Government reform of Higher Education - Business, Innovation and Skills Committee Contents


Supplementary written evidence submitted by the National Union of Students (NUS)

RESPONSE TO SECOND CALL FOR WRITTEN EVIDENCE (HIGHER EDUCATION WHITE PAPER) JULY 2011

SUSTAINABLE AND FAIR FUNDING

1.  NUS' views on the new higher education funding and student finance system have been widely publicised and were detailed in our initial submission to the Committee's "Future of Higher Education" inquiry and through oral evidence.

EFFICIENCY

2.  Many students' unions are looking at cost sharing and in principle we are not opposed to this practice being in the higher education sector, assuming any such efficiency process does not impact negatively on the student experience.

3.  The concept of shared services should mean that back office efficiencies deliver cash for a better access and student experience, not worse or the status quo. We will look at the Diamond review into efficiency and modernisation more closely when it is published, and will respond in depth at that time.

HEFCE FUNDING

4.  HEFCE has been given a number of priorities, including considering the higher costs of certain laboratory and engineering-based courses, support for strategic and vulnerable subjects, support for certain groups of students such as disabled students, and supporting certain services for the sector such as the QAA.

5.  Supporting all these priorities will be challenging, even with a budget that runs into the billions, and it will be critical that HEFCE funding does not simply flow into a minority of research-based institutions. We will participate in the HEFCE consultation and publicise further work on this in due course.

POSTGRADUATE FUNDING

6.  It is hugely disappointing that the white paper has provided next to nothing in the way of proposals that would help bolster postgraduate study even whilst acknowledging the potential impact of higher fees for undergraduates on participation in postgraduate study.

7.  Whilst greater HEFCE monitoring of the profile of postgraduates is welcome, the government must do much more to tackle the barriers to postgraduate study if the UK is to remain competitive. The Postgraduate experience is not divorced from learning and teaching or skills development, so the absence of proposals here is disappointing.

PHILANTHROPIC GIVING

8.  Despite the white paper's warm words on philanthropic donations there is relatively little content on exactly how this will be achieved, except a previously announced scheme the Cabinet Office is launching to encourage charitable giving via payroll, and the possibility that especially generous philanthropists may be considered for honours.

9.  The match funding scheme is coming to an end (not that this is made explicit in the text) and this leaves little concrete activity to encourage further donation, especially as the huge increase in fees may serve to depress such giving in the future.

THE STUDENT LOAN BOOK

10.  The student loan "book"—ie the total amount students and graduates are liable to repay—is expected to rise to £70 billion by 2017-18. The previous government had hoped to "monetise" some or all of the book—in other words, convert the debt owed by students to cash receipts for the government quicker than would be the case purely through normal repayment, via sale to a private interest. The legal powers for this were made by the passage of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008.

11.  The present government shares this aim, and in the white paper outlines that it has asked the investment bank, Rothchild, to undertake a feasibility study into the different options. What seems to be different to previous proposals is the aim for the solution to cover all loans "on an ongoing basis" as opposed to one-off sales of tranches of loans (as occurred under previous student loan arrangements in the late 1990s). The report will be published later this year.

12.  Our principal concern is of course that any sale would not result in a change in terms and conditions for borrowers. The government itself reiterates that this is their intention in the white paper and we will continue to hold them to this pledge.

13.  More broadly, there is the question of whether monetisation would result in value for money from the taxpayer, as a certain level of profit for the purchaser would have to be built into any sale. We will examine the report from Rothchild and comment when it is published.

WELL-INFORMED STUDENTS DRIVING TEACHING EXCELLENCE

14.  NUS welcome the introduction of some of our suggestions on the Key Information Set and better information for potential postgraduate applicants. However, we are critical of the government's lack of consideration for how prospective students will be guided through this information.

15.  Information cannot be seen as an end to itself. In chapter five of the white paper, plans for a new careers website and telephone service are outlined, but we are concerned that this will not go far enough to replace Connexions, even with the requirement for schools to provide some independent advice.

16.  We welcome the government's recommendation on the release of contact hours information, although warn that the amount of hours spent in the classroom does not necessarily reflect the complete learning experience for students and we believe that unless more information is provided to contextualise this data, higher levels of contact hours may be seen as better value for money when this is not necessarily the case.

A BETTER STUDENT EXPERIENCE AND BETTER-QUALIFIED GRADUATES

17.  The white paper outlines its vision for quality assurance and encourages the greater use of students as part of the QAA institutional review process. The chapter specifically welcomes the work of the NUS/HEA Student Engagement Project as a positive move for institutions and students to be working more closely together, and launches a new NUS/HEA initiative on encouraging more Student Led Teaching Awards. It also highlights that institutions should be doing more to support students through welfare services and recognises that students' unions also have an important role to play in this.

18.  It also welcomes the work of NUS in developing union capacity, and asks to see more work undertaken by NUS and individual SUs to strengthen course representation.

