecting and rigorously scrutinising their
own non-completion data across years and across subjects, carrying
out exit interviews and surveys and by developing further their
student personal advice and support systems. We also recommend
that the Government investigate the reasons why the non-completion
rates of part-time students are higher than those for full time
students and bring forward proposals to reduce the rates. (Paragraph
88)
28. We recommend that the Government, when evaluating
widening participation, examine student progression as well as
numbers. (Paragraph 89)
40. The Government provides significant dedicated
funding to higher education institutions to help them maintain
and improve student retention. In 2009-10 HEFCE is providing £225.4
million directly to higher education institutions to support their
improvement strategies (£171.0 million for full-time students
and £54.4 million for part-time students). We agree that
it is very important that institutions understand how to support
all students to help them complete their courses and make the
most of their time in higher education.
41. Following the NAO and PAC reports, the Performance
Indicators Steering Group convened by HEFCE has been exploring
the issue of retention of part-time students. In April 2009 it
was agreed that HEFCE would work with the Higher Education Statistics
Agency (HESA) to allow publication in 2010 of indicators of part-time
entrants studying at 30% or more of full study. HEFCE and HESA
are making good progress in taking forward this work and an appropriate
part-time retention performance indicator for first-degree activity
should be published in 2010.
29. We conclude that one of the main supports
to securing wider participation is a comprehensive system of pastoral
care and welfare, as well as academic, support for students by
each higher education institution. We recommend that the Government
place a duty of care on higher education institutions to support
their students and require higher education institutions to provide
a comprehensive system of pastoral and welfare support for students
encompassing, for example, pre-admission courses, adjustment programmes,
counselling and mentoring. (Paragraph 90)
42. Higher education institutions provide a range
of student services according to the identified needs of their
student body, including pastoral and counselling support and tailored
support for new incoming students. The Government recognises the
importance of quality support services and their value in helping
students to complete their courses and make the most of their
time in higher education. We will continue to encourage the sector
to review its provision and to learn from sharing best practice
in this area. HEFCE provides specific funding to support student
retention, which is weighted according to the age and prior educational
attainment of each institution's new undergraduates. A new centralised
requirement must involve new reporting and monitoring arrangements
and we consider that this would tend to focus attention on compliance
rather than addressing the broader issues. AMOSSHE (the Association
of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education) also plays
a role in supporting higher education institutions to continue
to improve their student services.
GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION
30. In our view, it is essential that the strategic
needs of the country for STEM graduates are fully taken into account
when the Government sets targets for the expansion of higher education.
The Government must counteract any tendency within the system
propelling young people to study non-STEM subjects which are perceived
to make admission to university easier. As we noted in chapter
1, one step it should take is to ensure that any new places funded
in higher education institutions meet the strategic needs of the
country for STEM graduates. (Paragraph 95)
31. We conclude that currently careers guidance
to those at many secondary schools is inadequate. We consider
that careers guidance needs to start at key stage 3 to advise
young people about their choice of GCSEs as this determines post-16
choice, including entry into higher education. While we are aware
that, following the Government's acceptance of the recommendation
of the Leitch Report changes are planned, we consider that the
Government needs to overhaul, extend and improve the careers guidance
system urgently and to ensure that young people have access to
independent and also to specialist advice from industry and academia,
including students. When the changes have been made, we recommend
that the Government put in place clear procedures for monitoring
the quality of careers guidance in schools and colleges to ensure
that the improvement in quality and reach that is required has
been achieved. (Paragraph 96)
43. The statutory duty to provide careers education
was extended in 2003 to include all young people aged 11-16. In
addition all young people have access, from the age of 13, to
Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) services delivered by their
local authority through Connexions. The Key Stage 2 Pathfinders
that began in September 2009 will explore options for improving
support for young people at an earlier age.
44. The Government intends to publish a new
Information, Advice and Guidance Strategy which will bring together
a number of policies into a coherent strategy that explains what
we are doing to improve support for young people to help them
progress. It will set out our expectations of delivery partners;
outline the support that we are providing to help schools, colleges,
local authorities and others to improve their provision, and explain
the arrangements for holding the different parts of the delivery
system to account.
45. See also the Government's response to recommendation
22.
32. We conclude that it would assist prospective
students if higher education institutions presented in a consistent
format, which facilitates cross-institutional comparisons, the
time a typical undergraduate student could expect to spend in
attending lectures and tutorials, in personal study and, for science
courses, in laboratories during a week. In addition, universities
should indicate the likely size of tutorial groups and the numbers
at lectures and the extent to which students may be taught by
graduate students. We conclude that the higher education sector
should develop a code of practice on information for prospective
students setting out the range, quality and level of information
that higher education institutions should make available to prospective
undergraduate students. (Paragraph 98)
46. The Government agrees that it would be helpful
for prospective students to have access to better information
about student workloads including but not necessarily restricted
to: the type and amount of contact they can expect with staff;
the type and amount of private study they are likely to need to
undertake; and the academic support which will be available from
staff.
47. The Government agrees that information should
also be available about different types of learning, for example
lectures, seminars and tutorials, and the extent to which new
and emerging technologies should be available. The Government
will look to HEFCE to work with the sector to enable such information
to be made available by higher education institutions, or through
central provision of information in initiatives such as the www.unistats.com
site in a robust and comparable way. The information which institutions
provide will, as now, be subject to comment by the Quality Assurance
Agency (QAA). In addition, HEFCE will be commissioning research
into the information needs of prospective students, and other
users of higher education. This will ensure that any changes to
requirements for the provision of information are based in evidence
of student need and in a way they want to receive it.
NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY
33. We commend the introduction of the National
Student Survey and fully support the concept of seeking the views
of students through such a survey. (Paragraph 100)
48. The Government welcomes the Committee's support
for the National Student Survey.
34. We accept that the National Student Survey
is a good starting point but caution against an over-reliance
on it. We conclude that it is essential to safeguard the independence
of the National Student Survey and recommend that the Higher Education
Funding Council for England, which has responsibility for the
Survey, examine ways to bolster the independence of the survey,
including bringing forward arrangements to provide the NUS with
a role in promoting the integrity of the Survey. (Paragraph 101)
49. The Government is confident that the National
Student Survey (NSS) is a robust and independent survey with high
credibility amongst the thousands of students that take part in
it. Over the last five years the numbers of students taking part
have increased from around 170,000 to over 220,000 in 2009, and
the proportion grown to over 60% of final year students. HEFCE
has thorough procedures in place for investigating the very small
number of allegations of improper conduct which have been made,
only one of which resulted in the institution concerned having
to take action.
50. The National Union of Students has taken
a welcome and active role in supporting and promoting the NSS
amongst students, and in helping student unions to understand
and act on the results of the Survey. To this end there are already
funding arrangements in place between HEFCE and the NUS to support
the NUS in its important work in this area.
