SEVENTH SPECIAL REPORT
The Education and Employment Committee has agreed
to the following Special Report:—
RESPONSES FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND FROM
THE HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND TO THE SIXTH
REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE, SESSION 2000-01
HIGHER EDUCATION: STUDENT RETENTION
The Education and Employment Committee reported to
the House on Higher Education: Student Retention in its Sixth
Report of Session 2000-01, published on 23 March 2001 as HC 124.
The Government's response to that Report was received on 2 May
2001 and is reproduced as Annex I to this Special Report. The
response from the Higher Education Funding Council for England
was received on 9 May 2001 and is reproduced as Annex II to this
Special Report.
ANNEX I
Letter to the Chairman of the Education
Sub-committee from
the Secretary of State for Education and
Employment
2 May 2001
Dear Barry,
I am responding to the Education and Employment Committee's
Sixth Report about Student Retention in Higher Education which
was published on 23rd March 2001.
I welcome the Committee's Report and, as you know,
despite the fact that the UK is recognised as having one of the
highest graduation rates in the OECD, the issue of student retention
in higher education remains high on the Government's agenda. In
the grant letter I sent to the Higher Education Funding Council
(HEFCE) last November, I specifically asked the Funding Council
to take every possible step to bear down on the rate of drop-out.
I look forward to the publication of a progress report from HEFCE
in the near future.
My officials are working closely with the Funding
Council, and will continue to do so to ensure that we achieve
a consistent approach to the recommendations the Committee has
made.
As the report includes a wide range of recommendations
and conclusions, a detailed response to each of these is provided
in the attached document. I would be grateful if you could pass
this on to the Committee.
Best wishes,
DAVID BLUNKETT
The Select Committee's recommendations are in bold
text.
The Government's response is in plain text.
Where appropriate, the Government's responses to
recommendations/conclusions are cross-referenced.
1. We recommend two strategies to tackle the problem
of non-retention. First, seeking to reduce the numbers not continuing
with their course and, secondly seeking to reduce the disadvantages
of non-continuation by enhancing the 'portability' of acquired
attainment below final degree result (paragraph 13).
These strategies reflect the Government's view.
2. Improving retention is important, but it should
not lead to a diminution of the challenge of successful completion.
Our concern is to address the barriers, which prevent students
from benefiting from higher education, not to lower its standards
(paragraph 14).
and
3. Universities and colleges must be careful not
to accept candidates with no chance of successfully obtaining
any credit for their higher education study. Proper advice at
the admissions stage should be available for all students, including
those who apply to their local institution and those who enter
via clearing. We do not agree with the view that widening access
and/or improving retention need lead to lower standards in higher
education (paragraph 14).
We have made it plain that widening participation
should not lead to any drop in standards. This is why we agreed
with the view expressed in the earlier Report on access[1]
that quotas should not be introduced. It is important that applicants
should have proper advice so they can choose a course best suited
to their abilities and preferences, and we work closely with the
Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), amongst others,
so that information reaches prospective students from the start
of the application process. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
have issued a Code on Admissions which emphasises the need to
ensure that promotional materials provide information that will
enable applicants to make informed decisions about their options.
The National Qualifications Framework for England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, recently published by QAA, sets out
5 levels of HE qualifications—3 at undergraduate level (Certificate,
Intermediate and Honours) and 2 at postgraduate level (Masters
and Doctoral). For each level there is a descriptor exemplifying
the characteristics of the main qualification at that level.
Subject Benchmark Statements are being developed
by QAA in partnership with the academic community. The statements
set out the general expectations about standards for award of
an honours degree in a subject.
Taken together this means that standards in higher
education can now be demonstrated in a more transparent manner.
4. We recognise that the UK has a strong record
in the proportion of students who complete their higher education
and achieve a qualification at the end of their studies. This
is a matter in which the higher education sector should take considerable
pride. Nevertheless, we look to the Government, HEFCE and to higher
education institutions to take action to reduce as far as possible
the number of students who do not achieve a recognised qualification
(paragraph 24).
In the 29 November 2000 grant letter to HEFCE,[2]
the Council was asked to bear down on the rate of drop-out and
we expect to receive a progress report on the action taken within
the next month.
HEFCE have also been asked to develop a programme
of work and an action plan to reduce non-completion, in conjunction
with institutions.
5. In the United Kingdom there is a greater deterrent
to non-continuation because of the lack of portability of attainment
below degree level. We should not be complacent about the low
rate of non-completion in the United Kingdom compared with other
countries, particularly the United States, where leaving a course
of higher education after attaining accumulated credits is a more
rational and less disastrous occurrence (paragraph 25).
The Government is keen to encourage mutual recognition
of credit through a variety of credit recognition schemes. However,
this is primarily a matter for the higher education sector.
