Government reform of Higher EducationWritten evidence submitted by the University of Central Lancashire
The Importance of Higher Education
1. Higher education is a fundamental part of the UK’s economy and society and is an important element of the total education provision within the UK. It plays a critical role in supporting the development of higher level skills and intellectual capacity. As such, it has a central role in the economic development of the UK. It is inconceivable that government will not want to ensure that higher education is not just meeting the needs of individual citizens, but the wider needs of the country and the economy.
Quality of Higher Education
2. It is absolutely essential that the quality of higher education in this country is protected to ensure that it continues to meet the highest international standards. There is a responsibility on Government to ensure that there is a rigorous, independent, quality assurance system in place that upholds the integrity of academic standards of an acclaimed international industry. The standards and quality of the system are part of the reason why higher education remains one of the UK’s greatest success stories and is a strong export.
3. The move to a market in which the shape and strategic direction for the sector has primarily been set by short term student demand risks the strategic direction of higher education. It challenges the ability of universities to plan for the long term and protect the international reputation of HE.
4. Diversifying the provision of higher education through extending degree awarding powers to both private and further education institutions, within a fixed quantum, will have an opportunity cost for existing universities. Broadening the sector without regard for the quality of provision could damage the sector’s reputation for generations. The proposals as they stand create major challenges for the Quality Assurance Agency.
Role of Further Education
5. Further education colleges have a huge role to play in the education sector, but they have a very different offering to HEIs. UCLan has works closely with local FE colleges and provide access to facilities and academic staff for their students. Encouraging competition between the two would end this successful partnership, and would damage what has been a very successful way of bridging the gap between FE and HE for young people. The Californian model of community college is an excellent example of how FEIs and HEIs can work together and this model is something that should be explored more widely when considering the future of further education in the UK.
Impact of Private Providers
6. Private providers are likely to cherry-pick the courses that are popular and cheap to provide. There is no incentive for the private sector to provide courses that have heavy overheads and the likelihood is that this will fall to existing universities who will face huge costs to maintain provision. This has the potential to threaten the stability of the sector and the provision of a number of courses.
7. The suggestions for the sector fundamentally undermine the principles established in the Dearing Report, that higher education should be a partnership between state, individuals and employers. The Government proposals in their current format would mean the end of that partnership, which has serious implications for the future of the system.
Funding, Tuition Fees and Student Loans
8. The Browne Review and the decisions taken on the funding of the HE sector have been established within a context of substantial national debt, and there has been a move by Government to reduce this sum. Yet the proposals will not save any public expenditure versus the current model, and there is evidence from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) that the new system could indeed be more expensive in the medium to long term. The Government’s proposals have been rushed and the ideas do not seem to be linked to a thorough research and evidence base. The problems that the Government now faces in relations to these proposals are sufficiently grave that they should postpone the introduction of the funding system until 2013–14.
9. The Government’s initial commitment to a market is now difficult for them to sustain and the proposals that were set out before Christmas are starting to see revisions. The public expenditure projections that were agreed with HM Treasury were based on an average annual fee of around £7,500. Despite setting this assumption, there is no way in which the Government currently can be assured this will be the average fee, and thus their spending projections are under much scrutiny. Ministers are now making it clear to the sector that if the average fees exceed the figure that Government has identified and the public expenditure forecast is exceeded, there will be further cuts to higher education funding. The other suggestion that Ministers have proposed is that that there will be a direct intervention from Government and the ability of universities to set higher fees will be restricted. This is completely at odds and incompatible with the Government’s desire to move to a market, and would lead to a much greater degree of involvement in the affairs of universities than has ever previously been the case.
10. The Government has consistently said that universities should only charge the upper limit of fees in “exceptional circumstances”, yet they haven’t clarified what they consider exceptional circumstances to be. There is a real danger that the Government is moving towards categorizing universities through their intervention and decisions on who can charge the upper limit on fees. This would be a fatal blow to the wider sector and its ability to help students gain the skills and qualifications that employers want and industry needs. All institutions must have the same opportunities and restrictions, with the recognition that institutions play different roles within the sector.
11. There are significant problems and concerns with the Government’s proposals for student loans. The Government’s own estimates suggest that under the proposed new system of fees and loans that 50–60% of students will have some or all of their loan written off, up from 15% under the current system. This raises serious questions about the financial sustainability of the proposals. In reality the system that is being created is a graduate tax, which stops when the average student reaches the age of 50.
12. There has been no serious consideration given to the impact of the new funding system on the propensity of individuals to participate in higher education. This is unknown territory, and it is of particular concern what impact this will have on those from less advantaged backgrounds, and those who come from communities where there is a faith-based objection to paying interest.
13. The UK already lagged behind the OECD average for investment in higher education before these proposals were put forward. At a time when almost every other country in the world is investing more in higher education, the UK is in serious danger in of spending more and investing less. These proposals pose a significant threat to the quality and international reputation of our higher education system.
9 March 2011