35. We conclude that league tables are a permanent
fixture and recommend that the Government seek to ensure that
as much information is available as possible from bodies such
as HEFCE and HESA, to make the data they contain meaningful, accurate
and comparable. (Paragraph 104)
51. The Government does not publish league tables
for higher education. It is the producers of league tables who
decide what sources of information to use as a basis for the information
provided. The Government believes it is in the interests of higher
education, students and the public that valid robust and comparable
information about the sector is available. This is why the Government
encouraged the development of the Teaching Quality Information
initiative which has led to a range of information being published
on the Unistats website. This includes data such as National Student
Survey scores, links to Quality Assurance Agency Audit Reports,
requirements for entry qualifications, degree attainment data
and graduate destination data. Unistats enables cross-comparison
of this data across a number of institutions.
36. To assist people applying to higher education
we recommend that the Government seek to expand the National Student
Survey to incorporate factors which play a significant part in
prospective applicants' decisions—for example, the extent
to which institutions encourage students to engage in non-curricula
activities and work experience and offer careers advice. (Paragraph
104)
52. The Government believes the great strength
of the National Student Survey (NSS) is in its focus on teaching
and learning, an area that directly affects all students in higher
education. Increasing the list of questions would raise administrative
costs and we believe has the potential to jeopardise rates of
completion. The Government believes that the questions should
be reviewed over time, but that the overall burden on students
should be kept to a minimum. HEFCE, with the sector, will be undertaking
a review of Teaching Quality Information and the NSS which will
inform its ongoing development and will consider what additional
areas, if any, should be included in the NSS.
37. We recommend that the Government produce a
metric to measure higher education institutions' contribution
to widening participation, use the metric to measure the contribution
made by institutions and publish the results in a form which could
be incorporated into university league tables. (Paragraph 105)
53. The Government rejects this recommendation.
The Government has already asked the Higher Education Funding
Council for England to develop and publish suitable indicators
and benchmarks of performance in the higher education sector.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has published these
on behalf of HEFCE since 2002/03. They include widening participation
indicators measuring the proportion of entrants to each higher
education institution coming from state schools and colleges,
lower socio-economic groups and low participation neighbourhoods.
54. See also paragraph 22 (information about
the introduction of Widening Participation Strategic Assessments).
TUITION FEES AND THE REVIEW OF FEES
38. 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. (Paragraph 110)
39. 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. (Paragraph 111)
40. 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. (Paragraph 113)
41. 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. (Paragraph
114)
42. 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. (Paragraph 116)
43. 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. (Paragraph 117)
44. We recommend that the Government commission
independent research into the effects of the introduction of variable
tuition fees introduced in 2006 and into further increases in
fees on applications to higher education from those from lower
socioeconomic 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. (Paragraph 120)
55. The independent review of fees will look
at the alternative methods of securing the funds needed to sustain
a strong higher education sector and will not be concerned exclusively
with the appropriate level of fees within the current structure.
56. Introducing tuition fees was one of the most
important public sector reforms of the last decade and a major
achievement of this Government. Variable tuition fees have generated
a new, secure income stream worth an extra £1.3 billion a
year for institutions. The final terms of reference for the independent
review will be published in due course but they will be at least
as broad as those given in a Written Ministerial statement by
then Secretary of State, Charles Clarke, in 2004. Those draft
terms of reference went beyond an exclusive focus on the level
of fees and included:
- The provision of bursaries
and other financial support.
- Student support arrangements,
including those for those from the poorest backgrounds as well
as those above the threshold for Government support.
- Choice of institution and course,
mode of study (full time/part time).
- Levels of debt; students' assessment
of the value of higher education, and rates of return from gaining
a degree.
- Whether any improvements should
be made to the graduate contribution scheme and the upper limit
for tuition fees.
- What changes should be made
to the arrangements for student support in order to ensure that
students from the poorest family backgrounds on the most expensive
courses receive support at a level equivalent to the maximum level
of fees.
- Any differential effect on
particular groups; for example, lower socioeconomic groups; men
and women; different ethnic groups; people with disabilities;
people from different regions.
57. The Government intends to commission and
publish independent research covering a broad range of subject
areas to inform the fees review. Data from a range of bodies,
including Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and HEFCE, will be made
available to the independent review.
BURSARIES
45. We conclude that the current bursary arrangements
cannot be justified on the grounds of equitably matching student
support with student needs. (Paragraph 125)
46. 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.
(Paragraph 127)
47. 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 affordability
of higher education for students from poor backgrounds, which
in our view, is what student support arrangements should be concerned
with. (Paragraph 129)
48. 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. (Paragraph 131)
NATIONAL BURSARY SYSTEM
49. 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. (Paragraph 133)
50. 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. (Paragraph 136)
51. 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. (Paragraph 137)
52. 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. (Paragraph 139)
53. 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. (Paragraph 140)
58. It will be for the fees review to examine
the future of bursaries and to make recommendations. The view
that the current system is unduly complex will no doubt be considered
by the review. However, the Government does not support a national
bursary scheme. The needs-based entitlement to financial support
for each student is rightly determined and paid through the state
support system. Financial support to students by universities
through bursaries has always been understood to be in addition
to this.
PART-TIME AND MATURE STUDENTS
54. 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. (Paragraph 152)
59. The Government will not pre-empt the work
of the independent commission by commenting on possible levels
of fees. Whilst a final 'terms of reference' will be published
in due course, the terms of reference will be at least as broad
as those given by Charles Clarke in 2004 (see paragraph 56) and
will therefore cover the recommendations and comments made above.
55. 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. (Paragraph 153)
60. The scheme to assist service leavers into
higher education begins in the next academic year (2009/10). Along
with the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills will be monitoring the operation of the scheme and
Government will want to review it in due course and learn any
lessons it offers.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING AND RESEARCH
56. We consider that the Research Excellence Framework
(REF) should take into account the whole range of indicators of
excellence, including the broader contribution which academics
make. (Paragraph 158)
57. There is one issue that we should highlight
and in responding to this Report we invite the Government to explain
how the REF will take it into account. This is the treatment of
multi-disciplinary collaborative teams between, and within, higher
education institutions. We consider that the REF should ensure
that sufficient weight is given to such collaborative teams and
the effects of such teams are taken into account to ensure that
they are encouraged and developed. This is a matter that our successor
committee may wish to examine. (Paragraph 159)
61. On 23 September 2009 HEFCE published a consultation
document with proposals for the Research Excellence Framework
(REF). The Government expects that the REF will make use of a
range of factors to assess research excellence, impact and the
research environment. Research quality will be assessed by panels
with a broad range of expertise with mechanisms in place to ensure
that all research is assessed by people with the appropriate expertise.