See responses to Recommendations 3, 31 and 32.
6. The relationship between social class and non-continuation
is not straightforward (paragraph 26).
7. It seems extremely likely that student factor,
sectorwide influences and issues that relate to individual institutions
all play a part in the question of retention. Government, the
sector and the individual institutions, therefore, should each
address the factors over which they have control (paragraph 28).
Conclusions 6 and 7 reflect the Government's view.
8. We recommend that higher education institutions
should provide guidance to their students that they should not
work in paid employment for more than 12 hours a week during term
time. However, the Committee recognises that seeking to reduce
non-completion by preventing students from working longer hours,
if they are doing so in order to fund their living costs, may
be self-defeating unless access to financial support for less
well off students were improved (paragraph 49).
This is a matter for Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) and for individual students in balancing academic needs
against their freedom to work and the benefits from paid work.
In our view excessive working during term time should be discouraged.
But we see difficulties in a single rule of thumb, given differences
between HEIs and between courses.The Government's student support
package is sufficient to meet the needs of students, with extra
targeted help for those that need it most. We recognise that more
needs to be done in a targeted way for groups of less well off
students and this is why, for example, we are introducing in 2001/02
£2,000 opportunity bursaries for certain younger students
and childcare grants for student parents, based on actual costs,
up to a total maximum grant of £6,360 for two or more children.
Also from September, 50 per cent of full-time students will make
no contribution to tuition fees because we have raised the contributions
threshold.
9. We recommend that HEFCE should, as a matter
of urgency, audit the impact of casualisation of higher education
staff contracts on the support and pastoral care of students,
particularly those from a non-traditional background and part-time
or mature students. If this audit highlights structural weaknesses
in the support systems for students because of changes in patterns
of staff employment, we recommend that higher education institutions
should ensure that staff who are not on casual contracts, and
who have sufficient time for student support activities, are responsible
for support and pastoral care for students. We also recommend
that HEFCE should investigate further the reasons why higher education
institutions are employing more part time and fixed term staff,
and in the course of doing so propose ways of tackling the underlying
problems (paragraph 53).
The Government agrees with the Committee that it
is important for students, particularly those from non-traditional
backgrounds, to receive high quality academic support and pastoral
care. HEIs employ their own staff and set their conditions of
employment, so we look to them to monitor the impact of any casualisation
of their teaching posts on the support which their students receive.
In doing so, they will wish to take into account the need to maintain
the high standards which students and monitoring bodies alike
want to see. We welcome the Funding Council's intention to consult
the sector on how the question of staff contracts and their impact
on the pastoral care of students might be reviewed.
10. We are concerned that the overall quality
of teaching should not suffer as the result of emphasis placed
upon success in the Research Assessment Exercise. We recommend
that the DfEE should seek wide representations from higher education
staff on the impact of the 2001 RAE on their work-load and responsibilities.
In the light of this, HEFCE should consider the possibilities
of a joint teaching and research quality assessment to reduce
the bureaucratic demands made on institutions and to give a more
balanced view of overall performance (paragraph 61).
The Government agrees that the assessment of research
should not harm the quality of teaching. The Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) is conducted by HEFCE and the other Funding Councils
to inform quality-related funding decisions and its monitoring
is a matter for HEFCE rather than DfEE. After each exercise HEFCE
and the other Funding Councils evaluate the RAE process and take
forward any conclusions. Following the 2001 RAE, HEFCE will consult
the sector about any future research assessment exercise and will
include in the consultation the question of the impact on workloads
and responsibilities. The recent HEFCE fundamental review of research
policy addressed the question of the future of the RAE and whether
it was appropriate to continue with a separate RAE. The conclusion
of that review, widely supported in the subsequent consultation,
was that as long as research was to be selectively funded, a discrete
exercise for assessing quality would be required.
We have invited HEFCE to discuss with the QAA, Universities
UK and SCOP, ways to further reduce the subject review load while
still providing reliable public information for students, employers
and others. Taken with the planned further reduction in the average
length of reviews, the aim is to secure a reduction of 50 per
cent or more in the volume of review activity compared with the
existing arrangements.
11. We recommend that HEFCE and individual institutions
should look carefully at earmarking funds for outreach activities
and pastoral care, and ensure that excellence shown in these areas,
especially by younger academics, should enhance rather than jeopardise
career advancement and promotion (paragraph 62).
This is a matter for HEFCE and for individual HEIs.
The 'Excellence Challenge' requires HEIs to produce
action plans setting out their strategy for widening participation
and in particular the activities they will be engaging in to support
schools and colleges in delivering the programme's objectives,
and this will help to focus the funding appropriately. We agree
that pastoral care for students from non-traditional HE backgrounds
is important and we will be encouraging HEIs to devote resources
to this. We have provided specific funding for the administration
of student support services within HEIs from this year.