19.  NUS welcomes the Government's support for our mission to strengthen the voice of students through our varying projects and is delighted by the White Paper's recognition of the student movement as a vital part of achieving a high quality education provision. We especially welcome the support in strengthening the student voice in both developing course representation, as well as specific measures to close the feedback loop where students are currently informing enhancement activity. We also welcome the suggested changes to the OIA which NUS have been asking for, such as setting time targets for the resolution of cases, introducing standards for how institution deals with complaints and increasing the membership on the OIA board.

20.  The Government suggests the introduction of a 23rd question in the NSS, as a way for SU's to monitor their impact and help them to keep developing in line with their members' needs. We will monitor closely the impact of including this measurement on students' unions themselves and consider our position during the review next academic year.

21.  Although we welcome the encouragement from the government for employers to put more money into the HE system, through sponsorship of individuals and courses, we would be concerned if employers had the final say in what should be taught on courses. We must also be careful not to create a two tier funding scheme where non-traditional students must seek out sponsorship and shoehorn their own ambitions into what business and charities are willing to offer, where as students from more affluent backgrounds retain greater choice.

A DIVERSE AND RESPONSIVE SECTOR

22.  NUS is opposed to the continuing development of a market-driven system in higher education, and the following comments do not preclude our fundamental opposition to the current fees regime and withdrawal of public funding. However within this new system it is necessary to look again at the issue of numbers control and the limit on places. The Government has planned very badly and got into a position where there is widespread concern about whether the HE budget can be balanced, as a result of institutions charging much higher fees than expected.

23.  The numbers control measures proposed are relatively moderate compared to some other models. It is to be welcomed that a substantial core allocation to all currently funded institutions will remain in place and that HEFCE will be responsible for managing the allocation of the margin over time. We understand that HEFCE will now consult on the detail of this mechanism and how it will work, and we will respond to that consultation.

24.  We have serious concerns over the use of an attainment threshold for creating new opportunities. By allowing unrestricted expansion of recruitment at AAB level, there is a risk that institutions will dedicate large amounts of time and resource to chasing highly-qualified applicants rather than concentrating on teaching and quality improvement. We will be looking for cast-iron assurances on the suitability of alternative qualifications to A-levels at the same tariff-point level for entry into this unrestricted band, and also for institutions to declare an applicant as an AAB applicant if they have lower grades but are admitted under a contextual data policy.

25.  We welcome further exploration of new routes to qualification, including the possibility of creating national degree awarding bodies to give alternative options to HE in FE providers and individual students as to where they gain their qualifications, but we are concerned about the possibility of these structures being driven for profit at the expense of creating new qualification options of equal esteem. We would be very concerned at the prospect of institutions established as charities and supported with public money for many years being allowed to become profit-earning companies.

ASPIRATION RAISING & ADMISSIONS

26.  We welcome Government support for contextual data and aspiration raising schemes, of which we have campaigned for a long time to see implimented. The loss of AimHigher will be a significant blow to widening participation agenda, and we urge the Government to rethink its decision to cut all AimHigher funding instead of implementing transitional arrangements and supporting knowledge transfer from the AimHigher Partnerships. Without any form of transitional support, all the work of AimHigher risks being lost.

27.  We also welcome, and have been involved in UCAS' review of its admissions processes. We support the idea of implementing Post Qualification Application (PQA), and look forward to being involved in the development of this.

WIDENING PARTICIPATION, FAIR ACCESS & OFFA

28.  We welcome the potential strengthening of the powers of OFFA, and have called on many occasions for OFFA to have greater capacity to increase fair access. We are also very interested to see more details regarding the proposed widening participation framework.

29.  The monitoring of postgraduate participation is also welcomed, although we are concerned that by the time there is enough data to see a trend, it will be too little too late.

NATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMME

30.  By requiring institutions to pay into the fund (in addition to other commitments in their Access Agreements) and expecting them also to look for charitable donations, the Government is masking the fact that the £150 million National Scholarship Programme is not nearly enough to cover the access needs of the student population.

31.  As bursary awards under the NSP will only made once a confirmed student has applied, this will do nothing to influence the application behaviours of the students it is designed to target.

REGULATORY BODIES—A REVISED ROLE FOR HEFCE

32.  NUS welcomes a new regulatory focus for HEFCE, having repeatedly called for better student rights and protections.

33.  The Government has made much in the press of HEFCE's new role of "consumer champion". We are not at all convinced that this concept is in the best interests of students, and even if we did, there is little detail on how this will give more protection or power to individual students in the white paper. In fact there appears to be a lazy assumption that merely having a regulator, giving it mysterious "reserve powers" (which would only apply in the case of widespread poor treatment) somehow will improve quality or student power.

34.  There is welcome text on HEFCE's role in ensuring financial sustainability, but giving HEFCE the role of "orderly wind down" of institutions that fail or become non-viable will do little to comfort the students involved.

REGULATORY BODIES—A MORE TRANSPARENT FRAMEWORK

35.  NUS has repeatedly called for private providers to be brought into the regulatory system, although we remain fundamentally against the concept of private providers benefiting from public finance.

36.  We believe that any institution offering a degree should have to participate in the OIA—not just those using the student loans and grants scheme. We called for only non-profit providers being able to access limited teaching grants, and welcome this news.

8 July 2011


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 10 November 2011