In a change from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), the REF
will for the first time explicitly assess the economic and social
impact of excellent research as a distinct element.
62. It is anticipated that REF will consider
research excellence and impact in relation to units of activity
defined in disciplinary terms, though these may be broader and
fewer in number than in the RAE. Higher education institutions
will identify the researchers whose work is to be assessed and
a number of outputs produced by each of them. These outputs may
however be the outcome of work by an individual or by a team,
which could be cross disciplinary, cross-university or involve
researchers from outside higher education. Where research is produced
by teams that operate across more than one unit or university,
all units with participating researchers would be able to submit
their researchers' outputs.
63. Building on the approach of the RAE, the
Government expects the REF to have effective mechanisms to ensure
that interdisciplinary research is well assessed by people with
the appropriate expertise, including a broader range of expertise
within panels and the ability of panels to refer research between
panels with expertise in different disciplines.
64. The Government expects that units will be
asked to explain how they support inter-disciplinary and collaborative
research under the research environment element. Under the impact
element they will be given credit for impact achieved where interdisciplinary
research contributes to solving real world problems.
58. We recommend that the Government require higher
education institutions in receipt of funds from the taxpayer to
have accounting systems in place that provide a clear audit trail
of the use to which resources provided for teaching and research
are put so that they can be separately and clearly identified.
(Paragraph 160)
65. Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) is
the methodology used by higher education institutions in the UK
to cost their activities. TRAC was first introduced in higher
education institutions in 2000. The TRAC costing methodology takes
institutions' audited accounts as a starting point, but then includes
two adjustments to recognise full economic costs (as opposed to
reported expenditure in the accounts). Institutions then attribute
costs to different activities and relate this to the income received.
The standard categories distinguish between publically funded
teaching, non-publically funded teaching, publically funded research,
non-publically funded research and other sources of income or
costs. Aggregate data for UK higher education institutions are
published by HEFCE and the other UK higher education funding bodies.
HEFCE is able to use this information to confirm that the public
funding received in respect of both teaching and research is fully
utilised to fund public teaching activities and public research
activities.
66. The Government considers that this approach
directly addresses the concerns raised by the Committee without
introducing new reporting burdens on higher education institutions.
As the TRAC methodology continues to evolve, HEFCE will consider
with institutions whether there is further information that could
be made available without imposing undesirable inflexibilities
on the system of higher education funding.
59. Most of the students who responded to our
inquiry saw the connection between teaching and research as positive,
finding the proximity to research stimulating and the quality
of teachers' scholarship enhanced. They also identified some negative
effects such as cancelled classes and unavailability of lecturers.
We conclude that, where research impacts negatively on teaching,
the university authorities should be expected to address the deficiencies.
(Paragraph 170)
67. The Government has noted the Committee's
recommendation to universities.
60. Having examined the material supplied by DIUS
we cannot see that convincing evidence is currently available
to prove the assertion that good-quality research is essential
for good teaching of undergraduates. In our view, the evidence
is at best mixed and there may be different relationships between
research and teaching not just across disciplines within institutions
and even within departments and that across the sector these relationships
may range from mutually supportive to antagonistic. We recommend
that the Government commission and publish independent research
in this area to inform future policy decisions. (Paragraph 172)
68. The additional memorandum which the Government
supplied on 21 May, in response to a request from the Committee,
noted that there have been a number of studies in recent years,
with the balance of the evidence ebbing and flowing. The memorandum,
with input from HEFCE, noted that HEFCE's funding has recognised
the value of connecting teaching and research—and that research
studies have shown that links between the two are not automatic.
It also noted that the Higher Education Academy has produced recent
reports and held events (a) to assist institutions in strategic
development of links between research and teaching and (b) to
help departments and individual academics develop their skills
and curricula to enhance the synergies between research and teaching.
The Government does not consider there would be added value in
its commissioning further, specific independent research on this
subject at this stage.
61. We consider that the extent to which undergraduates
across the higher education sector are expected to carry out research
as part of their programme of study and the extent to which those
teaching and supervising such students need to be actively engaged
in research themselves are both matters that should be addressed
in the research which we recommend that the Government commissions.
The results of this research may require a significant reassessment
of where and how resources are allocated between teaching and
research. (Paragraph 173)
62. We invite the Government in responding to
this Report to comment on the proposition that one of the indicators
of excellence to be taken into account by the Research Excellence
Framework will be the demonstrable effect that research and teaching
have on each other in institutions, and also the broader contribution
which academics submitting to the REF make to pedagogic research
and by implication pedagogic practice. (Paragraph 174)
63. We recommend that the Research Excellence
Framework explicitly recognises and gives credence to research
into pedagogy and the teaching within, and across, disciplines.
(Paragraph 176)
69. HEFCE has started consulting in detail on
the Research Excellence Framework (REF) by publishing the consultation
document on 23 September. The Government expects that excellent
research into pedagogy and teaching will be recognised in the
assessment of the quality of submitted outputs in these fields.
HEFCE will build on the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 approach
to ensuring that pedagogical research is submitted to the appropriate
panels, and is assessed by people with the appropriate expertise
and that all inter-disciplinary outputs are assessed fairly.
70. The REF will explicitly assess the economic
and social impact of excellent research as a distinct element.
The Government expects this will include recognition of impacts
on teaching where high quality pedagogic research informs teaching
practice across a discipline or disciplines. Where teaching improves
research this would contribute to the quality of research outputs
assessed. The research environment element of REF will consider
the contribution the submitting unit is making to training the
next generation of researchers.
64. We consider that the higher education sector
needs to be clearer about the circumstances in which promotion
and progression can be achieved on the basis of pedagogical skills,
scholarship and expertise. We recommend that the Government require
higher education institutions in receipt of public funds to ensure
that they have put in place clear and effective criteria for appointments
and promotions based on teaching. (Paragraph 178)
71. While the Government encourages clarity and
professionalism, higher education institutions are autonomous
institutions. Their criteria for appointments and promotions are
a matter of internal management. However, the Government has encouraged
institutions to reward and recognise teaching in their performance
arrangements and human resource strategies. The Rewarding and
Developing Staff initiative (2001-2006) supported significant
development of human resource management in the sector and included
publication of human resource strategies. All higher education
institutions have now also completed a self-assessment process,
as a requirement to mainstreaming the funding. The Government
will ask HEFCE to work with the sector to ensure institutional
strategies are accessible and include information about appointment
and promotion criteria in relation to recognising and rewarding
skills, scholarship and research in the area of pedagogy.
HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY
65. First, if the Higher Education Academy is
operating effectively and meeting its strategic aims, we consider
that, working with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,
it should be able to play a key role in promoting and enhancing
academic standards and in driving forward the changes we suggest
are needed in this Report. If, however, the Academy is not working
effectively we conclude that it will not be able to play its full
part in promoting and enhancing academic standards in higher education.