The Government's funding to HEIs continues to increase.
Between 1998-99 and 2003-04 there will be an increase of £1.7bn
(18 per cent in real terms). Neither the DfEE nor the Funding
Councils set a limit on how much may be spent on student support,
so that individual institutions decide how much money they put
into their student support services. The Government shares the
view of the Committee that higher education employers should encourage
academics to be involved in outreach work and pastoral care and
reward them for this in the same way as for their teaching skills
and research activity.
12. We recommend that the DfEE should urgently
commission research on the impact of student debt on graduates'
decisions on the feasibility of post-graduate study and academic
careers (paragraph 64).
The Government has already taken steps to improve
the competitiveness of PhD stipends to ensure that doctoral study
remains an attractive option for graduates. The minimum level
for Research Council's PhD stipends will rise to £9,000 per
year by 2003-04, a substantial real terms rise, which will also
be matched by Arts and Humanities Research Board studentships.
Meanwhile the DfEE has put an extra £50m this year, rising
to £170m in 2003-04, towards pay in higher education. It
will be important to monitor and keep under review the impact
of this new money, as well as the new student support arrangements
on demand for post-graduate study and entry to academic careers.
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) already
commissions an annual survey of postgraduate study intentions,
and this explores the importance of debt as a factor in decisions
to take up post-graduate study. The results for the first two
years of the survey -1999 and 2000 - are available on the following
website: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/~gradsch/OSTsurvey.html. This
year's results will be particularly useful as they will include
for the first time, students who have experienced the new tuition
fee and loan arrangements.
There are also existing sources of information on
graduate destinations, including academic careers, which the DfEE
will continue to monitor.
The DfEE continues to monitor the impact of the new
student support arrangements, including debt, not least through
regular surveys of student finances. This specific issue can be
covered in future surveys.
13. We recommend that HEFCE should urgently commission
research on the impact of demographic changes and retirements
among senior staff over the next ten years, with a view to further
recommendations to the Government on funding initiatives for key
subjects at risk (paragraph 66).
It is for individual HEIs to tailor their recruitment
policies if they wish to alter the age balance of their staff
or to plan for the forthcoming retirement of a particular age
group. In fact, the age profile in HEIs does vary considerably
between institutions. For most HEIs this is not an issue and in
general they seem to manage their staffing dispositions well.
The Government recognises that there may, however, be difficulties
in some subject areas.
HEFCE has carried out a recent review of the age
structure of academic staff and has found no general problems.
However, in the light of the Committee's recommendation, HEFCE
will conduct a further review, this time by subject area. We welcome
this and will consider the findings carefully.
14. We welcome the additional funding from the
Secretary of State to recruit and retain high quality academic
staff in strategically important disciplines. We acknowledge that
university and college staff and their organisations do not regard
this as adequate in relation to the broader needs of the academic
profession. We urge the Government to address the growing disparity
in salaries between academic appointments and career paths for
equally qualified candidates in other fields (paragraph 68).
The Government is pleased that the Select Committee
welcomes the extra funding we have provided to help institutions
reward and develop their staff. This funding is part of the £1.7
billion additional funding the Government is making available
for institutions over the six years to 2003-04, an 18 per cent
increase in real terms. It is important to note, however, that
the Government does not set the salaries of higher education staff.
As independent bodies, HEIs agree pay and conditions with their
employees in the light of their own operational needs and the
resources available to them. The Government recognises that funding
levels play a part and has listened to HEIs' concerns about difficulties
they experience in retaining top quality staff because of the
inflexibility of the reward systems. When institutions apply for
the additional funding by submitting their individual human resource
strategies to HEFCE, it will be for institutions to determine
their priorities and how these will be tackled.
15. We recommend that the Government should give
very careful consideration to any further expansion in the number
of places in higher education and ensure, before proceeding, that
such expansion is fully funded and that existing places can be
filled with students who are successfully retained (paragraph
69).
The DfEE has reflected the Government's aim that
by the end of this decade, half of all 18 year olds should have
the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the time they
are 30 years old, by including it as a Public Service Agreement
target.
The Spending Review announced last year has allowed,
for the first time in well over a decade, for an increase
in the unit of resource per student in 2001-02 and that further
expansion up to 2003-04 will be fully funded. This level of funding
will enable the Government to make steady progress towards the
aim of 50 per cent participation. Expansion towards the aim beyond
2003-04 will be at a rate which this country can afford. The funding
to achieve this will be a consideration for the next and subsequent
Spending Reviews.
As has been stated, HEFCE has been asked to bear
down on the rate of 'drop out'. Our policies further support and
enable students to continue with their education and the Funding
Council is developing performance measures to inform the effectiveness
of these policies.
16. We recommend that the Government's priority
of widening access and improving retention in higher education
should be reflected by sustained overall increases on a per student
basis in the level of funding for teaching (paragraph 70).
As stated at Recommendation 15, the Spending Review
announced last year has allowed, for the first time in well over
a decade, for an increase in the unit of resource per student
in 2001-02 and that further expansion up to 2003-04 will be fully
funded.
As a result, the recently announced HEFCE recurrent
grant allocations for 2001/02 show a 4.2 per cent cash increase
in the total sector funding for teaching, compared to 2000/01.
Within the Spending Review, additional funding of
£50 million in 2001-02, rising to £110 million in 2002-03
and £170 million in 2003-04 was made available to support
increases in academic and non-academic pay. This money is in addition
to the 4.2 per cent increase for teaching already announced by
HEFCE for 2001-02.
17. We recommend that HEFCE should give the highest
priority to publishing their research on non-completion. We recommend
that the HEFCE research on non-completion should be complemented
by regular and more detailed studies of institutions where non-completion
is significantly above the benchmark rate of comparable colleges
and universities. We also recommend that HEFCE, working with other
bodies such as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
and the Higher Education Statistics Agency, should establish more
robust mechanisms to ensure sufficient data are available more
swiftly, so that the nature, extent and causes of non-completion,
and how these factors change over time, may be analysed (paragraph
72).
See response to Recommendation 4 above.
18. We recommend that HEFCE should give explicit
guidance to all higher education institutions on the treatment
for funding purposes of students who move from full-time to part-time
study during the year, so that all concerned should be clear on
the financial consequences for the institution of the individual
student's decision (paragraph 73).
Baroness Blackstone wrote to the Committee in response
to a question raised by the Committee on this issue during her
oral evidence session.
We understand that HEFCE are considering amending
the treatment of students who change mode during a year with a
view to widening the definition of completion and will, as the
Committee recommends, provide guidance to all institutions on
this subject.
19. We recommend that HEFCE should refine and
develop its work on benchmarks, so that universities and colleges
can measure themselves against achievable targets in comparable
institutions (paragraph 76).
We are aware that HEFCE have been reviewing all aspects
of the performance indicators, including the benchmarks, and we
understand that they will continue to do so.
20. We recommend that incentives for higher education
institutions to widen access should include an element which is
payable on the successful conclusion to students' higher education.
This would provide an incentive not only to admit students from
non-traditional backgrounds, but also to ensure they are properly
supported until they have achieved a recognised qualification
(paragraph 77).
Funding premiums are not intended as an incentive
payment. Their purpose is to reimburse institutions for the additional
resources they have invested in recruiting and retaining students
from non-traditional backgrounds, a disproportionate share of
which fall at the beginning of the course.
21. We recommend that any new programmes or initiatives
by the Secretary of State to encourage higher education institutions
to widen participation should be funded for a minimum of five
years (paragraph 79).
The Government has been funding programmes to widen
access since 1998. Government spending plans usually span three
years. Our major programme to widen participation is through the
'Excellence Challenge'. Future plans will be considered in the
light of evaluation of current activity and other pressures.
22. We would welcome a detailed study by the National
Audit Office of retention in higher education (paragraph 80).
We understand that the NAO is carrying out such a
study.
23. We recommend that the Regional Development
Agencies and Learning and Skills Councils should seek to develop
strategic partnerships between further education colleges and
regional higher education institutions, in order to provide routes
for mature students, and for students who have previously not
completed a course of higher education, to be able to progress
towards entry or re-entry to higher education (paragraph 81).
The FEFC (now the LSC), and HEFCE, have already created
strategic partnerships, and promoting access to lifelong learning
will be a key responsibility of the LSC. The 'Excellence Challenge'
already fosters regional partnerships between HEIs, FE colleges
and schools, involving HEFCE and the LSC. These partnerships will
help develop more cohesive local approaches to raising standards
and widening participation.
The LSC and HEFCE will want to discuss together their
strategies for widening adult access to HE and we can consider
what role the Regional Development Agencies might want to play
in such a strategy.
24. We recommend that higher education institutions
should consider whether students who have been outside the formal
education system for some time need additional support to face
the challenge of assessment early in their course. We recommend
that institutions should give serious consideration to ring-fencing
a small proportion of teaching and research funding to support
students at risk of withdrawal (paragraph 83).
We note that this recommendation is directed at institutions
themselves. The use of funding provided by the Funding Council
as institutional grant is a matter for each institution.