(Paragraph 180)
72. The Government agrees that the Higher Education
Academy has a key role to play in promoting and enhancing the
quality of the student learning experience. The Government will
be discussing with HEFCE and with the Academy and their subscribers
in the sector, how its profile and awareness of its significant
role in quality enhancement can be raised, and how the strengths
identified in the review of the Academy can be further developed.
66. We recommend that HEFCE carry out a further
evaluation of the operation and effectiveness of the Higher Education
Academy by the end of the year and publish the evaluation. The
operation and effectiveness of the Academy is an issue that our
successor committee with responsibility for scrutinising higher
education may wish to examine. (Paragraph 181)
73. The Government agrees with the importance
of keeping under review the performance and effectiveness of the
Higher Education Academy. That is why there was a review in 2008
and why there are arrangements in place for monitoring and performance
enhancement. There is a process already underway through which
the Higher Education Academy has identified ways to strengthen
its work in the light of the recommendations in the evaluation
undertaken by Oakleigh, published in January 2008, and the effectiveness
of this work and continuing plans for performance enhancement
will be reported to all the funding councils later this year.
The Government's view is that it would be sensible for this process
to be completed and for HEFCE to consider the outcome before initiating
any further evaluation. It is also important to recognise that
the Higher Education Academy operates across the whole of the
UK.
67. We recommend that, whilst taking account of
the work of the National Student Forum, as a condition of continued
support the Government require the Higher Education Academy to
establish its own student forum for the purpose of accessing directly
the views and experiences of students, particularly in relation
to its own areas of focus. In addition, we recommend that the
Government review the operation and use by higher education institutions
of the Academy's Professional Standards Framework and we recommend
that the Government require the Academy to produce "steering"
statements in relation to academic staff development as a means
for improving the student experience. (Paragraph 183)
74. The National Student Forum helps amplify
the student voice to Government, higher education institutions
and national stakeholders. Paul Ramsden, Chief Executive of the
Higher Education Academy met the National Student Forum last year
as part of the Forum's consideration of teaching and learning
issues. The Government agrees that it is important for the Higher
Education Academy to involve students in its work and it does
indeed involve students at a range of levels; current examples
include involvement in the Academy's governance arrangements and
supporting student networks - such as a 'Centres for Excellence
in Teaching and Learning' student network. There is a potential
risk of duplication—both of overheads and work—if
the Higher Education Academy were to establish its own student
forum. It is for the Academy to consider how best to continue
to develop its engagement with students.
75. The Committee has raised an important issue
about the operation and use of the Professional Standards Framework
and the Government welcomes that the Higher Education Academy
intends to review how the Professional Standards Framework is
being used in the sector, in consultation with UUK and GuildHE.
68. We recommend that the Government require the
Higher Education Academy as a condition for continued support
through HEFCE to develop arrangements to encourage established
academic staff to engage in professional development in relation
to their teaching responsibilities and to set up systems to record
their development. In return for this support from the taxpayer
through the Academy we expect higher education institutions to
press their staff to continue their professional development.
(Paragraph 184)
76. The Government agrees that it is important
that established academic staff are encouraged to engage in professional
development in relation to their teaching responsibilities. One
existing aim of the Higher Education Academy is to lead, support
and inform the professional development and recognition of staff
in higher education. It does that through, for example, its Professional
Recognition Scheme and the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme.
The Government will ask HEFCE to explore, with the Higher Education
Academy, how the support that it offers could be better promoted
to institutions, and will ask HEFCE to explore with the sector
whether institutions' human resource strategies provide adequate
information about their approach to staff professional development.
The Higher Education Academy intends to review how the Professional
Standards Framework is being used in the sector, in consultation
with UUK and GuildHE.
TEACHING QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING
69. We conclude that all staff—new entrants,
current staff and graduate students—in higher education
who teach should be encouraged to obtain a higher education teaching
qualification, which, depending on an individual's role and level
of experience, should be achieved through initial training or
on the basis of continuing professional development. (Paragraph
186)
70. We also recommend that the Government, in
consultation with the higher education sector, including student
representatives, review the use of graduate students in teaching
roles and examine whether additional means of support—such
as the development of mentoring arrangements and contracts of
appointment—are required. (Paragraph 186)
71. We recommend that the Government in consultation
with the higher education sector, including student representatives,
draw-up and agree a strategy to require all university staff engaged
in regular and significant teaching to undertake appropriate training
in pedagogical skills and also to encourage staff across higher
education institutions in England to obtain a professional teaching
qualification. We further recommend that the Government require
higher education institutions as a condition of support from the
taxpayer to have in place programmes to enhance the teaching effectiveness
of all academic staff who have teaching responsibilities. We recommend
that, within its review processes, the QAA monitor and report
on the extent to which institutions are demonstrably meeting this
requirement. (Paragraph 187)
72. We conclude that the Government and the higher
education sector, in consultation with student representatives,
should draw up and implement arrangements applicable across the
sector which allow students to convey concerns about poor teaching
and which ensure that universities take effective remedial action.
We consider that such arrangements once established should be
subject to review by the Quality Assurance Agency to ensure that
they allow students to convey concerns and that remedial action
is taken, where warranted. (Paragraph 190)
77. The Committee's observations and recommendations
about teaching qualifications and training are a helpful contribution
to the Government's deliberations about incentivising and promoting
the importance of high quality teaching in higher education. The
2003 White Paper 'The Future of Higher Education' (Cmd
5735) made a number of recommendations intended to raise the profile
of high quality teaching in higher education, which led amongst
other things to the development of the Professional Standards
Framework (PSF) and increasing the size of the National Teaching
Fellowship Scheme. It also set out the Government's expectation
that all new teaching staff would obtain a qualification which
meets the requirements of the PSF. The Government is aware of
the range of views that were expressed to the Committee about
teaching qualifications and believes it is right that higher education
institutions are responsible for ensuring their staff hold appropriate
qualifications and have opportunities for development and training.
78. The Government will however ask HEFCE to
explore with the sector whether institutions' human resource strategies
provide adequate information about their approach to staff professional
development (including information about initial training). This
would build on existing practice, which is that the Quality Assurance
Agency (QAA) will often comment within the audit process on the
staff development statements included in the self-assessment documents
produced for institutional audit.
79. The involvement of graduate students in teaching
roles varies across the sector and the Government does not consider
that a review of their use would produce benefit. The Government
will however ask the Higher Education Academy to better promote
to higher education institutions the guidance which they can offer
to support graduate students in teaching roles. Institutions should
be providing professional development in teaching for graduate
students, and considering how graduate students who have considerable
teaching roles can be enabled to become Associate Fellows.