25. We recommend that HEFCE should fund pilot
schemes to offer institutions and individual students respectively
financial support to provide and attend three-month induction
courses over the summer months to prepare students from non-traditional
backgrounds for their first year in higher education (paragraph
86).
We already fund summer schools through HEFCE for
young people to give them a "taster" of higher education.
It is already open to HEIs to run induction events, such as those
recommended by the Committee, for which they are able to use their
widening access funding.
Such events can be useful, but they do not replace
the need to ensure that standard induction arrangements cater
for the needs of a diverse student population. One of the aims
of the 'Excellence Challenge' programme is to prepare students
for higher education by developing closer links between schools,
colleges and HEIs, enabling them to take part in tailored events,
and giving them better advice and information about university
life.
26. We recommend that higher education institutions
should recognise that parents have a crucial part to play in providing
all kinds of support for the individual student—and not
just means-tested contributions to tuition fees and maintenance
for those who can afford to pay—and that taking the family
into account from the outset can provide valuable reinforcement
for increasing continuation rates in the longer term (paragraph
88).
This recommendation reflects the Government's view.
The 'Excellence Challenge' programme recognises the crucial role
which parents play in decisions over whether to apply for higher
education. Elements of the 'Excellence Challenge' include the
provision of better information for parents about student support
as well as involving parents in open days and other events, and
developing and promoting the role of HEIs within the local community.
27. We recommend that HEFCE and the Secretary
of State should explore measures for encouraging parents to pay
the means-tested contribution to tuition fees, since 20 per cent
of students whose parents are expected to pay fail to receive
the full contribution with detrimental financial consequences
for the students concerned (paragraph 89).
On the latest available evidence in the Student Income
and Expenditure Survey (SIES 98/99), 92 per cent of students whose
parents are assessed to make a contribution towards their fee
support receive the full amount. DfEE publications to students
and parents emphasise that parents are expected to make the contributions
they are assessed for and we have measures in place to ensure
that students who are estranged from their parents are not liable
for a parental contribution.
The Government believes that the current approach
ensures that the majority of parents recognise their responsibilities
towards their children. We are however, keeping the issue under
review.
28. We recommend that higher education institutions
should be prepared to guarantee childcare places to potential
applicants with children under school age (paragraph 90).
In 2000/01 we have provided support to full-time
students for the cost of childcare through Access Bursaries and,
from 2001/02, full-time students with children with registered
or approved childcare will be eligible for a childcare grant of
up to 85 per cent of the actual costs. The specific use of funding
provided by the Funding Council as institutional grant is a matter
for each institution.
29. It would help students make better informed
choices of courses of study if they knew at the time of application
how many UCAS points (based on A Level scores) they had. We recommend
that higher education institutions should actively prepare to
adopt a post-qualification applications system (paragraph 91).
The Government appreciates that all parties, including
schools, FE colleges and the HE sector, must agree on the way
forward and we are aware that the Local Government Association
has been consulting on changes to the school year. We await the
results of this consultation with interest.
30. We recommend that higher education institutions
should be prepared to respond to situations where students wish
to continue in full- or part-time employment with an employer
with whom they have been undertaking a placement linked to their
academic course by offering flexible provision allowing the student
a choice of ways to complete what would otherwise be the final
year of full-time study (paragraph 94).
This recommendation is a matter for individual institutions
to consider but the Government does support the principle of flexible
higher education provision. There are many benefits to be gained
from integrating academic and work-based learning to ensure that
students develop the full range of knowledge and skills that will
enable them to pursue satisfying careers. It is for this reason
that the Government is introducing new Foundation Degrees.
31. We recommend that the Quality Assurance Agency
should help institutions work towards mutual recognition of first
year level modules, so that students who have left an institution
in their first year are not discouraged from returning to higher
education at the same or a different institution by having to
start all over again (paragraph 95).
The Government welcomes this recommendation. DfEE
officials are promoting discussions and developments. The two
main credit consortia are working closely with the QAA to see
how credit accumulation and transfer can map onto the National
Qualifications Framework. See also recommendation 5 above.
32. We welcome inclusion in the QAA qualifications
framework of outcome descriptors that enable achievement below
the level of the honours degree to be recognised and which facilitate
subsequent resumption of studies (paragraph 96).
The Government fully supports the work that QAA has
done to set out the qualifications framework to make higher education
qualifications more transparent. The framework represents a consensus
about the nature of standards and a commitment to the high quality
of teaching and learning that is needed to deliver them. See also
recommendation 3 above.
33. We recommend that higher education institutions
should carefully examine whether teaching arrangements for students
in their first year of study, particularly the deployment of highly
experienced teaching staff, fully reflect the importance of providing
students with a firm foundation for their higher education (paragraph
98).
This recommendation reflects the Government's view.