80. The Government does not disagree with recommendation
72 but considers that there are sufficient processes in place
for students to convey concerns about poor teaching through, for
example, staff/student consultative committees, student fora,
and the involvement of students in institutional audit (where
review teams will meet students and scrutinise issues directly
relevant to students such as the means by which they can give
feedback on the quality of provision). All universities have their
own internal complaints processes: if those do not satisfy a student's
complaint they can ask the Independent Adjudicator for Higher
Education to consider it.
73. We consider that all academic staff in higher
education engaged in regular and significant teaching should be
able to demonstrate the incorporation of up-to-date scholarship,
research and professional practice into their teaching. (Paragraph
193)
81. The Government agrees with this recommendation
and will ask HEFCE, with the Higher Education Academy and the
sector, to explore with the sector whether institutions' human
resource strategies provide adequate information about their approach
to staff professional development, including continuing development.
QUALITY OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY TEACHERS TO STUDENTS
74. Whilst individual institutions may have developed
effective institutional or course-based guidance, we conclude
that there is a need for a code of practice across the higher
education sector, which builds on the QAA's "Code of practice
for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher
education Section 6: Assessment of students". It is our view
that, whether at the level of module, course, department or institution,
students should be provided with more personalised information
about the intended parameters of their own assessment experience.
It is unacceptable and disheartening for any piece of work whether
good, average or poor to be returned to a student with only a
percentage mark and no comments or with feedback but after such
a long time that the feedback is ineffective. We recommend that
the Government require the Higher Education Academy to draw up,
in consultation with the higher education sector, including representative
students, a code of practice on (i) the timing, (ii) the quantity,
and (iii) the format and content of feedback and require higher
education institutions to demonstrate how they are following the
Code when providing feedback to students in receipt of support
from the taxpayer. (Paragraph 196)
82. The Government agrees that quality, timely
assessment and feedback which meet student expectations are important.
That is why significant amounts of work have been, and are being
carried out across the sector, centrally and within institutions,
not least in response to National Student Survey results on assessment
and feedback. The Higher Education Academy supports higher education
institutions in improving assessment and feedback for example
by producing useful resources, disseminating effective practice
and direct work with students and institutions. The report of
the Quality sub-committee of HEFCE's Teaching, Quality and the
Student Experience Committee, which was established last year
especially to look into the allegations of concerns about quality
and standards in higher education covered in the media, has made
recommendations to ensure that assessment practices continue to
improve. The Quality Assurance Agency's (QAA) report 'Thematic
enquiries into concerns about academic quality and standards in
higher education in England' recommends a review of assessment
practice aimed at improving the robustness and consistency of
assessment and classification practice across and between institutions.
And the QAA is in the process of reviewing the Academic Infrastructure—the
set of reference tools which promote comparability of standards
across the sector—to check whether it remains fit for purpose
or needs to be updated. The section of the QAA Code of Practice
dealing with assessment is one element of the Academic Infrastructure
and so is likely to be evaluated as part of the QAA's review.
STANDARDS
75. We conclude that it is simplistic and unsatisfactory
for higher education institutions to be seen to rely on the fact
that international students continue to apply as evidence that
standards are being maintained. It is absurd and disreputable
to justify academic standards with a market mechanism. (Paragraph
201)
83. It has never been the Government's sole argument
that high levels of demand from international students prove the
quality of our system. Lord Dearing's Commission pointed out very
clearly that the ability of our universities to attract international
students depended in part on their reputation for quality. Whilst
it is also true that institutions point to UK higher education's
reputation for high quality as one of the reasons for its popularity
amongst international students, they do not rely solely on that
as a mark of quality.
76. The question of whether higher education offers
graduates a suitable preparation both lifelong and lifewide in
a changing world (see Paragraph 7) is another matter, which our
successor committee with responsibility for scrutinising higher
education may wish to examine. (Paragraph 203)
84. The Government has noted the Committee's
recommendation.
THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY
77. The public purse supports higher education
to the tune of £15 billion and it is essential those studying
at higher education institutions are awarded degrees that measure
accurately and consistently the intellectual development and skills
that students have achieved. We consider that it is essential
that a body concerns itself with assuring the comparability of
standards both between institutions and over time. (Paragraph
208)
78. In our view, it is matter of some regret—and
a symptom of complacency—that it was only after pressure
from outside the higher education sector, that is, the media,
ministers and us that it appears that the QAA used the "cause
for concern" process to examine more generally institutions'
capacity to assure the academic standards and quality of their
higher education programmes and awards. We consider that the QAA
needs to make up for lost time and develop its expertise in this
area. In addition, we consider that the Government and higher
education institutions must find the resources to support this
endeavour. (Paragraph 216)
79. In our view a body with responsibilities for
standards which has as its primary function promoting UK higher
education would be misconceived and likely to undermine faith
in the quality of higher education. (Paragraph 218)
80. We consider that in not judging "the
standards themselves", the QAA is taking an unduly limited
view of its potential role. (Paragraph 219)
81. We have concluded that, on balance, the QAA,
rather than be abolished, should be reformed and re-established
as a Quality and Standards Agency—possibly by Royal Charter
(which was the arrangement used to set up the former Council for
National Academic Awards)—with the responsibility for maintaining
consistent, national standards in higher education institutions
in England and for monitoring and reporting on standards. We also
recommend that the remit of the new body include—if necessary,
on the basis of statute—a duty to safeguard, and report
on, standards in higher education in England. It should also report
annually on standards to Parliament. We further recommend that,
to ensure its independence, the funding of the Agency's activities
in England be provided through a mechanism requiring half its
funding to be provided by the Higher Education Funding Council
for England and half from levies on higher education institutions
in England. In making these recommendations we are looking to
see a fundamental change in the operation of the QAA and that,
if this cannot be achieved within two years, the QAA/Quality and
Standards Agency should be abolished and an entirely new organisation
be established in its place. (Paragraph 220)
85. The Government's views about the Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) have been made clear - that it does a good
job but needs to take on a more public-facing role and one which
allows any concerns about quality or standards to be investigated
quickly, transparently and robustly. The Government believes that
this can be achieved without the overheads and disruption which
would be caused by formally re-establishing the QAA as a new Quality
and Standards Agency.
86. The public communication role which the then
Secretary of State, the Rt Hon. John Denham MP described for the
future of the QAA in his appearance before the committee is one
which communicates very clearly, both inside and outside higher
education, the range of processes that higher education institutions
and the QAA go through to maintain and enhance quality and standards.
87. The QAA does make a judgement following institutional
audit about an institution's management of the academic standards
of its awards as well as its management of the quality of its
courses. The QAA also has the ability to undertake more in-depth
reviews if audits or other sources such as the Cause for Concern
procedure deem that necessary.