34. We recommend that the DfEE and the QAA should
agree and publish clear guidelines for the Teaching Quality Assessment
which will reduce the burden of paperwork and preparation on both
staff and assessors. We recommend that the QAA should consider
other forms of inspection—including possibly spot inspection—that
might prove less stressful or time-consuming, and should spell
out in detail how any lighter touch inspections would operate
(paragraph 100).
We are committed to lighter touch arrangements for
assessing the quality of teaching and learning and have invited
HEFCE to discuss with QAA, Universities UK and SCOP, ways to further
reduce the subject review workload while still providing reliable
public information for students, employers and others.
35. We welcome the development of greater concern
with the quality of teaching in higher education. We recommend
that those universities and colleges that do not already do so
should introduce clear and systematically monitored requirements
for staff participation in appropriate teaching development programmes,
not least in order to ensure that the needs of a more diverse
student population are recognised and addressed (paragraph 101).
The Institute of Learning and teaching (ILT) was
set up in 1999 as a professional body for all who teach and support
learning in higher education, aiming to enhance the status of
teaching, improve the experience of learning, and support innovation
in higher education. It is expected that the ILT will become a
forum where academic practitioners learn from each other and from
the best research on all aspects of teaching and learning. It
works closely with other groups and agencies including UUK, SCOP,
HESDA and the HE teachers' professional bodies.
36. We recommend that the DfEE should conduct
a review with the Department of Social Security and the Treasury
of the interaction between tax, social security and student support
with a view to providing the least well-off students with as seamless
a service as possible to support their continuing in higher education
(paragraph 103).
The DfEE already liaises closely on these interactions
with other Departments, including the DSS and Treasury, and will
continue to do so. As a result, the new childcare grant and travel/books/equipment
grant introduced in 2001/02 will be fully disregarded by DSS for
benefits purposes—whereas the lone parents grant, which
is being superseded, was not. The childcare grant has been largely
modeled on the Working Families Tax Credit childcare credit. We
are currently reviewing with DSS how to provide better and clearer
information to students about their entitlement to student support
and benefits.
37. We expect the results of the research to be
carried out by Universities UK into the effect of student debt
on student retention to make a useful contribution to informed
policy-making for future student financial support arrangements
(paragraph 106).
We share the Committee's interest in this research
and understand that the results of the project will be published
in autumn 2002.
38. We recommend that the Government should commission
as a matter of urgency research on the effect of new arrangements
for students' financial support on completion rates, particularly
with regard to lower socio-economic groups (paragraph 107).
Existing research shows finance to be only one issue
affecting completion rates. Evidence from the SIES shows that
in 1998/99 only 10 per cent of students had thought about dropping
out for financial reasons. Our evaluation of the new arrangements
will look at a number of factors including the impact on non-completion,
where we will continue to monitor non-completion rates.
39. Some argue that the key features that need
to be more widely broadcast to encourage wider participation in
higher education are these:
· undergraduate tuition fees are payable
by those whose parents are means-tested as being able to afford
them (approximately 50 per cent of students from 2001);
· higher education is a good investment
of time and money and worth borrowing for—within reasonable
limits—because most graduates in general earn higher incomes
in the long run;
· student loans are subsidised; and are
repayable only after graduation;
- additional financial help is available for
a few of the least well-off students.
We recommend that the Government should seek to
tackle the problems of debt aversion and, where held, perception
of student debt, insofar as they affect student retention by reinforcing
its efforts to get across these messages (paragraph 108).
The Government already provides information for students
about the generous repayment terms for student loans and the other
support which is available. A recent advertising campaign has
emphasised the benefits of higher education in terms of the greater
earnings potential for graduates. We will continue our efforts
to present this information in as clear and effective a way as
possible, using the internet, radio and cinema as the media which
prospective students are most likely to access.
Within the 'Excellence Challenge' we have commissioned
research into the best ways in which we can get messages across
to counter the perceived problems of debt aversion in lower socio-economic
group families.
40. We recommend that the Government should tackle
the consequences of student poverty for retention by improving
access to financial support for less well-off students, raising
very substantially the income threshold at which graduates have
to begin repayment and addressing concerns about debt escalation
(paragraph 109).
The Government has already put in place measures
which will improve the financial position for less well-off students
including quadrupling the amounts available through the Access
and Hardship Funds to £87m in England this year, introducing
Hardship Loans of up to £500, and providing school meals
grants. Care leavers long vacation grant was introduced in 2000.
From 2001/02 the parental income assessment threshold will be
raised to £20,000; and a childcare grant of up to £6,360
based on actual costs in place of an Access Bursary of £1,000,
a flat rate travel, books and equipment grant of £500 and
an enhanced dependants grant will be introduced.