88. The QAA manages the Academic Infrastructure
- the set of reference tools which institutions use for setting
and maintaining both quality and standards (comprising, in England,
the higher education qualifications framework, subject benchmark
statements, programme specifications, and the Code of Practice).
The QAA is reviewing the Academic Infrastructure to make sure
that it, and each of its component parts, remain fit for purpose.
This is an extremely important opportunity to ensure that the
Academic Infrastructure continues to make a significant contribution
to maintaining and enhancing standards as our higher education
system continues to evolve and grow.
89. External examiners make a key contribution
towards comparability of standards across the sector. External
examining arrangements were addressed by the QAA's thematic review
report and further recommendations are included in the report
of the Quality sub-committee of HEFCE's Teaching, Quality and
the Student Experience Committee. The Government welcomes the
thorough review of external examining arrangements which the sector
has announced and will want to be kept fully in touch with its
progress.
90. The Government agrees that the QAA's independence
is important, and it is indeed currently funded both by subscriptions
from institutions and through contracts with the higher education
funding bodies.
91. The current cycle of institutional audit
ends in 2010/11 and the sector will be consulted from the end
of this year on the arrangements which will follow from 2011/12.
This is an opportunity which the higher education sector must
take to ensure that the new quality assurance system, in whatever
form it takes, is accountable, rigorous, transparent, flexible,
responsive and public facing.
VARIATIONS IN DEMANDS MADE OF STUDENTS
82. We conclude that it appears that different
levels of effort are required in different universities to obtain
degrees in similar subjects, which may suggest that different
standards may be being applied. Furthermore, the HEPI studies'
consistent message is that more research is necessary in this
vital area of student contact, and we conclude that those responsible
for standards in higher education (both institutions and the sector
level bodies) should ensure that such research is carried out.
(Paragraph 222)
83. We recommend that the Government investigate
and establish whether students in England spend significantly
less time studying, which includes lectures, contact time with
academic staff and private study, than their counterparts overseas
and that, if this proves to be the case, establish what effect
this has on the standards of degrees awarded by the higher education
sector in England. (Paragraph 224)
92. The Government believes that variable research
has been undertaken in the area of contact and study time in higher
education and asked HEFCE to commission work looking at the evidence
available. The resulting Centre for Higher Education Research
and Information April 2009 report pointed to a weak literature
base in this area. At this stage the Government is not convinced
of the usefulness of further similar research.
93. The Government is confident of the robustness
of the English higher education experience and this is clear in
its outcomes—high student and employer satisfaction. One
of the conclusions of the Centre for Higher Education Research
and Information's April 2009 report 'Diversities in the study
experience of students and in the time devoted to it' was that
"too much should not be attributed to relatively small differences
between countries in hours devoted to study".
94. See also the Government's response to recommendation
32.
ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING QUALITY
84. We conclude that the reformed QAA's new remit
should include the review of, and reporting, on the quality of
teaching in universities and, where shortcomings are identified,
ensuring that they are reported publicly and addressed by the
institution concerned. We also conclude that the QAA should develop
its current policy of giving greater attention to institutions'
policies and procedures in relation to improving quality and that
the QAA should produce more guidance and feedback based on its
institutional reviews. (Paragraph 226)
95. The Government is keen to continue to encourage
and incentivise high quality teaching and learning but does not
believe there is evidence to justify the cost and disruption of
a return to the system of teaching quality assessment. The Government
does, however, believe that under the new quality assurance systems,
to be introduced from 2011/12, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
should be asked to enquire into, and report on issues including
assessment, student support and teaching. QAA's existing practice
is to make public its findings following institutional audit and
to require action plans where needed. QAA also supports institutions
in developing and enhancing the management of their quality and
standards. QAA's 'Outcomes from institutional audit' papers,
for example, are thematic briefings based on analysis of QAA audit
reports, identifying emerging issues and areas of good practice.
INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION
85. We recommend that all higher education institutions
in England have their accreditation to award degrees reviewed
no less often than every 10 years by the reformed QAA. Where the
Agency concludes that all or some of an institution's powers should
be withdrawn, we recommend that the Government draw up and put
in place arrangements which would allow accreditation to award
degrees to be withdrawn or curtailed by the Agency. (Paragraph
229)
96. The Government rejects this recommendation.
The Government understands the thinking that lies behind it. But
a review of powers to award taught degrees is, unavoidably, a
prolonged and intensive process. To require such a process for
all universities would be to create a large new overhead both
for individual institutions and for the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA). The QAA's institutional audits are capable of providing
sufficiently powerful controls over quality, especially when public
funding can be withheld as a result of audit findings. This recommendation
would be a costly and disproportionate response when there are
already sufficiently powerful funding sanctions in place in response
to audit.
86. We recommend that the reformed QAA have powers
to carry out reviews of the quality of, and standards applied
in, the assessment arrangements for an institution's courses,
including, if necessary, its degree awarding powers, in response
to external examiners' or public concerns about the standards
in an institution or at the direction of the Secretary of State.
(Paragraph 230)
97. The Quality Assurance Agency's existing Cause
for Concern procedure can already be instigated by external examiners,
members of the public, and by the Government. HEFCE's recently
published policy (1 September 2009) for addressing unsatisfactory
quality in institutions, will trigger a series of possible steps
which could lead, as a last resort, to HEFCE's withdrawal of funding.
WHISTLE-BLOWERS
87. We see grounds for concluding that the system
for reviewing the concerns of academics about standards needs
to be rebalanced to provide greater protection for those raising
concerns alongside a clear move to independent and external review.
Our initial view is that such a service which provides, for example,
independent arbitration and adjudication might be the responsibility
of a reformed QAA. We also recommend that Government bring forward
legislation to strengthen the whistle-blowing procedures in the
1988 Education Reform Act to provide greater protection to academics.
We are reluctant to go further and to reach firm conclusions without
carrying out a more detailed inquiry into adequacy of the protection
for whistle-blowers within higher education—and this is
an issue that a successor committee with responsibility for scrutinising
higher education may wish to return to—but on the basis
of the evidence from individual academics and the UCU we consider
that there could be a systematic problem here. (Paragraph 235)
88. The case of Mr Cairns, the details of which
we set out in chapter 6 of this Report, reinforces our uneasiness
about the adequacy of the internal systems within higher education
institutions to resolve disputes involving those who raise concerns
about standards. In our view, the ability of an academic to appeal
to an external, independent body would provide a safety-value
for potentially explosive disputes. (Paragraph 236)
98. The Quality Assurance Agency's Cause for
Concern policy provides for 'whistle-blowing' by institutional
staff, provided that claims are accompanied by substantiating
documentary evidence. Institutions typically have their own 'whistle-blowing'
policies and processes. The Government believes that the review
of external examining arrangements announced by the sector should
include independent recourse for External Examiners who have unresolved
concerns about an institution's academic standards.