In addition, 50 per cent of all full-time students
will not have to pay any contribution to tuition fees and Opportunity
Bursaries worth £2,000 each will be available for younger
students from disadvantaged backgrounds. By 2003/04 there will
be a total of 25,000 Opportunity Bursaries.
We will continue to develop well-targeted help for
those in most need, as we have done in tripling disabled students
allowances, and extending them to part-time and postgraduate students.
Repayment of student loans through the tax system,
with a threshold of £10,000, was introduced in April 2000.
The threshold is being kept under review. We are also committed
to a review after the first year of operation of the impact on
small firms of collecting repayments through PAYE.
ANNEX II
Response from the Higher Education Funding
Council for England
The Select Committee's recommendations are in bold
text.
1. The HEFCE welcomes the Select Committee's report,
which it believes makes a valuable contribution to the development
of its policies to increase student success through improved progression
and completion. A number of the Select Committee's recommendations
are directed at the HEFCE, and our response to these recommendations
is as follows.
Recommendation 4
We recognise that the UK has a strong record in
the proportion of students who complete their higher education
and achieve a qualification at the end of their studies. This
is a matter in which the higher education sector should take considerable
pride. Nevertheless, we look to the Government, the HEFCE and
to higher education institutions to take action to reduce as far
as possible the number of students who do not achieve a recognised
qualification.
2. It is good to recognise the UK's strong record
in the proportion of students who complete their studies, but
we agree the Select Committee that we should aim to do better.
The publication of performance indicators provides management
with a useful tool for this purpose. In addition, we have commissioned
work intended to identify institutions with a particularly good
track record in this, in order to enable other to benefit from
their experience.
Recommendation 9
We recommend that the HEFCE should, as a matter
of urgency, audit the impact of casualisation of higher education
staff contracts on the support and pastoral care of students,
particularly those from a non-traditional background and part-time
or mature students. If this audit highlights structural weaknesses
in the support systems for students because of changes in patterns
of staff employment, we recommend that higher education institutions
should ensure that staff who are not on casual contracts, and
who have sufficient time for student support activities, are responsible
for support and pastoral care for students. We also recommend
that HEFCE should investigate further the reasons why higher education
institutions are employing more part-time and fixed-term staff,
and in the course of doing so, propose ways of tackling the underlying
problems.
3. The question of staff contracts and arrangements
for providing teaching are a matter for institutions themselves.
Nevertheless, we recognise that the issue raised by the Select
Committee is an important one which has sector wide implications.
We will investigate to discover if higher education institutions
are employing more part-time and fixed term staff. If this is
the case then we will discuss with the institutional representative
bodies how we might take forward the suggestion of a review of
staff contracts and their impact on the support and pastoral care
of students.
Recommendation 10
We are concerned that the overall quality of teaching
should not suffer as a result of the emphasis placed upon success
in the Research Assessment Exercise. We recommend that the DfEE
should seek wide representation from higher education staff on
the impact of the 2001 RAE on their workload and responsibilities.
In the light of this, HEFCE should consider the possibilities
of a joint teaching and research quality assessment to reduce
the bureaucratic demands made on institutions and to give a more
balanced view of overall performance.
4. We plan to consult the sector about any future
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) following that in 2001, and
we will include in the consultation, as the Select Committee suggests,
the question of the impact on workloads and responsibilities.
We have just conducted a very extensive review of our research
policy, and included in this review was the future of the RAE
and the question of whether a separate RAE continues to be appropriate.
The conclusion of the review, widely supported in the subsequent
consultation, was that as long as research was to be selectively
funded, a discrete exercise for assessing its quality would be
required. The review also highlighted evidence that good quality
research is associated with good quality teaching, which is in
turn associated with good rates of student completion.
Recommendation 11
We recommend that HEFCE and individual institutions
should look carefully at earmarking funds for outreach activities
and pastoral care, and ensure that excellence shown in these areas,
especially by younger academics, should enhance rather than jepordize
career advancement and promotion.
5. Significant sums are provided by the HEFCE
for widening participation, including retention. While the sums
are not earmarked, institutions are asked to state their plans
for their use, consistent with strategies which they have been
asked to prepare. We agree with the Select Committee that excellence
in outreach activities and pastoral care should be a positive
factor in advancing the careers and promotion prospects of academics.
Recommendation 13
We recommend that the HEFCE should urgently commission
research on the impact of demographic changes and retirements
among senior staff over the next ten years, with a view to further
recommendations to the Government on funding initiatives for key
subjects at risk.
6. We have recently reviewed the age structure
of academic staff, and in general, it seems that the age balance
is actually improving. However, this varies between different
subjects, following the Select Committee's suggestion, we will
look again at this question by subject.