THE AUTONOMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
89. We recommend that the Government request HEFCE,
the higher education sector and student bodies to draw up, and
seek to agree, a concordat defining those areas over which universities
have autonomy, including a definition of academic freedom and,
on the other side, those areas where the Government, acting on
behalf of the taxpayer, can reasonably and legitimately lay down
requirements or intervene. (Paragraph 242)
99. The Government rejects this recommendation.
We are satisfied with the definition of roles and responsibilities
between the Government, the Funding Council and individual institutions.
It is consistent with that autonomy that Government sets out certain
conditions for the public funding that universities receive and
in those other areas where there is a national interest (including
quality) where there should be proportionate regulation.
DEGREE CLASSIFICATION
90. We recommend that the Higher Education Funding
Council for England commission a study to examine the influences
upon the classification of honours degrees since 1994 and that
this be undertaken in a representative range of subject disciplines.
(Paragraph 251)
91. We consider that so long as there is a classification
system it is essential that it should categorise all degrees against
a consistent set of standards across all higher education institutions
in England. (Paragraph 256)
92. We conclude that a key task of a reformed
QAA, in consultation with higher education institutions and Government,
should be to define the characteristics of each class of honours
degree and to ensure that the standards which each university
draws up and applies are derived from these classification standards.
(Paragraph 256)
100. The Government is not clear that further
studies or work on the degree classification system would be appropriate
or cost-effective at this time. The sector groups chaired by Professor
Burgess have carried out a number of studies associated with degree
classification, informed by which, the sector is currently piloting
the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) which will provide
a more detailed academic record for students alongside their overall
degree classification. The Government will consider the need for
any further study or work to support the degree classification
system once the outcome of the pilot is known.
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
93. We recommend that the Government require those
higher education institutions in receipt of support from the taxpayer
to publish the details of the methodological assumptions underpinning
assessments for all degrees. (Paragraph 260)
94. We conclude that the QAA should review the
methodological assumptions underpinning assessments for degrees
to ensure that they meet acceptable statistical practice. (Paragraph
260)
101. One of the precepts of the Quality Assurance
Agency's (QAA) 'Code of Practice for the assurance of academic
quality and standards in higher education' (Section 6 - Assessment
of students) is that institutions publicise and implement principles
and procedures for, and processes of, assessment that are explicit,
valid and reliable. In institutional audit the QAA looks at use
of the Academic Infrastructure, of which the Code of Practice
is a part.
RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT
95. We conclude that the HEAR and the current
honours degree classification system should run in parallel for
at least five years. (Paragraph 264)
96. We conclude that the Higher Education Achievement
Report (HEAR) should record academic achievement and reflect significant
non-academic achievement. The record will, however, need to be
carefully structured to enable a convenient reading of academic
achievement separate from other activity. Furthermore, we consider
that, as part of the review of the HEAR pilot, various good practice
models incorporating the range of academic and non-academic elements,
should be provided to enable those who will use the HEAR—for
example, employers, those providing training and students themselves—to
gain ready access to the information required. (Paragraph 266)
102. The Government agrees that the Higher Education
Achievement Report (HEAR) and the current degree classification
system should initially run in parallel, and that is the intention.
The length of time will be subject to the outcome of the pilot.
103. The sector group overseeing the development
of the HEAR is considering whether non-academic achievements could
be incorporated. The Government's view is that the primary purpose
of the HEAR must continue to be to record academic achievement
while developing the record of some new non-academic achievements
which have the support of employers and students.
EXTERNAL EXAMINERS
97. The starting point for the repair of the external
examiner system is the recommendation made by the Dearing Report
to the Quality Assurance Agency "to work with universities
and other degree awarding institutions to create, within three
years, a UK-wide pool of academic staff recognised by the Quality
Assurance Agency, from which institutions must select external
examiners". We conclude that the sector should now implement
this recommendation. Drawing on the evidence we received we would
add that the reformed QAA should be given the responsibility of
ensuring that the system of external examiners works and that,
to enable comparability, the QAA should ensure that standards
are applied consistently across institutions. We strongly support
the development of a national "remit" for external examiners,
clarifying, for example, what documents external examiners should
be able to access, the extent to which they can amend marks—in
our view, they should have wide discretion—and the matters
on which they can comment. This should be underpinned with an
enhanced system of training, which would allow examiners to develop
the generic skills necessary for multi-disciplinary courses. We
conclude that higher education institutions should only employ
external examiners from the national pool. The system should also
be transparent and we conclude that, to assist current and prospective
students, external examiners' reports should be published without
redaction, other than to remove material which could be used to
identify an individual's mark or performance. (Paragraph 273)
104. The Government agrees in principle with
the need for external examiner arrangements to be reviewed to
ensure their continuing effectiveness in contributing to consistency
of standards across institutions. The Government welcomes the
sector's recent announcement to undertake this review (10 September
2009 - UUK Conference). The Government's response to recommendations
77-81 refers to the fact that the Quality Assurance Agency's (QAA)
thematic review report has already made recommendations for improvements
to external examining arrangements, and further recommendations
are made in the Teaching, Quality and the Student Experience Committee
report. The sector has also already announced plans to review
external examining arrangements. Such a review must consider how
the current arrangements can be improved and ensure that they
are fit to meet future demand.
PLAGIARISM
98. We conclude that the growth in opportunities
for plagiarism is such that the sector needs to be especially
vigilant, establish the application of consistent approaches across
the sector and ensure that it fully shares intelligence. We recognise
that many students accused of plagiarism may be guilty of little
more than failing to reference sources correctly and that the
majority of students are conscientious and act in good faith.
Given, however, the scale and potential for damage to the reputation
of English universities it is vital that the problem is held in
check and then progressively "educated" and "managed"
out of the system. We recommend that the Government, in consultation
with the higher education sector including students' representatives,
put in place arrangements to establish standards, which set out
what is and what is not plagiarism, ensure that comprehensive
guidance is available across the sector, and co-ordinate action
to combat plagiarism. One possible candidate for this work is
the Higher Education Academy working with the reformed QAA. We
also request that the Government, in responding to this Report,
advise whether those providing or using so-called "writing
services", to produce work which students can misrepresent
as their own, are liable for criminal prosecution. (Paragraph
279)
105. Plagiarism is a serious problem, not only
in higher education and not only in England. It is a problem which
the higher education sector takes very seriously and institutions
have clear policies in place to deal with plagiarism. The Quality
Assurance Agency's (QAA) Code of Practice recommends that students
should be provided with information and guidance about plagiarism
and institutional audit will check that guidance is clear and
appropriate. Institutions are supported by the Higher Education
Academy/Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Academic Integrity
Service. The Government expects the sector to follow up recommendations
about dealing with plagiarism in HEFCE's Teaching, Quality and
the Student Experience Committee report and Ministers will want
to be kept in touch. The Government's view is that the responsibility
for dealing with student breaches of higher education institutions'
policies on plagiarism rests with the institutions themselves.