Recommendation 17
We recommend that HEFCE should give the highest
priority to publishing their research on non-completion. We recommend
that the HEFCE research on non-completion should be complemented
by regular and more detailed studies of institutions where non-completion
is significantly above the benchmark rate of comparable colleges
and universities. We also recommend that HEFCE, working with other
bodies such as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Services
and the Higher Education Statistics Agency, should establish more
robust mechanisms to ensure sufficient data are available more
swiftly, so that the nature, extent and causes of non-completion,
and how these factors change over time, may be analysed.
7. Research into non-completion
a. The analytical team within the Council have
nearly completed an investigation of the impact of policy changes
on participation levels. Once this work is complete, we plan to
concentrate on analysing student completion rates.
8. Research into best practice among institutions
b. HEFCE's action on Access Team are looking
at relative completion rates and the factors involved in this
as part of their current year's work programme, and we will publish
and disseminate the results as soon as they are available.
9. Timeliness of data
c. The data collected by the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA) forms the basis for the statistics the
HEFCE produce on non-completion.
d. We have already got agreement from UCAS to
provide a service to institutions that should lead to improved
the quality of data in their HESA returns. This should eliminate
the need to patch HESA data with UCAS files, and speed the production
of performance indicators.
e. We are also working to reduce the `turn round'
time for publication of performance indicators. We have already
had some success in this area—in the first year performance
indicators were published in December, in the second year they
were published in October and this year we are aiming to publish
them in September.
f. We plan to hand over publication of performance
indicators to the HESA thereby enabling the performance indicator
verification process to be integrated with the data collection
process. This will allow publication of performance indicators
earlier in the year than is currently possible.
Recommendation 18
We recommend that HEFCE should give explicit guidance
to all higher education institutions on the treatment for funding
purposes of students who move from full-time to part-time study
during the year, so that all concerned should be clear on the
financial consequences for the institution of the individual students'
decision.
8. We will, as the Select Committee recommends, provide
explicit guidance to all higher education institutions about this.
This will be incorporated into this year's HEFCE early survey
of student numbers which is used for funding allocations. We have
also asked HESA to further emphasise the guidance in returning
the individualised student record which we use to confirm their
early return.
Recommendation 19
We recommend that HEFCE should refine and develop
its work on benchmarks, so that universities and colleges can
measure themselves against achievable targets in comparable institutions.
9. We have been reviewing all aspects of the performance
indicators, including the benchmarks, and will continue to do
so. We take steps to overcome the impact of poor quality data,
and to provide institutions with a detailed toolkit to check their
data prior to publication. However, despite these efforts, we
believe that the data used in the PI calculations still contains
significant errors. There is little point in having a very sophisticated
benchmark before this problem is resolved.
10. However, we do plan to help institutions compare
themselves with institutions that they judge to be comparable.
This will be through a web based facility enabling them to create
benchmarks based on their own 'mini-sectors' of selected institutions.
This facility will assist institutions in setting achievable targets.
11. We believe that the current benchmarks capture
the most important factors relating to non-completion in measuring
institutional performance. We think there are advantages to keeping
the form of the performance indicators stable and would not wish
to make changes in a piecemeal manner each year. There is also
a technical issue in that the introduction of more factors into
the benchmark entails a move from simple arithmetic calculations
to statistical modelling. For these reasons, and the outstanding
data quality issues described above, we do not think it would
be wise to change the benchmarking method in the short term. In
the longer term we will be considering having more sophisticated
benchmarks, using the approach taken in producing benchmarks in
respect of the indicators of employment.
Recommendation 24
We recommend that higher education institutions
should consider whether students who have been outside the formal
education system for some time need additional support to face
the challenge of assessment early in their course. We recommend
that institutions should give serious consideration to ring-fencing
a small proportion of teaching and research funding to support
students at risk of withdrawal.
12. This recommendation is addressed to institutions,
and it will be for institutions themselves to consider. However,
we do provide a premium for mature students in recognition of
the additional costs involved in supporting students who have
been outside the formal education system for some time.
Recommendation 25
We recommend that HEFCE should fund pilot schemes
to offer institutions and individual students respectively financial
support to provide and attend three-month induction courses over
the summer months to prepare students from non-traditional backgrounds
for their first year in higher education.
13. The HEFCE administers access and hardship funds
on behalf on the Department for Education and Employment, but
we are not responsible for monies or policy in respect to student
maintenance and support. We already fund summer schools of various
kinds, and, in the context of the foundation degree, provide funds
for study during the summer period for students progressing to
an honours degree. This recommendation represents a further development
of the use of the summer, and it is certainly one which we will
consider.
1 Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee,
Session 2000-01, Higher Education: Access, HC 205, paragraph
53. Back
2 See
HC 124, Appendix 17, pages 216-223 Back
| 