The work that institutions undertake (with the help of the Higher
Education Academy and JISC) to inform and communicate to students
the core principles of academic and self-integrity to manage any
breaches of their disciplinary arrangements, offers the best route
to tackling plagiarism.
106. It would be for a court to decide whether
someone is criminally liable. Whether a student and/or 'writing
service' would be deemed by a court to have committed an offence
would depend on the individual circumstances of the case. The
disclaimers used by such services may be an important factor in
such a decision.
MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
99. In this chapter we set out the circumstances
of the case concerning Mr Cairns and Manchester Metropolitan University
and our conclusions, which are for the House. (Paragraph 280)
100. The correct course for the University, if
it had wished to challenge Mr Cairns' evidence, was to submit
its own memorandum to the inquiry. (Paragraph 288)
101. In our view the action of the Vice-Chancellor
and the Academic Board of Manchester Metropolitan University on
18 March 2009 in removing Mr Cairns from the Board could be regarded
as interference with a witness and therefore a prima facie breach
of privilege. If matters had remained there we would have consulted
the Liaison Committee and requested the House to refer the matter
to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. (Paragraph 291)
102. We found the decision whether to ask the
House to refer the University's actions to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges a very finely balanced one. In the end because
the University has expressed regrets—albeit with reservations—and
because Mr Cairns has rejoined the Academic Board, we have
concluded that, while it is right to bring this serious matter
to the attention of the House in this Report, in the circumstances
we should not ask the House to refer the matter to the Committee
on Standards and Privileges. We must, however, put on record that
we deprecate the behaviour of the Vice-Chancellor and the members
of the Academic Board of Manchester Metropolitan University not
only for removing Mr Cairns from the Board on 18 March 2009, particularly
as it appears without giving Mr Cairns the opportunity to respond,
but also for the manner in which they have handled the matter
since the events of 18 March. Having accepted that they made an
error, the Vice-Chancellor and Academic Board should simply have
accepted the consequence of their mistake, apologised and speedily
restored Mr Cairns. (Paragraph 294)
103. We make it clear to Manchester Metropolitan
University and to the higher education institutions in general
that putting obstacles in the way of, or seeking to discourage
through criticism, those who put evidence to Parliament or its
committees are matters that we deprecate. We reiterate that the
correct course for the University, if it had wished to challenge
Ms Evans' evidence, was to submit its own memorandum to the inquiry.
(Paragraph 297)
107. This is a matter for the institution concerned,
but see also paragraph 98.
THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR
104. We conclude that one of the challenges the
higher education sector faces over the next decade is to develop
greater openness and transparency in relation to, for example,
academic standards, external examiners and the safeguarding of
the student experience. (Paragraph 300)
108. The Government agrees that the sector needs
to develop greater openness and transparency in relation to academic
quality and standards and the safeguarding of the student experience.
There are opportunities for the sector to do that as it responds
to the forthcoming consultation on the quality assurance processes
that will succeed the current institutional audit cycle (which
ends in the academic year 2010/11). The sector bodies involved
in preparing the consultation, to be launched in December 2009,
are committed to a quality assurance system which is accountable,
rigorous, transparent, flexible, responsive and public facing.
They are well aware of the need to tackle concerns about quality
and standards and make real changes to improve the student experience
and the reputation of higher education.
109. See also paragraph 104.
EVIDENCE FOR THE FORMULATION OF POLICY
105. We are concerned that the higher education
sector's lack of interest in research into parts of its own operation
might be seen as a symptom of complacency and a reluctance to
test and challenge assumptions, some of which in an increasingly
global market for higher education may be outmoded. We see a role
for Government here to identify, commission and publicise research
on the operation of the higher education sector in England. (Paragraph
304)
110. A strong interest in evidence and research
about higher education is self-evident in the sector and the Government
also takes seriously its role in supporting research on a wide
variety of higher education issues. The Government has a commitment
to evidence-based policy and works actively with analysts and
researchers both inside Government and in the wider community.
STANDARDS
106. It is unacceptable for the sector to be in
receipt of departmental spending of £15 billion but be unable
to answer a straightforward question about the relative standards
of the degrees of the students, which the taxpayer has paid for.
(Paragraph 305)
111. The Government agrees that the sector could
better explain how comparable standards are maintained, but does
not believe that diversity equals inconsistency. The Government
is quite clear that while degrees differ by discipline and purpose
they are all designed to reach a threshold standard. This is achieved
and demonstrated by reference to the Academic Infrastructure,
especially to the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
and the subject benchmark statements and through the use of external
examiners. Assurance is provided through the audit process.
QUALITY AND STANDARDS AGENCY
107. We are clear that the sector needs to address
the question of standards now. We have called for a new quality
and standards agency, answerable jointly to higher education institutions
and the Government, and reporting annually to Parliament. We envisage
that such a body, expanding significantly from the work that the
Quality Assurance Agency has done, will build and rejuvenate the
limbs of the existing system that until relatively recently was
working well—in particular, the system of external examiners—and
to provide the best way to safeguard the integrity of standards
in English higher education institutions. (Paragraph 307).
108. It will also naturally be part of such a
development that the relationship between this new agency and
the Higher Education Academy be reviewed, including clarification
of the key responsibility for quality enhancement in regard to
the student experience. Although we had reservations about the
operation of the Academy, it could and, we believe, should have
a key role in promoting and enhancing academic standards. (Paragraph
308)
112. The Government agrees that the question
of standards is a very important one, and one which the sector
is already addressing as it develops a review of quality assurance
processes, as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) develops a review
of the Academic Infrastructure, and as external examining is reviewed.
In addition the Government expects there to be significant amounts
of work in response to the findings of the report of the Quality
sub-committee of HEFCE's Teaching, Quality and the Student Experience
Committee and those of QAA's thematic review report. The Government
does not agree that this is the time to establish a new quality
and standards agency - that would be a disproportionate response
and one which would distract the sector's time and attention away
from the actions it is already committed to take and which the
Government expects will make a real difference.
113. The Government agrees that a constructive
relationship between the QAA and the Higher Education Academy
is important and that both organisations have a key role in promoting
and enhancing academic quality and standards.
109. The key to the successful transformation
of higher education in England in the next decade will be to move
away from a culture fixated on the most prestigious research intensive
universities and the results of the Research Assessment Exercise
(and its replacement) to one where other models of study and university
can thrive and excellence is recognised and rewarded for teaching
supported by scholarship. (Paragraph 309)
114. The Government agrees that diversity is
key to the future success of the higher education sector. So we
agree that it will be important to recognise and reward excellence
in all its forms.
| 
